Does Science Disprove Christianity? With Stephen Meyer
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 9 มี.ค. 2024
- Dr. Stephen Meyer joins the podcast to talk about science and faith. He helps us understand the role philosophy plays in how scientists analyze evidence and reflects on the anti-supernatural bias among many in the scientific community. He also helps us understand the difference between Evolution and Intelligent Design.
------------------------------------------------------------------
This video is sponsored by:
GOOD RANCHERS
Good Ranchers: American Meat Delivered
Use the code, ALISA, to get your FREE 10lb Easter Ham!
Go to www.goodranchers.com/alisa for more information.
SEVEN WEEKS COFFEE
Taste the Coffee that is Saving Lives.
Use the code, ALISA, to get 10% off any product.
www.sevenweekscoffee.com
SUMMIT MINISTRIES
Give your teens an unshakeable faith that will last a lifetime.
Use the code, ALISA24 for a 200.00 discount.
www.summit.org/alisa
--------------------------------------------------------------------
To Purchase the new CD, “Beauty from the Ash”, go to www.alisachilders.com/music
There you can get the CD, backing tracks, string charts, rhythm charts and stems.
Support us on Patreon: www.patreon.com/alisachilders
To order “Another Gospel”: www.alisachilders.com/anothergospel
To order “Live Your Truth": www.alisachilders.com/live-your-truth-and-other-lies/
For Alisa's Merch: alisachilders.creator-spring.com
For all links to Alisa’s recommended reading, visit the Alisa Childers Amazon Store: www.amazon.com/shop/alisachil...
To see what gear Alisa uses to record her podcast, go to:
kit.co/alisachilders
Potential Sponsors: alisachilders.com/sponsor-req...
Product links are affiliate links which means if you buy something we'll receive a small commission.
I join in the chorus of appreciation for your interview with Dr. Meyer. I read his book "The Return of the God Hypothesis," and I am so excited about his work. What a blessing to have such a brilliant mind working for the glory of God.
I’m a science person and believe science and the Bible go together. There’s so many scientists that are helpful in that way. I’m so,thankful.
I'm a master of physics and I do not belive, but I see they go togheter very well! Many historical facts from Bible, like a siege of Babylon from the book of Daniel are confirmed by independant historians like Herodotus ( around 500 BCE ). The questions Herodotus asks, Bible confirms ( for example, why no one was defending weak passage trough walls, which could be a trap, as Bible says, they were at party hosted by the King )
That was my experience in HS - searching for the anchor around which this universe was built. I love science, so I ended up as a 'young earth ceationist' after 30 years of study.
Agreed. I don't see any reason not to trust the scriptures, from a scientific standpoint. I see so much evidence for everything else besides the age of the earth that I can atleast take one single thing on faith. I don't have definitive evidence that the earth is young, but I do have definitive evidence that life cannot originate from random processes, and that Christianity is indeed the truth.
You hate science, you literally cannot stand it
"There is a fine line between philisoohy and insanity".
David Wood is solidly on both sides of that line. 😊
Bipolar?
What would you be talking about Willas??
😂
@@areuaware6842not quite, you need to listen to his testimony😅
Mr Wood is deluded.
Thank you, Alisa for having Dr. Meyer on your show! I absolutely love his work and have followed him closely for years.
Alisa thank you for this conversation, I almost didn’t listen. I have my MS in Biology, an education that was achieved in the early 2000’s, as an agnostic running away from my Catholic upbringing.
20 years later God knew I was ready and came after my heart. As a born again Christian this has been one of my last tenets that I was clinging to too. Everything else I willingly and gratefully let God change but I have struggled with balancing my faith and my education. I am not a super intelligent person so I am quickly lost in the logic debates that I attempt to listen too. But I am going to attempt some of Stephen’s books as I welcome conversation that doesn’t discredit the science we can actually see, yet my heart cries out that we are obviously missing something, something beautiful.
Thank you for being bold enough to have this conversation on your platform.
I hope you'll also check out Answers in Genesis. There's a wealth of evidence that points to a young earth. We don't hear about it in our schools, however, because the school system is biased and wants to paint the Bible as teaching false narratives.
Yeah I doxxed you and will be getting you fired. Christians cannot be scientists, your bias will get people killed
I enjoyed this discussion of intelligent design, however one of the many problems with an old earth view/theistic evolution for Christian’s is that you have death before sin and the fall.
I’m also curious what Dr. Meyer would say about the global flood.
But one does not need to take ANY side in that debate to read Scripture carefully. Romans 5:12-14 specifically attributes human death to sin, but says nothing about death anywhere else. (Plants and fruit, at minimum, were given for food in Genesis.) Romans 8:18-25 describes creation's present condition as "bondage" but doesn't state the exact conditions. This is a case where the past YEC community was not very careful in some of their Scripture readings, and flawed claims like "Romans says there was no death until Adam sinned" came to be repeated without question in sermons and conversations. This counter has been raised enough times that Ken Ham and AIG have articles explaining their position more carefully in their current website library. Last I looked, they maintain that death of (at least) animals somehow comes about from the fall. But that is an interpretation and is subject to the usual cautions -- read Scripture for yourself, rely on the Spirit of God, and then compare interpretations against the truth they claim to explain.
@@aaronvienotThe scriptures clearly state that life is in the blood. Using herbs, plants, grasses and fruits for food was specifically addressed by God as things to be eaten and was not considered death. Only after the Noahic flood did God say it was okay to eat meat...and then, only certain meats. So death did not exist at the time of creation...it only came into the world after the original sin of Adam...some time after Adam was created on day six. Exodus 20:11 For in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the Lord blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it. God did not rest for millions or billions of years on day seven as an example to man but for a literal 24 hr day. Those Christians that believe in deep time are throwing out the entire book of Genesis.
