Answering Questions about Science and Faith

Philosopher Stephen Meyer, theologian Vern Poythress, engineer Stuart Burgess, and biologist Jonathan McLatchie answer questions about science and faith posed to them at the Westminster Conference on Science and Faith. The session is moderated by Discovery Institute Vice President John West. This discussion was taped at the 2022 Westminster Conference on Science and Faith in the greater Philadelphia area, which was jointly sponsored by Discovery Institute's Center for Science and Culture and Westminster Theological Seminary.
Participants:
Dr. Stuart Burgess has held academic posts at Bristol University (UK) and Cambridge University (UK). He has published over 180 scientific publications on the science of design in engineering and biology. He has received many national and international awards for design, including from the Minister of State for Trade and Industry in the UK. In 2019 he was given the top mechanical engineer award in the UK out of 120,000 professional mechanical engineers.
Rev. Dr. Vern Poythress (PhD, Harvard; DTh, Stellenbosch) is distinguished professor of New Testament, biblical interpretation, and systematic theology at Westminster Theological Seminary. His books include Redeeming Science, Redeeming Mathematics, and Redeeming Philosophy, or Chance and the Sovereignty of God.
Dr. Stephen C. Meyer received his PhD in the philosophy of science from the University of Cambridge. A former geophysicist and college professor, he now directs Discovery Institute’s Center for Science and Culture. His books include Return of the God Hypothesis: Three Scientific Discoveries That Reveal the Mind Behind the Universe (HarperOne, 2021); the New York Times bestseller Darwin’s Doubt (HarperOne, 2013); and Signature in the Cell: DNA and the Evidence for Intelligent Design (HarperOne, 2009), named a Book of the Year by the Times Literary Supplement.
Dr. Jonathan McLatchie holds a Bachelor's degree in Forensic Biology from the University of Strathclyde, a Masters (M.Res) degree in Evolutionary Biology from the University of Glasgow, a second Master's degree in Medical and Molecular Bioscience from Newcastle University, and a PhD in Evolutionary Biology from Newcastle University. Currently, McLatchie is an Assistant Professor of Biology at Sattler College in Boston, Massachusetts.
============================
The Discovery Science News Channel is the official KZbin channel of Discovery Institute's Center for Science & Culture. The CSC is the institutional hub for scientists, educators, and inquiring minds who think that nature supplies compelling evidence of intelligent design. The CSC supports research, sponsors educational programs, defends free speech, and produce articles, books, and multimedia content. For more information visit www.discovery....
www.evolutionne...
www.intelligent...
Follow us on Facebook, Instagram and Twitter:
Twitter: / discoverycsc
Facebook: / discoverycsc
Instagram: / discoverycsc
Visit other KZbin channels connected to the Center for Science & Culture
Discovery Institute: / discoveryinstitute
Dr. Stephen C. Meyer: / drstephenmeyer

[@VernonChitlen]

Please correct me if I'm wrong. Has anyone demonstrated how the 6 primary elements of the 98 naturally occurring elements managed to arrange themselves into a single protein? How these perfectly dead elements managed to assemble themselves into 6.9 billion amino acids, arranging only the 20 particular ones out of 500 possible kinds in their 100% left handed forms, specifically oriented and sequenced in the 1,000's of the different kinds of 42 million proteins found in the simplest cell? Miller Urey experiments produced only 23 of 500 kinds of amino acids, never more than 12 of the 20 living things use, diluted in a tarry residue. 50/50 right and left handed and zero proteins. And they cheated, their simulation of a primordial soup or atmosphere was limited to 3 compounds and one element that provided only carbon, nitrogen, oxygen and hydrogen they "knew" amino acids are made of. So has anyone demonstrated how a single protein emerged from the 98 chemical elements without the influence of intelligence? A protein emerging from the elements is less likely than a Boeing 737 flying to the moon and back.

[@windblownleaf6450]

Luck?

[@555atU]

Or as likely as tornado going through a scrap yard and randomly building that Boeing aircraft. Answer is no. 🙂

[@jacklin231]

Very good remarque ,the big intelligence is the one God of this universe Allah who gave the power to this protein to be arranged not by themselves ,in our Coran book we knew the stages of the development of foetus to a baby 1400 years ago and we knew that all the creatures of this universe has a language and they worship one creater which is the God of Mohamed peace be upon him ,I invite you to read the scientific explanation of the Coran my friend .

