Intelligent Design Under Fire, pt. 3: Q&A with Calif. State Univ., Fullerton Faculty

Things heat up in part 3 of Intelligent Design Under Fire as Dr. Meyer and his colleagues respond to tough questions from California State University, Fullerton colleagues Jim Hofmann, Bruce Weber, and Craig Nelson. Video copyright Biola University. Used with permission.
Stephen Meyer is the author of The New York Times best selling book Darwin's Doubt: The Explosive Origin of Animal Life and the case for Intelligent Design (HarperOne, 2013). For more information on the book and to order your copy visit www.darwinsdoub...

[@GrahamS67]

Who can deny that on one side we see arrogance, superiority, smugness, fear and a desire to maintain the status quo. On the other side we see calm, logic, respect, frustration, and a pursuit of truth.

[@Jon-ti1rb]

Well said!!!

[@JamesKing2understandinglife]

Most scientists do not have any education background in understanding what intelligent design is. Irreducible complexity is real. Creating life from non living materials has never been accomplished by humans. Very complex designs do not happen by accident. Intelligent design of life is the scientific study of examining life, its incredible complexity, and the mathematical probability that such complexity could not happen by random undirected chance occurrence.

[@freddyscissorhands2485]

*Irreducible complexity is real.* Depending on the definition. If the definition is "Complex system which, after removing a part/parts loses all functions", then no... there is no known example for that. If the definition is "complex system which, after removing a part/parts, loses the function it currently has" then I agree it exists... but then it's in no way an argument against evolution or for ID. Because evolution can account for such systems. "Creating life from non living materials has never been accomplished by humans.* Completly irrelevant to... well, pretty much everything! Humans also have never managed to build a moon... and yet, we don't point to the moon and claim that it therefore can't have a natural cause. Since when is our ability to create or inability to not create something artificially an indicator that something can't be natural and must be designed? 0_o Heck, you are even shooting yourself in the foot! When you point out that there is no evidence and no example where somebody has designed something as complex as life... then you are saying that there is no evidence that something like life is deliberatly designed! For what are you arguing here? *Very complex designs do not happen by accident.* Nobody claims they do. Is this a strawman for evolution or do you actually know anybody who really thinks that complex design can happen by accident? *Intelligent design of life is the scientific study of examining life, its incredible complexity, and the mathematical probability that such complexity could not happen by random undirected chance occurrence.* Actually, we have another name for that. It's called evolutionary biology. Fits your definition here perfectly. Evolutionary biology is the study of examining life. It's the study of the complexity of life. And it's the study that explains how life has evolved, because, as we agree, it can't just be random and undirected. That's what we have the evolutionary model for. ID, on the other hand, is the claim that life needs a designer... No study. No experiments. No research. Just the assertion. AND to assert it, the proponents also usually have to ignore the theory of evolution, so they can pretend that we don't have an explanation for the complexity of life. Similar to the way you did it here. You constantly seem to point to this flawed dichotomy of "either undirected randomness or design", even though we have known of a third option (evolution by natural selection) for over a century!

[@JV-tg2ne]

Freddy Scissorhands - so many flaws in your post, you need to reread it and really pay attention to your own many contradictions, good luck with that

[@allenbrininstool7558]

Well said!

[@bititid]

Well put

[@BillyJack85]

@@freddyscissorhands2485 You're pretty smart for somebody who thinks something can come from nothing

[@JohnLloydScharf]

The most devastating fact given in this is when they refuse to have a paper submitted for peer review, then peer review ceases to be a part of science. What you have is a new religion of science. I agree you need review to critique the claims or evidence. If you do not even allow that review because of an a priori assumption, then the process is no longer valid. There is no consensus of opinion if you limit that opinion to one - the editor.

[@Charlie-qe6lv]

And WHY would the enemies of I.D. accept an I.D. paper?

[@passion2peace]

The stutter @57:33 followed by the sound of water pouring, followed by the hilarious response, the man sleeping to the left and the crowd laughing.. the girl smiling to the right. The comic brilliance in that organic moment is enough evidence for me of intelligent design -- not to mention probably ended up being the most profound statement of the whole debate, but a reporter of all folks. Love it. Must have been back when reporters were honest. This must be old.

[@jerrylong6238]

Intelligent design is garbage.

[@Minister-Peter-V1-Church]

@@jerrylong6238 that's it folks Jerry long won the debate. 2 years ago

[@sanjosemike3137]

Actually the charge that ID is of no consequence UNTIL it is published in so-called reputable Main Street journals, ignores the OBVIOUS. ID is REFUSED entry in those journals because of the prejudice of atheism on the part of their publishers. The validity of ID has no meaning to a scientist who absolutely cannot even entertain a challenge to their own atheist materialism. You can’t get anything published if the door is repeatedly SLAMMED shut in your face. It is utterly disingenuous to use prejudice ITSELF as an argument to defend your own point of view. Sanjosemike (no longer in CA)

[@jamesmullins5083]

creatore don't always have to be a god. Science said they created a sheep then that makes them a god because they made life

[@supukilluminati8346]

@@jamesmullins5083 did they make up the DNA for that sheep?

[@jonathanjones770]

They can't get into the scientific journals because they aren't doing science, let alone GOOD science

[@d3g3n3r4t3]

@@jonathanjones770 if it was taken more seriously they could get better funding for actual science that could do more testing on how these mechanisms could arise naturally or if taken seriously others in the field who do similar stuff already would be able to make proposals that are along the lines of proving darwinian evolution for such mechanisms, but at the moment they arnt seen as relevant lines of query to use research funds on.

[@d3g3n3r4t3]

@@supukilluminati8346 @san jose mike I feel that @james mullins point is valid, such design, like manipulation of DNA could be from say extraterrestrials, either visiting or seeding from afar. i think this valid possibility would help the case of intelligent design to get a foot in the door and be taken more seriously by those who detest anything possibly involved with religion and do anything to attack that kind of stuff.

[@brandonbayangos6261]

Stephen is the maaannnnn!!!!

[@waynerenee3809]

"Is there a naturalistic explanation for the origin of information?" Darwinists: Not a clue, stall, stall.

[@TheKingcougar]

Richard Dawkins had the same thing happen to him when he was asked about new information arising through natural processes. He is silent fof 11 seconds and then cannot give a straight answer.

[@moseshoward7072]

Information is as natural as any other phenomenon in the universe-- fundamentalists just want to obscure it with stage magic and theatrics the way seance mediums do-- in order to take advantage of other people.

[@moseshoward7072]

There is a naturalistic explanation for the origin of species, which is what evolution is all about. "Information" is a relationship between natural phenomena and human observation and knowledge, the "information" happens when we perceive and understand nature. Nature doesn't have to "know" anything through personal consciousness to do what it does.

[@monroem6195]

@@moseshoward7072 No, it's not. You have to be intelligent to get the idea how to put/ to use information that will work.

[@moseshoward7072]

@@monroem6195 Genes are not designed by intelligence. Genes are designed by mutation and natural selection, neither of which is motivated by intelligence, they work the same way whether anyone knows what is happening or not. The only intelligence involved is when humans observe, analyse and communicate the actions of genes to one another, then a sequence of chemical reactions can be described metaphorically as a "message.". Humans use intelligence to accomplish goals, genes don't.

[@johnpatmos1722]

Hoffman suggests that peer reviewed scientific journals validate scientific endeavor. Then, as Stephen Meyer is answering to Weber says (starting @20:16) "We're delighted that people are taking Mike's work seriously enough that they are trying to refute it. That's the kind of thing that indicates the existence of a scientific debate." Notice that Weber affirm Meyer's point where, in background, he says "Right." This is tacit acknowledgment of that very validating process that Hoffman says needs to happen.