Was the lack of death and suffering confined to the garden of eden and not outside the garden into which Adam and Eve were expelled?
@@andrewdouglas1963 Adam was created on day six of creation ( a literal 24hr day) along with all other breathing land animals. The Birds of the Air and the Fish of the sea had already been created on day five. Therefore there was life already outside the Garden ie birds and sea creatures. However it was not until Adam and Eve sinned that the Bible says that all creation groaned bringing about death, disease and suffering. The Bible states that the wages of sin is death ...It further states that life is in the blood. Fruits, plants, herbs and trees being harvested was not considered death. Before Adam's sin there was no death...which is why God said "and it was very good" after each day of creation.
@@alantasman8273
The English translation of genesis was taken from ancient Hebrew in which the word "YOM" was translated as "day".
But YOM can also be correctly translated as period of time.
So how do you know should be translated as a literal 24 hour day?
Thank you Dr. Meyer for seeking truth for all of us.
Looking forward to this ❤ P.S. Thanks so much for adjusting the transitions! It's so much better! 🌸
Thank you for this conversation!🙏🏼
Thank you, and a great interview. I greatly appreciate Dr. Meyer's work.
I find it fascinating that what Dr. Meyer is describing with the explosion is evidence for a young earth and a global catastrophic flood. Yet he's committed to old earth in the same way he criticises naturalists for being pre-committed to their view and not willing to follow the actual best explanation of the evidence.
Not sure why YEC vs OEC is worth arguing about?
Not even important
The reason it is important is because before original sin in the garden of Eden, there was no death. So how could there be millions of years of fossils, i.e. death?
I agree that the earth is young, however Stephen is more focused on the more solid arguments for God. He understands that we must not die on the hill of a young earth, instead we can present the multitude of evidence for an intelligent designer.
There is literally zero evidence for a young earth, not a single spec, its just a lie to say there is any
Thank you for this informative interview. God bless you both.
Thank-you both for this TH-cam video!
Great show!
Reading and recommending Signature in the Cell 🖖🏻
Thanks for posting
I have been meaning to read some of his books which are on my list. This was great!
Thank you for posting this
Thank you Dr meyers. Love your lectures
Always a great conversation with Mr Meyers, looking forward to more.
Beautiful!! 😻
Great interview!🎉 Congratulations.
*_"A little science distances you from God, but a lot of science brings you nearer to Him."_* (Origin of quote is unconfirmed; yet, is widely attributed to Louis Pasteur, Founder of microbiology and immunology)
ID - how nostalgic, it's like early YT again.
Great interview and I LOVE your outrow song! It brings an intellectual discussion full circle - Let’s be praying for one another to walk in confidence in Jesus ❤
Love the podcast! As a recommendation could you adjust the volume of your advertising switch? Scares me every time lol 😂
Great guest!
Meyer is an important voice in our day. To me his progress is a wonderful example of God's wonderful provision couples with amazing gifting. God inspires us (breathes his Spirit into us), then we go in Him and look what happens!
Good job on the tongue twister ad
Dr. Hugh Ross has a great new book Rescuing Inerrancy.
The Bible is not inerrant. Sorry. It's just not. To even claim that it ought to be is to put too much trust in man.
Oops I may have stated that wrong! It's making a scientific case for Biblical inerrancy.
I’m trying to find the website that has the videos/animations of the cell processes that Stephen mention. Anyone know what the website is?
I once met a man who had been involved in and was aware of research in the US and the USSR to control human thinking with electronic signals. In this research these governments learned that if a person had a strong faith in God they were more difficult to manipulate. This therefore became a motivation for such governments to repress faith in God by teaching evolution.
John 8:32 32 And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free. KJV
Have you ever had a conversation with the Christian Astrophysicist Dr Jason Lisle?
Would be better to have Hugh Ross on. You’d get far better science
Fantastic interview. I've been following Dr. Meyer's work for a long time. There is no better resource to combate the futility of the Neo-Darwinin thesis.
It will help strengthen and be confident in your faith because there is no conflict with the truth. Whether discovered through the scientific method proper or revealed through the word.
The problem is that, to claim that you trust "the word" requires placing way too much trust in the men who wrote the text of the scriptures.
@@ThatBoomerDude56 it's not a matter of trusting in men, but in God who carried them by the Holy Spirit
@@mc07 No. To trust words that men wrote about God, you are trusting the *men* who did the writing. To *presume* that God would have directed those men perfectly ia not faith. It is *presumptuousness.* Especially when you know that God did not provide any such message for most of mankind who all lived and died without ever having even a chance to see it.
@@ThatBoomerDude56 Scripture confirms other parts of scripture that it is God-breathed. It's not presumption. It's taking God at his word.
2 Tim 3:16-17 "All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the servant of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work."
2 Peter 1:19-21 "We also have the prophetic message as something completely reliable, and you will do well to pay attention to it, as to a light shining in a dark place, until the day dawns and the morning star rises in your hearts. Above all, you must understand that no prophecy of Scripture came about by the prophet’s own interpretation of things. For prophecy never had its origin in the human will, but prophets, though human, spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit."
Jesus died for all mankind, such that his salvation, I believe, is effective also for those prior not just after. For example, Abraham believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness. Though Jesus had not yet come, his death and resurrection was effectual for Abraham. Paul speaks about people being aware of God through creation. God is just and fair. He will judge fairly. He is more just and fair than any human can be, so he is trustworthy.
//There is no better resource to combate the futility of the Neo-Darwinin thesis.//
It's not really futile. The theory of evolution does actually rely on the scientific method and has come a long way since the early days of neo-Darwinism, just as neo-Darwinism came a long way from Darwin's original work. Not all evolutionary biologists accepted neo-Darwinism but most did. For a good essay in its defence, read:-
"Neo-darwinism still haunts evolutionary theory: A modern perspective on Charlesworth, Lande, and Slatkin (1982)"
- written by Zachary B. Hancock, Emma S. Lehmberg, and Gideon S. Bradburd.
