Several times I found myself on the verge of tears, simply because of the beauty of the ideas presented. Often, this was while looking at a quotation from a famous scientist. You've done a great service to us, Stephen Meyer. God is glorified in you.
I have been waiting for this video for 6 mos.! I can’t tell you how much I absolutely enjoy watching your presentations! As a public servant who works 24 hour shifts, listening to the material while I am working is just great! Thank you and please keep them coming and please keep up the good work!
@@DiscoveryScienceChannel *Joshua 10.12-20* “On the day the Lord gave the Amorites over to Israel, Joshua said to the Lord: “Sun, _stand still_ over Gibeon" . . . So the sun _stood still_ . . . Joshua and the Israelites defeated them completely, but a few survivors managed to reach their fortified cities." That's why Christian authorities persecuted Galileo Galilei.
Differences aside with Dr Stephen Meyer on his exclusion of Islam's impact, this lecture is a MUST for every parent. They should tell their school/college going sons and daughters to watch this. May God bless Dr Stephen Meyer
@@michaelbrickley2443 contemporary historians are discovering news things about the so called dark ages regularly showing that the dark ages weren't so dark after all.
In that case he should have included 'Indian vedic sciences' and Algebraic Mathematics of Brahmagupta. Nonetheless he mentioned each civilisation had possessed the curiosity about technology and experiments but he deals with 'WHY THEN? & WHY THERE?' The Scientific Revolution took place, Which makes the entire talk unique and distinct from all other cultural intellectual legacies
Wow its obvious... What? Its so intelligent that 99.9999999 etc of 9's, percent of the universe os complety hostile to life.. that you have billions of planets that are complety empty, nothing at all besides rocks... What is so intelligent about having cancer on children?
I went to university.Of course biology 101 is a prerequisite for everyone.This is where I sat in a giant hall together with 400 other students. The majority were Southern Baptists. Our prof was a frustrated scientist who failed to get into a research program and ended up teaching us undergraduates.This failed prof got his kicks using his position decimating our faith. Every day someone would flee from the lecture weeping bitterly because they had lost there faith. I cried too.When you lose your faith you lose everything.There is no comfort. After two semesters there were not many believers left. It was a Holocaust.This was in 1970. What saved me was the new research into the cell,mitosis, and microbiology. I was convinced of the evidence of design.It is impossible that the cell is an accident of nature!
@@kallucelfrumos4946 well Stephen is super in articulating several arguments well. Also the history of the sciences is an eye opener. My brother is one with that mentality that Christianity and modern science are in conflict but as we clearly see that is a false narrative.
From C.S. Lewis on the materialist’s dilemma: “A theory which explained everything else in the whole universe but which made it impossible to believe that our thinking was valid would be utterly out of court. For that theory would itself have been reached by thinking, and if thinking is not valid that theory would, of course, be demolished. It would have destroyed its own credentials. It would be an argument which proved that no argument was sound - a proof that there are no such things as proofs.”
This is something I noticed over the years that secularism tries to bash or keep at arms length this very fact. I have even argued with some atheists who refuse to even debate this topic because it completely contradicts their worldview which is typically that science and religion have always been in conflict.
There is no worldview in atheism... We just dont belive the theist claim that a God exists... Just like you that you dont belive in the "sun" God.. we dont belive in any God until there is suficient evidence for it.
Science in the Muslim world was very advanced before the rise of scientific enquiry in Christian Europe and made substantial contributions to mathematics, astronomy, medicine, and physics during the Golden Age of Islam (roughly from the ninth through to the thirteenth centuries). Some commentators have criticised the first chapter of Dr Stephen Meyer's book entitled The Judeo-Christian Origins of Modern Science for its orientalist bias. There is now a growing body of historians who recognise that Islam did have very significant scientific activity as we know it today in the Muslim world. One example is the circulation of the heart which was known long before William Harvey allegedly “discovered” it. And optics was well known before Isaac Newton. See the work of Ibn al-Haytham who is regarded as the father of the modern scientific method. Why exclude the Islamic contributions to science from the discussion altogether?
Why did Islam turn away from scientific inquiry in the 11th century? Why do Islamic countries contribute, combined, less than Spain in scientific inquiry today? Islam discredited all their scientific efforts and continues to do so today. That's part of the legacy as well.
I think you meant to say "occidental" not "oriental." ----------------------------------------------------- While _"Islam did have very significant scientific activity,"_ the activities in the Judeo-Christian western modern world have had a much greater influence. The Islamists are not being ignored but treated by their degree of influence. (Are you a member of "Western Education is Prohibited"?)
Muslims knew nothing about blood circulation or optics. They believed the sun sets in a muddy pool because that's what their "prophet" told them. The scholars of the Islamic world were Jews and Christians living under the rule of Muslims.
Another excellent presentation by Dr. Meyer on such a fascinating subject. Having read all of his books, I never cease to be amazed by his articulate arguments on Intelligent Design. As a recovering atheist, I have been throughly converted. Dr. Meyer shares no small credit for my new path.
I first heard about fine tuning in San Salvador, El Salvador. I don’t remember which was first but I heard both on Christian radio. Lisandro Bojórquez of Josué Church preached in his radio message about fine tuning in a very intelligent way. The one I listened to even more was a young man who was born in Mexico but moved to California when he was ten and began recording from his hot Palm Desert home before he and his wife had children. His program was called More on Life or Más de la Vida. Somewhere there is a David T. More to whom Jorge Cota gave credit but I never learned much about him. Jorge, however, was amazing. He had a whole series showing the hand of God in Creation, the design and order which cannot be denied. I thank God for Universidad Evangélica in San Salvador where our daughter started studying education but then graduated in nutrition, taking many of the same subjects as the medical students. I have had covid and our daughter made me an appointment with a young Christian doctor who also graduated from the same school. He came to my house and is getting me back to health.
Thank you once again, Dr Meyer, for expressing (scientifically) how I feel (spiritually) each time I look up at the night sky. The book of scripture and the book of nature are indeed two independent witnesses of the glory, majesty, and reality of God. Which leads to the ultimate question: What is man that Thou art mindful of him, and the son of man that Thou visiteth him? We are His children. God bless you, Sir.
*Joshua 10.12-20* “On the day the Lord gave the Amorites over to Israel, Joshua said to the Lord: “Sun, _stand still_ over Gibeon" . . . So the sun _stood still_ . . . Joshua and the Israelites defeated them completely, but a few survivors managed to reach their fortified cities."
The arrogant assumption that modern science somehow obviates belief in God is prevalent. How very ironic to see belief in God in the very foundations of thought that gave rise to science in the first place.
Are you sure? Are you sure that your information is accurate? It's my understanding that Abraham was the first scientist and it wasn't until a group of Babylonians decided to leave Babylon and follow Kabbalah which at that time meant science, the science of nature, and later began calling themselves Hebrews and created the Torah after Kabbalah. That is why Abraham is known as their father. This was talked about in a conference in Israel about 4 years ago by Dr Michael Leitman... As just got in the series of conferences...prior to this group of Babylonians separating there never was any group of people known as Hebrews or Jews or anything else for that matter.
All that past does not give credence to the modern scientific method that was systemized which the whole enterprise of theistic and Christian theism offers. @@denisebotko7456
Thank you Steven Meyer for this excellent lecture about the beginning of modern science where faith in God and scientific inquiry are combined in the mind of the great pioneers of science like Kepler,Galileo,Newton .Theirs precursors in the Araboislamic world are like Ibn al-Haytham,Al-Biruni,Ibn Sina (Avicenna)...
Those scientists were from Babylon and Persia (not Mecca, Medina, Saudi Arabia) whose precursors were Ancient Greeks, Babylonians, Persians, Hindu, Buddhist science. *Quran 2:65* “You are already aware of those of you who broke the Sabbath. We said to them, “Be disgraced apes!” *Quran 7:166* “But when they stubbornly persisted in violation, We said to them, “Become disgraced APES!’” *Quran 5:60* “Say, ˹O Prophet,˺ “Shall I inform you of those who deserve a worse punishment from Allah? Those whom Allah has cursed and with whom He became angry - and made them APES and PIGS and slaves of Taghut.” *Quran 31:29* “Do you not see that Allah causes the night to merge into the day and the day into the night, and has subjected the sun and the moon, _each_ ORBITING for an appointed term, and that Allah is All-Aware of what you do?” *Qur’an **36:38* “The _sun_ TRAVELS for its fixed term. That is the design of the Almighty, All-Knowing.” *Quran 13:3* “It is He who spread the Earth…” *Quran 15:19* “The Earth, we have spread it…” *Quran 20:53* “Who has made for you the Earth as a bed...” *Quran 43:10* “made the earth as a bed . . .” *Quran 50:7* “The Earth, we spread it out . . .” *Quran 51:48* “And we have spread out the Earth...” *Quran 78:6* “Have we not made the Earth a bed?” *Quran 79:30* “After that, He Spread the Earth.”
Very good presentation of the deepest realities of our world. As a catholic I already knew quite a lot about how the monk priests of our first universities introduced profound respect for reason leading to modern science.
It's awesome that science has advanced our understanding of the universe immensely. Buy it is also amusing that the more science advances, the more it demands that Genesis 1 is the programmers design document. At this point, there is no other imaginable way all of this universe came into existence, and if a book that is 6000 years old recognizes things that phycisists still don't fully understand to this day, it is prudent to maintain the source document is accurate until hard proof against it materializes.
Amen! What a great presentation. The sources were well presented and Dr. Meyerʼs teaching manner is engaging. Thank you so much for this, Discovery Science! God bless all of you and your ministry!
honestly in this modern age of knowledge, reason, and science, its no longer a matter of evidence, it's purely a heart issue. People simply love sin and themselves more than God...