[@patrickgronerjr4117]

This is better than the Super Bowl...fascinating position that is far more serious than I thought.

[@lifelikelu]

Jim Hoffman doesn’t realize he’s that one guy in the movie on the board stopping progress.

[@JoshuaHults]

ID - 100 Evotionist - 0 This is why debates are stopped, because the evidence is in favor of ID and the evolutionist arguments are getting stale and musky, they can't hold back curiosity forever so they have to steer clear of having such talks. PS: I really enjoyed the very end of this talk as well, was very funny

[@JoshuaHults]

Enkidu Five The name of the designer is a different question. Personally i do not know the names of the men who built mt rushmore, however i can know with certainty that it was intelligently designed. You do not need to know the designer to know that something is indeed designed. Francis Crick would postulate aliens did it, as he was clearly an intelligent design proponent. I believe God created life but i can't prove who created life, i can make a good case for why i believe God is a better explanation than aliens but that has no barring on wether the cell was designed or not, or rather, some features of the cell.

[@JoshuaHults]

Enkidu Five The laws of nature are evidence of God. Since nature can't explain why nature behaves as it does, you must appeal to the only known cause to bring about laws in the present. Best inference, Intelligence. Proof of God. This is why i would go with God over alien, it is a simpler explanation, since your only appealing to 1 designer for both universe and life rather than 1 for universe and another for life, or just leaving the universe un explained. Yes i am well aware of infinite regress which is why philosophers knew the universe had a beginning far before scientist were willing to go down that road. Scientist put up quite a fight. This is what we do know, the universe had a beginning, that which has a beginning must have a cause for its existence. Therefore the universe must have a cause for its existence. That cause can't be the universe itself, therefore the cause must by definition be supernatural. This is simply logical reduction. You get to an infinite supernatural 1st cause to bring about the universe no matter what road you take. That my friend is consistent with God, and since the bible made the claim before science discovered it, it counts as proof of the authenticity of the claim. That is how truth works

[@JoshuaHults]

Enkidu Five time does not exist within 3 dimensions, nor is time a thing, time is supernatural. Information is also non material, AKA supernatural. And of coarse as i stated, the laws of nature are themselves not part of nature, they simply dictate how nature will behave, therefore they are proof of the supernatural. Simple logic and reasoning will present proof of the supernatural. I would also add the fact that you have free will is proof of the supernatural, that your mind is not your brain.

[@JoshuaHults]

Enkidu Five : ) Just stay open minded i don't want to argue. If you don't believe than don't believe me.

[@kratzbean]

Enkidu Five ID really merely says that information does not arise from matter and that the Darwinian Mechanism is reductionistic, unfalsifiable and mathematically unsupported. It does not say that you have to be "religious" or "theistic", it just says that your mind isn't an accidental result of an entropic process.

[@kathleennorton2228]

Science should be the pursuit of truth, wherever that takes it.

[@michaelwill7811]

31:20 Dr. Meyer crushed the "must be peer reviewed" assertion and what is the response? "We are smarter than you and we will decide what evidence is" to paraphrase. I think the guy that responds hurt his credibility quite a bit with his response. Dr. Meyers is right, the playing field is greatly tilted away from scientists trying to publish on the topic of Intelligent Design and his opponents here make it rather obvious that they like it being unfair. So much for an unbiased scientific consensus, yes? What happened to following *all* the evidence, where ever it may lead?

[@chrisgemmell102]

Design by mutation under fire

[@DWHalse]

Lots has happened in the last 4 years! Lots of pragmatic scientific and mathematical reasoning.

[@SqueakerAlpha]

so do we recognise Cthulhu, The Fairy of Last Tuesday, the flying spaghetti monster , odin, zues oe El as the creator of all things. Scince will be easy if we can just say a leads to b , c leads to D and between b and C well godditit.

[@HUB4WISDOM]

I believe you completely...there is no doubt since eternal times that humans ..more intelligent than us have lived here in Earth ..our ancestors said the same thing..someone very intelligent is out there..we are too small to understand...

[@davidbowman885]

Theory of evolution is on its way out. 20 years

[@odinata]

Why doesn't science agree with you?

[@davidbowman885]

Science is not a person.

[@odinata]

David Bowman And yet it still proves you wrong.

[@davidvitrogen4319]

David Bowman Many say silly mythical superstitious religious beliefs are on their way out. HOPEFULLY in less then 20 years so we can continue to advance and not go backwards. The theory of evolution is going nowhere unless it is scientifically refuted. The creatards try and try and fail. Oh they may get idiots to deny the evidence and scare them with religious indoctrination but that nonsense will NEVER alter the truth or the facts that support the theory. In which over time we keep finding more and more evidence to support the theory moron.

[@Pomponiox1]

David Bowman A QUESTION FOR CHRISTIANS AND PROPONENTS OF INTELLIGENT DESIGN... Please identify what method or process you use to decide if something is "designed" or not. What variables do you use? Are any of these random (i.e. stochastic, with a mean and a standard deviation)? Please, don't bring in straw men or any other attempts to obfuscate. I will point them out publicly.. Stick to the questions above please. Thank you, Mario Quijano

[@PInk77W1]

100 scientists signed a letter against Einstein. Einstein’s reply was “They didn’t need 100 signatures, they just need one fact.”

[@CosmosArchipelago]

Einstein was a fraud!

[@awandererTJ]

The sleeping scientist at 57:45 says it all. Don't forget to wake him up when the consensus changes.

[@d3g3n3r4t3]

rofl i was thinking the same, but dude is old heh they do tend to fall asleep out of nowhere, constantly cat napping. also he may possibly have been resting his eyes and listening, but he did look like lost when he lifted his head up hah

[@TheStarflight41]

Intelligent design is so obvious it reminds me of a Michael Jordan slam dunk.

[@chomnansaedan4788]

its curiosity vs narcissism.

[@jeffreyheil9542]

Keep up the good fight against these dishonest cretins. I wouldn’t be so nice.

[@michaelgonzalez9058]

Mutations are the error of human life permantly by Experience

[@agazaman]

he is insane by saying nature can create information itself

[@moseshoward7072]

Information comes into being by itself. Nature is not an entity, it is just a figure of speech that we use to describe what is happening. there is no person involved, there is not even a noun, actions do not need to be done by a thing or person, actions simply happen. But in our language we have to have a subject to the sentence so we say things like "It's raining" when raining is not being done by any "it." DNA is an action, it takes part in chemical reactions, but it is not a written message the way this post is written by a person.

[@valerieprice1745]

They fail to mention that mutations ALWAYS cause a loss of information. Gain of function mutations have never been observed.

[@globalcoupledances]

1/64 of all mutations creates new information.

[@KennethIligan-wo4pg]

The question is where did that information came from? I'm agnostic Atheist.​@@globalcoupledances

[@alifqadrmuhammad4542]

As a primary fact from observation, all living things, i.e. trees, animals, etc. possess a modicum of intelligence which brings about adaptation.

[@kathleennorton2228]

While they struggle and desperately strive to prove the theory of evolution they sometimes may stumble upon some kind of scientific point. That this may happen while they obsessively go to great lengths and expenditures to validate their theory they then use to congratulate themselves and their theory for discovering. If they used an eighth of those resources to follow the paths of creationism wouldn't they be amazed as to what they would discover.

[@kratzbean]

Design events are not "in time"! This type of science does need to be taught in sociology classes! Or philosophy classes.

[@charlesdarwin180]

I agree.

[@charlesdarwin180]

You hear this guy talking about the problem of Ken Miller's examples at about the 15 minute marker. He never talks about how his god had to do it. He just talks about the appearance of complexity which he falsely translates as his personal god.