The problem with limiting ourselves to natural processes we are aware of is you will always stumble upon an outlier or two that will confound you to the point where you come up with some new natural process that can't be proved. Or you end up like the Pythagoreans who went crazy trying to work out everything mathematically. You could subscribe to a random universe but if you do you have to accept the odds that go along with that theory. Now I'm not an astrophysicist, nor do I play one on TV, but from what I have read, the odds that all of the cosmological constants lined up just so at the moment of creation, the so-called fine-tuning problem, comes out to:
1 in 10,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000.
Don't try to plug that into your calculator. That just gets you a universe where life can exist. After that there are more variables that must be accounted for to explain how that life came into being. The balancing act our solar system pulls off on it's own is mind bending. Could it be random? A cosmic event no different than any other? Sure. If I denied that I'd be just as guilty of intellectual dishonesty as the people who insist intelligent design is a myth. There is science and then there is scientism. Scientism comes with its own set of dogmas, scriptures, prophets, and high-priests. I think it's about power but that's just me. I believe in God and that God created the Universe. Do I know how? No, and neither does the anti-creationist side. So, as always, it's a matter of faith, because both sides require it when you get right down to it. But that's just my take.
_That just gets you a universe where life can exist._ No, that's a calculation for *life exactly as we know it* to exist. It says nothing about the chances of a slightly different universe being able to support a slightly different variety of life. You're another victim of the Lottery Fallacy.
@@sciencerules8525 It's not a fallacy. I'm simply stating the odds for everything to line up as it did during the Big Bang or moment of creation if you will. I can't speak to a different kind of universe because there is no proof a different kind of universe existing. I'm familiar with the multi-verse theory, I just don't subscribe to it. For me, that is a fallacy.
Stephen Meyer is one of my favorite humans on the entire planet! I am so excited that you had him on, and I cannot wait to listen to this!
If you want to dive deeper into the evidence for intelligent design, or share it with your middle school or older kids, he has a terrific video/class series called TrueU: Does God Exist? Such a fun and mind-blowing watch!
Paul Monitor: greatest hitter. 3,000th hit was a triple. Very rare. World Champion with the Toronto Blue Jays.
Paul Moliter. 1993 World Series MVP.
Wade Boggs, Derek Jeter & A-Rod hit home runs for their 3000th hit.
@@6iemei9 Paul Molitor hit a Triple for his 3,000th hit. How many others have done that?
I usually benefit from your interviews and recommend some of them, and do understand why sponsored ad slots are helpful. But just a thought on this one specifically: my family greatly enjoys (and pays for) quality meat, and we recognize that mass farming methods with prophylactic antibiotic use are a bad idea in general. But the Good Ranchers script's negative focus on MRNA vaccines doesn't work with the scientific focus of this video. Also, you may not like quality of the comments section that results if your channel drifts in that direction.
Eating the meat of animals which have been administered mRNA "vaccines" has likely not been tested at all for safety. Considering the slew of side effects from their recent use in humans, what's wrong with offering the choice?
Very interesting discussion. it is hard to see that science does not point to God.
Why does it matter when, where, or how we began?
“Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed” was my first into to Dr Meyer. That movie played a part in our decision to send two of our kids to Biola University. Great podcast. Great guest.
How so?
What is not mentioned as an explanation for minor variations is the new science of Epigenetics.
*_“… Everyone who is seriously engaged in the pursuit of science becomes convinced that the laws of nature manifest the existence of a spirit vastly superior to that of men, and one in the face of which we with our modest powers must feel humble.”_* Albert Einstein (1879 - 1955), founder of modern physics (Theory of Relativity inter alia) and 1921 Nobel prize winner
Get Grady McMurtry On your podcast
See previous comment about Hugh Ross rather than Jason Lisle
Has anyone said yet that the supernatural are faith matters?
The supernatural is the antithesis of faith.
@@areuaware6842 I disagree. Check out Haunted Cosmos 😀
Is Dr Stephen related to Dr Paul Maier?
Did I miss something? Does Dr Meyer believe the historical account in Genesis as found in the Bible? Does Dr Meyer believe that the God of Scripture created the heavens and the earth in 6 literal 24-hour days?
The basic answer is:
Both are belief systems. As belief systems, you will see wildly divergent "flavors" (or sects) within them.
Neither one can be proven; therefore both have to be taken on faith. The fundamental assertions of both systems are unprovable using the scientific method.
All the comments here about Meyer are positive that I can see.
I’ll offer a more critical take: look up “Professor Dave Explains” and his various exposés of the individuals involved in the Discovery Institute. He has one on Stephen Meyer. Have a look at how Meyer spins things about the Cambrian Explosion (which lasted 70 million years - hardly “suddenly without warning!”) and then come back and reevaluate your comments.
If it's coming from professor Dave I'll pass, even though I disagree with Meyer about quite a bit. I used to watch some of Dave's videos because I wanted to brush up on my high school chemistry. He appealed to the consensus for something, I can't remember what. When I pointed out a different viewpoint and provided examples of when the consensus had been wrong, he actually told me almost explicitly that scientists of today won't be mistaken in consensus because we know so much more than we did back then- most of my examples were from at least 100 years ago.
Shortly thereafter he started his debate thing with Tour. I read at least 4 of the papers he presented as evidence against Tour's argument, but Tour was right about them. The only ones that supported Dave's argument were based on wild speculation. For example; They observed small units of something and then extrapolated that life came from space. They could do some of the steps of metabolism without pre-existing life and just assumed that meant one day they'd figure out how to do the lot.
Tou may have missed the point. Even if the Cambrian was laid down over 70 million years, the different fossils inside are still lacking precursors.
