Stephen Meyer-Return of God Hypothesis: 3 Scientific Discoveries Reveal the Mind Behind the Universe

Beginning in the late 19th century, many intellectuals began to insist that scientific knowledge conflicts with traditional theistic belief - that science and belief in God are “at war.” Philosopher of science Stephen Meyer challenges this view by examining three scientific discoveries with decidedly theistic implications. Building on the case for the intelligent design of life that he developed in Signature in the Cell and Darwin’s Doubt, Meyer claims that discoveries in cosmology and physics coupled with those in biology help to establish the identity of the designing intelligence behind life and the universe. Previously Meyer refrained from attempting to answer questions about “who” might have designed life. Now he provides an evidence-based answer to perhaps the ultimate mystery of the universe.
Shermer responds to each claim and a stimulating and enlightening conversation ensues.
Note: It is Dr. Shermer’s intention in his podcast to periodically talk to people with whom skeptics and scientists may disagree. In some episodes Dr. Shermer tries to “steel man” a position held by someone with differing views - that is, he says in his own words what he thinks the other person is arguing - but in this case the other person is in the conversation and can represent his own position clearly, which is what happens. As well, such conversations enable principles of skepticism to be employed in ways constructive to those who hold views not necessarily embraced by skeptics and scientists. Such principles should be embraced by all seekers of truth, and that is why we want to talk to people with whom we may disagree.
SUPPORT THE PODCAST
If you enjoy the podcast, please show your support by making a donation. Your patronage will ensure that sound scientific viewpoints are heard around the world.
www.skeptic.com/donate/
SPONSOR
The Great Courses Plus
thegreatcoursesplus.com/shermer
#michaelshermer
#skeptic
Listen to The Michael Shermer Show via Apple Podcasts, Spotify, Amazon Music, Google Podcasts, Stitcher, iHeartRadio, and TuneIn.
www.skeptic.com/michael-sherm...

[@johnfutch8258]

Dr. Shermer, I'm a Christian but just want to say thank you for hosting such a respectful dialogue. If all of us who engage in this debate followed your example, the world would be a little brighter.

[@marojupavan]

no, world would be better without mixing science and religion. Keep your religion aside

[@mindsigh4]

​@@marojupavanyep, telling people what to do always makes the world better. 👍

[@marojupavan]

Depends on what's being said. Anyway pointless discussion since no one is going to change their mind based on comment threads.@@mindsigh4

[@cloudrouju526]

There is no debate. Believing a an old man in robe watching everything being done in the sky is stupid. Thinking there should be some kind of debate on equal ground between reality and wishful thinking is delusional. Oh but wait, you’re a christian, so you’re already delusional, my bad.

[@rduse4125]

@@marojupavan - Maybe there is a point to be made though…what is religion?

[@HopDubstep]

"Anyone who takes these big questions seriously is a friend." That, for some reason really made me smile. It is true after all isn't it, yet rarely put into words.

[@jamesginty6684]

have you seen "Scientist Reacts to "Fossil Record Debunked" | Reacteria" on youtube?

[@jamesginty6684]

have you seen the logicked's video "Hello, My Name is Kent Hovind 4: The Texas-Sized Pig and the Hammer-Proof Cockroach" on youtube?

[@jamesginty6684]

have you seen aronra's video "Bisbee tries to refute evolution by misreading the evidence" and tony reed's video "How Creationism Taught Me Real Science 44 Lucy" on you tube?

[@jamesginty6684]

have you seen "Exposing the Discovery Institute Part 1: Casey Luskin" on youtube?

[@jamesginty6684]

have you check out "Exposing the Discovery Institute Part 1: Casey Luskin" and "How Creationism Taught Me Real Science 44 Lucy" on youtube. they shows how ignorant .Casey Luskin and discovery institute are.

[@licentiousliarbird1387]

I appreciate you Michael Shermer for debating opposing points of views

[@dairic]

The best part is how earnest and with mutual respect it is done. Very refreshing.

[@gretareinarsson7461]

Well it wouldn’t be much of a debate were it not for opposing views.

[@b.g.5869]

This wasn't a debate.

[@alexweisberg9885]

When I heard Shermer said he was an atheist, I immediately vomited, and turned it off. I grew up in the Soviet Union and I know atheists who are proudly declare they r atheists (unlike agnostics) are disgusting dangerous people, and I know what they did to humanity in the 20th century.

[@notme9816]

​@@b.g.5869?

[@philochristos]

That was a good conversation. Two hours, and not a dull moment. I haven't read Meyer's book yet, but I plan to.