[@soriya011]

i'm wonderin' why the atheists dont focus on the following question: if somethin' is so complex & sophisticated that it cannot be a product of natural evolution & there4 that it must be designed by an intelligent designer, then how about the intelligent designer himself?? he can design the universe & everythin' in it, so he must be more complex & more sophisticated than the universe & everythin' in it. so who designed him?? if he has no designer, then why must the universe & everythin in it, which are less complex & less sophisticated than him, have a designer??

[@jorge-7121]

"Methological naturalism" has been abandoned a long time ago (or redefined) by physics, in physics we are forced to believe in things we don't see because of indirect evidence and mathematical models.

[@respectgod3302]

If the universal laws were set up to allow for undirected evolution then who set it up to do that?

[@fritzdoerring9058]

Amen

[@charlesdarwin180]

At 44:35 the intelligent design representative says, "It could've been but I see no evidence that's the case.(Referring to the laws of nature to increase and novelties to arise by natural processes) I do see evidence that intelligent activity is needed to make complex machinery." LOL, what evidence???

[@soriya011]

i'm wonderin' why the atheists dont focus on the following question: if somethin' is so complex & sophisticated that it cannot be a product of natural evolution & there4 that it must be designed by an intelligent designer, then how about the intelligent designer himself?? he can design the universe & everythin' in it, so he must be more complex & more sophisticated than the universe & everythin' in it. so who designed him?? if he has no designer, then why must the universe & everythin in it, which are less complex & less sophisticated than him, have a designer??

[@fritzdoerring9058]

That things function to do their purpose; at least for usefulness for reasonable time.

[@mythologicalmyth]

Damn, Bruce we gained 10 billion years in 1o years since this debate for evolution to become more probable and still nothing.

[@vitaminsea4223]

strange title who will be under fire after the judgement day

[@vitaminsea4223]

z

[@skeeterburke]

11:16 ... well pray for them idk

[@jav7382]

Life doesn’t form from rock or any other natural resource, that’s just ridiculous and stupid.

[@IIrandhandleII]

Discovery institute, the flat earthers of biology.

[@PInk77W1]

They called believers in the Big Bang names too

[@aquillafleetwood8180]

Google, Rev. Kong Hee, Chinese and the Bible, Part 1, youtube! Google, Dr. Frank T. Seekins, Hebrew Word Pictures, youtube! Shalom....

[@soriya011]

i'm wonderin' why the atheists dont focus on the following question: if somethin' is so complex & sophisticated that it cannot be a product of natural evolution & there4 that it must be designed by an intelligent designer, then how about the intelligent designer himself?? he can design the universe & everythin' in it, so he must be more complex & more sophisticated than the universe & everythin' in it. so who designed him?? if he has no designer, then why must the universe & everythin in it, which are less complex & less sophisticated than him, have a designer??

[@edreynolds2819]

9:00 "wait and see" is not a scientific argument

[@edreynolds2819]

***** The irreducibly complex nature of the Bacterial Flagellum remains unrefuted. I challenge anyone to produce a satisfactory refutation. Kenneth Miller's attempt on youtube is a childish attempt at a straw man argument and misses the point. As far as transposons go, please cite the time in the video where they are discussed. "wait and see" is still not a scientific argument - 9:00

[@edreynolds2819]

"[Minnich] Even if you concede you had all the parts necessary to build one of these machines, that's only part of the problem. Maybe even more complex -- I think more complex -- is the assembly instructions. That is never addressed by opponents of the irreducible complexity argument. [Narrator] Studies of the bacterial motor have, indeed, an even deeper level of complexity. For its construction not only requires specific parts, but also a precise sequence of instructions for assembly. [Minnich] You've got to make things at the right time. You've got to make the right number of components. You've got to assemble them in a sequential manner. You've got to be able to tell if you've assembled it properly so that you don't waste energy building a structure that's not going to be functional.... You build this structure from the inside out. You're counting the number of components in a ring structure or the stator, and once that's assembled, there's feedback that says, "OK, no more of that"; now, a rod is added; a ring is added; another rod is added; the U-joint [hook] is added. Once the U-joint is add a certain size, and a certain degree of bend, about a quarter turn, that's shut off, and then you start adding components for the propeller. These are all made in a precise sequence, just like you would build a building."

[@edreynolds2819]

***** www.evolutionnews.org/2013/09/more_irreducibl077051.html "The flagellum and the virulence-associated injectisome share an analogous architecture and homologous T3S components. However, the structure and function of the rod are quite different in the two systems. The rod of the injectisome is formed by a protein (PrgJ in S. typhimurium). Rod assembly is required for proper anchoring of the needle structure. The function of the injectisome rod is to provide a conduit for protein transport from the bacterial cytoplasm to the host cell (Fig. 6D). In contrast, the flagellar rod and its complex interactions with the MS ring, P ring, and hook (Fig. 6B) provide dual functions: a hollow channel for protein secretion and a sturdy drive shaft to transmit torque between the motor and filament. So even if the flagellum "co-opted" parts from the TTSS, many parts are unique. As Minnich stated in the film: You're talking about a machine that's got 40 structural parts. Yes, we find 10 of them are involved in another molecular machine. But the other 30 are unique. So where are you going to borrow them from? Eventually you're going to have to account for the function of every single part as originally having some other purpose. So you can only follow that argument so far till you run into the problem of, you're borrowing parts from nothing."

[@edreynolds2819]

You need to read for comprehension. Even if homologues exist in the cell, they have to be assembled just at the right time in the right place in the right quantity. This assembly process is even more irreducibly complex than the physical structure.

[@edreynolds2819]

***** Yes, quantity: The moving parts of the flagellum are chiefly a set of rings. The diameter of a ring is dependent on the number of links and the size of each link. Thus quantity. You seem to fail to realize that these parts are a precision fit that can't be accomplished by just throwing homologues at it. Now, I admit that I'm ignorant of the precise designs and dimensions of the putative homologous parts, so you could help me out here, if you are an expert in the field. (BTW, are you an expert in the field? You certainly seem very knowledgeable.) Have scientists verified that these homologous parts, each doing a different function in the cell, are all fitted exactly to work together as a functioning flagellum? And that's an honest question; I don't know the answer and I was wondering if you know of any research to that effect.

[@dragansavic39]

When you guys will stop making lauging stock of yourselves to the civilized world ?

[@soriya011]

i'm wonderin' why the atheists dont focus on the following question: if somethin' is so complex & sophisticated that it cannot be a product of natural evolution & there4 that it must be designed by an intelligent designer, then how about the intelligent designer himself?? he can design the universe & everythin' in it, so he must be more complex & more sophisticated than the universe & everythin' in it. so who designed him?? if he has no designer, then why must the universe & everythin in it, which are less complex & less sophisticated than him, have a designer??

[@greatwhitenorth762]

Weber: "But still i would assert...". You can sit there and "assert" all you want, and toss around all the empty baseless word salad that you want Weber, that doesn't change a thing. It doesn't change the fact that the "progress" you claimed is being made, is just empty rhetoric and empty assertions. As Dr. Meyer so skillfully and accurately pointed out, your side has completely failed to meet the challenge presented by Dr. Behe, that being explaining the existence of the irreducibly complex flagellar motor.

[@jaqua7732]

And did you notice how when he disputed that any progress had been made, that ape man didn't have any pushback lol, these ape-men kill me lol.

[@jamesmullins5083]

meyer has a humble spirit and so calm

[@liamhoward2208]

@@mcmanustony nah. Another assertion

[@jerrylong6238]

Spirits are make-believe.

[@jonhiggins2012]

@@mcmanustony Then surely you can submit your own research and demolish him....right?