@@tonyabrown7796 I appreciate your reply and the details in it very much - thank you. Yeah - the “Dave & Tour” debates - that was a bit of a fiasco. And that is unfortunate that Dave was dismissive of your viewpoint.
In any case, I think Dave’s video on why Meyer is wrong or at least misleading on several aspects of the Cambrian, still gets the facts right. There are also alternate takes not including Dave. One would be Prothero who wrote a whole book on fossils, and has very big issues about the “no precursors” in Cambrian body plans etc.
I really do think as we know more (additional fossils and better models/genetic studies, etc) that it will be harder for Intelligent Design to find examples that meet the claim of “evolutionary theory does not have the explanatory power to … “. But I’ll try to be open to the evidence, should it be shown clearly (which Meyer, frankly, doesn’t meet)
@@mikelsikel73 I was so looking forward to the actual debate between them and then all Dave did was insult Tour, and all Tour did was shout. I'd hoped for a more productive time at the roundtable with Lee Cronin and Tour but not a single person there asked about the science and Crinin didn't even attempt to dispute a single argument made by Tour.
I long ago decided that geology was more art than science. I completely dismissed radiometric dating at least a decade ago after they kept readjusting the age of a certain rock formation. It showed me that they didn't really trust the dates they were getting either. While I have recently re-evaluated my stance on geology, I see no reason to change my opinion of radiometric dating. They frequently take multiple samples and dismiss the results that fall outside their expectations as some kind of contamination. I read one study where they had an out of place fossil. The way they determined that it was out of place, was because it had wear on it. Many fossils have wear. The deciding factor seemed to be that it fell outside their expectations. That kind of circular reasoning doesn't inspire confidence in conclusions.
The fossils themselves are just as open to interpretation. Take pakicetus. It was determined to be a whale ancestor based entirely on the thickness of a small section of skull. I did read one paper that also pointed out leg bones and something else which suggested an aquatic lifestyle, but they were using traits that did not exist in the whale. The sheer amount of assumptions going in to these interpretations makes me skeptical. Especially when biological observations would suggest that evolution is not possible.
I prefer the interpretation of John MacKay, and Joe Hubbard. At least they can recognise and account for their biases. If you're interested in the subject and open to alternatives you should check them out. They are the ones who gave me a new respect for geology.
@@tonyabrown7796 I will indeed check those 2 individuals out, so thank you for that.
Personally, I do have a great deal of trust in the estimates from dating. With the knowledge that nothing will be perfect and there will always be ranges, but likely tightening ranges. One reason is fossils like Tik’taalik (I probably spelled that incorrectly) where they predicted where it should be given knowledge of the dates of various rocks and then the estimate of when fishes would have split off into land animals (thus, a transitional form). The fact that they predicted it and then specifically set out on a research expedition to find it, and then did find it - amazes me.
@@mikelsikel73 you say you are amazed by finding the fossil they predicted. Does it not concern you at all the many, many times where they have to change the "theory" because they found things they didn't expect?
Tarviiko Alisa sun vessa kans siivousta?
29:29 - “equating science with materialistic philosophy”
From what little I know about “real” science, it seems that trying to identify and remove bias IS one of the primary roles of the researcher.
To have this implicit bias of materialism in ALL science (not only unrecognized but demanded) seems absurd to me.
Science and materialism are 2 different things.
@@RandomGuy-sn3ne - Science (or rather the scientific method) is a way of looking at the phenomenal world.
Materialism (or natural materialism) is a philosophy that says ALL science must be isolated to the realm of “the natural world”…and that is a bias.
@@rduse4125 That's correct but ultimately materialism and science have nothing to do with each other, there are many scientists who are not materialists.
@@RandomGuy-sn3ne - Oh, I agree 100% then. The scientific philosophy of materialism often gets conflated with science, but that should never be.
It’s obvious that God exists, and scientists who make such claims should be able to publish, get grants and should never be isolated from materialsts in their field of study! - thank you
When in earth's history did predators emerge?
they think they've found the earliest eukaryotic predator that lived about 1.6 billion ya, protosterol biota.
Upon what Dawkins said about appearance is what young earthward say about the universe just appearing old
Since Darwin’s time, much has been discovered about the many methods of evolution (eg, whole gene duplication, endosymbyosis, epigenetics, horizontal gene transfer and many others). However, amongst the 100s of thousands of scientists studying the subject, very few of them dispute that evolution took place.
The process of animals evolving over geologic time has been so thoroghly documented now in so many ways and at so many levels that Christians should move on with that one. The earth is not 12,000 years old and God didn’t create 5 million separate genera/species. Ignorance and faith do not trump hundreds of millions of hours of scientific research.
We can all have faith in a creator and have a reverence for life he created without locking ourselves out of the world of science.
Yes, Science refutes the mythology of Christianity.
---
**Title: The Cosmic Genesis: An Ode to the Tree of Life and the Seed of Existence**
**Abstract:**
This paper is a synthesis of the profound dialogue between the cosmos and the Tree of Life, a narrative that marries the scientific genesis of the universe with the spiritual symbolism found in scripture. It is an artistic and poetic reflection on the origins of all that is, viewed through the lens of beauty and wisdom.
**Introduction:**
In the beginning, there was a seed-a singularity from which the vast universe sprang forth, much like the biblical Tree of Life, a source of boundless growth and eternal knowledge. This paper explores the parallels between the cosmic seed of the universe and the Tree of Life, interweaving the humility inherent in scientific discovery with the reverence prescribed by faith.
**The Seed of the Cosmos:**
Just as a seed contains the blueprint of the tree it will become, the singularity held within it the laws of physics that would govern the expansion and evolution of the cosmos. This moment of creation echoes the scriptural depiction of the Tree of Life, standing at the center of the Garden, a symbol of the interconnectedness of all life and knowledge.