[@robertp5998]

I find them very informative.

[@Resenbrink]

Why bother.

[@drts6955]

@@Resenbrink exactly what I was thinking lol

[@stefan2292]

Yes, they are pretty good, even for someone like me who is not an ID believer. Read Michael Behe on evolution as well. Fascinating stuff.

[@derhafi]

@@stefan2292 Nonsese, every bit of it.

[@r.rodriguez4991]

I'm amazed by Shermer's attitude. It's rare to find someone willing to truly listen to someone they disagree with honestly. This is how everyone should behave.

[@quantumpotential7639]

Well, when the masses have been hypnotized to believe they are just animals does it come as any surprise that they're gonna behave like animals?

[@danielpaulson8838]

@@quantumpotential7639They weren’t hypnotized to think they are animals. They are animals.

[@MarcusN-kp1jn]

It's because he was once on the other side of this argument. He knows most believers aren't evil nor stupid.

[@TheBackyardProfessor]

what a great discussion instead of debating, arguing and getting nowhere. Stephen Meyer is a new found scholar worth learning from for me

[@gretareinarsson7461]

I like listening to these guys a lot and this approach, to have a talk instead of trying to win a debate in front of an audience, is much nicer.

[@quantumpotential7639]

It's a must to be what? Nice? It's not a mandate. It's a substrate. OK? Okay super then. Excellent. And thanks

[@carsonledgerwood7153]

Haven’t even listened and the fact that you bring on people you disagree with is admirable in times such as now. Love what you produce thank you for the content. Love to all.

[@jamesginty6684]

have you seen aronra's video "Bisbee tries to refute evolution by misreading the evidence" and tony reed's video "How Creationism Taught Me Real Science 44 Lucy" on you tube?

[@scottcarter1689]

@@jamesginty6684 Your records got a scratch on it...

[@jamesginty6684]

have you seen "Exposing the Discovery Institute Part 1: Casey Luskin" on youtube?

[@notme9816]

​@@scottcarter1689Why do I think the only upvotes are his own...

[@PawFlix0101]

This is a great discussion. I've always liked Meyer but now I have a new appreciation and respect for Shermer as well.

[@alittax]

Thank you for making these beautiful discussions public! THIS is what the Internet should be about!

[@TheBackyardProfessor]

a hearty amen!

[@chuckleezodiac24]

"Almost immediately after the introduction of any major technological advancement, humans inevitably end up employing it for porn." Meanwhile, Joe Rogan interviews with proponents of Atlantis hit 15 million views. There's room for everyone -- even Michael Shermer. jk, big fan since the 90's.

[@Diatribal_Warfare]

Pure example of the internets original promise: free access to and exchange of knowledge regardless of who or where you are! Not often lived up to , but certainly is here🤘🤘

[@barrygraham205]

A really great discussion between two fair-minded intellectuals. We don’t see this very often.

[@heydadchannel]

Fascinating discussion with two men who clearly respect each other. Worth watching the whole two hours.

[@giotor5603]

An intelligent conversation about intelligent design is just what the doctor ordered, and exactly what Michael Shermer and Stephen Meyer have delivered. There is so much food for thought throughout these two hours, that I expect to go back many times for extra helpings. I was particularly struck by Mr Shermer's remarks after quoting from Leslie & Kuhn: "we are hitting an epistemological wall". When a materialist and idealist can readily agree on not being able to see what lies on the other side, I would venture to say we have reached a true milestone in the development of human consciousness.

[@gabriellebakker6489]

An intelligent discussion of Intelligent Design only occurs after you’ve been hit on the head with a hammer. And then a doctor is ordered.

[@giotor5603]

@@gabriellebakker6489 Sort of a like a little bang that eventually leads to (seeing) stars? :-)

[@goodcleanmusic]

This was incredible. We need more open and honest conversation like this. I appreciate how both men were polite and honorable.

[@jollygreen9377]

Great interview. That’s how discussions between two opposing views should be handled. With grace and respect. Kudos Michael.

[@reecesullivan9985]

I’ve very slowly and only in selective ways warmed to Shermer, but I have to say this is him at his most pleasant. Good work and good job both for being civil, friendly and open.

[@TomAJohnson1919]

For me, very very slowly. Shermer seems a lightweight between the two.

[@davidanderson6055]

I completely agree. I was never really a fan, but I just discovered his podcast, and his interviews have been excellent so far.