Ok sin... Man you are a primate... We know that ok? Just like the earth is running around the sun. So every animal on this planet have sin? Like for example a chimpa kills another chimp... Or a Spider eats there little children? We have evidence my friends that we are just like every single animal on this planet that is less than a spec of dust on the universe.
science was the worship of the true Creator, and atheists turned it into the worship of things with supposed meaningless origin and end but yet still appeared fascinating. when i was an agnostic i cried every time watching BBC's nature documentaries, now i know why it has the power to impress.
amen, what a time we are living in, never feel so at peace and overwelmed at the same time, evidence of design are just flooding in day after day. standing on the shoulder of giants we are privileged to such a increasingly wonderful sight of the further revelation of God's glory in this yet unsealed book of Nature. we are so blessed. thank you Lord for your endless love.
I am pleased to hear Stephen Meyer using words like "biblical." It seems that gradually he is moving toward the God of the Bible, Jesus Christ, as the Intelligent Designer, but I don't know if he has arrived yet.
I believe he intentionally avoided earlier to avoid getting drawn into a theological argument. His confidence that he’s correct allows him to be more open about his personal beliefs.
Just as St Paul targeted the non-jews with the Gospel and achieved massive growth in the Christian church - so to Stephen has targeted modern atheists, agnostics and materialists - and will achieve the same result as St Paul. God Bless you Stephen. I've also just realised that there is a thing faster than the speed of light - its called gravity which of course as Dr Meyer points out acts instantaneously. And while I understand that gravity's force decreases over distance - does the gravitational force of any thing ever reduce to absolute zero, instantaneously - over an infinite distance ?
He only said that gravity acted instantaneously according to Newton. As far as I understand, gravity is actually limited by the speed of light like everything else - but Newton wouldn't have known this, and Meyer was speaking only about Newton's theory as it was claimed and debated at the time it was written (and accepted up until the 20th century). (If gravity were truly instantaneous, I don't see how it would be possible to have the kind of gravitational waves predicted by Einstein and recently detected by LIGO. But I think the effects of gravity propagate at lightspeed, which is as close to instantaneous as any physical phenomenon gets.)
You can't just sit and think and deduce logically how the world operates. You must go out and interrogate it to learn its laws because it does have such laws. The world does indeed have such laws because there is a Law Giver, One who has imparted His own order and reason onto the world when He designed and created it. This same Law Giver has designed and created us with the faculties to discern those regularities in nature and thereby discern Him. Today we have God's Word to really clarify what we see both in nature and especially in God. Praise God, Creator of the heavens and the Earth and all that is in them!
Thank you for this true and uplifting video. I don't quite understand why there is so much anti-faith. Random chance is god that "designed" our heart to start beating and our lungs to start breathing magically?
I greatly appreciate the contribution of Dr. Stephen Meyer to the ID-Movement. But why is he always ignoring the Islamic contribution to Modern Science ??
Islam perhaps contributed more to the development of science than Christianity….(the progression of science in China could distill the notion there is even a connection between religion and science) but as a Christian Meyer will only highlight that perspective.
@@Andrew-pp2ql OK, your point is taken but what did Islam do with that scientific knowledge? What happened? In other words why are the Protestant nations in Europe and North America, more advanced than the Islamic nations?? If Islam was ahead in the race to scientific discovery, a point I could accept, something happened and they are not any more. Something within Islam stopped your advancement in science. Today, Islam is not known for its scientific prowess or innovation.
@ 34:29.. ? ..."1867? Principia published? ".. With Gratitude and Appreciation, if you need help editing the audio and republishing, I offer my services..
Love this! But I would prefer an even deeper analysis of the foundations of modern science. While it is true that the greater movers were Judeo-Christian, but actual moving force behind the *_Golden Age of Science_* was one of *_humility to empirical evidence._* Understanding this dimension helps us understand the deeper value of the Judeo-Christian ethic in the face of the *_sedentary certainty_* of the modern atheists. Empirical evidence is the product of God's creation. God created order -- *_continuity_* which makes His physical laws discoverable. But such continuity also tells us that everything in this physical universe tends to work against *_free will_* ("discontinuity"). It should prove obvious to any thoughtful person that humility allows discovery; sedentary certainty tends to destroy ability to discover, for the moment a person becomes certain about *_anything,_* they *_STOP LOOKING!_* That creates blindness. So, restraint from jumping to the easiest conclusion, and humility to accept empirical evidence, are the foundations for all manner of discovery -- in science *_and_* spirituality. But here's the rub: The moment man removes God from consideration, he unavoidably elevates himself, *_automatically destroying the very humility_* which made discovery possible. REFERENCES: *_The Logical Christian_* (hardcover) *_Trinity Treason: How the church betrayed its flock with the only unforgivable sin_* (hardcover, paperback, ebook) *_The Science of Miracles_* (hardcover, paperback, ebook) *_Four Elements of God_* (hardcover, paperback, ebook) *_Proof of God_* (hardcover, paperback, ebook)
@JoelWentz can you provide some of the corroboration of Swamidass's work please? If he's saying we can ask be traced back to a genealogical pair approx 4000 years ago then I'm going to have to take issue, simply based on carbon dating evidence.
So, if it wasn't for Christians, we wouldn't have science. Yet if it wasn't for science, we'd still think that God caused droughts, hurricanes, volcanoes, lightning, and disease ... and we wouldn't have astronomy, physics, chemistry, geology, electronics, evolution and abiogenesis. Go figure.
@@pazuzil like attributing the creation of the cell to nature which is contrary to the empirical scientific evidence? Sounds pretty metaphysical to me.
@@pazuzil Actually, Abiogenesis is magic. And so is the belief in the incredibly creative and innovative but brainless mutation. It doesn't get any more 'My Little Pony ' world than that.
i've put together objetive data about science in the middle ages in a 6 mn video. In the end of the middle ages the cultural and scientific production in monasteries was 40 times greater than in the whole China.
I posted on FB a clipping of Isaac Newton's statement on the requirement of an intelligent Being to establish the planetary orbits (video at 28:35) and a friend responded that "orbital dynamics" could infact establish the orbits without an intelligent being. True or not? Thoughts?
Shalom. My prayer day n night is that the people of Israel, Christians, all the people on this earth, will see the TRUTH, according to GOD's POINT OF VIEW. "Blessed is He Who comes in the Name of Yehovah".
Interesting and enjoyable video presentation, especially your insight on the history of science but like all the videos from the 'science and faith' conferences over the years I hear a lot of science being talked about but hardly any mention of faith . Like many of the speakers at the conference it is explained why we should believe in God but not why we need to have Faith in God and never is it explained what our faith should be based on. Take for example why do we think it is safe (or have faith) to drive across a large suspension bridge, I would say three major factors ; design, workmanship, and experience . In his latest book Steven explains our belief in God can be based on the fact that the universe had a beginning, fine tuning, and information, but what is his faith based on? My faith is based on Creation, Comunication , and the Ransom. I would love to have a reply from one of the speakers .
First thought: When someone is smart enough to become a university professor, this does not mean that they will be decent human beings. Intelligence and humanity are separate, uncorrelated characteristics.
At times, he's making the argument that: we don't know, therefore God did it. That doesn't make sense. If we don't know how something functions or what exactly is causing a certain force, the conclusion is that we simply don't know, not that a conscious powerful mysterious being did it.
“We don’t know so we assume God did it.” Is your distortion of the claims being made, it uses the fallacy of an unfounded presupposition. It is a common fallacious slogan spread about religion that disregards it’s claims. The claim is there are witnesses to a source of knowledge that informed people about these answers, and the answers were consistent and reliable. “We don’t know, therefore God” is a fallacious misrepresentation of God because it already presupposes, without evidence, there is no source that could inform people of knowledge they didn’t discover in nature with their senses.
I am grateful I listened especially about his speculations about Newton's faith. Was he a theist and not a deist, a trinitarian and not Arian? Hmm! There are conflicting resources out there, and through this lecture I am led to a list to new research. I teach science with a Christian worldview and so I am always looking into these topics. Was Isaac Newton an Arian?C. Pfizenmaier - 1997 - Journal of the History of Ideas 58 (1):57-80.Was Isaac Newton an Arian?C. Pfizenmaier - 1997 - Journal of the History of Ideas 58 (1):57-80. Was Isaac Newton an Arian?Thomas Pfizenmaier C. - 1997 - Journal of the History of Ideas 58 (1):57-80. Priest of nature: the religious worlds of Isaac Newton.Rob Iliffe - 2017 - [New York ]: Oxford University Press. The Treatment of the Resurrection of Lazarus (Jn 11:1-44) in the Works of Hilary of Poitiers. Reflections on the Nature and Glorification of the Son in the Light of Anti-Arian Polemics. [REVIEW]Almudena Alba López - 2022 - Augustinianum 62 (1):79-95. The Image of Newton and Locke in the Age of Reason.Gerd Buchdahl - 1961 - Sheed & Ward. Isaac Newton on Science and Religion.William H. Austin - 1970 - Journal of the History of Ideas 31 (4):521. Isaac Newton: Adventurer in thought.David C. Lindberg - 1994 - History of European Ideas 18 (6):1013-1014. Gravity and Newton’s Substance Counting Problem.Hylarie Kochiras - 2009 - Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A 40 (3):267-280. Claiming him as her son : William stukeley, Isaac Newton, and the archaeology of the trinity.David Boyd Haycock - 2005 - In John Hedley Brooke & Ian Maclean (eds.), Heterodoxy in Early Modern Science and Religion. Oxford University Press. Gravity and Newton’s Substance Counting Problem.Hylarie Kochiras - 2009 - Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A 40 (3):267-280.