**The Sprouting of Existence:**
From the cosmic seed, the universe unfurled its branches, reaching out across the void. Galaxies, stars, and planets blossomed like leaves and fruit, each a testament to the intricate design and purposeful unfolding of the Creator's plan-a plan that science seeks to understand and scripture seeks to celebrate.
**The Virtue of Humility:**
In the pursuit of knowledge, both scientific and spiritual, humility remains a guiding principle. It is the recognition that, like Newton standing on the shoulders of giants, we build upon the discoveries and insights of those who came before us. We must eschew the arrogance that leads to plagiarism and embrace the humility that fosters true innovation and reverence for the divine.
**Conclusion:**
The universe, in its majestic expanse, is a cosmic Tree of Life, with its roots in the primordial seed and its branches stretching into the heavens. As we seek to comprehend its origins and our place within it, we are reminded of the beauty and wisdom that emerge when science and scripture, knowledge and belief, humility and reverence, converge in a harmonious ode to existence.
---
This paper serves as a reminder of the awe-inspiring nature of our universe and the humble pursuit of understanding it. It is a call to reflect on the beauty and wisdom that science and faith, together, can reveal about the tapestry of life and the origins of all that is.
Awesome interview. Thank you both for what you do. Nothing we observe in the universe, rightly interpreted, will contradict God's Word - it will only affirm it. Dr. Meyer is so right - science is not an enemy of believers, it's an ally.
Nothing I’m science supports a god
B V gan❣
Anyone else read that as Stephanie Meyer? No? Ok
😂 If a man can become a woman by wearing a dress, then the theory of evolution is invalid. Science got it wrong.
"reflects on the anti-supernatural bias among many in the scientific community."
It's hard to have phrased this in a dumber way. For one thing, we can't and don't know that anything supernatural is even possible. Also by definition supernatural things necessarily cannot be proved true, so how could the "scientific community" take it seriously?
I'm glad for this...science is not my forte either!
Answer is no…..
Reminder that the man in this video, Steven Meyer, is not a biologist and has never studied it.
I appreciate Mr. Meyer and I have read his books, having followed the Discovery Institute for 25 years. However, over the years, I have seen him have to change many arguments such as using the eye as an example of irreducible complexity because scientists have shown how the eye developed over the millennia.
The Cambrian Explosion also is another barrier that has fallen as scienists demonstrated that the simpler forms of creatures developed in the 100s of millions of years prior to this (in the PreCambrian).
Life is certainly a mystery! But it did evolve, that is certain.
The more we know about living cells the more obvious it is that it could not occur piece by piece OR by an all at once mutation. Intelligent design is the only way life exists.
Are you willing to take a look at some empirical evidence for evolution? We can then compare the evidence for ID to the evidence for evolution and see what has more and more convincing evidence.
Sounds like personal incredulity and god of the gaps
@@therick363 Agreed.
Classic god of the gaps.
No evidence of design, just you not understanding something, and assuming it must be a god.
@@somerandom3247 Notice the similarity of these people and flat earthers? Instead of providing evidence for their claims they instead just try and say the others who oppose their idea is wrong. If they are correct, why dont they provide the evidence for their case like the other side does?
Scientists still embracing Darwinism is no different from a Software Engineer who would still embrace DOS or commute via horse and buggy.
It’s called evidence
Science got you the Apple/android product you are using. May be you should stop
Because why would they move away from something that’s true?
On the contrary, claiming that scientists have not advanced beyond Darwin is like saying that software engineers still manually code everything in assembler.
@@ThatBoomerDude56 indeed. The theory of evolution has gotten stronger
Here's some intelligent design you might want to explain. Both Alisa Childers and Dr. Stephen Meyer have mammary glands and nipples. Now, I know why Alisa Childers has them. What I would like is an explanation, based on the theory of intelligent design, of why Dr. Meyer has them. Anyone?
Having one unanswered question does not prove a theory false.
So first off, your "cute" argument goes, "intelligent design implies EVERY SINGLE thing from the quantum computers in the brain to the entire body plan must be PERFECTLY explainable in form and function TO ME RIGHT NOW, otherwise, the theory is false. Male nipples exist. I cant figure out why. Therefore ID is false."
There's a lot of problems with that argument. It's about the same as someone saying, "so you're telling me relativity is so true, then how come there's a singularity that it can't explain?"
Yes, I just compared nipples to a singularity 😂
You get the point.
I'm not up to speed on the scientific explanation for male nipples and I'm sure you aren't either. But that doesn't mean we should dismiss the very real problems with materialism that Meyer brings up. You think a nipple disproves design, he thinks the genetic code and the origin of information out of chaos disproves materialism.
It's worth a better argument than "nipples exist."
@@AtrusGambit Nowhere did I say male nipples disprove intelligent design. However, I did ask what the theory of intelligent design has to say about it. Apparently nothing, because I have never received a clear answer to that question from a creationist. It is, after all, the creationists who claim it is an omnipotent intelligence designing all living things. Am I not allowed to question that intelligence? If you think about it you can see why it is an important question. According to the intelligent design theorists, Adam was created before Eve. Also according to them, Adam was never designed to bear children. So, what function do male mammary glands and nipples perform? After all, their function is not a mystery. We know very well the function they perform in women. We don't have to guess. It is not a "singularity", it is a perfectly obvious function. Now, believe me, this isn't the only example of imperfect design. There are all kinds of them. This example just happens to be one any individual can check on their own. They need neither scientific knowledge or apparatus. Take your shirt off, stand in front of the mirror, and say, "Why do I have nipples?" To which the intelligent design creationist replies...???
Intelligent Design has literally nothing to do with Adam and Eve. I think you aren't listening hard enough.
Second, you assume make nipples are a flawed design, but I can think of a couple uses wich might be intentional design....but regardless, the problem is that you have two very wrong assumptions: ID = Adam and Eve story and male nipples are flawed design.
