Prepare to be Amazed: Bill Dembski's Insights on Intelligent Design!

[@drchristopherjsernaque]

Dr. Dembski is amazing!

[@johnmilvoix1700]

Thanks!

[@janvidmar7827]

Tnx Dr. Mike, much love!

[@MikeLiconaOfficial]

My pleasure!

[@Uenbg]

My reasons for why in my opinion the machinery that makes up life is the best evidence: 1. It is simpler to present and simpler to understand (and thus easier as well, it does not require an elaborate understanding of or education in physics or chemistry, or astrophysics for that matter; the misunderstandings, misinterpretations* and vague but sophisticated technical jargon in the field of quantum physics and deliberate misrepresentations of why Schrödinger brought up his cat paradox, as if you can _actually_ have a cat that is both alive and dead at the same time, in reality, a ridiculous and logically impossible notion, aren't even an issue here; *: the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics contains a misinterpretation that leads to a contradiction/paradox, showing that that part is in error, a mistake, see the list of synonyms for "paradox" in an online thesaurus and you will likely see "error", "mistake" and "nonsense" as well; and it is used by many a theoretical or quantum physicist or quantum cosmologist to make a career out of unsupported speculation marketed by means of sophisticated rhetoric and technical jargon posing as clever insight, understanding or extensive knowledge on the matter, i.e. self-marketing as something and someone worth listening to; as Feynman admitted, they don't understand QM, so they can stop pretending that they have anything of value to say about it when it is just speculation built upon speculation that has already been proven by the application of simple logic as being in error, and therefore having nothing to do with science/knowledge, such as David Bohm and John Wheeler with their speculations and vague complicated and sophisticated speech confusing the issue here; for details, see Freeman Dyson's explanation of why "QM cannot be a complete description of nature", available on youtube, where he addresses Hawking's and Wheeler's views in his opening remarks, and a short reference to Bohm's views in the questions&answers section at the end when someone brings that up.) 2. There is only one known and observed cause for the emergence of machinery, it is a well-established fact that machinery is the product of engineering (a specific form of creation). 3. The engineering of machinery can be observed today, people are familiar with that cause, hence the origin of machinery can be observed all the time, whereas the origin of the universe or the origin of the constants of nature cannot be observed today, setting up the philosophical naturalist for introducing more far-fetched complicated speculations concerning subjects such as M-theory and the multiverse and so-called "quantum vacuums" from which the universe emerges, referred to as "nothing" by Hawking, Krauss, Dawkins and others, or "brane cosmology" (fancy terms to beguile the audience with their fancy physics technobabble; none of these subjects have anything to do with verified science/knowledge, physical reality or truth, or to use the favorite phrase of the philosophical naturalist: 'it is not science', it's more appropiately described as mythology or fiction; even string theory is a dubious subject when presented under the marketinglabel "science" or as something scientific, as in the term "a scientific theory", which it doesn't qualify as if you use the definition most commonly used for "scientific theory", and yet, that is what most people hear when they hear the term "string theory", as if it is a scientific theory, and it's done on purpose for marketing reasons, "string philosophy" or "the string speculation" would have been a more appropiate term, but that doesn't sell as well amongst those working in the sciences now does it? Let alone the general public.). The simplest way of presenting the evidence for the conclusion by induction that life is the product of engineering can be presented as such: Well-established and observed fact #1: machinery is the product of engineering Well-established and observed fact #2: life is made up of molecular machinery (a fact admitted to by many biologists working in the field of molecular biology or cell biology, including quite a few of those favoring philosophical naturalism, even though they may try to backpeddle from this when arguing in favor of philosophical naturalism or the notion that we cannot be certain about anything; at which point a simple reminder that "a fact" is a synonym for "a certainty", "a reality" and "a truth" is again something that is simple to understand, so that the denial of reality employed by those using this slogan, related to the philosophy of relativism, becomes more obvious to those willing to be reasonable about this and drop their conditioned bias; those who apply this slogan to the term "science", as in Vilenkin's claim that "... there is no such thing as absolute certainty in science ...", can be reminded of the fact that the term "science" comes from the Latin _scientia_ meaning "knowledge", which is also still a synonym for "science", essentially knowledge means familiarity with facts/certainties/truths/realities acquired by personal experience, observation, or study. I.e. things that are factual/certain/absolute/conclusive/correct, without error. All synonyms again. That's what science is all about, the exact opposite of what Vilenkin says there; on the other hand, an unverified philosophy/idea, regardless if it is called a scientific hypothesis or scientific theory, is not necessarily science, it has not been confirmed/verified yet. It is not a well-established fact, such as the evolutionary philosophies concerning the common descent or ancestry of all kind of organisms that have ever existed or still exist today, or the chemical evolution of life, the multiverse, M-theory, String theory, incoherent singularities of infinite density and infinite energy, quantum vaccuums vaguely spoken of in such a manner that the audience ends up thinking of them as actual physical realities rather than mathematical constructs to describe future probabilities*, etc.) *: Freeman Dyson's conclusions as presented during the talk I mentioned earlier: 1. "statements about the past cannot in general be made in quantum mechanical language...as a general rule, knowledge about the past can only be expressed in classical terms" (Lawrence Bragg, joint winner of the Nobel Prize in Physics in 1915, mentioned: "everything in the future is a wave, everything in the past is a particle"; which is related to this issue of applying and interpreting QM incorrectly as described at 2:40 in the video on youtube that I mentioned) 2. "the role of the observer in QM is not to cause an abrupt reduction of the wave packet with the state of the system jumping discontinuously at the instant when it's observed. The picture of the observer interrupting the course of natural events is unnecessary and misleading. What really happens is that the quantum description of an event ceases to be meaningful as the observer changes the point of reference from before the event to after it. We don't need a human observer to make QM work, all we need is a point of reference, to seperate the past from the future, to seperate what has happened from what may happen, to seperate facts from probabilities." Conclusion by induction (the only possible conclusion given the facts, i.e. evidence, at hand): life is the product of engineering. (sorry about all the footnotes and side notes I added concerning QM and the philosophy of relativism and attempts to turn the term "science" into something vague and ambiguous; I felt like pointing it out, but I didn't want to put all that at the end of my comment) And as Michael Behe appropiately quoted from the _Encyclopædia Britannica_ on inductive reasoning: "When a person uses a number of established facts to draw a general conclusion, he uses inductive reasoning. THIS IS THE KIND OF LOGIC NORMALLY USED IN THE SCIENCES. ..." So yes, this conclusion falls under the category science/knowledge, the conclusion is a confirmed/verified fact/certainty/reality/truth, just like the facts it is based on. Inductive reasoning is used in the proper manner.