Why Europe was considered to be in Dark Ages for close to 14 centuries? Almost all of Europe became christian many centuries ago before the dawn of what historians call "The Renaissance period" . Isn't the timeline puzzling? Pulitzer Prize winning author, David Levering Lewis explained this in his book - God′s Crucible - Islam and the Making of Europe. or the book Islamic Science and the Making of the European Renaissance - by George Saliba of Columbia University. It is not at all hard to know this, a mere glance at the timeline would tell the The Muslim rule in Spain and the Crusader's travel to Muslim lands played significant role in the awakening of Europe
Issac Newton was a staunch Monotheist like his Muslim predecessors, but Ibn Al Haytham did path breaking discoveries many centuries before him. Another aspect to look at is "Geography", before Central Europe produced great thinking Mins, it was the European lands near Muslim countries produced scientists. For example - The most talented Western mathematician Fibonnaci (12th Century) went to the lands of Algeria to study Mathematics. If the Timeline doesnt convince Islam's impact , please look at the Geography, With all due respect for a brilliant philosopher like Dr Stephen Meyer it should not be that hard to figure this out
Seems redundant to put "Judeo" in front of Christian. Of course we all know the historical connection between the two religions, but what's talked about here was explicitly due to Christianity. I've noticed that "Judeo" tends to be added in broad, positive contexts; but when it's less positive or outright bad, it's just labelled "Christianity."
Although I agree with your position on several specific points and I agree that God did in fact create our Universal and that He did so for a very knowable purpose, I have to protest against your treatment of the Scholastics and brushing Aristotle aside with an off hand comment that you weren't going to beat him up. I can say with great certainty that you have very little first hand knowledge of these men from having read their works. You seem to have the commonly held modern Protestant position about them that began with Francis Bacon and has been the path that has led us into the darkness of atheistic pseudo science. I respectfully recommend you read Aristotle's basic works, particularly Metaphysics and Physics, and read the Summa Theologica of Aquinas. Or simply find a copy of Cardinal Mercer's 'Manual of Scholasticism' in two volumes published in the very early 20th century. In the meantime please refrain from further promoting these errors about them that has lead to the very condition of modern science you are trying to counter. Thank you.
He's going back and forth between two different questions. One is what was Christianity's role in the development of science. The other is does science support a belief in God. There's a good argument for Christian theology facilitating modern science. There isn't one for a scientific theory or evidence of god--you need faith for that belief.
There is not a good argument for evidence of god? The same kind of faith you say is necessary for belief in God is also faith necessary for scientific discoveries.
Re: the very mention of "Balance" or "Measure" in Sura Ar Rahman 3 times precisely indicate the Balancing Act of the Creator and yet how overlooked by Muslims let alone Islamophobs
Job 26:7 He stretcheth out the north over the empty place, and hangeth the earth upon "nothing". I've been using this scripture for so many years. That gravity was just a theory. An explanation of the planets movement without the miracle of God. When God says nothing, He means nothing.
We can say that modern science started with Copernicus, Kepler, Galilei. Though they were all believing Christians, their ideas were not Christian. Indeed, Copernicus in the preface to his book about the heliocentric world he emphasizes that he started thinking about the Sun rather than the Earth being the center of the Universe because he learned that some ancient Greek philosophers entertained this idea. So Copernicus clearly felt the need to justify his view which was clearly at odds with the Bible. And he published this view in book form only at the end of his life, in 1543, although it had circulated in manuscript form decades earlier.
His view wasn't at odds with the Bible, it was at odds with the manner in which the Catholic Church interpreted the Bible. He was right to defy them in this, as they were entirely wrong in both their interpretation and how they applied it. That neither proves science anti-Christian, or vice versa. It rather shows what happens when people toss intellectual integrity and honesty out the window when interpreting the Bible, which is an entirely different topic altogether.
These concepts came from scientists that were Catholic...indeed, the scientific method, came from the Catholic Church. If was good enough for them, I don't understand why you are still protestant. It was the Church that encouraged science through the lense of Christianity...I appreciate that you mentioned St. Thomas Aquinas.
I disagree. It was the Roman church that oppressively ruled Europe with an iron fist for over 1000 years, that caused the Dark Ages. It wasn't until the Protestant Reformation of the 16th century that science had the freedom to take off. 65.4 % of all Nobel Prizes have been awarded to scientists who were Christians, Protestants leading the way.
So i really dont understand what is so mysterous about conscience.. it is the product of a Brain... Just like moving is the product of a car engine running... The animals also have a "type" of conscience aswell.. maybe not so advance but is still there rigth? There are not like rocks. The interaction between very Simple things like neurons create a very complex system... Like a computer.. how can zeros and ones create the complex computation world of today..
Mr Meyer mentions the Science of the ancients - Egypt & China etc then misses out a Thousand years of Islamic Science & jumps straight to the Renaissance!!! He is doing the same thing that the early secular /atheist Scientists did by avoiding any mention of the vital role /contributions of Islamic Science. Today, all modern historians of Science acknowledge the fact that the modern scientific method was created /invented during the Golden Age of Islamic Science
I was very surprised as well, because he said "the Abrahamic religions" and I thought he was going to mention Islam!.... But then added "...in particular, Judeo-Christian..." I mean that only leaves one other. Islam was implied, but not stated, because I think this Dallas Conference on Science and Faith might be primarily Judeo-Christian. As a Christian, I didn't feel that was very fair... It's clear his research is only in the Judeo-Christian roots, and not Islamic roots, so he wouldn't be qualified to speak on the Islamic roots... He quotes Christians during his entire talk, or agnostics with Christian backgrounds, and saying "Islam, too, but I don't know anything about that" will make his arguments look incomplete and weak. It makes the entire structure of the lecture shambly. It's unfortunate, but it was a calculated decision, I'm sure, to make sure his lecture was as effective as possible.
Yes, there many mathematical and scientific knowledge added by the middle east which includes many Muslims. However, I'm unaware of any Muslim scientist that said anything like "we must observe the natural world to determine what God did". And I would be happy to hear of such a person or people.
For an honest and unbiased history of science please see "A Little History of Science" by William Bynum (or any of a myriad of similar books. This one is an easy read). It is clear from historical evidence described in these books that science comes from evolution's instilling in us an attention to our surroundings for survival, which is the true origin of modern science.
The presentation isn´t actually empirical. "The intelligibility of nature" pivots around events that James Hannam identifies. God´s lawfulness can be identified in earlier eras than Thomas Aquinas, for example, with earlier innovation tweaking like the plough possibly reflecting this. I recall seeing mention in Charlemagne´s era of references to God´s lawfulness. Then there is the pivotal monk Thomas Aquinas who took Aristotle´s esoteric First Cause and applied the logic of the Biblical Creator God through arguments like retrospective deduction of motion, and the like. Kepler is a great quote by Meyer.
Just an idea,.. With the red shift, showing acceleration still taking place, we live on a planet that is still accelerating, and like being in a race car taking off and throwing you back in the seat, it does so until the acceleration stops at top speed, then you don't feel the pushing back into the seat anymore,.. but the Earth is still accelerating,... meaning we are still feeling this pushing "back into the seat",... but the Earth is also rotating, and like a satellite in orbit, we are constantly falling back to Earth and the exact speed of rotation along with the exact rate of acceleration makes gravity and why even nonmetallic material is affected,,....
Better grammar to convey your ideas in a more scientific fashion ... Your words ... _"... showing acceleration still taking place ..."_ Try .. "... indicating that acceleration _may have_ taken place and _may_ still be going on ..." Just a thought. ------------------------------------- The Earth is not accelerating. If you wish to think of the Earth as accelerating, you must think of accelerating _in reference_ to something. (You need a reference frame.)
Correction the earth or any star, planet, Black hole and all of the objects on space are not accelerating do to dark energy... The space between galaxies is expanding and you can see tem redshifting because of it.
Stephen Meyers is not trying to deal with specific scientific discoveries. He is trying to demonstrate the source of the ideas which became the most important ideas in the scientific endeavor - the intelligibility of nature, the order of nature, and the contingency of nature. (See 11:52). Your problem is you should have _wasted_ your time actually listening to the speaker. You have no business commenting on a video you have not watched. This is typical atheist behavior. Are you an atheist?
Only Persians and Chinese? What about the Egyptians? The Mayans? The Ethiopians? The Muslims? The difference is the Protestant Christian nations were the ones that advanced it to the level we see today. It is the nations with a Protestant heritage that lead the world in innovation and scientific discovery today. Even China, with the most geniuses in a given population still has to resort to espionage and copyright infringements to keep up with the West. There is something about a truly free Christian nation that invites prosperity and new ideas.
Modern science is a religion!!! The same people involved as in JESUS day. Reasearch who own CDC big PHARMA great merchants.... as i am banned from actually say Revelation 18 (KJV) ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ ²³ And the light of a candle shall shine no more at all in thee; and the voice of the bridegroom and of the bride shall be heard no more at all in thee: for thy merchants were the great men of the earth; for by thy sorceries= pharmakia were all nations deceived. ²⁴ And in her was found the blood of prophets, and of saints, and of all that were slain upon the earth.
Sad to see the intentional exclusion of Islam despite the huge impact Muslims have had on the subject matter, it was a good lecture and I admire Dr Stephen but I wish this was done with more academic honesty and less omission.
Interesting. 11:00 The material necessities of science. All true. But then you list a set of earlier civilizations, and claim that they had all those prerequisites, and therefore there must be an X-factor. But you conveniently ignore the fact that none of those earlier civilizations actually had the conditions that existed in 1600s Europe, only some of them. So your entire argument fails immediately. Next, ref slide at 12:00 That's philosophy, not specifically linked to any religion. Even just off the top of my head, ancient Greek civilization had all that, and they were not Jews, and certainly not Christians. So again, your entire argument fails immediately if you consider the facts. skipping ahead to the physics parts ... 28:35 Newton believed in a Creator. So what? Doesn't mean he was right. 35:00 Earlier theories of gravity. No, that's deceptive. Bear in mind, near the surface of the Earth, which was the entire limit of what anybody prior to 1500 had ever experienced, gravity behaves in a very particular way. Specifically, all objects tend to fall straight down, with an acceleration of 9.8 m/s^2. This effect of gravity had been very well understood by all civilizations for many thousands of years, and it allowed us to build stuff, like the Pyramids, and arches. ref slide 40:00 Now that's just wrong. Well, it's entirely correct, but it misses a critical piece of data. First of all, Newton's Law of Gravitation is NOT a statement from nowhere. It is *derived* by calculation from the observed motions of the planets. The only thing Newton did was argue that this force that caused the planets to move was the same thing that caused all things to move. Genius enough, to be sure. ref 46:00 and thereabouts. Should be required reading for those people who believe that science is monolithic, and all scientists are preaching the same line. But even though I disagree with some of your important points, thank you for an utterly fascinating presentation.