But to humor you, here's yep things I cam think of off the top of my head.
1. Survival and protecting vital organs. Male nipples have very sensitive nerve endings. That may be because the chest houses lungs and heart which are also protected but a Letang bone cage. An early warning system like nipples can be important. We see this also with feet and gentiles which also have incredibly high concentrations of nerve bundles...the gentiles to protect reproduction, and the feet, locomotion, attack, escape.
Second, is reproductive and sociological. It could be that nipples on males encourage more stimulating reproduction when face to face with a mate than say the way most of the animal kingdom reproduces. This encourages stronger partner bonding which humans do particularly well.
So it's a big assumption that it's a flawed design just cuz they don't make milk. I'm an idiot on a couch and I can come up with two halfway decent reasons for them on a Saturday afternoon.
Open your mind a little.
@@AtrusGambit Number one, Adam and Eve are at the core of the creation story, and at the core of the intelligent design story. They go together like a horse and carriage. One is tempted to ask what nipples would be an early warning system for, After all, in the garden of eden there were no dangers. But whatever nipples are for, males also have mammary glands attached to those nipples. They can't be a warning system. And just by the by, many male mammals have nipples, including dogs cats, pigs, and primates. Therefore the "face to face" argument fails, because most of those mammals have sex front to back. And of course, many of those male nipples would not be at the front of the animal (as a warning system) but underneath them on their belly. I think we can say the early warning argument fails on that count as well. In fact the easy answer to why males have nipples is that sex differentiation doesn't take place immediately when the egg is fertilized. It happens after the the mammary glands and nipples have been formed.
@@throckmortensnivel2850 you're very intelligent.
The complex digital information in the DNA molecule. Must have an Intelligent Designer : ergo God.
Um..... There isn't any digital information in DNA.
I made it to the point where he started differentiating between Creationism and Intelligent Design, then went on to say he believes in an old Earth. I appreciate his interest in and work for arguing Intelligent Design. However, after having followed the various arguments for evolution, YEC, and OEC, I have come to the realization that not only does YEC answer many more questions than other theories and arguments, but it is confirmed by God's Word. One cannot rationally believe that the universe was created by a supremely intelligent being and claim that being is the God of the Bible, but argue that God didn't mean what he said when he described the creation event in Genesis, counting the days, and describing each successive day as a period of an evening and a morning (what we now call a 24-hour day). God's language in the Genesis creation account is clearly literal, not figurative or poetic. You cannot believe God on some things but not on others, or think he is intelligent enough to create all the complex life and matter that exist but not intelligent enough to convey the creation account in a way we could understand. Creation mag and the Institute for Creation Research (as well as other YEC scientific organizations and groups of scientists) have much literature on this topic which give very convincing arguments for the geologic record as evidence of Noah's flood, not a uniformitarian, old-earth record. Using geologic deposition and tectonic activity as evidence for an old earth is not supported by observations of those activities. Rather, we see much evidence of a young earth created just as God said he did in 6 literal days. I cannot take this gentleman seriously as a scientist arguing for God's design when he is not taking God's Word at face value, nor interpreting the geologic record within the confines of how scientists understand how sedimentary layers are deposited and worn, as well as how fossils are only created during rapid burial. I hope he digs a little deeper into this topic because it is important for every Christian to believe what God says about who he is and what he's done. The fact that all of creation supports God's Word on this is simply reaffirming for our faith.
Don't forget the amazing contribution Answers in Genesis has made in this area. I like how Ken Ham puts it: (paraphrased) The Hebrew word for "day" is "yom," and whenever it is modified by "evening" OR "morning" OR a number, it means a 24-hour day. And so God, knowing how obtuse mankind would become by the 21st century, modified "yom" with all three words in Genesis 1! And STILL, we say, "Oh, that's not what God really meant."
Anyone who has written a book or a magazine article or a podcast or sermon knows how important the opening paragraphs are in setting up the rest of the content. How much more important, then, is it for God? If He had created in millions of years, He would have used language to reflect long ages, like He did with Abraham in trying to count the stars, and with Jacob in trying to count the grains of sand. Scripture interprets Scripture in the Bible. What floors me is how solid Christians forget that when it comes to the first chapter of the Bible.
@@lauriegermaine6506and yet the creation myth in genesis contradicts evidence
The Bible is Satan's book.
@@lauriegermaine6506 agreed! Answers in Genesis has done some good witnessing and educating. Ken Ham used to work for ICR. ICR has a stronger focus on research, but the mission and perspective are the same.
@@reality1958 What evidence are you talking about? Observational science reflects the BIBLICAL NARRATIVE. Soft tissue and red blood cells have been found on hundreds of dinosaur fossils, which indicate the fossils are only a few thousand years old, not millions of years old.
In the Grand Canyon, we see rock layers that are bent and some others that are folded over themselves, which indicate those layers were once soft and pushed around by massive amounts of water. We see fossilized tree trunks standing upright within layers of rock-layers that old-earth scientists want to claim were laid down over millions of years. But fossils aren’t created by slow passage of time; they’re created by rapid burial. I grew up in New England surrounded by woods; trees that had fallen over in storms when I was a child had rotted away by the time I was in my mid-twenties. The fossilized tree standing upright among rock layers speaks of a short period of time, not millions of years. The bent layers of rock speak of a flood, not the slow march of millions of years.
We’ve discovered fossilized sea life in mountaintops all over the world-from the Rocky Mountains to Mount Everest, indicating those mountaintops were once covered by water. A global flood makes sense of that.
