Michael Behe, Stephen Meyer, John Lennox: The Evidence for Design...

On today’s ID the Future, Uncommon Knowledge’s Peter Robinson sits down with Michael Behe, John Lennox, and Stephen Meyer, three of the leading voices in science and academia on the case for an intelligent designer of life and the universe. In this wide-ranging conversation in Fiesole, Italy, they explore the growing problems with modern evolutionary theory and the increasing amount of evidence, uncovered by a rigorous application of the scientific method, that points to intentional design of the physical world. The conversation appears here with the generous permission of Peter Robinson and the Hoover Institution.
For more about the ID The Future podcast be sure to visit idthefuture.com/.
For more about Uncommon Knowledge visit the Hoover Institution channel at ‪@HooverInstitution‬
==========================================
The ID The Future (IDTF) podcast serves the mission of Discovery Institute’s Center for Science and Culture of exploring the issues central to evolution and intelligent design. IDTF is a short podcast providing you with the most current news and views on evolution and ID. IDTF delivers brief interviews with key scientists and scholars developing the theory of ID, as well as insightful commentary from Discovery Institute senior fellows and staff on the scientific, educational and legal aspects of the debate.
The Center has 40 affiliated academic Fellows representing disciplines such as physics, astronomy, chemistry, molecular and cellular biology, biochemistry, microbiology, mathematics, history and philosophy of science, law and political science. Our Fellows are scholars who do research, writing, and speaking on topics relating to the Center. Some Fellows are provided full or part-time financial support by the Center, but most are unpaid. Many hold full-time research or teaching appointments at universities and colleges. The Center also funds scientists at our affiliated research organization, the Biologic Institute. In addition to scientists and other scholars, the Center has administrative staff who administer and carry out its programs.
The Center is a program of Discovery Institute, a 501(c)3 non-profit and non-partisan educational and research organization headquartered in Seattle. Instead of taxpayer funds, the Center relies on the generosity of public-spirited private donors who want to make a difference.
www.discovery....

[@rickstokes2239]

Such a great Trio but would love it if Dr James Tour could join in!

[@IrishTechnicalThinker]

God bless from Ireland.

[@markilsley2652]

My 3 favourite scientists in one room on one topic. Blessed to hear these wonderfully intelligent

[@FrankPCarpi]

Wonderful discussion gentlemen. Very respectfully discussed, with many problems exposed, especially by Michael and Steven. And Dr. Lennox brought up the philosophical hurdles that life would have necessarily overcome.

[@ronaldogaro3575]

Nice 👍

[@trekpac2]

Such an amazing discussion. Thank you. For evolutionary biologists, it is very clear that most evolutionary changes did not significantly occur from random error in genes. Some type of “intelligent design” is taking place as well as many other processes (endosymbiosis, etc). Anywhere from atoms to cells, organisms and groups of organisms are involved in intelligent processes to observe, record and react to the environment to make decisions at many levels. Continuous problem solving at all levels push organisms to change and adapt, to evolve. Morphogenetic fields, consciousness fields, information fields are all gaining traction now at a university level (like Michael levin’s work). I call it an intelligent self-design process. But I am just not qualified to offer an opinion in this area. I defer to you 3 guys on this as exceedingly clever individuals in your discussion of irreducible complexity, etc.

[@theHentySkeptic]

Suddenly getting some IDTF in my feed. Yay!

[@jennifereverett6298]

That DNA code (like a computer program) had to come first before even a single part of an organism means that natural selection through an organism with many parts could not have been what birthed the code--neither instantly nor over millions of years. But for DNA to exist at all (without intelligence/design/order/code/programming ability is impossible as it is needed to create the various parts of the cell), the cell''s nucleus would already have to have existed. And the only way for both nucleus and DNA to have existed at same time is through a creator. Frank Turek gave a great example of how an outside force can overcome the laws of physics: the strength of a human arm can lift something from low to high, countering gravity. (In the same way, we see limitation after limitation in the natural world that only a creator's power and intelligence could overcome.)

[@Xingqiwu387]

Absolutely fascinating insights! Too bad that the interviewer interrupts too often. He's very annoying. Let your guests speak and finish their line of thought.