2 ปีที่แล้ว
Waves form can only exist in a 2D surface/plane and not in a 3D space, it can not be the path of the Photons or Electrons. If photons/electrons move in a wave path, their speed will depend on the amplitude and its frequency, therefore it is in conflict with the constant speed of the light/photons theory. Time is not different from space. Time is not the fourth dimension. Time is the measurement of displacement of an object in space. Years, months and days are the measures of movement within a shared space in relevance to each other ( Sun, Moon and Earth). In the Atomic clock we count the oscillating atoms in a nano space in the crystal. Electricity, Magnetism, Heat, light / Color, Mass / Weight are different manifestations of Gravity and continually convert to each other. Gravity Force moves by means of CONDUCTIVITY at a SET DIRECTION and SPEED toward the CENTER of the GRAVITY. Gravity Force is Quantitative / Quantum since it is MEASURABLE. Anything we can measure is quantitative/quantum in nature and by definition. The DISTANCE the Gravity Force travels, determines its Mass/Weight. The DIRECTION (in a 3D space) determines its Electrical Energies and their Polarities, its temperature and its color. Everything we [can] see exists within Earth's gravitational field and its Connected Atmosphere. Gravity is the fundamental force required for matter to exist. Every formula in physics which includes constantant is FALSE. There is no constant in nature. The most accepted constant, Pi, is not a constant since nobody can determine its exact value.
_"Waves form can only exist in a 2D surface/plane and not in a 3D space"_ False. If you can hear sound, you are perceiving 3d waves moving through 3d space. The concept of "wave" is not prohibited by dimension.
I have watched some of Dr. Meyer’s past excellent lectures on the subject of science and God and even forwarded some to others, but his continued insistence on limiting his narrative to Judeo-Christianity with the exclusion of Islam cannot be explained except as an orientalist type bias. Islam’s contribution to science is so academically established in western scholarship that any serious writer’s not recognizing this only betrays his ignorance. There is no religious text on the face of the planet which comes close to the Qur’an in its repeated emphasis on observing and reflecting on the natural world. It is the Qur’anic text itself that was the catalyst for the blossom of science in earlier Islamic history. Subsequent decline of Muslims in science neither correlates to the text, nor precludes its future comeback, which in fact is already becoming visible. It would be naïve to judge a religion’s contribution to science or any other subject for that matter by limiting inquiry to a particular time-frame in history. If that is to be done, then one would have to more readily discredit “Judeo-Christianity” given its earlier history vis-à-vis science than Islam. I had, in the past, given Dr. Meyer the benefit of the doubt that he was simply unaware of the Islamic texts and Islamic history, though such would not be expected from a serious author who writes on the topic of science and religion. However, when he was questioned on this in his interview at Blogging Theology and by others, I had thought that he would rectify himself in subsequent lectures or works. I was only mistaken as he, in his latest lecture “The Judeo-Christian Origins of Modern Science”, has repeated his earlier stance. This casts serious doubts on Dr. Meyer’s credibility for unbiased research for truth and evidence. I would rather see him focused on the topic of evidence of God in the natural world where he performs so well, rather than getting into religion when he is unable to shake of his biases.
Jim Al-Khalili says: we can look back to Baghdad and see the origins of the modern scientific method, the world's first physicist and the world's first chemist; advances in surgery and anatomy, the birth of geology and anthropology; not to mention remarkable feats of engineering. For 700 years, the international language of science was Arabic; and Baghdad, the capital of the mighty Abbasid Empire, was the centre of the intellectual world. the golden age of Arabic science began with the translation of the great Greek texts of Aristotle, Euclid and Ptolemy, so was the work of the Arabic scholars transferred to Europe The mystery is why the debt the West owed to Muslim scholars was then overlooked: acknowledged at all ... the untold story of Arabic science is a timely reminder of the debt the West owes to the Muslim world
I'm gonna have to call your entire post at the very least wishful thinking and desperation, and the very very worse and more likely, total BS! Especially since you try equating the Arabic world with Islam which, regardless how desperately muslames try to conjoin themselves with the ancient biblical world, Islam did not come into being until maybe the 15th century AD. Greek was the language of trade and finance as evidenced by early Bible texts in the first century. Greek texts had already been translated onto other mesopotamian languages as early as the first millennia. And numerous translations of early Greek into Latin exist. Granted, Arabic contributions to math, philosophy and science cannot be discounted. But, to equate those contributions with Islam is simply out of the question. Thanks for playing desperate.
I have to disagree with the statement that the presuppositions about the intelligibility of nature have their historical source in the Bible; not that they are against the Bible, rather the Bible supports, confirms and elevates them, but their historical source is Greek culture, namely the first philosophers from Ionia, and then Aristotle, to name the most important. Guess how the Gospel of St. John begins... "En arche en o logos". The importance of those two words, "arche" and "logos", for the Greeks cannot be understated. Guess who St. John is saying the "logos" is? As for voluntarism, it is actually a theological error that states that God could have made a world where murdering would not be a sin. This goes against the notion that there is a "logos" in God.
The Word of God (The Bible) is so simple that a child can understand it. The Old Testament was written to pass on to each generation of Israelite/Hebrew/Jew. It was written simply so a simple folk could understand it and pass on the Word Of God for others to learn from and live life by. To understand it requires no PHD. God picked a simple, nomadic, cattle herding race of people to be the light to the world. He then picked 12 disciples (see NT) who were unschooled. Most of them were fisherman, working class folk of the day. They had no high level education of the time. Those that did, who claimed to know the scriptures and would know the messiah (Jesus) when He showed up, they didn’t see the messiah, they’d denied Him. They didn’t know the scriptures with all of their puffed up intellectual education. In the beginning God created the heavens & the earth. It was created in a 6 day, 24 hour day cycle. What God did was a miracle of which science cannot explain coz it cannot be observed. That’s why He has given us His word, the Bible, to understand that He did indeed create everything. All scripture is God breathed. Simples!
He didn't return to the young woman's story... BTW, Pluto is now a "dwarf planet." The controversy was mostly American since it was the only one of the nine planets discovered by an American, Clyde Tombaugh.
I appreciate everything he's saying however the guy is so intelligent sometimes he has a hard time getting across the sentence I think he needs to take speaking classes if he's going to continue to speak rather than write a book. When he was talking about telling time in different ways we can do it I wanted to help him out I wanted to say you mean a sundial especially when he moved his hand in a way that a sundial might work
![บังเอิญมันได้อ่ะ - แอน อรดี [OFFICIAL MV]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/9fwjammKY4A/mqdefault.jpg)
Several times I found myself on the verge of tears, simply because of the beauty of the ideas presented. Often, this was while looking at a quotation from a famous scientist. You've done a great service to us, Stephen Meyer. God is glorified in you.
I have been waiting for this video for 6 mos.! I can’t tell you how much I absolutely enjoy watching your presentations! As a public servant who works 24 hour shifts, listening to the material while I am working is just great! Thank you and please keep them coming and please keep up the good work!
Wow, thank you!
@@DiscoveryScienceChannel *Joshua 10.12-20* “On the day the Lord gave the Amorites over to Israel, Joshua said to the Lord: “Sun, _stand still_ over Gibeon" . . . So the sun _stood still_ . . . Joshua and the Israelites defeated them completely, but a few survivors managed to reach their fortified cities."
That's why Christian authorities persecuted Galileo Galilei.
Meyer is probably in my top 10 of most admired human beings. What a treasure!
Differences aside with Dr Stephen Meyer on his exclusion of Islam's impact, this lecture is a MUST for every parent. They should tell their school/college going sons and daughters to watch this. May God bless Dr Stephen Meyer
It is quite true that while Europe went thru the dark ages, there was much learning in the East. Shalom
@@michaelbrickley2443 contemporary historians are discovering news things about the so called dark ages regularly showing that the dark ages weren't so dark after all.
Agree. Islam's point should have not been omitted since Islam is also disputes atheism and materialistic point of view
In that case he should have included 'Indian vedic sciences' and Algebraic Mathematics of Brahmagupta. Nonetheless he mentioned each civilisation had possessed the curiosity about technology and experiments but he deals with 'WHY THEN? & WHY THERE?' The Scientific Revolution took place, Which makes the entire talk unique and distinct from all other cultural intellectual legacies
Islam is a heresy of Christianity. That is one of the reasons that Science began in the West.
It's so obvious there is intelligent design. It shouldn't even be a valid argument. Great lecture and standing up for the Holy Bible against the odds
Wow its obvious... What? Its so intelligent that 99.9999999 etc of 9's, percent of the universe os complety hostile to life.. that you have billions of planets that are complety empty, nothing at all besides rocks... What is so intelligent about having cancer on children?
Indeed J! So obvious there is a Creator. So obvious it’s beyond debate.
@LogicExists what a sophisticated response.
@@johncastino2730 *Genesis 1:26* “Then God said, “Let _us_ make mankind in _our_ IMAGE, in _our_ likeness . . .”
I went to university.Of course biology 101 is a prerequisite for everyone.This is where I sat in a giant hall together with 400 other students. The majority were Southern Baptists. Our prof was a frustrated scientist who failed to get into a research program and ended up teaching us undergraduates.This failed prof got his kicks using his position decimating our faith. Every day someone would flee from the lecture weeping bitterly because they had lost there faith. I cried too.When you lose your faith you lose everything.There is no comfort. After two semesters there were not many believers left. It was a Holocaust.This was in 1970. What saved me was the new research into the cell,mitosis, and microbiology. I was convinced of the evidence of design.It is impossible that the cell is an accident of nature!