The volcanic explosion on Mount St. Helens in 1980 is modern-day proof for how quickly canyons get carved away by rushing water and sediment; how quickly coal can form; how quickly living things are fossilized. In the early-to-mid 1990’s, scientists took a lava rock from that site and ran different tests on it to see how “old” the rock was (even though we knew the age was in the mid-teens). The tests 1. couldn’t agree as to how old the rock was, yet also 2. calculated that the rock was anywhere from tens of thousands of years to a few million years old-even though, again, we knew the rock to be a teenager.
The moon has only a few inches of space dust on it, not several feet of dust that would indicate millions of years.
We still have comets today, which wouldn’t exist if the universe were millions of years old.
We still have hydrogen in our atmosphere; it would have escaped by now if our planet was millions of years old. There are so many other points involving chemicals that attest to a young earth, not an old earth, but I’m not scientifically minded, so I don’t trust myself to get the facts right. But a lot of information can be found on the Answers in Genesis website.
Origins science-how the universe and the planet was created-cannot be replicated, and thus cannot be tested in a science lab. The geologic column was invented by man, based on man’s assumptions. But rocks and fossils don’t come with birth dates or manufacturer’s tags, so the calculation of ages is based on formulas, which are based on assumptions, which stem from the belief that our universe was created over billions of years. But man doesn’t know for certain because man wasn’t there. All they have are assumptions based upon assumptions based upon a foundation of assumptions.
Young-earth scientists are basing their findings on assumptions, too, except those assumptions are founded in the Bible, and the Bible continues to prove itself reliable. It’s been scrutinized for centuries, yet it still stands strong. Oh, yes, people lie about it all the time. Scientists claim they’ve disproven the Bible. Well, today, men claim to be women all the time, but those claims don’t change reality.
As to that last bit, when we have scientists and doctors today who can look at the 6000+ points of evidence that prove men and women are physically different, think differently, even literally look at the world differently because of the different number of cones and rods in their eyes depending on their gender, and those scientists and doctors turn around and nod to the mob-rule and say, “Yes, men can become women,” you’ll forgive me if I don’t believe them when they then want to tell me they know how the earth formed and when. If they can’t accurately conclude what is testable and obvious and exists right there in front of their faces, they have no grounds to stand on when it comes to claims of something that happened in the past and which no man witnessed.
Check out Answers in Genesis for a ton more information. Check out the DVD series, Is Genesis History? We have ample evidence in observational science that reflects what the Bible teaches. We have no observational science that reflects millions of years or animals evolving from other animals (there are no transitional fossils). Again, origins science cannot be replicated and therefore cannot be tested. There is no evidence, just a lot of assumptions.
At the heart of Dr. Meyer's thesis is the assumption that the appearance of design means that there is a designer. His argument, then, is that with science it is rational to make this assumption. Yes, it is rational to make this assumption, but it's still an assumption. There is no evidence to support this assumption and there are other valid arguments that don't require it. There are other coherent and equally valid worldviews that are not based on it. I believe that Dr. Meyer has chosen to accept this assumption because for him it resolved his existential angst. I don't point this out to minimize his argument since we all ask why we're here. In the end his arguments are informative, but they are not in any way conclusive.
Christianity disproves Christianity
What fascinates me here is the lengths some people are willing to go to protect an ideology they have, all I saw here was a clearly biased take on the scientific matter in order to protect there own religious belief.
If this podcast is relative to his book then I will not be buying it because all I witnessed here was a warping of where the scientific community sits and misrepresenting of what science says.
He does the same old argument here I see everywhere that some kind of intelligent design must be attributed to complexity and then goes on to give several examples of design complex things, what I did notice is he seems to turn a complete blind eye to where the scientific community sits on this matter, in fact nature itself gives us plenty of examples of complexity arising from simplicity which is another easy observation he seems to ignore in his way of trying to fit his religious belief in with science.
Evolution itself is its own design tool, you do not need a designer when the process itself is creating the complexity and variation, this guy seems stuck on the old often incorrect thinking of Darwin, Evolution as we now understand it is well over a century on and the theory itself has evolved and shaped itself into one of the most solid and accepted theories ever in science, it only holds common ground now with the core idea Darwin proposed but is very different as a whole, it remains one of the only accepted theories in science that has strong evidence from several different and unrelated fields of science making it one of the most observational and evidential theories we have ever had. This of course creates a major issue for religion based ideology hence we see yet again someone else with a title of authority pushing there own misguided warped version of evolution with a clear bias to paint a dismissive picture of it.
You’ve assumed what you’re attempting to prove. Circular arguing.
Science itself requires mind.
The very idea of a scientist studying anything proves intelligent design, since without the scientist there is no study, invention, or experimentation. All one has to do is extrapolate that there had to be a Mind designing the scientists themselves, who are even more incredibly complex than what they are studying!
No
I see the fossil record as immediate introduction of a variety of species. This defeats the sequential development idea.
Sure, if you just ignore all the aging techniques used to arrange them. Really easy to believe whatever you like when you are that selective with your evidence.
The current state of the world disproves evolution.
How so?
Please support that….
@@somerandom3247 all this time…all this evolving from an apeman? There’s no proof of kind to kind evolution. It’s still a theory, like ancient aliens.
@@prkremerso you don’t understand what a theory is. Got it
🙄@@therick363
I see earth in a group of planets. Earth is the anomaly. So I conclude probably earth is an intentional exception.
So you’ve examined all the other solar systems out there?
@@therick363 I get where you are coming from in terms of us not locating every solar system in the galaxy let alone the universe, a task that most likely will always remain beyond the scope of our ability, but the data so far does indicate Earth and our solar system are anomalous. That may have as much to do with the fact astronomers have primarily focused on red-dwarf stars and their systems, which would naturally differ from those which orbit a G-class star like our Sun, but even the G-Class stars we have been able to look at have not produced a system similar to ours. A lot of variables have to line up in a very delicate balance to produce a life-sustaining solar system.