[@jamesginty6684]

have you seen aronra's video "Prager U supports Intelligent Deception"?

[@prizma45]

@@jerrylong6238 stay under jewish influence

[@Roachehh]

Stephen Mayer is a phenomenal debater, he always remains so calm and collected in the face of lies and prejudice. I have yet to see anybody thoroughly dismantle his arguments and refute them, it's such a shame that the scientific community is subject to such a high level of bias and unwillingness to change perspectives.

[@MichaelHarrisIreland]

Agree, although I don't believe in ID, I think Darwin's evolution does not explain it, and would like the scientific community to admit they don't know. Also, then everyone would be free to examine all the fossil evidence with no preconditions and figure out what it's actually saying.

[@kratzbean]

Michael Harris yes the Darwinian Mechanism does not work mathematically and is so reductionistic that it's nearly absurd. How can we understand the trajectory of living systems if we don't know what they are? What is Life? What is consciousness? What is mind/soul etc. I do not think that the fossil record can or really will answer these questions. In a sense, saying that information does not arise from matter is "ID" minimally, without really saying what kind of "intelligence" or "design" we are talking about. Consider the "ID" as a "Supreme Anti-entropic Mechanism" to use Mitzi DeWhitt's term.

[@MichaelHarrisIreland]

kratzbean I believe there is a natural explanation but it is far more complicated than Darwin's theory. The fossils tell us we got it wrong, it is not simple. Cells direct us further to suggest it is even more complicated. So we have a beautiful mystery, right here on earth. If we can't figure out how life started we have the beautiful mystery of figuring out how species came about. We just might know enough to solve this if we drop the Darwinian theory of the fish crawling out of the slimy soup. We may not need to know how life started to figure out how species came about. And if it turned out to be co-operation instead of survival of the fittest then we've have learned something else also. I just want to know.

[@moseshoward7072]

Mr. Meyer is a calm, cool debater-- most con men are. He's a terrible excuse for a scientist, though.

[@debbie94510]

Oh really, Moses? I guess he was good enough for Oxford, those so easily dupeable folks! In fact, Moses, you are the true con man, since you have given no reasons for your ad hominem attack on one of the most beautifully educated and erudite people I have ever had the pleasure of hearing. Go away.

[@Muslim604c]

Wow. The arrogance just reeks from Jim Hoffman's tone and demeanor.

[@IsaacNussbaum]

My experience has been that arrogance is a common denominator of Darwinians. Although none has said so outright, it is abundantly clear that many, if not most, see themselves as superior human beings with a superior intellect for having embraced one of the Darwinian hypotheses.

[@sirgalahad777]

@@IsaacNussbaum 99% of Darwinizm is arrogance. The remaining 1% is science which is completely wrong.

[@IsaacNussbaum]

@@sirgalahad777 I agree for the most part, MasterG. If you will indulge me, let me draw the line in a slightly different place. Evolutionists do a lot of credible science. The research, the accumulation of facts, the field work is all real science done by real scientists. Where they go wrong is in the world view they impose ON, and their interpretation OF, what is largely legitimate science.

[@asmith7094]

I’m not an expert in biology or evolution, so I can’t speak to the quality of the science here. I am, however, encouraged to see the Darwin bros arguing only procedural issues and consensus which are both garbage arguments which are not based in science, but are rather established in the politics of science.

[@jaredyoung5353]

@46:00 Drop the Mic. Stephen Mayer is boss

[@mavumamduduzi632]

What do you think? 🤔

[@veronicabellucci7129]

Intelligent design has more cogent, consistent arguments---arguing about things that are postulated, not observed, but inferential. Inference to the BEST explanation.

[@veronicabellucci7129]

I would assert that the first scientist needs to invite to such a "scientific" venue.

[@miltonwetherbee5489]

Consensus is important when people are being fair minded. When there is evidence of bias, possibly political or theological, then consensus can be suspect. Part of the reason ID is having a problem is people unfairly claim it's religious in nature. The puerile backing ID have various backgrounds regarding religion, some of which are completely non-religious. But a few have classified it as religious in a country where we separate religion from everything, so that people will not consider it honestly. This is s problem. And another problem is that she very outspoken scientists are making this religious claim about ID to discredit it, and getting the scientific community to shun the concept such that it's eroding trust in puerile like me that science will continue to investigate things without bias. This is unacceptable, and every single one of the panelists should be upset over it, but they don't reap the problem of it.

[@RG-ds7ob]

ID table headed by Dr Meyer has done very well!

[@jamesginty6684]

have you seen aronra's video "Prager U supports Intelligent Deception"?

[@davidmike9389]

The 3 1/2 minutes between 28:50 and 32:20 tells us all we need to know about the vaunted "peer review process". Look at the way the two men on either side of Hoffman (sic) lean away from him in order to disassociate themselves from his hypocritical idiocy; and, since when does a "Chair of Liberal Studies" have the authority to determine what constitutes good science?

[@Widkey]

I guess we should leave it to the fundamentalists school boards and the Discovery Institute to tell us what good science is right?

[@davidmike9389]

Widkey Well, I dunno, maybe we could do like they used to do before this anti-religion bigotry took over the universities--let the science prove itself, instead of voting on it. Oh, and quit redefining words like "theory", "evolution", "design", etc. Oh, and quit trying to get people fired just because they don't agree with you. How's that?

[@edreynolds2819]

david mike Ok you made some good points. Just remember that 'leaning away from somebody' is not a valid basis for an argument :)

[@davidmike9389]

Ed Reynolds Well, I don't know whether to take you serious or not (happy face, and all) but, just in case, let me say my observation was based on common "body language" inference.

[@Widkey]

david mike Agreed. So please inform your comrade, Michael Behe, who admitted that his redefinition of science was so broad it could include astrology. Since we're on the topic of quitting, quit trying to teach religious dogma masqueraded as 'science' to our kids. Quit getting politicians to legislate creationism into the classroom.

[@femibabalola4057]

What strikes me is that some judge somewhere strikes down ID as being 'unscientific' and decides it should not be mentioned in classrooms of Dover. Well here are the top minds of science taking their best shots, and our students are not allowed to discuss it in classes? How stupid do you get? This stuff is all over the blogs already, and keeping it out of the textbooks is the dumbest.

[@moseshoward7072]

The federal judge who wrote that Intelligent Design is "religious doctrine, not science" back in the 2005 Dover PA case based his ruling on extensive testimony from scientific experts from all over the world. The Creationists put up some con artists who perjured themselves in court and were scolded for it-- and they never appealed the judge's decision.

[@moseshoward7072]

The judge in the Dover PA case made his ruling only after hearing weeks of expert testimony from scientific professionals-- and catching the Creationists lying about the nature of the book they were suing the school district into buying. Instead of having the Creationists arrested he merely gave them a stern lecture and ruled that Creationism is a religious doctrine, not a science. They never appealed the case and have never used that legal tactic again.

[@moseshoward7072]

The judge in the Dover case heard expert testimony from scientists and decided that ?"Intelligent Design" is not a science, it is just a religious belief. Trying to pass it off as science is nothing but fraud.

[@warnerchandler9826]

@@moseshoward7072 well, there you go: defer to a politically appointed (and political) Federal judge for your Science(TM).

[@moseshoward7072]

@@warnerchandler9826 The federal judge in the case was a conservative Republican appointed by George Bush-- and also a devout Christian. He deferred to the scientific experts who testified in the case with solid evidence, something that the Creationists never supplied. The judge caught the Creationists in a lie when they claimed that their "Intelligent Design" book was purely scientific when it was in fact copied from a previously published religious tract with the word "God" replaced by "Intelligent Designer"

[@jamessmith3150]

Firstly, @4:39, the honey-bee would have no idea how to design a hexagon. Second, the fact that it takes immense amounts of intelligence to understand the substructures, and nuances found within life should tell everyone that it could not have originated from a non-intelligent source.