First like and comment from ITALY! Thanks for this wonderful walktrough dr Meyer, big fan of your work!
The first shall be last.
@@rubiks6 great, I'll be back some years from now to leave the last comment too!
Incredible lecture by Stephen Meyer. I sent this to my agnostic brother 😀. He's really into the sciences. Blessings to you all 🙏
and what was incredible ?
Good job.
@@kallucelfrumos4946 well Stephen is super in articulating several arguments well. Also the history of the sciences is an eye opener. My brother is one with that mentality that Christianity and modern science are in conflict but as we clearly see that is a false narrative.
@@kallucelfrumos4946 what wasn't?
@@kallucelfrumos4946 a skeptic?
I've decided to buy his book based on this presentation. That's how good it was.
From C.S. Lewis on the materialist’s dilemma: “A theory which explained everything else in the whole universe but which made it impossible to believe that our thinking was valid would be utterly out of court. For that theory would itself have been reached by thinking, and if thinking is not valid that theory would, of course, be demolished. It would have destroyed its own credentials. It would be an argument which proved that no argument was sound - a proof that there are no such things as proofs.”
This is something I noticed over the years that secularism tries to bash or keep at arms length this very fact. I have even argued with some atheists who refuse to even debate this topic because it completely contradicts their worldview which is typically that science and religion have always been in conflict.
There is no worldview in atheism... We just dont belive the theist claim that a God exists... Just like you that you dont belive in the "sun" God.. we dont belive in any God until there is suficient evidence for it.
Science in the Muslim world was very advanced before the rise of scientific enquiry in Christian Europe and made substantial contributions to mathematics, astronomy, medicine, and physics during the Golden Age of Islam (roughly from the ninth through to the thirteenth centuries).
Some commentators have criticised the first chapter of Dr Stephen Meyer's book entitled The Judeo-Christian Origins of Modern Science for its orientalist bias. There is now a growing body of historians who recognise that Islam did have very significant scientific activity as we know it today in the Muslim world.
One example is the circulation of the heart which was known long before William Harvey allegedly “discovered” it. And optics was well known before Isaac Newton. See the work of Ibn al-Haytham who is regarded as the father of the modern scientific method. Why exclude the Islamic contributions to science from the discussion altogether?
Why did Islam turn away from scientific inquiry in the 11th century? Why do Islamic countries contribute, combined, less than Spain in scientific inquiry today? Islam discredited all their scientific efforts and continues to do so today. That's part of the legacy as well.
Maybe because our ideas in the western world didn’t mostly come from Muslims but these other scientists. That would be my guess.
I think you meant to say "occidental" not "oriental."
-----------------------------------------------------
While _"Islam did have very significant scientific activity,"_ the activities in the Judeo-Christian western modern world have had a much greater influence. The Islamists are not being ignored but treated by their degree of influence.
(Are you a member of "Western Education is Prohibited"?)
Nonsense. Persians had mathematics before Islam invaded. Big difference.
Muslims knew nothing about blood circulation or optics. They believed the sun sets in a muddy pool because that's what their "prophet" told them. The scholars of the Islamic world were Jews and Christians living under the rule of Muslims.
Good to learn about the real history of modern science.
It is sad when either side chooses to block opposing ideas.
This is such an excellent presentation, thank you Dr. Meyer for all you do! Lord bless.
Another excellent presentation by Dr. Meyer on such a fascinating subject. Having read all of his books, I never cease to be amazed by his articulate arguments on Intelligent Design. As a recovering atheist, I have been throughly converted. Dr. Meyer shares no small credit for my new path.
Great post. Blessings my friend
This lecture highlights the importance of reading original texts as advocated by Great Books programs.
I first heard about fine tuning in San Salvador, El Salvador. I don’t remember which was first but I heard both on Christian radio. Lisandro Bojórquez of Josué Church preached in his radio message about fine tuning in a very intelligent way. The one I listened to even more was a young man who was born in Mexico but moved to California when he was ten and began recording from his hot Palm Desert home before he and his wife had children. His program was called More on Life or Más de la Vida. Somewhere there is a David T. More to whom Jorge Cota gave credit but I never learned much about him. Jorge, however, was amazing. He had a whole series showing the hand of God in Creation, the design and order which cannot be denied. I thank God for Universidad Evangélica in San Salvador where our daughter started studying education but then graduated in nutrition, taking many of the same subjects as the medical students. I have had covid and our daughter made me an appointment with a young Christian doctor who also graduated from the same school. He came to my house and is getting me back to health.
Thank you once again, Dr Meyer, for expressing (scientifically) how I feel (spiritually) each time I look up at the night sky. The book of scripture and the book of nature are indeed two independent witnesses of the glory, majesty, and reality of God. Which leads to the ultimate question: What is man that Thou art mindful of him, and the son of man that Thou visiteth him? We are His children. God bless you, Sir.
*Joshua 10.12-20* “On the day the Lord gave the Amorites over to Israel, Joshua said to the Lord: “Sun, _stand still_ over Gibeon" . . . So the sun _stood still_ . . . Joshua and the Israelites defeated them completely, but a few survivors managed to reach their fortified cities."
Good work Stephen. Thanks for all that you do.
It sounds cliche, but Steve is truly one of the great thinkers of our time.
your time is out !
"Stephen," but otherwise, I agree with your post.
100%
... "thinker" ...
The arrogant assumption that modern science somehow obviates belief in God is prevalent. How very ironic to see belief in God in the very foundations of thought that gave rise to science in the first place.
Are you sure? Are you sure that your information is accurate? It's my understanding that Abraham was the first scientist and it wasn't until a group of Babylonians decided to leave Babylon and follow Kabbalah which at that time meant science, the science of nature, and later began calling themselves Hebrews and created the Torah after Kabbalah. That is why Abraham is known as their father. This was talked about in a conference in Israel about 4 years ago by Dr Michael Leitman... As just got in the series of conferences...prior to this group of Babylonians separating there never was any group of people known as Hebrews or Jews or anything else for that matter.
All that past does not give credence to the modern scientific method that was systemized which the whole enterprise of theistic and Christian theism offers. @@denisebotko7456
Terrific as always.
Keep up the excellent work! What a service for science. 🙌🏼
wonderful talk dr Meyer! thank you for your continual work to enpower us.
He was always a great speaker.
Thank you Steven Meyer for this excellent lecture about the beginning of modern science where faith in God and scientific inquiry are combined in the mind of the great pioneers of science like Kepler,Galileo,Newton .Theirs precursors in the Araboislamic world are like Ibn al-Haytham,Al-Biruni,Ibn Sina (Avicenna)...
Those scientists were from Babylon and Persia (not Mecca, Medina, Saudi Arabia) whose precursors were Ancient Greeks, Babylonians, Persians, Hindu, Buddhist science.
*Quran 2:65* “You are already aware of those of you who broke the Sabbath. We said to them, “Be disgraced apes!”
*Quran 7:166* “But when they stubbornly persisted in violation, We said to them, “Become disgraced APES!’”
*Quran 5:60* “Say, ˹O Prophet,˺ “Shall I inform you of those who deserve a worse punishment from Allah? Those whom Allah has cursed and with whom He became angry - and made them APES and PIGS and slaves of Taghut.”
*Quran 31:29* “Do you not see that Allah causes the night to merge into the day and the day into the night, and has subjected the sun and the moon, _each_ ORBITING for an appointed term, and that Allah is All-Aware of what you do?”
*Qur’an **36:38* “The _sun_ TRAVELS for its fixed term. That is the design of the Almighty, All-Knowing.”
*Quran 13:3* “It is He who spread the Earth…”
*Quran 15:19* “The Earth, we have spread it…”
*Quran 20:53* “Who has made for you the Earth as a bed...”
*Quran 43:10* “made the earth as a bed . . .”
*Quran 50:7* “The Earth, we spread it out . . .”
*Quran 51:48* “And we have spread out the Earth...”
*Quran 78:6* “Have we not made the Earth a bed?”
*Quran 79:30* “After that, He Spread the Earth.”
Very good presentation of the deepest realities of our world. As a catholic I already knew quite a lot about how the monk priests of our first universities introduced profound respect for reason leading to modern science.
💞 love this channel ✝️
Stephen Meyer🔥
It's awesome that science has advanced our understanding of the universe immensely. Buy it is also amusing that the more science advances, the more it demands that Genesis 1 is the programmers design document. At this point, there is no other imaginable way all of this universe came into existence, and if a book that is 6000 years old recognizes things that phycisists still don't fully understand to this day, it is prudent to maintain the source document is accurate until hard proof against it materializes.
Amen! What a great presentation. The sources were well presented and Dr. Meyerʼs teaching manner is engaging.
Thank you so much for this, Discovery Science! God bless all of you and your ministry!
honestly in this modern age of knowledge, reason, and science, its no longer a matter of evidence, it's purely a heart issue. People simply love sin and themselves more than God...
Ok sin... Man you are a primate... We know that ok? Just like the earth is running around the sun. So every animal on this planet have sin? Like for example a chimpa kills another chimp... Or a Spider eats there little children? We have evidence my friends that we are just like every single animal on this planet that is less than a spec of dust on the universe.
This was wonderful Dr. Meyer!
Thank you ❣️
What a wonderful lecture...beautifully orated
Stephen Meyers is the top scientist/philosopher of our time.
"scientis " in study of religion
@@kallucelfrumos4946 No. Not religion. In studying the history of science. That is his area of expertise.
science was the worship of the true Creator, and atheists turned it into the worship of things with supposed meaningless origin and end but yet still appeared fascinating. when i was an agnostic i cried every time watching BBC's nature documentaries, now i know why it has the power to impress.
A knowable creator yields a knowable creation.