[@Bomtombadi1]

Nice loaded language … dead implies once alive, as in no longer living, along with language which implies intent. Then of course you gish gallop along, rhyming off typical talking points you don’t understand. Instead you’ve repeated what Meyers says. You imply life started in a small pond with six individual amino acids floating around looking to find one another. Then to top it off, you state odds for which you haven’t demonstrated you get how stats work. But go ahead and keep repeating creepy uncle Steve ad nauseum. Then proclaim “goddidit,” because you can’t explain a single thing you just said.

[@Bomtombadi1]

I’m just surprised you didn’t use the demarcation statements in an obvious double standard when deciding what is and isn’t science.

[@justinpeterburford]

It’s important to realize here that the men on stage are very rare. They are highly educated and are pioneers in our age. They are refuting the false arguments of Neo Darwinism, which means they also are courageous. This is a much bigger deal than we realize.

[@charlespackwood]

I kinda like Stephen Meyer on jetlag, as it seemed to slow his intellect & brilliant expressiveness down enough for me to follow. We should pray more for such men as these.

[@Bomtombadi1]

Pray for them to go away?

[@vsevolodtokarev]

"Did numbers exist before creation?" - "Yes, Three and One". That's brilliant, I am borrowing it.

[@MountainFisher]

In 1974 I went to a lecture series at UCLA by Lynn Margulies who came up with the Endosymbiosis hypothesis and she actually said to the few people who showed up that Neo-Darwinism's magic explanation that Natural Selection caused something new to appear was B.S. Only mutations caused something new and she didn't have any example of a mutation that made something new that was helpful. She said they're all either harmful or they are compensated for and do nothing. I loved it. Next night the lecture hall was full. Her hypothesis of symbiosis causing new lifeforms has its issues, but Neo-Darwinism was such a poor explanation she showed just some of how it was wrong, but the Materialists had to have their Creation Myth. Lynn was mercilessly attacked by dogmatists of Darwin because she was attacking their religion.

[@chikaokolo4929]

Well put.

[@ambrosianapier7545]

As to the view of the Genesis 1:1. The first sentence of the Bible is a separate action from the creative “days”. The physical universe including the planet earth itself still barren were already created for indefinite time when the creative “days” began. The days don’t have to be viewed literally. In fact all the creative days are called one day when it’s sums it up. And the seventh day was never said to end. In fact later in the Bible it is mentioned that the seventh day is ongoing. Genesis 2:2,3. Hebrews 4:9. Hebrews 4:10

[@garysweeten5196]

I think these men are some of the most brilliant people on earth. Their amazingly simple explanations of tremendously complex topics of science, engineering, theology, philosophy, etc to people untrained in any of these topics is incredibly impressive. I am very thankful for them.

[@geobla6600]

That misinterpretation of the creation days being 24 hour days instead of an undermined time is a huge problem for young earth creationists since it's easily provable that the universe including earth is much ,much older then 6000 years.

[@johnbrown4568]

Thank you for posting this video.

[@CourageousParenting]

Well the most recent theory I heard was that "nothing" split and that split gave us negative and positive energy. 😂

[@chrisreimers84]

Excellent discussion.

[@umvhu]

In 2004 I was diagnosed with a heart muscle disorder call Hypertrophic Obstructive Cardiomyopathy (HOCM), basically overgrown heart muscle obstructing valve function. At that time I was told it was a degenerative condition. The head of the heart muscle disorder team told me in June 2022, that my heart was pumping like a normal heart, I didn't believe him. Early in November 2002 it was explained to me the heart changes the way it performs as you age and my heart has developed in an slightly unusual way which has improved it's performance.

[@thedynamicsolo4232]

What I glean from listening to these men and I am a huge fan of Meyer, is that modern Darwinists are still spinning the wheel of chance and formulating hypotheses to find a way to make it "true". This smacks of lunacy. To me an illustration is someone that has a non functioning light bulb. They keep cleaning off the bulb, playing with the switch, shaking the bulb with its rattling filament hoping that they will shake for the 4 millionth time and the bulb will light. The bulb is dead, but they keep on maniacally shaking, demanding chance give them the desired effect.

[@constructivecritique5191]

First define what design is! The look for it! Yes we found design everywhere!