[@luvdomus]

No one has to understand complex structures for them to develop through impersonal interactions. Intelligence only comes into play after organisms have evolved nervous systems that can react in complex ways. Intelligence is strictly a biological trait exhibited only by orgsnisms on planets like Earth-- almost no structure in the wider universe is motivated by it.

[@luvdomus]

Bees don't have to understand hexagons intellectually or mathematically in order to build them, and no one else does, either. Their behavior has been modified by generations of ranf om variation culled by natural selection alongside their anatomical makeup. Hive building behaviors that produce the most offspring are passed on and further modified in subsequent generations to produce the most efficient design.

[@moseshoward7072]

@@luvdomus No one needs to understand the nuances of life intellectually in order to live and do them.

[@luvdomus]

A honeybee does not need to know the mathematics of the hexagon in order to build one. No one does. Nature doesn't operate by intellect or planning.

[@williammcqueen1951]

The honeybee originally makes circles and surface tension along with heat pulls the circles into a hexagonal shape. The hexagon has the smallest perimeter out of the only three 2D shapes (the others being squares and triangles) that can place next to each other of their own kind without any empty space between them. The facets of some insects eyes are hexagonal to maximise light sensing area while minimising the amount of cell material around the edges.

[@firecloud77]

31:44 " *It's the consensus that counts* " LOL, and you just made an Argument From Consensus -- a blatant logical fallacy.

[@bownimrod]

32:23 It's not science until you know when and how?

[@lrvogt1257]

Scientific consensus is when the data from studies matches. It is not opinion.

[@roysinclair7554]

Here was me thinking it was the EVIDENCE that counts. As opposed to vicious peer pressure and threatened redundancy from so called enlightened universities because someone has the balls to question the dogma? We would still be relying on Newtonian mechanics today if nothing outside the consensus was tolerated.

[@lrvogt1257]

@@roysinclair7554 : Yes. Evidence. What facts are there in support of ID? How is it observed? How is it measured? How can it be tested? not by implication but with actual evidence. Just saying this and that in science is incomplete or even wrong doesn't produce any factual data FOR ID.

[@lrvogt1257]

@Folk Aart That is absolutely true. In science, new information changes old conclusions. But science progresses when verification from multiple sources agrees so completely (AKA consensus) that we accept those facts as the basis for new studies. If it didn't, we would never progress and wouldn't have antibiotics, rockets, or computers. Of course, in religion the conclusion is assumed first and facts must be rationalized to fit.

[@steelcantuna]

Keith Morrison hit the BIG nail on the head from the atheistic point of view when he said basically ID "is scary as hell." The 900 pound gorilla in the room is always the same: If the atheists acknowledge God, then they have to deal with accountability to Him.

[@danaidahosa5918]

It’s unbelievable how crude and arrogant and blind these Darwinian scientists are...why would anyone want to be a part of their team or listen to a word they say? It gets me so fired up!! I COMMEND each and every person sitting along side Dr. Stephen Meyer, their professionalism, candor, kindness, intelligence, and humble confidence!! How people are still bashing ID and theism is beyond me...I know it’s because of what’s unseen aka the spiritual warfare. You can literally sense the demonic presence there, thru video, however many years old this is!! Jesus our world NEEDS MORE OF YOU!!!! Lord please BLESS STEPHEN MEYER ABUNDANTLY....Please give him all the tools necessary to make massive headway...that all he puts his hands to will prosper!! Thank you for the brilliant mind you have given such a good man!!!!! In the name of Jesus Christ, AMEN!!!

[@charlie-km1et]

I love how scientific journals think they have they final say on science.

[@JohnSmith-wu6yx]

Consensus remains relevant while it also remains objective, open and non-biased. Currently, scientific consensus is subjective, closed and biased, and therefore irrelevant.

[@illuminatustwo169]

+John Smith These days, "scientific consensus" and "peer review" has become to the refuge of intellectual cowards who can't support their viewpoints with evidence or rational argument.

[@PLASKETT7]

Please note at 35:08 where, having vaunted the imprimatur of "consensus within the scientific community" and saying that we must not let democratic voting outside of that community become the standard by which we assess accuracy in our views, Dr Jim Hoffmann, intending to say "design advocates" finds "Divine advocates" comes out of his mouth. Telling Freudian slip to betray the true reason for his opposition.

[@NathanAlexanderGuess]

57:40 dude straight zonked out!! lol

[@Kingfish179]

Wow - Stephen literally and figuratively drops the mic at 23:38.

[@hockeycowboy10]

“Are they (the scientific community) closed-minded? PERHAPS”!

[@moseshoward7072]

Scientists are the most open minded people in the world, but also the most skeptical. You have to prove your case to them with evidence, you can't get away with theatrics and trick arguments the way you can fool religious fundamentalists.

[@bluejysm2007]

The problem is that Darwinists are worrying too much if evolution go downhill they may lose federal founds direct are their foundations and the perks. lol

[@IK-eg9yy]

Yes

[@hawkeye1582]

I guess one of the reason why many scientist denied ID despite of the overwhelming evidences it's because it will bring forth God to the discussion.

[@philotheoapolobrendon3653]

Argumentum ad populum. Consensus can be useful but by itself is not an argument. The reasons why there is a consensus is what needs to be looked at. If the majority of scientist are atheists, then the consensus will not favor ID so that is not saying anything. Why are they atheists? What are their reasons? If the reasons are invalid or weak then their dislike of ID is not a science question, its just a bias or bad presupposition. Most scientists are not familiar with arguments for God or ID so they are not basing their dislike of ID on knowledge. This dialog showed that ID has the best explanation and arguments by far. The naturalist switch the rules and self-refute.

[@mkmarak]

This quickly became an argument about the argument and all because some of the anti-ID panelists wanted to keep trying to shame the other side instead of giving actual counterarguments.

[@bititid]

Thank you dearly Dr. Meyer. I had all the math in my head but I can't weave the plethora of disciplines together the way Dr. Meyer can. Statistically, (hypothesis: this is mathematically provable) Design is the only parsimonious explanation that weaves together all of the mysterious geneses that continue to perplex Evolutionists.

[@normfry2187]

#woke

[@summerlakephotog8239]

The scientific community will inevitably accept design when design scientists reverse engineer biological design to bring about earth shattering innovations and discoveries which will usher in a new age. The pragmatic application of theory is always the game changer. It’s coming. It’s coming.

[@edreynolds2819]

56:34 Dr. Meyer really lets em have it! Bravo Stephen! :)

[@lrvogt1257]

If you mean- he said a lot of stuff in their direction that has no scientific merit, then sure. He did that. Magic isn't real. There is no evidence for the supernatural. ID is sophistry.

[@johnjackson9767]

LR Vogt There has been no mention of supernatural elements in any of Stephen's arguments.

[@lrvogt1257]

@@johnjackson9767 : Well he wouldn't be as effective a propagandist if he admitted it was supernatural but be fair; A creator of a universe, an entity for which there is no evidence is nothing but super-natural. There is not a natural measurable testable thing about it.

[@moseshoward7072]

Meyer has been taking his dog and pony show from church to church since the late 1980s-- he's made a lot of money off gullible religious fundamentalists but he has had exactly zero influence in science.

[@TyrellWellickEcorp]

LR Vogt oh please, no scientist has ever been able to refute Meyers arguments. You need proof? Just watch this video lol. Scientists reject ID solely on philosophical grounds.

[@jamgrl38]

Stephen Meyer...nuff said.