[@Uenbg]

The fine-tuning argument leaves the door open for all this confusing, misleading talk about QM, as well as playing on people's misunderstanding of that subject, in particular the often overlooked error in the Copenhagen interpretation of QM. Even those who think they know a lot about the subject of QM (physicists and theoretical physicists). Being deceived by those who inappropiately use "quantum mechanical language" in discussions about the origin of the universe, an event that happened in "the past" (quoting from Freeman Dyson's first conclusion quoted in my previous comment, which explains why it is inappropiate to do so, in light of the rest of his presentation).

[@FyreRayne-cf5wh]

Maranatha

[@midlander4]

Well done guys. You've proved Zeus created the universe. Give yourselves a well deserved Nobel Prize.

[@Mena-Mahrous]

Can you please make arabic captions available 🙏🙌?

[@jackwilmoresongs]

I found Demski's book "The End of Christianity" to be very interesting yet poorly named. I would ask Dr. Demski if he had to go along with publisher's marketing title. And if he could suggest a better title what would it be?

[@theuncarvedblock6565]

Mike, please don't accept consensus on the existence of Jesus but then reject it on ID.

[@semitope]

Don't accept consensus in general without verifying it makes sense. Consensus is convenient to run with but if it's ridiculous like evolution, don't.

[@theuncarvedblock6565]

@@semitope evolution makes sense. A guy rising from the dead doesn't.

[@gerardmoloney9979]

​@@theuncarvedblock6565 You have to be an atheist to come to those conclusions, but keeping in mind that atheists by their own admission are not intelligently designed, then the conclusion makes no sense.

[@Johnny-mz9ot]

​@@theuncarvedblock6565 No "guy" ever rose from the dead. The Son of Man did. 🙏

[@theuncarvedblock6565]

@@Johnny-mz9ot that's your unwarranted belief.

[@fyrerayne8882]

Maranatha