[@randomvlogs876]

I’m a Christian here but I admire Michael Shermer ♥️

[@afonsolopes9677]

You lie

[@PatchGuitar1]

Countdown to Stephen Meyer being on Joe Rogan 🤞 Exposure seems to be what this guy needs, then hopefully more conversations with people educated enough to address his points head on

[@burnsloads]

I came across Stephen on the Hoover institution's 'Uncommon Knowledge' series.

[@sdr4701]

Joe won't have him on. Joe hates Christianity.

[@davewiebe2582]

Joe claims to love having conversations with opposing views but how often does he actually have people with the opposite views on his show

[@AT-qw9cq]

@@burnsloads So did I, though I was disappointed to see their comment section was disabled. The comments would have been good to read.

[@TheGuiltsOfUs]

Scientists have better things to do

[@McAwesomeDelux]

Seems like Shermer turned a corner since the trashing of Hancock. Admittedly, this guy is a scientist and Hancock is a writer, but seeing Shermer taking a look at a theory like this is refreshing. Definitely skeptical of this myself, but I am happy to entertain the notion. As a reformed 'militant athiest', I think it's important to consider all ideas that may be influencing our current reality. Understanding where others are comimg from and seeing their logical process is a much better approach than writing-off a notion off because it posits a "higher being".

[@guenthermichaels5303]

Hmm. I thought the turning point was Deepak Chopra..they had some nasty encounters but have now become good friends.

[@McAwesomeDelux]

@@guenthermichaels5303 could well be where the turn happened! I honestly appreciate Shermer's skepticism, it's important to question everything, in order to sniff out the BS or simply understand a subject better.

[@guenthermichaels5303]

@@McAwesomeDelux I agree, I really respect Shermer's mind.. I'm not that excited about this interview. Too much philosophy...If you knew nothing about Stephen Meyer's scientific argument, one might be lost.. The science argument is really fascinating, and means Darwinism is dead and out dated.. My issue with Meyer is his leap from an intelligence behind the design, to it being a Christian God. The best discussion I have seen on this, is a Hoover institute interview, with Meyer and 2 Scientists..which really opened my mind. Here is the link Watch "Mathematical Challenges to Darwin’s Theory of Evolution" on KZbin kzbin.info/www/bejne/pKDNZaOegrlshac

[@McAwesomeDelux]

@@guenthermichaels5303 listening now! Thanks for tracking down the link, always a pleasure to hear "cooler heads" talking about these subjects.

[@JimPfaff]

The great thing about Michael Shermer and these debates is it has caused everyone to make their arguments better. There's a lot of BS on both sides of this debate. No BS in this discussion. Incredibly useful

[@DerekHoiem]

Thank you for having Dr. Meyer on. In light of recent scientific data, he makes compelling points we should consider.

[@derhafi]

A man who does no reserch at all himself and has never even attemted to present some evidence for this ill-defined intelligence/God/metaphysical substance/ entity/ force/power/ supernatural whatever, not subject to the known laws of physics, that supposingly interacts with the fabric of our reality in ways that have thus far eluded every controlled experiment ever performed in the history of science..that he claims is responsible for life. He is a proponent of a pseudoscientific idea ID, which has never and will never contribute anything to our understanding of nature.

[@zenon3021]

Stephen Meyer's a shill for the Discovery Institute. He's a trickster.

[@danaidahosa5918]

Thank you so much for bringing Stephen Meyer on. I’ve learned so so much from him and am actually here because I follow him. I so much appreciate your kindness and fairness in how you engaged with him!! ❤️❤️❤️

[@richardwiersma]

Oh no Dana! He's a false prophet of pseudo science. Oh no!! What to do? What to do?! Please read all the textbooks and watch hundreds of hours, indeed a thousand hours of KZbin. Maybe you're not totally lost?!?!! Oh my, Dana! Oh my!!

[@theseeker4308]

Stephen's interview on suboor ahmed's channel is brilliant

[@UseADamnCoaster]

Stephen is nefarious as are all members of the Discovery Institute. Intelligent design is not scientific. It's creationism, and therefore pseudoscience, in a shiny new package. It is designed to mislead people who don't have enough knowledge to refute the claims made. Many D.I. members have doctorates which boost their credibility, but the scientific claims they make are demonstrably inaccurate. Please educate yourself on the opposing side... you will see what I mean.

[@alexnik1181]

You learned a lot of fiction from him. He constantly misrepresents science in order to sneak in imaginary things that he wants to be real.

[@mathewmalloy7964]

Ive been watching these two for more than a decade now. seeing them grow old and lose their hairs make me emotional. time flies

[@WilliamSneed-lc7bl]

Two brilliant minds engaged in a civil and scientific discussion of foundational ideology! Wow, we need more of this. One of the most interesting interviews I have ever seen. Thank you.