Oh! I like that!
Without GOD we can do nothing. Thank you for an excellent lecture and presentation.
amen, what a time we are living in, never feel so at peace and overwelmed at the same time, evidence of design are just flooding in day after day. standing on the shoulder of giants we are privileged to such a increasingly wonderful sight of the further revelation of God's glory in this yet unsealed book of Nature. we are so blessed. thank you Lord for your endless love.
I'm agnostic, some good arguments presented here I must say
God made the universe, He made humans and the author of science.
Thanks for so many good videos.
Has Mr. Stephen Meyer recorded any videos on the potential of everlasting life?
Thank you.
Stephen Meyer is the business!
Amazing! Thanks, Steve!
I am pleased to hear Stephen Meyer using words like "biblical." It seems that gradually he is moving toward the God of the Bible, Jesus Christ, as the Intelligent Designer, but I don't know if he has arrived yet.
He is a Christian
Which "version" are you referring to?
I believe he intentionally avoided earlier to avoid getting drawn into a theological argument. His confidence that he’s correct allows him to be more open about his personal beliefs.
I love God’s Intelligent Bioengineering Design in nature!
/Lonewolf Liberties
We all need science and God, and science has proven so much for all that believe in God!
Just as St Paul targeted the non-jews with the Gospel and achieved massive growth in the Christian church - so to Stephen has targeted modern atheists, agnostics and materialists - and will achieve the same result as St Paul. God Bless you Stephen. I've also just realised that there is a thing faster than the speed of light - its called gravity which of course as Dr Meyer points out acts instantaneously. And while I understand that gravity's force decreases over distance - does the gravitational force of any thing ever reduce to absolute zero, instantaneously - over an infinite distance ?
He only said that gravity acted instantaneously according to Newton. As far as I understand, gravity is actually limited by the speed of light like everything else - but Newton wouldn't have known this, and Meyer was speaking only about Newton's theory as it was claimed and debated at the time it was written (and accepted up until the 20th century).
(If gravity were truly instantaneous, I don't see how it would be possible to have the kind of gravitational waves predicted by Einstein and recently detected by LIGO. But I think the effects of gravity propagate at lightspeed, which is as close to instantaneous as any physical phenomenon gets.)
You can't just sit and think and deduce logically how the world operates. You must go out and interrogate it to learn its laws because it does have such laws. The world does indeed have such laws because there is a Law Giver, One who has imparted His own order and reason onto the world when He designed and created it. This same Law Giver has designed and created us with the faculties to discern those regularities in nature and thereby discern Him. Today we have God's Word to really clarify what we see both in nature and especially in God.
Praise God, Creator of the heavens and the Earth and all that is in them!
Thank you.
Thank you for this true and uplifting video. I don't quite understand why there is so much anti-faith. Random chance is god that "designed" our heart to start beating and our lungs to start breathing magically?
I greatly appreciate the contribution of Dr. Stephen Meyer to the ID-Movement. But why is he always ignoring the Islamic contribution to Modern Science ??
Because, while Monotheism is correct and Islam has some right ideas, the Allah of Islam is a false allah and Muhammad is a false prophet.
Islam perhaps contributed more to the development of science than Christianity….(the progression of science in China could distill the notion there is even a connection between religion and science) but as a Christian Meyer will only highlight that perspective.
@@Andrew-pp2ql OK, your point is taken but what did Islam do with that scientific knowledge? What happened? In other words why are the Protestant nations in Europe and North America, more advanced than the Islamic nations?? If Islam was ahead in the race to scientific discovery, a point I could accept, something happened and they are not any more. Something within Islam stopped your advancement in science. Today, Islam is not known for its scientific prowess or innovation.
Since science is best understood as mans explanation of creation, I see no conflict.
Stephen Meyer should reach out to Joe Rogan or Bret Weinstein or Tim Pool to go on their podcasts.
He has been on Ben Shapiro and even the Babylon Bee. And really many others.
@ 34:29.. ? ..."1867? Principia published? ".. With Gratitude and Appreciation, if you need help editing the audio and republishing, I offer my services..
Love this! But I would prefer an even deeper analysis of the foundations of modern science. While it is true that the greater movers were Judeo-Christian, but actual moving force behind the *_Golden Age of Science_* was one of *_humility to empirical evidence._* Understanding this dimension helps us understand the deeper value of the Judeo-Christian ethic in the face of the *_sedentary certainty_* of the modern atheists.
Empirical evidence is the product of God's creation. God created order -- *_continuity_* which makes His physical laws discoverable. But such continuity also tells us that everything in this physical universe tends to work against *_free will_* ("discontinuity").
It should prove obvious to any thoughtful person that humility allows discovery; sedentary certainty tends to destroy ability to discover, for the moment a person becomes certain about *_anything,_* they *_STOP LOOKING!_* That creates blindness. So, restraint from jumping to the easiest conclusion, and humility to accept empirical evidence, are the foundations for all manner of discovery -- in science *_and_* spirituality.
But here's the rub: The moment man removes God from consideration, he unavoidably elevates himself, *_automatically destroying the very humility_* which made discovery possible.
REFERENCES:
*_The Logical Christian_* (hardcover)
*_Trinity Treason: How the church betrayed its flock with the only unforgivable sin_* (hardcover, paperback, ebook)
*_The Science of Miracles_* (hardcover, paperback, ebook)
*_Four Elements of God_* (hardcover, paperback, ebook)
*_Proof of God_* (hardcover, paperback, ebook)
@JoelWentz can you provide some of the corroboration of Swamidass's work please? If he's saying we can ask be traced back to a genealogical pair approx 4000 years ago then I'm going to have to take issue, simply based on carbon dating evidence.
As always informative and interesting.
So, if it wasn't for Christians, we wouldn't have science. Yet if it wasn't for science, we'd still think that God caused droughts, hurricanes, volcanoes, lightning, and disease ... and we wouldn't have astronomy, physics, chemistry, geology, electronics, evolution and abiogenesis. Go figure.
God still designed and created all. Things don't happen without reason but all was made good till Adam screwed up.
Atheists believe in magic. I believe in God.
You have it the wrong way around. Miracle is just another name for magic
@@pazuzil like attributing the creation of the cell to nature which is contrary to the empirical scientific evidence?
Sounds pretty metaphysical to me.
Just like you probably dont bealive in big foot, atheists dont belive in the claim that a God exists (show me the evidence) where is the Magic?
@@pazuzil Actually, Abiogenesis is magic. And so is the belief in the incredibly creative and innovative but brainless mutation. It doesn't get any more 'My Little Pony ' world than that.
i've put together objetive data about science in the middle ages in a 6 mn video. In the end of the middle ages the cultural and scientific production in monasteries was 40 times greater than in the whole China.
I posted on FB a clipping of Isaac Newton's statement on the requirement of an intelligent Being to establish the planetary orbits (video at 28:35) and a friend responded that "orbital dynamics" could infact establish the orbits without an intelligent being. True or not? Thoughts?
Shalom. My prayer day n night is that the people of Israel, Christians, all the people on this earth, will see the TRUTH, according to GOD's POINT OF VIEW.
"Blessed is He Who comes in the Name of Yehovah".
What's God's pov?
Thumbnail (heading) of this video can also be Judeo-Christian-Islamic Origins of Modern Science. Food for thought.
Interesting and enjoyable video presentation, especially your insight on the history of science but like all the videos from the 'science and faith' conferences over the years I hear a lot of science being talked about but hardly any mention of faith . Like many of the speakers at the conference it is explained why we should believe in God but not why we need to have Faith in God and never is it explained what our faith should be based on.
Take for example why do we think it is safe (or have faith) to drive across a large suspension bridge, I would say three major factors ; design, workmanship, and experience .
In his latest book Steven explains our belief in God can be based on the fact that the universe had a beginning, fine tuning, and information, but what is his faith based on?
My faith is based on Creation, Comunication , and the Ransom. I would love to have a reply from one of the speakers .
First thought: When someone is smart enough to become a university professor, this does not mean that they will be decent human beings. Intelligence and humanity are separate, uncorrelated characteristics.
The great atheist Nietzsche said the exact same thing: it was the desire for truth that created modern science and its methods
When Europe was living the Dark Ages , Islam was inviting Jews and Christians to University to learn Algebra , cosmology, trigonometry, geometry, etc…
History is written by imperialism?
At times, he's making the argument that: we don't know, therefore God did it. That doesn't make sense. If we don't know how something functions or what exactly is causing a certain force, the conclusion is that we simply don't know, not that a conscious powerful mysterious being did it.
“We don’t know so we assume God did it.” Is your distortion of the claims being made, it uses the fallacy of an unfounded presupposition. It is a common fallacious slogan spread about religion that disregards it’s claims. The claim is there are witnesses to a source of knowledge that informed people about these answers, and the answers were consistent and reliable. “We don’t know, therefore God” is a fallacious misrepresentation of God because it already presupposes, without evidence, there is no source that could inform people of knowledge they didn’t discover in nature with their senses.
I am grateful I listened especially about his speculations about Newton's faith. Was he a theist and not a deist, a trinitarian and not Arian? Hmm! There are conflicting resources out there, and through this lecture I am led to a list to new research. I teach science with a Christian worldview and so I am always looking into these topics.
Was Isaac Newton an Arian?C. Pfizenmaier - 1997 - Journal of the History of Ideas 58 (1):57-80.Was Isaac Newton an Arian?C. Pfizenmaier - 1997 - Journal of the History of Ideas 58 (1):57-80.
Was Isaac Newton an Arian?Thomas Pfizenmaier C. - 1997 - Journal of the History of Ideas 58 (1):57-80.
Priest of nature: the religious worlds of Isaac Newton.Rob Iliffe - 2017 - [New York ]: Oxford University Press.
The Treatment of the Resurrection of Lazarus (Jn 11:1-44) in the Works of Hilary of Poitiers. Reflections on the Nature and Glorification of the Son in the Light of Anti-Arian Polemics. [REVIEW]Almudena Alba López - 2022 - Augustinianum 62 (1):79-95.