[@nunnayuhbitness6708]

He is seeking to direct the conversation so that the conversation remains within the allotted time.

[@thedynamicsolo4232]

I agree. Peter Robinson seems to seek validity as an intellectual by his style of interviewing, but he shows his flaw in this. I think Hoover funded this, so he does get directional power in the interview. Eric Metaxas is this way too, but they are genteel with each other and that lack of contention is refreshing. Still a good interview.

[@georgethomas9263]

It will be good to take formal action to correct the "origin of life" teaching contents in science textbooks in as many countries as possible. The numerous dead end paradoxes and unknowns should be detailed.

[@JUAN_OLIVIER]

The number of bad mutations compared to good mutations is so overwhelming that it makes it mathematically impossible to evolve into something else. Bad mutations will always kill a species first rather then turning that species into something else over millions of years.

[@tywinkalandyk]

How is this still being taught in school will so much data against it?

[@therick363]

Because the “data against it” is cherry picking science and as such is disqualified. Evolution is taught because of the science.

[@debs8071]

Maybe those who set the school curriculum have an agenda ...

[@therick363]

@@debs8071 to teach science

[@Kman.]

Take a look at who's in charge of the schools & the school boards, @ not only the LOCAL levels, but the so called schools of "higher learning", and hey...look who is at the helm as our Secretary of Education. They (liberals/atheists) rewrite history with every opportunity they get, & they control the narrative with e/thing else.

[@jennifereverett6298]

The theory of evolution has the problem of living organisms with relatively short lifespans and which can't wait long periods of time for all parts to evolve--certainly no longer than their lifespan but realistically no longer than a few minutes since life can't exist at all without all parts. But even inanimate objects can pose a problem. Mousetraps, for example and if they could evolve, would rust and rot, leading to degradation of quality and functionality while waiting for all parts to evolve. More details below. Organisms don't live forever, and skeletons with blood (heart, blood vessels, and the blood itself) can't wait even a generation let alone millions of years for the next bodily system (nervous, respiratory, muscular, endocrine, urinary, immune, digestive, or the integumentary system with skin, sweat glands and more) to evolve. Even one generation is far too much time because you can't have a skeleton with blood for any period of time let alone a whole generation. Life does not occur at all if you have only a few parts. You need ALL PARTS AT ONCE!!! Sexual reproduction in living organisms adds another layer of complexity partly because reproduction has to happen in a period of time shorter than the lifespan of the organism in order for the continuation of the species (in humans, within about a 30-year period) and because two organisms (male and female) in the same species have to evolve complementary systems/organs within a short enough period of time (not millions of years) for the species to survive. In fruit flies with a lifespan of about 40-50 days, that window of opportunity shrinks substantially. Not only that, but there are many types of sexual reproduction (e.g., bees, birds, frogs, and fish) so one can't say that the miraculously chance event had to happen only once and then was carried into all other organisms. I have a garden, and I see infrequent micro changes happen over the years (leaf shape or color on a couple of plants), but these kinds of changes only create variation within that kind of plant (e.g., citrus or fig tree) and don't result in macro evolution. The changes are also not rapid enough to account for the initial organism coming into existence (with all parts and systems and the incredibly complex DNA code/program evolving before the organism dies and to evolve quickly enough to enable life at all) or for the creation of a totally different type of organism. Darwin himself said that incremental micro changes (better and better, more and more) over a supremely long period of time (e.g., bird beaks changing in shape and size over a generation) might create macro evolution. But as we see above, time does not work in evolution's favor.

[@PedroHenrique-x17]

You should apply that same critical thought that u do to Darwin on Einstein, both are wrong

[@rubiks6]

The intelligent Designer is the God of Genesis 1 and He created the way He said He did. There is no "millions or years" of anything. I wish Michael Behe, Stephen Meyer, and John Lennox would discover the true Intelligent Designer.