[@jakehccc1]

I am so impressed with Mike Shermer as he exhibited the qualities of conversation that was respectful of all ideas. Great Job Mike and I would love to watch more in the future! Steve was of the very same Respectful Value. Great example Stephen!

[@TheBackyardProfessor]

Shermer is one of the sharper of minds, and I think this format is the most helpful. Kudos to both these gents!

[@TracyPicabia]

You have to hand it to theism, it really has upped its game recently

[@kenbarber6592]

It helps to not be suppressed, and I am aware that all power structures have more than a proclivity to do so.

[@Minister-Peter-V1-Church]

It helps when you don't have smear campaigns against you and disinformation campaigns

[@kenbarber6592]

@@Minister-Peter-V1-Church • 👍 You put it better than I did.

[@gabriellebakker6489]

You’ve got to be kidding!

[@TracyPicabia]

@@gabriellebakker6489 I don't think they are! Incredibly. I might start a smear campaign just to make them feel less wrong 🤣

[@adamfreshour4618]

It's good to see people who disagree in things not calling names.

[@blackswan7568]

After watching the train wreck that was the debate between Meyer and Krauss, I was very happy to see a much more productive, deep, and friendly discussion here. Big thanks to Drs. Shermer and Meyer for this conversation, and I'm excited to read Meyer's book in the near future😁

[@derhafi]

Meyer is an absolute disgrace and deserves no platform or respect. His "work" consists mostly of lying about science for his boss Howard F. Ahmanson, Jr. who openly wants to replace democracy with a fundamentalist theocracy. If he's not busy writing "The wedge paper" which outlines his and his right wing Christian Taliban employers strategy : “To replace materialistic explanations with the theistic understanding that nature and human beings are created by God"

[@simonrae3048]

Jeez, Michael Shermer just keeps churning them out. Fantastic work rate. Becoming my favourite podcast

[@23centurysetback]

Whether or not you agree with his conclusions (I don’t), Meyer sure knows his stuff and his arguments were thought-provoking. I really enjoyed this one.

[@SuperColeman88]

(I don’t”) could be (I don’t know) the mind is still open

[@markcredit6086]

I highly doubt you are remotely qualified to comment on his work

[@derhafi]

@@markcredit6086 His "work" consists mostly of lying about science for his boss Howard F. Ahmanson, Jr. who openly wants to replace democracy with a fundamentalist theocracy. If he's not busy writing "The wedge paper" which outlines his and his right wing Christian taliban employers strategy : “To replace materialistic explanations with the theistic understanding that nature and human beings are created by God" Meyer is an absolute disgrace and deserves no platform or respect.

[@tonybanks1035]

Fantastic conversation. Stephen has a pretty impressive intellect.

[@tonybanks1035]

@@jamesginty6684 I'm sure it must be very interesting, but I was referring to Stephen only. Regardless of any shady associations.

[@seanmulcahy3243]

​@Miles Doyle you are obviously very passionate. maybe just a few less words, 1 cor 2:4. ask for a word in season

[@si-page]

Wow, what a terrific discussion! I really appreciate the manner in which Michael and Stephen listen to each other. I have to say, I was blown away by Stephen Meyer's reasoning for Intelligent Design. Quite brilliant! I've just bought his book, Return to God, as a result of this video. Thank you again Michael for showing patience and humility when listening to Stephen.

[@drts6955]

Can I ask why? I'm listening and sounds like the usual hot air. It's not a hard to understand that it's silly to argue from a starting point that is a foregone conclusion, yet he does exactly this

[@gregbrown3082]

@@drts6955 I am feeling the exact same. Hitch would have finished this conversation in under 100 words. Just because there seems to be a beginning... Doesn't necessarily imply an intelligent designer. Or miracles, answered prayers, and the like. To give the "creator" hyperintelligent, human qualities... Seems to me, to be the definition of arrogance. If there is a God, he is overly fond of beetles. Of which, there are over 350,000 species. He is also fond of viruses. There have been at least 10 viruses for every species to ever exist. And 99 percent of all species to ever live... Are now extinct. If there is a designer, he would seem rather bungling and incompetent. Or at least wasteful, by our standard.

[@drts6955]

@@gregbrown3082 But remember God works in mysterious ways...