The Image of Newton and Locke in the Age of Reason.Gerd Buchdahl - 1961 - Sheed & Ward.
Isaac Newton on Science and Religion.William H. Austin - 1970 - Journal of the History of Ideas 31 (4):521.
Isaac Newton: Adventurer in thought.David C. Lindberg - 1994 - History of European Ideas 18 (6):1013-1014.
Gravity and Newton’s Substance Counting Problem.Hylarie Kochiras - 2009 - Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A 40 (3):267-280.
Claiming him as her son : William stukeley, Isaac Newton, and the archaeology of the trinity.David Boyd Haycock - 2005 - In John Hedley Brooke & Ian Maclean (eds.), Heterodoxy in Early Modern Science and Religion. Oxford University Press.
Gravity and Newton’s Substance Counting Problem.Hylarie Kochiras - 2009 - Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A 40 (3):267-280.
This will be interesting!
Why Europe was considered to be in Dark Ages for close to 14 centuries? Almost all of Europe became christian many centuries ago before the dawn of what historians call "The Renaissance period" . Isn't the timeline puzzling? Pulitzer Prize winning author, David Levering Lewis explained this in his book - God′s Crucible - Islam and the Making of Europe.
or the book Islamic Science and the Making of the European Renaissance - by George Saliba of Columbia University.
It is not at all hard to know this, a mere glance at the timeline would tell the The Muslim rule in Spain and the Crusader's travel to Muslim lands played significant role in the awakening of Europe
Issac Newton was a staunch Monotheist like his Muslim predecessors, but Ibn Al Haytham did path breaking discoveries many centuries before him. Another aspect to look at is "Geography", before Central Europe produced great thinking Mins, it was the European lands near Muslim countries produced scientists. For example - The most talented Western mathematician Fibonnaci (12th Century) went to the lands of Algeria to study Mathematics.
If the Timeline doesnt convince Islam's impact , please look at the Geography, With all due respect for a brilliant philosopher like Dr Stephen Meyer it should not be that hard to figure this out
Intelligent design means the Christian god….not Allah.
@@Andrew-pp2ql - Yahweh is the One God.
@@Andrew-pp2ql and why is that, Why can't it be Allah?
So then the path to understanding the creator is through science?
Seems redundant to put "Judeo" in front of Christian. Of course we all know the historical connection between the two religions, but what's talked about here was explicitly due to Christianity. I've noticed that "Judeo" tends to be added in broad, positive contexts; but when it's less positive or outright bad, it's just labelled "Christianity."
Although I agree with your position on several specific points and I agree that God did in fact create our Universal and that He did so for a very knowable purpose, I have to protest against your treatment of the Scholastics and brushing Aristotle aside with an off hand comment that you weren't going to beat him up. I can say with great certainty that you have very little first hand knowledge of these men from having read their works. You seem to have the commonly held modern Protestant position about them that began with Francis Bacon and has been the path that has led us into the darkness of atheistic pseudo science. I respectfully recommend you read Aristotle's basic works, particularly Metaphysics and Physics, and read the Summa Theologica of Aquinas. Or simply find a copy of Cardinal Mercer's 'Manual of Scholasticism' in two volumes published in the very early 20th century. In the meantime please refrain from further promoting these errors about them that has lead to the very condition of modern science you are trying to counter. Thank you.
Atheistic pseudoscience??
real reasons for rejecting the bible: #1 love of sins #2 suffering #3 nobody doing 1peter 3 :15
thank God for generals like Dr. Meyer
He's going back and forth between two different questions. One is what was Christianity's role in the development of science. The other is does science support a belief in God. There's a good argument for Christian theology facilitating modern science. There isn't one for a scientific theory or evidence of god--you need faith for that belief.
There is not a good argument for evidence of god? The same kind of faith you say is necessary for belief in God is also faith necessary for scientific discoveries.
Would you be so kind as to define the biblical concept of faith?
Re: the very mention of "Balance" or "Measure" in Sura Ar Rahman 3 times precisely indicate the Balancing Act of the Creator and yet how overlooked by Muslims let alone Islamophobs
Job 26:7
He stretcheth out the north over the empty place, and hangeth the earth upon "nothing".
I've been using this scripture for so many years. That gravity was just a theory. An explanation of the planets movement without the miracle of God. When God says nothing, He means nothing.
We can say that modern science started with Copernicus, Kepler, Galilei. Though they were all believing Christians, their ideas were not Christian. Indeed, Copernicus in the preface to his book about the heliocentric world he emphasizes that he started thinking about the Sun rather than the Earth being the center of the Universe because he learned that some ancient Greek philosophers entertained this idea.
So Copernicus clearly felt the need to justify his view which was clearly at odds with the Bible. And he published this view in book form only at the end of his life, in 1543, although it had circulated in manuscript form decades earlier.
His view wasn't at odds with the Bible, it was at odds with the manner in which the Catholic Church interpreted the Bible. He was right to defy them in this, as they were entirely wrong in both their interpretation and how they applied it. That neither proves science anti-Christian, or vice versa. It rather shows what happens when people toss intellectual integrity and honesty out the window when interpreting the Bible, which is an entirely different topic altogether.
These concepts came from scientists that were Catholic...indeed, the scientific method, came from the Catholic Church. If was good enough for them, I don't understand why you are still protestant. It was the Church that encouraged science through the lense of Christianity...I appreciate that you mentioned St. Thomas Aquinas.
I disagree. It was the Roman church that oppressively ruled Europe with an iron fist for over 1000 years, that caused the Dark Ages. It wasn't until the Protestant Reformation of the 16th century that science had the freedom to take off. 65.4 % of all Nobel Prizes have been awarded to scientists who were Christians, Protestants leading the way.
Brilliant
Material science can't explain the rise of human consciousness alone. There is something that is missing from the whole dogmatic paradigm.
So i really dont understand what is so mysterous about conscience.. it is the product of a Brain... Just like moving is the product of a car engine running... The animals also have a "type" of conscience aswell.. maybe not so advance but is still there rigth? There are not like rocks. The interaction between very Simple things like neurons create a very complex system... Like a computer.. how can zeros and ones create the complex computation world of today..
Mr Meyer mentions the Science of the ancients - Egypt & China etc then misses out a Thousand years of Islamic Science & jumps straight to the Renaissance!!!
He is doing the same thing that the early secular /atheist Scientists did by avoiding any mention of the vital role /contributions of Islamic Science.
Today, all modern historians of Science acknowledge the fact that the modern scientific method was created /invented during the Golden Age of Islamic Science
I was very surprised as well, because he said "the Abrahamic religions" and I thought he was going to mention Islam!.... But then added "...in particular, Judeo-Christian..."
I mean that only leaves one other. Islam was implied, but not stated, because I think this Dallas Conference on Science and Faith might be primarily Judeo-Christian.
As a Christian, I didn't feel that was very fair... It's clear his research is only in the Judeo-Christian roots, and not Islamic roots, so he wouldn't be qualified to speak on the Islamic roots... He quotes Christians during his entire talk, or agnostics with Christian backgrounds, and saying "Islam, too, but I don't know anything about that" will make his arguments look incomplete and weak. It makes the entire structure of the lecture shambly.
It's unfortunate, but it was a calculated decision, I'm sure, to make sure his lecture was as effective as possible.
Yes, Islam has contributed to science. So did ancient Greece and China. Did they produce the Scientific Revolution? No.
Yes, there many mathematical and scientific knowledge added by the middle east which includes many Muslims.
However, I'm unaware of any Muslim scientist that said anything like "we must observe the natural world to determine what God did". And I would be happy to hear of such a person or people.
And where did Islam find its science but from the very places they conquered.
For an honest and unbiased history of science please see "A Little History of Science" by William Bynum (or any of a myriad of similar books. This one is an easy read). It is clear from historical evidence described in these books that science comes from evolution's instilling in us an attention to our surroundings for survival, which is the true origin of modern science.
The presentation isn´t actually empirical. "The intelligibility of nature" pivots around events that James Hannam identifies. God´s lawfulness can be identified in earlier eras than Thomas Aquinas, for example, with earlier innovation tweaking like the plough possibly reflecting this. I recall seeing mention in Charlemagne´s era of references to God´s lawfulness.
Then there is the pivotal monk Thomas Aquinas who took Aristotle´s esoteric First Cause and applied the logic of the Biblical Creator God through arguments like retrospective deduction of motion, and the like. Kepler is a great quote by Meyer.
Just an idea,..
With the red shift, showing acceleration still taking place, we live on a planet that is still accelerating, and like being in a race car taking off and throwing you back in the seat, it does so until the acceleration stops at top speed, then you don't feel the pushing back into the seat anymore,.. but the Earth is still accelerating,... meaning we are still feeling this pushing "back into the seat",... but the Earth is also rotating, and like a satellite in orbit, we are constantly falling back to Earth and the exact speed of rotation along with the exact rate of acceleration makes gravity and why even nonmetallic material is affected,,....
Better grammar to convey your ideas in a more scientific fashion ...
Your words ...
_"... showing acceleration still taking place ..."_
Try ..
"... indicating that acceleration _may have_ taken place and _may_ still be going on ..."
Just a thought.
-------------------------------------
The Earth is not accelerating. If you wish to think of the Earth as accelerating, you must think of accelerating _in reference_ to something. (You need a reference frame.)
Correction the earth or any star, planet, Black hole and all of the objects on space are not accelerating do to dark energy... The space between galaxies is expanding and you can see tem redshifting because of it.
The Bible The Quran And Science - by Maurice Bucaille
I'm not going to waste my time listening to this but I wonder if he brings up the scientific contributions of the Persians? Or the Chinese?
Stephen Meyers is not trying to deal with specific scientific discoveries. He is trying to demonstrate the source of the ideas which became the most important ideas in the scientific endeavor - the intelligibility of nature, the order of nature, and the contingency of nature. (See 11:52).