[@lrvogt1257]

Too much... all BS.

[@jojoanimations3]

@@lrvogt1257 Prove it lol

[@lrvogt1257]

@@jojoanimations3 : It's on him to prove his mythical spirit. www.nas.edu/evolution/IntelligentDesign.html www.scientificamerican.com/article/15-answers-to-creationist/ www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1103713/ www.physics.smu.edu/~pseudo/IntelligentDesign/

[@jamgrl38]

@@lrvogt1257Intelligent design has been proven in DNA.

[@jav7382]

When it’s your time, you can tell God the reason you didn’t believe God exists,is because the Scientific Community you were part of didn’t prove God exists.

[@ffffoundit3198]

to be honest, a lot of them don't believe not because the science community... but because they don't want to believe, big example was Christopher hitchens, he had a problem with the idea of god, he didn't want anyone to tell him what to do and he saw god as an absolute dictator....

[@hspwr3521]

@@mcmanustony Are you denying that there are people like that? Also, ffffoundit was referring to this quote by the late Christopher Hitchens: "The discovery there is no god is a great relief, because if there were, it would be like living in a celestial North Korea if there was one. You would never be able to escape". It is abundantly clear to me that some people really don't want God to be up there watching over them, Hitchens being a prime example of this. Their viscous denial of God is a presupposed and emotive response rather than being a rational and unbiased approach towards determining whether or not there is a God. I don't see how the comment was stupid, it is true of a great multiplicity of people. I know because I myself was this way, I was a militant atheist for 20 years. It was only until I opened my mind that I believed that there had to be a being of supreme intelligence else-wise the world would make no sense in any fashion.. This realization bothered me greatly but I have since come to accept it.. Lastly, out of curiosity, what would be undeniable or at the very least compelling proof to you that there is a God or intelligent designer? Please do not try to appeal the consensus of Science (argument from authority fallacy), I want to know what would convince YOU personally, not other people.. Also, please refrain from using ad hominem attacks in your reply if you do so choose to compose one, I wish to have an amicable discussion.

[@hspwr3521]

@@mcmanustony Not at all what I thought! I was simply alluding to the fact that it is apparent that many people hate the idea of the God of Abraham and they don’t want him/it to exist. From that philosophical presupposition they try to find evidence to support their position and scorn all evidence that points to the contrary. Classic example of confirmation bias. I’m not saying that all atheists do this, I’m saying many do. Many theists do the same as well, atheists aren’t immune to confirmation bias. Atheists and “skeptics” try to purport themselves to be the sole arbiters of unbiased truth and that they are immune to the primitive biases of mankind as they have been freed of the shackles of superstition. This is absolute nonsense, we all have the same neuroanatomy and are all subject to the same biases. Rational and amicable discussion should be encouraged on matters such as these, not name calling and hand waving. Hitchen’s quote I cited, along with many of his works are nothing but an angry diatribe against religion and in my opinion don’t provide any substantive critiques. Same goes with Dawkins and his ilk, many of them propound foolish arguments such as “Who created God” or the weak anthropic principle.

[@hspwr3521]

Also, I did not mean to insinuate that my permission was needed, I was merely requesting that we have an amicable discussion..

[@hspwr3521]

@@mcmanustony How about the 60 million people killed by Joseph Stalin during the soviet union? How about the 45 million killed by Mao? How about Hitler who was vehemently anti christian who killed 6 million Jews and other "undesirables", ""Our epoch will certainly see the end of the disease of Christianity," "The Christian religion is nothing but a Jewish sect," "One is either a Christian or a German. You cannot be both." How about Lenin and Trotsky, Mussolini, Ho Chi Mihn, Pol Pot, Dahmer, and a bunch of other nutjobs? How about presenting a logical argument instead of appealing to things such as these, the sword cuts both ways my friend, this isn't a valid argument. Humans do evil no matter what they believe, atheists, even secular humanists aren't free of the evil proclivities of mankind. I'd argue that Christianity has been a force of net positive for the world, despite all the despicable evils that have been committed in the name of Christ. I'm angry at evil wherever it is found, evil isn't exclusive to religion, it's found in everyone.

[@GSpotter63]

Why couldn't the ability to adapt to changing environments be part of the design?

[@geobla6600]

Loved the opening condescending statement by Jim Hoffman that he teaches ID to his students (punch line) , that it's not true. He really added to the debate by sitting there for two hours and not adding anything. Fortunately at least one of the Pro Evolution PHD's added some science to the debate even though it was intentionally simplified to show how easily evolution can happen. He looked a little red in the face when the real diagrams were shown. What fascinates me is when their confronted with the real science of how complex and how many processes that are required to create the simplest of organisms , they have no answer. Mind boggling when you think of the amount of research and money that has gone into this antiquated thesis in the last 150 YEARS which defies most of the scientific data that applies to it. Anyone that could watch this (debate ?) and not come to the conclusion that the ID PHD's offered the best scientific arguments has no interest in knowing the facts. Would love to see another one of these. I'm fairly certain with all the current science , the results would be even more one sided.

[@charlesdarwin180]

Bringing spooks into science just isn't good practice, no matter how much money says it is.

[@JV-tg2ne]

Geo Bla - use the Socratic method as well as apply Marcus Aurelius questions of motive and nature - why do these Darwinists insist on presenting theorem as fact and more importantly the motivation of their financiers Why would the political and politically driven people and entities responsible for funding desire this? What is their end game? The answer can be found in the writings of the Frankfurt school particularly Marcuse and Gramsci

[@thomasstevenrothmbamd2384]

Thank God for "Return of the God Hypothesis." The failure to consider the Laws of Nature as inseparable from the Laws of Nature's God in proper scientific research and application is destroying society. Thomas Steven Roth, MBA, MD Christian Minister for Biblical Medical Ethics, and therefore, Scientific and Religious Refugee from the Clinical Practice of Psychiatric Standards of Care

[@vheilshorn]

3:50 -- Scientists will never become interested in ID, because if there's no God, then the scientist becomes god. Human beings (especially godless ones) will never give up that kind of power. 49:40 -- And to answer this guy's question, since when is intelligence outside of nature? Plumbers rely on their intelligence to solve the problem. Sheesh, it's hard for me to believe that some of these questioners are scientists at all.

[@moseshoward7072]

Science explains how things work, all you want is to promote your religion. Give us your alternative theory for how species develop and you might be taken seriously, that means explain how the process works in material, cause and effect terms as evolution does.

[@chaldean7043]

The guy in the left 57:40 is either sleeping or playing dead to avoid answering Stephens question about ID.

[@tomk3620]

LEFT TABLE! BRILLIANT!

[@Jon-ti1rb]

These scientists who try to defend Dawinian evolution sound like Kamala Harris defending electric school busses as a good idea but she makes more sense!

[@edreynolds2819]

[@edreynolds2819]

***** Typical reply of someone who doesn't want to respond to the challenge presented.

[@edreynolds2819]

***** yes, we have to change BACK the definition of science to the pursuit of the truth no matter where it leads. If the evidence points to a designer that produced life, then that's where we must go. Any thing else would be a lack of nerve; to rule out a conclusion because it doesn't agree with the scientific establishment's world view.

[@edreynolds2819]

***** Look who's talking about 'invisible friends'. Neo-Darwinian theorizes have found no workable explanation for how life would have originated through natural means. I guess their 'little friend' did it! It's MAGIC!

[@edreynolds2819]

***** Go ahead; tell us the materialist explanation for the origin of life that YOU believe to be true. Don't forget to include YOUR explanation for the origin of the digital code in DNA necessary to produce the first life. I won't hold my breath...