[@keithal1478]

You are MOST correct. ID is philosophy, not biblical Christianity. It is ghastly that Lennox and Meyer fail to declare that YHWH is the Creator who did create ex nihilo. Read Behe's in 1995. One of the top ten non fiction books. Behe is a Roman catholic and not a Christian. Lennox is an Anglican who believes in infant baptism regeneration which another gospel. Meyer is a squish evan-jelly-cal. The Answers in Genesis, young earth creationists, should be ashamed for posting this without notifying the viewers.

[@rubiks6]

@@keithal1478 - I've listened to these men and they talk so well and they sound so convincing and they have many good arguments but at the end of the day, all three of them believe in millions of years. That's just not what the God of the Bible did. I often wonder if believing Genesis is a salvific issue. I could very well be wrong and I hope I am but after many years of thought and prayer I think it really is. If you reject the very foundational narratives of Genesis, you reject the God of Genesis. Jesus Christ didn't die for men that evolved from monkeys. Jesus Christ died for men the descendants of a man who was created miraculously and perfect and sinned against God by his disobedience. Evolutionary "millions of years" just destroys the true gospel message. I hope I see these three men in Heaven but I truly wonder if I will.

[@Bigchurchmusic]

​@Keith A L you need to read John chapter 1 King James Version.

[@Bigchurchmusic]

​@@rubiks6 you need to read John chapter 1 KingJames Version

[@eswn1816]

@@rubiks6 "I often wonder if believing Genesis is a salvific issue." It's not. You are confusing 'belief' with interpretation. Pride is more dangerous than error. Did you know that this so called "Young Earth" interpretation is a relatively recent phenomenon in the overall church and Christian thinkers as far back as Augustine thought that the earth (Universe) is either very old or infinite. Michael Jones (IP = Inspiring Philosophy) has a good teaching on this.

[@candeffect]

The host needs to quit caffeine.

[@candeffect]

An atheist foolishly mocked Behe (mentioned in another video) by using a mouse trap as a tie clip to illustrate nondesigned transfered usefulness. The atheist used intelligent design thinking to make the intelligently designed mouse trap useful for something else and acted as if he was clever for doing so. Sad.

[@theHentySkeptic]

Not an atheist but a theistic evolutionist Prof Miller. A fool nonetheless.

[@ianlee5812]

If intelligent design was how life came to be, who created life, what purpose did the creator have in mind, how did the creator do it, when did it happen, why are there so many things about the world that serve no function or actively make this world a worse place to live? Is the creator God or another biblical entity? Can a rudimentary timeline of life on Earth be crafted?

[@SusansRoadLessTraveled]

Hi. I believe God created life so to have a relationship with his created people. His people sinned and fell from grace. God continues to reach out for relationship, but His people constantly turn away. Continuing in our sins creates hell on earth. That wasn't His plan, but it didn't surprise Him. Free will allows us to choose Him or an adversarial lifestyle. The Bible is the story of His plan and Jesus' sacrifice was the final covering atonement. By Grace we are saved through Faith - repent and believe. Ecclesiastes 12:13-14 is the Biblical definition of the meaning of life. Digging to find out what it means to keep His commandments is daily seeking His face and turning from my sin to choose a better life in Him. It doesn't mean there won't be sorrow or worry or evil. I don't need to know how He did it or when it happened to have a relationship with Him. The study of the Scriptures is deep, fascinating and fulfilling; but in the end He's going to correct all of us for our differing beliefs, translations and theologies. Blessings & Shalom!

[@ianlee5812]

@@SusansRoadLessTraveled If intelligent design isn't the same as religion, why did you bring up God and biblical mythos at all?

[@SusansRoadLessTraveled]

@@ianlee5812 You asked in your comment if the creator is God or a Biblical entity. I answered your question in the affirmative.

[@ianlee5812]

@@SusansRoadLessTraveled I know. I'm just wondering if intelligent design IS religious, why are the DI trying so hard to argue the contrary.

[@SusansRoadLessTraveled]

@@ianlee5812 gotcha. I believe initially those arguing for ID were not religious per se; but Meyer states he’s Christian just not a young-Earth creationist. I’m just recently absorbing a lot of this content. Intriguing.