Your problem is you should have _wasted_ your time actually listening to the speaker. You have no business commenting on a video you have not watched. This is typical atheist behavior. Are you an atheist?
Would it matter, No. The contributions are undeniable and documented.
Only Persians and Chinese? What about the Egyptians? The Mayans? The Ethiopians? The Muslims? The difference is the Protestant Christian nations were the ones that advanced it to the level we see today. It is the nations with a Protestant heritage that lead the world in innovation and scientific discovery today. Even China, with the most geniuses in a given population still has to resort to espionage and copyright infringements to keep up with the West. There is something about a truly free Christian nation that invites prosperity and new ideas.
@@danielcristancho3738 - U said it Daniel.
Modern science is a religion!!! The same people involved as in JESUS day. Reasearch who own CDC big PHARMA great merchants.... as i am banned from actually say Revelation 18 (KJV)
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
²³ And the light of a candle shall shine no more at all in thee; and the voice of the bridegroom and of the bride shall be heard no more at all in thee: for thy merchants were the great men of the earth; for by thy sorceries= pharmakia were all nations deceived.
²⁴ And in her was found the blood of prophets, and of saints, and of all that were slain upon the earth.
Amen!
Sad to see the intentional exclusion of Islam despite the huge impact Muslims have had on the subject matter, it was a good lecture and I admire Dr Stephen but I wish this was done with more academic honesty and less omission.
Interesting.
11:00 The material necessities of science. All true.
But then you list a set of earlier civilizations, and claim that they had all those prerequisites, and therefore there must be an X-factor. But you conveniently ignore the fact that none of those earlier civilizations actually had the conditions that existed in 1600s Europe, only some of them. So your entire argument fails immediately.
Next, ref slide at 12:00
That's philosophy, not specifically linked to any religion. Even just off the top of my head, ancient Greek civilization had all that, and they were not Jews, and certainly not Christians. So again, your entire argument fails immediately if you consider the facts.
skipping ahead to the physics parts ...
28:35 Newton believed in a Creator. So what? Doesn't mean he was right.
35:00 Earlier theories of gravity.
No, that's deceptive.
Bear in mind, near the surface of the Earth, which was the entire limit of what anybody prior to 1500 had ever experienced, gravity behaves in a very particular way. Specifically, all objects tend to fall straight down, with an acceleration of 9.8 m/s^2. This effect of gravity had been very well understood by all civilizations for many thousands of years, and it allowed us to build stuff, like the Pyramids, and arches.
ref slide 40:00
Now that's just wrong. Well, it's entirely correct, but it misses a critical piece of data.
First of all, Newton's Law of Gravitation is NOT a statement from nowhere. It is *derived* by calculation from the observed motions of the planets. The only thing Newton did was argue that this force that caused the planets to move was the same thing that caused all things to move. Genius enough, to be sure.
ref 46:00 and thereabouts.
Should be required reading for those people who believe that science is monolithic, and all scientists are preaching the same line.
But even though I disagree with some of your important points, thank you for an utterly fascinating presentation.
Waves form can only exist in a 2D surface/plane and not in a 3D space, it can not be the path of the Photons or Electrons. If photons/electrons move in a wave path, their speed will depend on the amplitude and its frequency, therefore it is in conflict with the constant speed of the light/photons theory.
Time is not different from space. Time is not the fourth dimension. Time is the measurement of displacement of an object in space. Years, months and days are the measures of movement within a shared space in relevance to each other ( Sun, Moon and Earth). In the Atomic clock we count the oscillating atoms in a nano space in the crystal.
Electricity, Magnetism, Heat, light / Color, Mass / Weight are different manifestations of Gravity and continually convert to each other. Gravity Force moves by means of CONDUCTIVITY at a SET DIRECTION and SPEED toward the CENTER of the GRAVITY. Gravity Force is Quantitative / Quantum since it is MEASURABLE. Anything we can measure is quantitative/quantum in nature and by definition.
The DISTANCE the Gravity Force travels, determines its Mass/Weight.
The DIRECTION (in a 3D space) determines its Electrical Energies and their Polarities, its temperature and its color.
Everything we [can] see exists within Earth's gravitational field and its Connected Atmosphere.
Gravity is the fundamental force required for matter to exist.
Every formula in physics which includes constantant is FALSE. There is no constant in nature. The most accepted constant, Pi, is not a constant since nobody can determine its exact value.
_"Waves form can only exist in a 2D surface/plane and not in a 3D space"_
False. If you can hear sound, you are perceiving 3d waves moving through 3d space. The concept of "wave" is not prohibited by dimension.
I have watched some of Dr. Meyer’s past excellent lectures on the subject of science and God and even forwarded some to others, but his continued insistence on limiting his narrative to Judeo-Christianity with the exclusion of Islam cannot be explained except as an orientalist type bias. Islam’s contribution to science is so academically established in western scholarship that any serious writer’s not recognizing this only betrays his ignorance. There is no religious text on the face of the planet which comes close to the Qur’an in its repeated emphasis on observing and reflecting on the natural world. It is the Qur’anic text itself that was the catalyst for the blossom of science in earlier Islamic history. Subsequent decline of Muslims in science neither correlates to the text, nor precludes its future comeback, which in fact is already becoming visible. It would be naïve to judge a religion’s contribution to science or any other subject for that matter by limiting inquiry to a particular time-frame in history. If that is to be done, then one would have to more readily discredit “Judeo-Christianity” given its earlier history vis-à-vis science than Islam.
I had, in the past, given Dr. Meyer the benefit of the doubt that he was simply unaware of the Islamic texts and Islamic history, though such would not be expected from a serious author who writes on the topic of science and religion. However, when he was questioned on this in his interview at Blogging Theology and by others, I had thought that he would rectify himself in subsequent lectures or works. I was only mistaken as he, in his latest lecture “The Judeo-Christian Origins of Modern Science”, has repeated his earlier stance. This casts serious doubts on Dr. Meyer’s credibility for unbiased research for truth and evidence.
I would rather see him focused on the topic of evidence of God in the natural world where he performs so well, rather than getting into religion when he is unable to shake of his biases.
one issue with ID is it's multi-faith / inclusive - that can be a bad thing, some preachers dont like this limited term
i dont think Meyer supports the so called young earth
Jim Al-Khalili says: we can look back to Baghdad and see the origins of the modern scientific method, the world's first physicist and the world's first chemist; advances in surgery and anatomy, the birth of geology and anthropology; not to mention remarkable feats of engineering.
For 700 years, the international language of science was Arabic; and Baghdad, the capital of the mighty Abbasid Empire, was the centre of the intellectual world.
the golden age of Arabic science began with the translation of the great Greek texts of Aristotle, Euclid and Ptolemy, so was the work of the Arabic scholars transferred to Europe
The mystery is why the debt the West owed to Muslim scholars was then overlooked: acknowledged at all ... the untold story of Arabic science is a timely reminder of the debt the West owes to the Muslim world
Is there any good reason why you consistently double post and clutter up our comments section?
@@rubiks6 - my comments keep getting deleted
I'm gonna have to call your entire post at the very least wishful thinking and desperation, and the very very worse and more likely, total BS!
Especially since you try equating the Arabic world with Islam which, regardless how desperately muslames try to conjoin themselves with the ancient biblical world, Islam did not come into being until maybe the 15th century AD.
Greek was the language of trade and finance as evidenced by early Bible texts in the first century.
Greek texts had already been translated onto other mesopotamian languages as early as the first millennia. And numerous translations of early Greek into Latin exist.
Granted, Arabic contributions to math, philosophy and science cannot be discounted. But, to equate those contributions with Islam is simply out of the question.
Thanks for playing desperate.
Did Newton studied Arabic science?
I have to disagree with the statement that the presuppositions about the intelligibility of nature have their historical source in the Bible; not that they are against the Bible, rather the Bible supports, confirms and elevates them, but their historical source is Greek culture, namely the first philosophers from Ionia, and then Aristotle, to name the most important.
Guess how the Gospel of St. John begins... "En arche en o logos". The importance of those two words, "arche" and "logos", for the Greeks cannot be understated. Guess who St. John is saying the "logos" is?
As for voluntarism, it is actually a theological error that states that God could have made a world where murdering would not be a sin. This goes against the notion that there is a "logos" in God.
There would not be murder if there were not a ‘sin’ nature. ‘Logos’ - thought, the outward expression of inward thought.
The Word of God (The Bible) is so simple that a child can understand it. The Old Testament was written to pass on to each generation of Israelite/Hebrew/Jew. It was written simply so a simple folk could understand it and pass on the Word Of God for others to learn from and live life by.
To understand it requires no PHD. God picked a simple, nomadic, cattle herding race of people to be the light to the world. He then picked 12 disciples (see NT) who were unschooled. Most of them were fisherman, working class folk of the day. They had no high level education of the time. Those that did, who claimed to know the scriptures and would know the messiah (Jesus) when He showed up, they didn’t see the messiah, they’d denied Him. They didn’t know the scriptures with all of their puffed up intellectual education.
In the beginning God created the heavens & the earth. It was created in a 6 day, 24 hour day cycle. What God did was a miracle of which science cannot explain coz it cannot be observed. That’s why He has given us His word, the Bible, to understand that He did indeed create everything.
All scripture is God breathed.
Simples!
He didn't return to the young woman's story... BTW, Pluto is now a "dwarf planet." The controversy was mostly American since it was the only one of the nine planets discovered by an American, Clyde Tombaugh.
why don't we find complex machines if nature could do it?
I appreciate everything he's saying however the guy is so intelligent sometimes he has a hard time getting across the sentence I think he needs to take speaking classes if he's going to continue to speak rather than write a book. When he was talking about telling time in different ways we can do it I wanted to help him out I wanted to say you mean a sundial especially when he moved his hand in a way that a sundial might work