[@edreynolds2819]

***** Well, at least you were honest about the first point...

[@randallhatcher7396]

I need to know when was nature defined to be natural ? It's a word a idea defined by man so it had to come into existence by man somewhere in history . Is their proof that nature is natural . Could it be that supernatural was replaced with natural because mankind can't handle supernatural and reality.

[@appletongallery]

At 56:00 this guy is talking about consensus in the medical community being important. Well, the majority opinions and actions in the medical community are mostly upside down and wrong!

[@leonscott543]

Why do evolutionists say "Until scientists take ID seriously" YOUR AT AN ID VS EVOLUTION DEBATE!!!! THIS IS SERIOUS

[@edreynolds2819]

mcmanustony Because the scientific community is too DENSE to be able to handle ID, it has gained very little traction there. Will YOU be different?

[@AvidiaNirvana]

@@mcmanustony news flash, no they can't. Just look at what happened to Richard Steinberg! Closed minded morons don't like being challenged. After all, they've got everything figured out already.

[@AvidiaNirvana]

@@mcmanustony lol, well you're obviously so open minded yourself... ;) Have a good one, I'm not wasting my time on you.

[@AvidiaNirvana]

@@mcmanustony all that's obvious to me is that you didn't read my last comment. ;)

[@africanhistory]

It is a good way to put all your detractors on the outside. Tell them they not serious and then you do not even need to explain how.

[@Charlie-qe6lv]

Yes, peer-review is not "the gold standard" of science. Darwin's work was not peer-reviewed, but revolutionary and published in.....wait for it....BOOK FORM!

[@Charlie-qe6lv]

@@mcmanustony Darwin was not peer-reviewed. Next.

[@Charlie-qe6lv]

@@mcmanustony You couldn't have watched the debate. The PhD ID scientists destroyed the ad hominem, pie-in-the-sky assertions, suppositions, opinions, and surmises of the darwinian religionists. I'll stand with the Christian scientists, Boyle, Faraday, Kepler, Kelvin, Mendel, Newton, and thousands of others over the neo-darwinian fundamentalists. These dufuses propose that the enemies of ID are going to allow their papers into their peer-reviewed rags. Anyway, there are many ID peer-reviewed papers ( Stephen C. Meyer, “The origin of biological information and the higher taxonomic categories,” Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington, Vol. 117(2):213-239 (2004) (HTML). Michael J. Behe, “Experimental Evolution, Loss-of-Function Mutations, and ‘The First Rule of Adaptive Evolution,’” The Quarterly Review of Biology, Vol. 85(4):1-27 (December 2010). Douglas D. Axe, “Estimating the Prevalence of Protein Sequences Adopting Functional Enzyme Folds,” Journal of Molecular Biology, Vol. 341:1295-1315 (2004). Michael Behe and David W. Snoke, “Simulating evolution by gene duplication of protein features that require multiple amino acid residues,” Protein Science, Vol. 13 (2004). William A. Dembski and Robert J. Marks II, “The Search for a Search: Measuring the Information Cost of Higher Level Search,” Journal of Advanced Computational Intelligence and Intelligent Informatics, Vol. 14 (5):475-486 (2010). Ann K. Gauger and Douglas D. Axe, “The Evolutionary Accessibility of New Enzyme Functions: A Case Study from the Biotin Pathway,” BIO-Complexity, Vol. 2011(1) (2011). Ann K. Gauger, Stephanie Ebnet, Pamela F. Fahey, and Ralph Seelke, “Reductive Evolution Can Prevent Populations from Taking Simple Adaptive Paths to High Fitness,” BIO-Complexity, Vol. 2010 (2) (2010). Vladimir I. shCherbak and Maxim A. Makukov, “The ‘Wow! Signal’ of the terrestrial genetic code,” Icarus, Vol. 224 (1): 228-242 (May, 2013). Joseph A. Kuhn, “Dissecting Darwinism,” Baylor University Medical Center Proceedings, Vol. 25(1): 41-47 (2012). Winston Ewert, William A. Dembski, and Robert J. Marks II, “Evolutionary Synthesis of Nand Logic: Dissecting a Digital Organism,” Proceedings of the 2009 IEEE International Conference on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics, pp. 3047-3053 (October, 2009). Douglas D. Axe, Brendan W. Dixon, Philip Lu, “Stylus: A System for Evolutionary Experimentation Based on a Protein/Proteome Model with Non-Arbitrary Functional Constraints,” PLoS One, Vol. 3(6):e2246 (June 2008). Kirk K. Durston, David K. Y. Chiu, David L. Abel, Jack T. Trevors, “Measuring the functional sequence complexity of proteins,” Theoretical Biology and Medical Modelling, Vol. 4:47 (2007). David L. Abel and Jack T. Trevors, “Self-organization vs. self-ordering events in life-origin models,” Physics of Life Reviews, Vol. 3:211-228 (2006). Frank J. Tipler, “Intelligent Life in Cosmology,” International Journal of Astrobiology, Vol. 2(2): 141-148 (2003). Michael J. Denton, Craig J. Marshall, and Michael Legge, “The Protein Folds as Platonic Forms: New Support for the pre-Darwinian Conception of Evolution by Natural Law,” Journal of Theoretical Biology, Vol. 219: 325-342 (2002). Stanley L. Jaki, “Teaching of Transcendence in Physics,” American Journal of Physics, Vol. 55(10):884-888 (October 1987). Granville Sewell, “Postscript,” in Analysis of a Finite Element Method: PDE/PROTRAN(New York: Springer Verlag, 1985). A.C. McIntosh, “Evidence of design in bird feathers and avian respiration,”International Journal of Design & Nature and Ecodynamics, Vol. 4(2):154-169 (2009). Richard v. Sternberg, “DNA Codes and Information: Formal Structures and Relational Causes,” Acta Biotheoretica, Vol. 56(3):205-232 (September, 2008). Wolf-Ekkehard Lönnig and Heinz Saedler, “Chromosome Rearrangement and Transposable Elements,” Annual Review of Genetics, Vol. 36:389-410 (2002). Douglas D. Axe, “Extreme Functional Sensitivity to Conservative Amino Acid Changes on Enzyme Exteriors,” Journal of Molecular Biology, Vol. 301:585-595 (2000). William A. Dembski, The Design Inference: Eliminating Chance through Small Probabilities (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1998). , so it makes it science by your definition.) among others. But, I'm sure you'll move the goal post and/or respond to the arguments instead of using ad hom, which is the first resort of the losing argument, LOLOL! You admit you lost, but you can keep trying.

[@friendofjesus1680]

Such complexity, fine tuning demands an architect of the universe. It would seem to be self evident. The reasons scientists can't see that is psychological, not scientific. As the astronomer Fred Hoyle said in his book "Evolution from Space."

[@odinata]

Argument From Ignorance Fallacy. There is no evidence for any "architect" of the universe. Fred Hoyle presented ZERO evidence for such an architect. Appeal to Authority Fallacy.

[@friendofjesus1680]

There is a great deal of evidence for an architect. The evidence is the fine tuning in the universe. It's clear you've never read Hoyle's books. I'd also recommend "The Language of God" by Francis Collins (former head of the human genome project). Debunked.

[@odinata]

Justin Steckbauer There is zero evidence for an architect. Its a religious argument from religoius people. Hoyle has produced ZERO scientific evidence for any gods. Francis Collins has never produced any evidence for any gods. *deBUNKED!*

[@friendofjesus1680]

Did you know some of the greatest scientists in history have been devout Christians? Francis Collins, John Polkinghorne, Robert Jastrow, Francis Crick, not to mention the famed Sir Isaac Newton. And Albert Einstein arguably the greatest scientist of all time was a deist. If he believed an architect was reasonable, why can't you? I know it's an appeal to authority, but expert testimony is important when considering what the truth is.