[@familykeepersca]

@@gregbrown3082 As computer is programmed by 1010101... to work, you are ATCGGGGCCCTTTAA..., and all creatures are the same, what you can tell from the same? If you found out there are wisdoms in the programmed ATCGGGGCT..., then you will understand how come the birds know the season, destination thousand of miles away, the spiders know how to weave paralleled web, chicken comes before egg. These questions are more important than virus..

[@cecildison6788]

@@gregbrown3082 didn’t hitch come to think that aliens brought spores to earth to start life. Y’all have some intelligent people on your side. But all of them can’t answer the question of where the information for life came from.

[@johnpatmos1722]

This is precisely what is needed (as with Keating's podcast) as an interlocuter between science and the population at large. We must have these conversations. Thank you.

[@dantheman909]

I generally find the lack of open discourse and free thinking among the atheist materialists disappointing and frankly unscientific. But Shermer is a breath of fresh air! Great chat

[@jamesginty6684]

have you seen "Exposing the Discovery Institute Part 1: Casey Luskin" on youtube?

[@faikerdogan2802]

It's the opposite but sure xd

[@dantheman909]

@@faikerdogan2802 Sure, sometimes and sometimes not. But your comment proves my point ;)

[@dantheman909]

@@jamesginty6684 Yes, Professor Dave speaks on every scientific topic, and frankly I find him lacking.

[@travelinghobo]

​@@dantheman909 LOL

[@heavennotharvard5277]

Thank you for such a wonderful conversation. I think this is much better than debates. Going back and forth and exploring thoughts is such a good format.

[@kentclark9616]

I think this is really the only way to see both sides clearly. I’ve always found debates inconclusive.

[@hmdshokri]

these kind of talks are very useful for staying calm in this times

[@johnbrown4568]

Stephen Meyer is not only a brilliant intellectual...but also a gentleman. Thank you Dr. Shermer for hosting Dr. Meyer.

[@verles44]

How nice was that! Shermer did a great job. I have long been an advocate of ID. However, to hear Shermer allowing and encouraging a full airing of Meyer's analyses, in such a friendly and positive way, was very impressive. Thank you.

[@jamesginty6684]

have you seen aronra's video "Bisbee tries to refute evolution by misreading the evidence" and tony reed's video "How Creationism Taught Me Real Science 44 Lucy" on you tube?

[@melissacurtis7455]

@@jamesginty6684 I'm in love with Aron's brain 🧠 😍

[@cynthiafeick]

I have all three of your most recent books, Stephen Meyer, and love listening to you speak, converse and debate. Thank you, Michael Shermer, for this video. Looking forward to your new book on conspiracy theories and conspiracies. That should be very interesting read!

[@familykeepersca]

+1 I have 2

[@alrdye]

As someone who has been quite evangelical on both sides of the argument, and while I don't know what it would take to move me back towards a more theist viewpoint, the older I get, the more I value friendly, civil conversations such as this. I think there is definitely still a time and place for strong argument and debate but what seems to be lacking everywhere these days is civility and the ability to disagree with each other and not take disagreement as a personal attack. Many thanks to both Mr. Shermer and Mr. Meyer for this talk. If I could make one critique to Mr. Shermer, and perhaps this couldn't be helped, but there seemed to be an audio delay that caused a bit of talking over each other at times.

[@andrewmills3842]

I’m a christian and first time checking out Michael’s page. This was a great conversation. Always enjoy listening to Michael.

[@Aurealeus]

[...] " first time checking out Michael’s page." ... "Always enjoy listening to Michael." "first time" - "Always" seems to be a conflict here....

[@anzu3439]

Thank you both for having the conversation. I’m a very dysfunctional,angry atheist with issues towards theist like Steven. This was very therapeutic ✌🏻💜

[@JimPfaff]

It's therapeutic for us theists who actually respect Michael Shermer for his honest approach to truth and reality even in disagreement.

[@anzu3439]

@@JimPfaff your a good man

[@jcbquark8037]

@anzu that u admitted ur condition already shows a maturity that u have that many, me including, don’t have

[@EMO_alpha]

Ohhhhh damn!!!! I have been wanting to hear Meyer talk to a skeptic lol

[@TyrellWellickEcorp]

Shermer will keep living in denial, doesn’t have any good objections to Meyers arguments

[@JimPfaff]

@@TyrellWellickEcorp Goodness! Give the man a break. As a theist, I surely disagree with him. But his questions were insightful and quite useful. Shermer adds a lot to this debate. And he gave Stephen C. Meyer a full platform to discuss his ideas. That surely should count for something positive you could provide in your statement. I frankly like Michael Shermer a lot even with my stark disagreements with his ideas. I'll be listening to his podcast with much more regularity. Thanks, Michael. You made this fun and interesting. And I appreciate you very much. I hope my podcast sometime in the future gains enough prominence that you'll come on. Thank you.