[@JungleJargon]

“Dark energy” is the vacuum energy of space being pulled into all the ever expanding supermassive black holes, which are the most massive and most powerful objects in the universe. Time and distance are relative to the amount of matter and mass there is in the vicinity, affecting our observations of the speed of light across vast distances from the position where we are near a supermassive black hole. Distance is greatly expanded between black holes meaning it’s actually less distant and the rate of time is greatly accelerated which causes light to arrive faster, all of which causes redshift and eliminates the need for imaginary inflatons and magical invisible dark matter. The varying rates of time and distance make it possible for us to see fully formed distant galaxies in the infrared spectrum within our limited slowed down timeframe of known human history going back some 6,000 years. The formation of galaxies is unrelated to what we now observe because we do not observe any formation of galaxies.

[@KenJackson_US]

*Jungle:* _"... because we do not observe any formation of galaxies."_ That in itself should be a pretty shocking observation.

[@JungleJargon]

@@KenJackson_US We don’t observe the creation of the universe since it was already created.

[@KenJackson_US]

Indeed, @@JungleJargon. So how can atheist cosmologists and astronomers wriggle out of drawing that very conclusion?

[@JungleJargon]

@@KenJackson_US They insist stars are forming but I have never seen one form.

[@therick363]

@@JungleJargon demonstrate your god and he created everything…..We’ve never seen one so guess it doesn’t exist or happened.

[@incrediblystupid8483]

The moderator could not stop butting in. Bad. I don't want to0 hear him, let the experts talk. I'm outa here!

[@jennifereverett6298]

The theory of evolution has the problem of living organisms with relatively short lifespans and which can't wait long periods of time for all parts to evolve--certainly no longer than their lifespan but realistically no longer than a few minutes since life can't exist at all without all parts. But even inanimate objects can pose a problem. Mousetraps, for example and if they could evolve, would rust and rot, leading to degradation of quality and functionality while waiting for all parts to evolve. More details below. Organisms don't live forever, and skeletons with blood (heart, blood vessels, and the blood itself) can't wait even a generation let alone millions of years for the next bodily system (nervous, respiratory, muscular, endocrine, urinary, immune, digestive, or the integumentary system with skin, sweat glands and more) to evolve. Even one generation is far too much time because you can't have a skeleton with blood for any period of time let alone a whole generation. Life does not occur at all if you have only a few parts. You need ALL PARTS AT ONCE!!! Sexual reproduction in living organisms adds another layer of complexity partly because reproduction has to happen in a period of time shorter than the lifespan of the organism in order for the continuation of the species (in humans, within about a 30-year period) and because two organisms (male and female) in the same species have to evolve complementary systems/organs within a short enough period of time (not millions of years) for the species to survive. In fruit flies with a lifespan of about 40-50 days, that window of opportunity shrinks substantially. Not only that, but there are many types of sexual reproduction (e.g., bees, birds, frogs, and fish) so one can't say that the miraculously chance event had to happen only once and then was carried into all other organisms. I have a garden, and I see infrequent micro changes happen over the years (leaf shape or color on a couple of plants), but these kinds of changes only create variation within that kind of plant (e.g., citrus or fig tree) and don't result in macro evolution. The changes are also not rapid enough to account for the initial organism coming into existence (with all parts and systems and the incredibly complex DNA code/program evolving before the organism dies and to evolve quickly enough to enable life at all) or for the creation of a totally different type of organism. Darwin himself said that incremental micro changes (better and better, more and more) over a supremely long period of time (e.g., bird beaks changing in shape and size over a generation) might create macro evolution. But as we see above, time does not work in evolution's favor. That DNA code (like a computer program) had to come first before even a single part of an organism means that natural selection through an organism with many parts could not have been what birthed the code--neither instantly nor over millions of years. But for DNA to exist at all (without intelligence/design/order/code/programming ability is impossible as it is needed to create the various parts of the cell), the cell''s nucleus would already have to have existed. And the only way for both nucleus and DNA to have existed at same time is through a creator. Frank Turek gave a great example of how an outside force can overcome the laws of physics: the strength of a human arm can lift something from low to high, countering gravity. (In the same way, we see limitation after limitation in the natural world that only a creator's power and intelligence could overcome.)