[@odinata]

Justin Steckbauer Did you know that many scientists are Jewish? And Muslim? And did you know not a single one of them has proved that any "architect", "creator", "designer" exists?

[@geobla6600]

Well Jim Hoffman , you presented your opening statements with the usual condescension that comes from so many believers of the evolutionery Ideology , who are given endless latitude in their explanations thru omissions , over simplification of the evaluation of the scientific evidence . which is presented in so many of these deceptive statements to support the theory. Although you did evaluate correctly that the slide show with it's deceptive representation of both the visual and the narrative was doing quite poorly in creating any merit for your arguments , I believe you offered your second comment and asked to stop with the slide show. But it wasn't all a no show for the Darwinian's , we had a lot of the usual description's in support of the theory such as "could have" , It's possible ", " the multitudinous "wait and see " or new research may bear more light on our understanding , but when we do have that understanding which made up most of the arguments that was presented by the I.D. Proponents , It's intentionally misrepresented as noted thru deceptive claims such as the simplification of the multiple extremely complex segeunces of events that have to take place to form a protein , never mind the simplest ( extremely complex) of living organism's.

[@Sirrehpotsirch]

The question asked was, "How can ID contribute to existing research?" Behe didn't answer it but the proper response is that current research is conducted from a Darwinian explanation, so any results that don't support Darwin are discounted.

[@Sirrehpotsirch]

It's the same reason that Republicans don't attend Democratic events.

[@Sirrehpotsirch]

+ice_hawk10 That is just wrong. The problem is that a lot of new information was added without any source. Suddenly, all those animals appeared. Evolution provides NO explanation or mechanism is demonstrated. Evolution expects us to believe in principles that no other science would accept.

[@Sirrehpotsirch]

+ice_hawk10 I can see that you have drunk the koolaid. Basically, you are saying that science will eventually figure out all things given enough time. So in the meanwhile, stop believing in God. The things that you are claiming on behalf of evolution and science are nothing short of hubris. "Science" is a tool, nothing more. Science should be about what is testable if it is to remain science, and not philosophy. You can have whatever flights of fancy you want but don't call it science.

[@Sirrehpotsirch]

+ice_hawk10 Laughable. You speak as if the domain of science belongs to you and is off limits to thoughtful men. You are wrong and are full of hubris. As the bard says, "there are more things in heaven and earth than are contained in your philosophy." I don't have the time to unpack your lack of education.

[@Sirrehpotsirch]

+ice_hawk10 You remind me of a child who refuses to take correction.

[@edwardmurphy4665]

I believe Meyer is absolutely on target with the information we have and what we as a people agree with on what science is defined as. Also he's using Darwin's scientific methods of reaching a conclusion based on pure logic. Christianity is not a belief issue, it's easy to believe. It a moral issue with all others wether they admitt it or not.

[@HBFTimmahh]

One Person goes to 10 drs and get 10 different diagnoses. Then they see Dr number 11 of figures out the problem, totally different than the 1st 10. Where was the Consensus? They are arguing logical fallacies and empty points based on their personal opinions, not the 'scientific method'.

[@miltonwetherbee5489]

When something gets peer reviewed, and after gong through the process of fixing flaws pointed out, is published, and then the person who publishes it a week or so later has hostile action taken against him for doing so, there is a problem with the system in that it allows for bias to determine what can and cannot be published. Furthermore, this detestable actin need not be done by a majority. We see similar problems with law enforcement where law enforcement has an unfavourable advantage one this they are supposed to protect such that a few can get away with detestable actions. This is a problem of a minority managing to influence a majority in an unfair manner in both cases. Since this is the case, the trust in the peer review process, much like the trust in law enforcement is being eroded. We need people in the scientific community to take a stand that it won't be tolerated, just like we need it in law enforcement. The problem is, too many within are passive about it because it doesn't directly affect them. This means the problem is there and not being corrected. Just like in politics, we get the prime we get in office because we don't care enough to do something about it.

[@kingdomcome1617]

Great point.

[@koppite9600]

No matter which side lost... Jim took a big L from this and i doubt he knows it

[@michaelgonzalez9058]

Because God put Adam to sleep does not mean you Sedate the cell or the body

[@africandiaspora8614]

Every time these " darwinists " try to answer a question or come up with an alternative hypothesis they just seem to stumble and bumble and end up with "darwin" which is no answer at all !

[@tntruther]

54:37 You can't justify something (consensus) by saying "it's what we do". We could be *doing* the wrong thing. Just look at the fruit that Adam and Eve ate in the Garden of Eden. The consensus sees it as an obedience lesson. But eating the fruit means feeding the ego. As long as we are lead by the consensus we will never be able to figure that out.

[@fritzdoerring9058]

Truth, expounded by God Alone! Non-verifiable by other source. So mankind, wishing proof, reached out to test by direct experimental test, condemned themselves. Wasn't that critically intelligent? Just exactly what atheists are attempting, but haven't considered the risk factor. They apparently get their bravado from the consensus value of critque to discover truth.

[@VettemanLT5]

Consensus?? That's not how science works sparky.

[@paulsimmons9512]

An intelligent designer is the most important part of natural law. Nature is far bigger than materialists will allow. Nature goes beyond our imagination.

[@ronaldpokatiloff5704]

They don't mention a COMPUTER. THE UNIVERSE IS INSIDE A COMPUTER.

[@stevenwiederholt7000]

Let me see if I understand this. Peer reviews journals won't publish articles advancing ID because its not real science. The way we can tell ID is not real science is no articles advancing ID can be found in peer reviewed journals. I think I've got it....but as always I Could Be Wrong.

[@stevenwiederholt7000]

@Folk Aart Notice which side mentions religion and which side doesn't? " If you are going to claim there is a god then you need to provide evidence for a god.' If you're gonna claim there isn't a God you're going to have to provide some evidence there isn't. "If you are going to claim there is a designer then you need to provide evidence for a designer.' If you are going to claim there isn't a designer then you need to provide evidence for Random Chance. The problem is the numbers just don't add up. You've got a billion years, the Earth is (around) 4.5 billion yearsold, the 1st life appeared 3.5 billion years ago. Odds of a strand of DNA arranging itself in the right order to create life...1 in 10 to the 40th power. That's just ONE strand of DNA Question: Have you ever looked at what ID says, or (like so many people) looked at what those opposed to ID say? Examples. Scientific Evidence for God - Dr. Strauss kzbin.info/www/bejne/jGWbpXV8a9mYia8 Dr. Tour on the Origin of Life at Syracuse University kzbin.info/www/bejne/Y3jWkmhuh9Jric0 Mathematical Challenges to Darwin’s Theory of Evolution (or as I call it A Christian An Atheist A Jew walk into a studio) kzbin.info/www/bejne/pKDNZaOegrlshac

[@stevenwiederholt7000]

@Folk Aart I ask you then...How Do You Get Life From Non-Life? BTW you might want to watch Dr. Tour on the Origin of Life at Syracuse University kzbin.info/www/bejne/Y3jWkmhuh9Jric0

[@michaelgonzalez9058]

Yes,that's why they must not be messed with

[@john-giovannicorda3456]

Did Ken Miller actually say that a mouse trap can also be used as a "clipboard"? And thus it is *not* irc?

[@johnlawrence2757]

So they are saying that the discovery of nylon-eating bacteria, whilst it has been observed to happen, the mutational pathways remain entirely hypothetical. It’s not in any shape or form a contribution to proving the theory of natural selection, which is what is currently being claimed for it in some quarters Other explanations for this bizarre taste are extant

[@koppite9600]

44:54 will always be a home run for any ID proponent.