[@rexdalit3504]

@Darwinism is a fairy tale Hi Diaft. Do you really imagine that there are no cogent counter responses to Meyers' so-called arguments? If so, you need to comprehensively rethink your understanding of science, starting with Laplace and moving forward from there.

[@markcredit6086]

@@rexdalit3504 there aren't and you can't name any, Darwin is dead get over it

[@PreachClub]

Michael, I'm a Christian but I admired the way you interviewed Stephen. You led him into a really great conversation. You seem really fair minded and I think skepticism is really valuable in this crazy world we live in.

[@neilclaypoole7529]

Love your show Michael I am so so glad you let people you interview give there side without a useless debate which on most shows is just a yelling match

[@johnr4670]

Great conversation! I love a good debate but this was very, very refreshing! In a world of violent division, dialogue is pleasant and welcome.

[@ruexcited2WholeHearted]

Fun to listen to such knowledgeable and articulate people talking about something we should all be interested in

[@jamesginty6684]

have you seen aronra's video "Bisbee tries to refute evolution by misreading the evidence" and tony reed's video "How Creationism Taught Me Real Science 44 Lucy" on you tube?

[@zgobermn6895]

Wow! Looking forward to go dig thru this. Thanks Michael!

[@daheikkinen]

Great discussion. Thank you, gentlemen

[@daneracamosa]

That was extraordinary... Thank you for sharing the conversation.

[@mmatt2613]

wow. one of the few non-vitriolic dialogues i've witnessed in this area. nice to see. thank you.

[@karenness5588]

a feeling of sadness or sympathy for someone else's unhappiness or difficult situation "The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but blind, pitiless indifference." But, there is more than "blind, pitiless indifference" in the universe Pity, according to the Cambridge Dictionary online, is "a feeling of sadness or sympathy for someone else's unhappiness or difficult situation." How can pity originate in a world of "blind, pitiless indifference?" Pity posits a universal value, that of life. All life values life; one could even posit that all matter is a denial of entropy and an affirmation of life. Why should such a value exist in a blind, pitiless universe? Value itself posits good versus evil; one thing is better than another, one thing is to be preferred over another.

[@notloki3377]

wow micheal shermer really got the interview right. no unfair characterizations, no personal attacks or psychologizing, none of the stuff i've gotten so used to with self described "skeptics." really good stuff, keep it idea-focused with mutual appreciation and a quest for understanding.

[@furnman68]

Love this! You are now on my podcast list. Awesome.

[@terrygodgirl4430]

Just bought this book on audible. Really looking forward to reading/ listening to it.

[@giotor5603]

I am on the same journey! The the narrator is very good-, but I am quite thankful for the rewind function:-)

[@terrygodgirl4430]

@@giotor5603the rewind function is well used for sure 😂

[@kennethmarshall306]

Meyer doesn’t explain how complexity can arise out of simplicity. He says that Dawkins & Co are not different from him because they say that physical matter and energy have always been here, whereas he’s saying that an intelligent mind has always been here. But Meyer’s theory is less satisfactory because it doesn’t explain how a complex thing like a mind (which must’ve been every bit as complex as the minds that it designed) could come about from something simple

[@jacquesd5781]

Stephen C. Meyer is a formidable debater. This man comes prepared and his arguments are very compelling and well-reasoned. I spent decades working on my atheism (I grew up in a religious family), and this man is doing a great job of challenging my beliefs and making sure I never fall in the trap of thinking any of this is settled. It isn't, regardless of my frustration with this fact. I do not like the idea of a creator, and I would like to be done with it, along with some of the childish and ill-founded dogmas of religions, which are mostly old and obsolete both philosophically and scientifically. But there are many problems with dispensing of intelligent design altogether and Stephen does a very good job of addressing them scientifically and empirically, while avoiding the low-resolution and ineptly-crafted arguments we usually get from many creationists who have only read one Book. I have nothing but respect for this man.