[@praxitelispraxitelous7061]

Keep up! ❤

[@MS-od7je]

Occam’s razor is often used in arguments on philosophical points of view. However it is itself a point of view. Furthermore the easiest explanation is often mistaken as the correct one. This often leads to paradoxes and incomplete explanations. Complexity is often difficult to grasp, explain or believe. Simplicity is easy, often over simple. To wit the slightest change in the simplicity greatly alters the complexity of iterations. Consider: what if the universe, biology, philosophy, all existence is a function of a fractal pattern? What would such a pattern be? How can we know what the pattern, fractal and simple idea which generates the complexity of everything from the evolution of societies, economics, biology, chemistry, physics and philosophy? Can we find a clue in any of these fields of ideas which could lead to a mathematical pattern, a theory of everything? Indeed, imho there is such a pattern. It is the fractal pattern of the brain. Consider that there can be an infinite number of ways that a thing can be spheroid but in order to be a specific fractal pattern shape it would reveal evidence of an underlying fundamental mathematical equation of precision of the universal fractal. Do consider the coronal cross Section Of the brain and it’s mapped caudal cross Section Of the brain and the cross over patterns within them as a evidence of just such a fractal pattern. If you will honestly consider that then also consider: A symbolic representation of philosophical perspective (belief) 0(0)=0, atheist reality is an illusion nihilist position (Everything)0=0, atheist relativist position (Lim_ 0->1)0=0 single universe atheist nihilist position (Lim_0->♾)0=0 multiverse atheist nihilist position (Everything)1= everything, Buddhist position Everything (everything)= everything, pan psychics Z_(n+1)=z^2 +c where c is start, deism evolution Z_(n+1)=z^2 +c where z iterates from 0, theistic creation // If we are created in the image of God then herein is that image. How can an ancient “book” make such a claim as “let us make “ them”in our own image” ? Who or what is “us” and what is the “ image”? This explains to what a dingo and a dog are converging onto. This explains why cockroaches exposed to high doses of radiation can regenerate themselves by reproduction of their genome to 140-ploidy. This explains why a cell membrane altered two headed flat worm can reproduce as a two headed flat worm with no alteration of its genome. It explains the toroid flow of subatomic patterns. It explains to exact iterations the Feynman diagrams. It explains the mind. Alas although it explains these things it is a more difficult hurdle than the cosmological constant to overcome as an explanation of chance existence. No happenstance here. It is exact to infinity beginning with 0. Keep up the great work! Job38:33.Do you know the laws of the heavens? Can you set up their dominion over the earth?…36. Who endowed the heart with wisdom or gave understanding to the mind? Another great interview. I have to adjust my headset. So did this simulation begin 13.7 Billion years ago or last Tuesday? When I die ( or ho to sleep)do I just wake up in another simulation? Consider: The equation presented has problems similar to the Drake equation and the paradox similar to the Fermi paradox. The presumption of life’s ubiquitous existence in the universe is a ( imho) insurmountable hurdle. Again:If life is so easily generated and ubiquitous in all the universe and given that the less “complex “ the life the more in absolute numbers and kinds we see, then why do we not see more both in absolute numbers and kinds of pre-life forms? Furthermore if life is so easily generated why then in our present world full of life forms do pre-life forms not generate life new life forms. Are the conditions for pre-life forms incompatible with life forms? If such is the limit to life that we are the only ones in the universe and we have not yet developed the technology to self simulate then we are the base reality and are not living in a simulation. Redundant information is, I think, not a good theory. ( me play rolling me play rolling me , etc.)That is to say turtles all the way down is no different than a multiverse idea just on a different axis of thought. Again Occam’s razor is not an absolute 0 game,ie, nothingness, no actual being -existence, simulation, etc are apparently “easy “ explanations which honestly seem to have a flavor of avoidance of the nature of the simplicity to complexity derivative of mathematical exactness of our reality and our ability to experience it. Regarding the butterfly effect: The weather has far more to do with how a butterfly flaps it’s wing than the butterfly flapping it’s wings has on the weather. Besides the initial conditions did not include the butterfly (13.7 billion years ago). Therefore the butterfly now no longer has a potential for dramatically changing outcomes. The appearance of design is more likely actual design than visa versa. Is the simulation a delusion of evolution or an illusion of time?