@@itinerantpatriot1196we’ve found good evidence of planets in the habitable zone
@@therick363 I agree, but just because a planet is in the habitable zone doesn't make it a good candidate for life, especially intelligent life. As I mentioned, almost all of the planets our telescopes have located in the habitable zone orbit red dwarf stars. That's to be expected since red dwarves are the most common stars in our galaxy. The thing is, because of the lower amount of energy produced by red dwarves, planets residing within the habitable zones of red dwarf stars generally become tidally locked due to their proximity to their host star. That makes it tough for life to sustain itself. Then there is the matter of the radiation those stars produce. They are small, but most of them are quite active. Unless the planet has an extremely strong magnetic field, any atmosphere they may have had most likely will get blasted away by the solar winds. That's what happened to Mars after its core cooled down. It no longer had a magnetic field to protect it. Could there still be life? I guess, most likely microbial.
I say all that to make the point that our planet and the neighborhood it lives in is a rare phenomena, at least from what we have been able to see. G-class stars like our sun make up less than 10% of the stars in the Milky Way. Is there life out there? I believe there is. But it's too far for us to meet our cosmic cousins. I think that's the way God ordered it, but that's only an opinion. We are unique, no doubting that.
@@itinerantpatriot1196 and we also know the limits of our telescopes. And considering the number of galaxies out there….
Darwin posited order from chaos and yet the Law of Entropy states the opposite Fact.
Entropy doesn’t hurt the theory of evolution
The first and second laws of thermodynamics seem to contradict evolution.
Dr. Meyer seems to believe in a form of theistic evolution if I am hearing him correctly. The question I have then is it what point does the Bible become true because obviously Genesis one through 11 can’t be true if you believe in theistic evolution. He obviously believes in intelligence design as most everyone does.
@@jeffspearman5678 how so?
I'm not sure someone who erroneously compares DNA to computer code should be talking about this lmao
He’s not saying they are identical, but only that they are both languages. Like computer code (and other language) the sequence and arrangement of the “letters” in DNA are what is important. Feel free to research nucleotide bases and codons/anticodons for more information.
@@WallyBreitenstein-iq7rt I've listened to enough scientists talk about that stuff. Specifically scientists that don't use their religious bias to deny science, by claiming life can't form by using computer code as a terrible analogy to get their point across. Stephen Meyer really needs to knock it off with his pathetic analogy. Any computer programmer will tell you that succesful code can and does happen by accident. All the time. It's not always planned. He's lying, but he knows he can lie to his followers because religious people almost exclusively refuse to fact check anything that supports their religious belief. It's incredibly disingenuous and beyond biased.
@@fohrum4757 Why do you deny science?
@@KenJackson_US I deny bad scientists. Not science itself
@@fohrum4757"Any computer programmer will tell you that succesful code can and does happen by accident" lol I'm a computer programmer and you are delusional. Sometimes even smallest change in code result in breaking bugs, so you really have no idea what you're talking about. Even Bill Gates compared DNA to software, but he also pointed out that DNA is much more complex and advanced then anything we could code. You can belive that DNA coded itself by random accident, but it is blind faith, so your atheism is just an opinion without any evidence.
Great show. As Stephen is exposing Myths in Evolution, remember Christianity has its own errors. My Ytube video series 'Myths in so-called Christianity' brings the truth.
Evolution is a scientific theory. Not a myth. Why do theists lie?
Answer to the video's title is pretty much yes.
The 'anti-supernatural" bias is well-deserved.
I mean, simply start clearing out the cancer wards, and many people will believe.
Otherwise, it's just noise.
😂 You're funny
You know Jesus didn't heal every person in his country.
If you actually listen to this interview and/or read Dr. Meyer's book, you might learn something.
that's simply ignorance to answer the title with 'yes'. Read a book on the history of science. Your second scenario is not how it works. God both heals supernaturally, and allows the work of our hands that he has gifted to heal, and doesn't heal. He is sovereign over all.
It's more a question of how much of the bible can be proven wrong before Christianity is no longer true.
Little by little the stories of the bible that were once thought to be true have been relegated to parables, poems, and legends.
Evolution disproves the bibles creation account.
@@pianogal853 Hahahaha....yeah, I know from talking to Christians, that y'all don't read much, if anything, of the other side.
I wrote my high school bio paper on evolution with Duane Gish as my main source. I was a YEC creationist for years.
I've read transcripts from the Dover Trial and I bet you don't even know what that is...lol..
Claiming to be wise...lol
Can you steelman evolution?
You think I don't know the work of Meyer and foolish men like James Tour?
Hahahahahaha....
You guys are sadly misinformed and unread, and you have the audicity to accuse me of the same?
Sorry, but you're wrong by a million miles.
As to Jesus not healing everyone, no, you're wrong here, he healed nobody, those are myths in the Gospels, often copied VERBATIM from the Septuagint.
You do know what the Septuagint is, yes?
Why, if the miracles are real, are they straight copies from previous stories?
Hmmmmmm.....because they're fictonal accounts?
@@mc07 If there was any proof of God doing miracles, we wouldn't be having this discussion.
Christian apologists WOULD NOT be needed if there were miracles.
If Christianity was true, you wouldn't know the names of Christian apologists as they wouldn't be required.
That you have to be sold is proof it's a lie.
duh
Jesus is not God and the i am in John 8:58 is not correct, jesus answered the question of how old he was not his identity.
I certainly SAY that the Intelligent Designer is God. And His name is Jesus Christ.
Good you were not at the Dover vs Kitzmiller trial as a witness then. :)
The complex digital information in the DNA molecule. Must have an Intelligent Designer : ergo God.
The power of lightning must have someone wielding the power : ergo Thor.
Turns out the Vikings were a tad wrong on this.
And it is not exactly the only time answering something we do not understand with "ergo god" and then learned that it was not a god
Why not just say "we do not know" until we have some solid evidence?