[@samdg1234]

I'm glad to hear your candid admission, *"Stephen C. Meyer is a formidable debater."* Good on you. Keep it up and make your decision(s) on inferring to the best explanation you have at the moment. Your comment reminds me of two others from atheists. One a quote another a youtube link, "In speaking of the fear of religion, I don’t mean to refer to the entirely reasonable hostility toward certain established religions and religious institutions, in virtue of their objectionable moral doctrines, social policies, and political influence. Nor am I referring to the association of many religious beliefs with superstition and the acceptance of evident empirical falsehoods. I am talking about something much deeper-namely, the fear of religion itself. I speak from experience, being strongly subject to this fear myself: I want atheism to be true and am made uneasy by the fact that some of the most intelligent and well-informed people I know are religious believers. It isn’t just that I don’t believe in God and, naturally, hope that I’m right in my belief. It’s that I hope there is no God! I don’t want there to be a God; I don’t want the universe to be like that." -Thomas Nagel and, *kzbin.info/www/bejne/bIermoiglJh9iqs*

[@rejectevolution152]

What do you think about humans having such low genetic diversity?

[@jacquesd5781]

@@rejectevolution152 Sexual selection, mostly. War, second. I'm only guessing, I'm not an expert, exactly. We keep finding other species of hominins that date back thousands of years, which is proof that there was vast genetic diversity at some point. Usually, when we find stuff, it's just the tip of an iceberg. The fossil record keeps growing, and it always strengthens the evolution theories - not the creationist ones. The math is weird, yes. There doesn't seem to have enough time to explain the extent of the diversity sometimes (e.g. the Cambrian explosion), true. But evolution is still rock solid. We just need more time to figure things out.

[@rejectevolution152]

@@jacquesd5781 What do you think about there not being evidence for the supposed catastrophe that caused the low genetic diversity 200k years ago? Or even evidence for these populations 200k years ago?

[@jacquesd5781]

​@@rejectevolution152 Considering the archeological boom basically only started in the mid 1800's (we hadn't even documented dinosaurs until 1842 or so), we cannot argue that a lack of evidence is proof of anything. Here's what we do know : the sciences of geology, paleontology, carbon-dating, archeology, biology, and many more, all confirm the theories of evolution. There is still a lot we do not know, but seeing God in every gap of knowledge is childish and primitive. Every time we make a scientific discovery that explains something that was a mystery until then, someone's God dies. This has been true for hundreds of years. Let's move on and get to work, and see where science leads us. 4,000 year old stories are cool and filled with certain wisdoms, true, but the science and history they contain are old and obsolete. Having said that, we have to keep ourselves in check and address our biases, and reject all forms of tribal worship - whether that be in the form of a God or a theory. So, keep 'em coming, I like the exercise.

[@CourageousParenting]

I appreciate the work of Stephen Meyer tremendously.

[@revelationtrain7518]

Me too

[@familykeepersca]

@@revelationtrain7518 +1

[@sufficientmagister9061]

@@familykeepersca Social credit score.

[@matthiusantonin2652]

I think he's wasted his time, trapped in a rabbit hole he's unwilling to get out of, yearning for acceptance.

[@CourageousParenting]

@@matthiusantonin2652 I can think of a myriad of other ways to get attention.

[@SomeChristianGuy.]

Wow, this was really great. Invigorating actually.

[@tomhummel2641]

Please enable automatic captions in this video. The switch for that is not present neither on App nor web-browser. I really look forward to this one!

[@erikmeissner6492]

Have to commend Michael for being very respectful and charitable. Good to see.

[@joehinojosa8030]

These guys know the secret of HOW TO END WORLD WARS, respectful dialogue

[@laurencehugo5910]

I'm a creationist, however, I really enjoy listening to Michael Shermer.

[@terencedavid3146]

Along with Dr Stephen Meyer, my other two favourite biologists are Dr Ruperrt Sheldrake and Dr Bruce Lipton. Would love to see them as guests on your pod cast. Thank you Mr Shermer 🙏🏼

[@lizadowning4389]

Except ... Meyer isn't a biologist ... He holds a degree in "History and Philosophy of Science". He doesn't understand chemistry, physics and biology, and is caught red handed lying about scientific facts. He claims there were no animals living before the Cambrian ... lie ... fossel records have shown that. He claims the Cambrian only lasted 10 MA ... lie ... it lasted 70 MA. He doesn't understand DNA, it's code, reproduction, and how aminoacids are formed. But his ignorance doesn't hold him back to claim numerous falsehoods on. I can go on like forever ... In short, he's a fraud, and held up to the scrutiny of real scientists, he fails big time. Note that he never published his "findings" in a scientific paper which are the way scientists go about. Papers get reviewed by their peers, scrutinised and corrected if necessary. He knows he can't do that because then he would be exposed for the liar and fraud he is. And that's why he writes popular pseudoscience books where readers gulp up all his lies and misrepresentations ... to finally declare him their hero. ... just like you just did.