[@khufu8699]

In a way, everything is designed. As particles and space itself is fundamental design and set in motion. And everything we see is obviously founded in particles. So one sense, there is no side stepping design at any scale.

[@chrisxavier1848]

Well said, Steven!

[@chrisxavier1848]

The Grand Canyon wasn't designed, but the processes that produced it were designed.

[@AhirZamanSairi]

I have a suggestion. Reasons why other planets are inhospitable to life, have already been covered in this channel. But some argue (like Roger Penrose) that those planets are only inhospitable to "life as we know it." Can you people please maybe make a video explaining how other planets are inhospitable to _any_ conceivable physical life? The only argument I could come up with was meteor showers and comets. I mean even if we imagine a form of life that doesn't need oxygen or water, or any particular temperature, how can it possibly stay alive if giant rocks keep falling from the sky and smashing it. But that was the only argument I could come up with, because of my lack of knowledge on this. Hence why I'm requesting an informative and serious and perhaps a "science uprising" video specifically focused on this. Thank you.

[@robertwilber1909]

My example was a tornado blowing down Passayunk Avenue and depositing a fully fueled functional 747 at the Interstate 95 end of Interstate 76....

[@MS-od7je]

Wolfram’s __A_New_Kind_of_Science_ pg.424 …But what I think is much more likely is that these patterns are instead generated by rules that are in effect chosen at random… … in many species of mollusks the patterns on their shells both simple and complex are completely hidden by an opaque skin throughout the life of the animal and so presumably cannot possibly have been determined by any careful process of optimization or natural selection… …some point in the growth of an embryo precursors of pigment producing cells appear on its surface and groups of the cells associated with pigments of different colors and become arranged in a definite pattern… NKoS-wolfram’s/pg 408 …there are also some really sophisticated aspects of plants that typically remain almost exactly the same across a huge range of species… …No doubt in large part because of this elegant mathematical connection because usually been presumed that the 137.5 angle and the spiral pattern to which it leads must correspond to some kind of sophisticated optimization found by an elaborate process of natural selection… …. I do not believe that this is the case….patterns are inevitable consequences of rather simple programs of growth.. A new kind of science page 392 … natural selection is often touted as a force of almost arbitrary power … I have increasingly come to believe that in fact its power is remarkably limited… … I suspect that in the end natural selection can only operate in a meaningful way on systems or parts of systems where behavior is in some sense quite simple… … Fort mutation can only, say, increase or decrease a length, even if one mutation goes in the wrong direction it is easy for another mutation to recover by going in the opposite direction but if there are in affect many possible directions it becomes much more difficult to recover from and to exhibit any form of systematic convergence… … Iterative, random searches rapidly tend to get stuck and make at best excruciatingly slow progress towards any kind of global optimum.. A new kind of science page 390 Sometimes it is hard to tell whether changes in patterns between organisms within a species or truly of genetic origin…. ….What about the actual process of biological evolution how does it pick out which programs to use? as a very simple idealization of biological evolution one can consider a sequence of cellular automaton programs in which each successive program is obtained from the previous one by a random mutation that adds or modifies a single element… … biological system should be capable of generating arbitrary complexity by using short programs formed by just a few mutations… A new kind of science -wolfram page 391 But if complexity is this easy to get why is it not even more widespread and biology for a while there are certainly many examples of elaborate forms and patterns module systems overall sheets and many of the most obvious features of typical organisms are usually quite simple. So why should this be my guess is that in essence it reflects limitations associated with the process of natural selection.. A new kind of science what’s on page 397 …The most dramatic examples of complexity in biology tend to occur in individual parts of systems often involve patterns or structures that look remarkably like those in physics… …One of the most important consequences of this (the very wide range of programs depend on exact rules for each program )is that it suggests it might be possible to develop a rather general predictive theory of biology that one could tell what basic forms are and are not likely to occur in biological systems… … there are a number of situations where fairly complicated structures appear to have arisen independently in several very different types of organisms. And it is sometimes claimed that this kind of convergent evolution occurs because the structures are in some ultimate sense optimal making it an evitable that they will eventually be produced.. … I strongly suspect that the reason certain structures appear repeatedly is just that they are somehow common among programs or certain kinds… A new kind of Science Wolfram’ page 398 …So why then do higher organisms insist at all?… it has almost nothing to do with optimality, and that instead it is essentially just a consequence of strings of random mutations that happened to add more and more features without introducing fail flaws… … A typical pattern …is that at some point in the fossil record some major new capability or feature is suddenly seen. at first there is been rapid expansion with many new species trying out all sorts of possibilities that have been opened up…. After a while it becomes clear what makes sense and what does not. And typically things then gets simpler again… … so what is the role of natural selection in all of this?… it’s main systematic contribution is to make things simpler, and that means insofar as things do end up getting complicated this is almost always the result of essentially random sampling of underlying programs without any systemic affect of natural selection… // Given the wolfram ideas above he suspects that it is the random program selection which then determines the biological pattern which is then selected to precision- reduction in complexity. Which is to say that the complexity is a result of random, accidental, happenstance programs, presumptively from all probable programs ( within an infinite possibile number of programs ) and that once in iterative function in the biological system is then whittled down by Natural Selection to less complex form or function. Higher organisms are a result of strings of random mutations of non fatal flaws. Which is not the same as selection of good flaws. Optimisation is thereby non contributory in any meaningful way in the random acquisition of programs but only perhaps in the reduction of the complexity of the randomly acquired programs. Steven J Gould New York Times 1996 said “we can only infer from this rapidity that it is not difficult for life of bacterial great wall on planets with appropriate conditions” ASHoNE- Bryson Whatever prompted life to begin it happened just once. That is the most extraordinary fact in biology. Perhaps the most extraordinary facts we know.Bryson What if the program itself was fundamental:

[@solideogloria5553]

excellent wisdom as usual

[@solideogloria5553]

natural philosophers should be the first group to confess Job 42:1-6 out of all the disciplines. and yet the only species who had the privileges to think after God's thoughts were and still is the only one to boast.

[@chrisxavier1848]

It's an argument from design, not "arts and crafts"!

[@chrisxavier1848]

Fallen world = vulnerability because of imperfection. It's not that difficult.

[@geobla6600]

It's interesting as discussed how many different theories and hypothesis's there are which attempt to explain and support evolution. Many of them completely conflict with each other because there's so much confusion in this field. I think a lot of people that support one or more of the many Origins and Evolution theories and hypothesis's would be surprised how little consensus there is amongst those that work in these fields. Regardless , creation screams intelligence from genetic codes to the millions of perfect and complex engineering marvels .

[@solideogloria5553]

the greatest evil is regarding the allowing of possibility of his creatures commit evils(freely) as the greatest evil. sadly all of us have done that at some point in life B.C. since we all pretend ourselves to be the lawful definers of Good and evil.

[@ambrosianapier7545]

Yes only God has the right to decide what is good and bad for us. That’s what the last few thousand years have been about. Can humanity rule itself? Every form of government has been tried now. We cannot. Satan has also accused us humans that we only serve God because of what we get out of it see Job. Jesus and many others have proved him wrong. Proverbs 27:11 Soon God will restore what mankind had in Eden. It is what he has always intended for us. Psalm 37:29 1 Corinthians 15:26

[@solideogloria5553]

i do not for the life of me understand how one can start to appreciate and study the supposed randomly arrived "illusion" of masterpiece designs in nature without a foundational presuppostion of metaphysical concepts such as beauty and ingenuity. i was once an oxymoron like that, but i never really thinked until the LOGOS became flesh in my life.

[@claudiozanella256]

Trinity and Darwinism are at the same level: absurd.

[@thedynamicsolo4232]

Maybe you should read Meyers book "Return of the God Hypothesis", it will give you some insight with scientific language brought to "street level" understanding. The chances of random selection and mutation, also fine tuning, etc. that will to the atheist give serious pause, to the theist reinforce and support the raw rationale of why any evolutionary and materialism cannot stand.

[@angusdesire]

Why don't some of you explain to the mentally deranged what a woman is? You are perfectly placed so speak out.

[@ambrosianapier7545]

I mean what is a woman is determined by DNA. Women have different bone structure, and some different organs. Ultimately, trying to alter ones hormones to the opposite sex is quite damaging to long term health. Things like womanly behavior and clothes that a trans person tries to emulate are really superficial, someone outside looking in and mimicking. And in many cases I feel this behavior is insulting to women.