[@treasurecave431]

This is what we call an intelligent conversation between two people who disagree with each other. Very nice

[@den8863]

An intelligent conversation from their intelligently designed minds.😊

[@rselwyn1000]

Such a great video ! There is such accommodation, tolerance and respect for the other in this discussion. I like what Michael says @ 35.03 Will we ever get to a consensus 50 years & 100 years from now ? Then @39:11 If God handed us these moral values, how do we know what they are? Do we get them out of holy books, those holy books conflict with each other why can't we go straight to the source? why do we have to read it in a book?

[@rh001YT]

Dawkin's line about "pitiless indifference" seems to be in a style inspired by Nietzsche.

[@Davidjune1970]

Dawkins argument is a child equivalent of not understanding why parents choose not to spank a 17 year old for making a mistake or why a parent doesn’t fix every problem that 17 year old faces. If you assume God knows what the outcome of every interaction or non-interaction is and that anything more would ruin the outcome … then complaining about indifference is just dawkins not understanding or even weighing the question of how would God get people to genuinely love him and be morally inclined. 1) would people be more true in their character and love for God if they followed the few clues and hints at his existence. Or 2) an all powerful God appearing to them and the person being in awe and likely frightened at the power of and fear of offending God. Based on humans capacity to rebel against forced behaviour and supreme authority … I think we could all understand fundamentally that there would be a lot of problems with a big chunk of people rebelling against an actively involved God and that another larger chuck of people would just obey out of fear of consequences. The best analogue for people who are materialism (only believe in things that can be proved) based in their world view would be if you were a multi-billionaire that needed to find a wife who would never divorce you and would actually truly love you. Would you best achieve that by A) interacting with a partner without them knowing or seeing your vast wealth so that they fall in love with who you are as a person Or B) sweep your potential partner off their feet by spending millions on them and taking care of any problems they have …. Would that create a truly loving relationship that would last for eternity,

[@stevedriscoll2539]

Dawkins is mean...what did the Universe do to him😂😂😂😂😂😂😂

[@Samsgarden]

Can you imagine 100,000 years of science? I can’t. We’ve already reached the interface of human redundancy

[@marcsee4072]

thank you Dr Shermer for having this beautiful conversation with Stephen. Your point on economy - well there is is a question of "who created participants, money, goods, rules"

[@yasinali6223]

These guys just show how beautiful and Amazing the Mind is. They have talked short of two hours in every possible subject with impeccable clarity of their thoughts and focus. Just wondering if they're real. I like Michael's style of interview as he is a writer himself makes this show amazing. Stephen seems to know everything. Sometimes in places I wish he could speak English ( Like Marty Mcfly said to the prof).BEAUTIFUL MINDS !

[@user-vf5mx8fh8j]

Good discussion. I learned a lot from both parties. This was the most interesting book I've read in a long time.

[@StadlerOpinion]

This is a refreshing, refreshing conversation.

[@Andrew-cc4vk]

Great stuff, Michael. Hope things in SB are beautiful.

[@mhorram]

Regarding the part of the discussion that dealt with math and the mistake of assuming that math somehow (directly or indirectly) 'created' the universe, theoretical physicist Sabine Hossenfelder wrote a book on this topic. The Book's title is _Lost in Math_ and deals with how physicists (many not all) have been seduced by Math and are trying to find explanations of quantum physics and quantum gravity that are based on elegant mathematical formulae. They believe that the state of the universe MUST be based on their beautiful mathematics. A good book by a brilliant mind who is a top of the line physicist. She has no problem kicking her fellow physicists in the balls (figuratively, of course) in this book (as she does from time to time on her KZbin channel). After reading Dr. Meyer's book you should consider reading Hossenfelder's book. Both books are mind opening and educational.

[@hongkongtennis]

The concept of intelligent design is interesting. Where do these guys define what they mean by god? What does Meyer mean by the Judeo Christian concept of god? How can we decide what we think about what he is saying without this definition? Why has he chosen Christianity rather than one of the other forms of theism? That Isaac Newton believed in some form of god is no big deal. He had no idea of the size of the universe. I guess I’ll have to read his book.

[@Jb22372]

Excellent question, the idea of the Christian god logically and rationally aligns with the reality we live in.

[@Diatribal_Warfare]

Pure example of the internets original promise: free access to and exchange of knowledge regardless of who or where you are! Not often lived up to , but certainly is here🤘🤘

[@jjjccc728]

Interesting conversation. His use of Occam's razor to distinguish the god hypothesis from other hypotheses was also interesting. An unconscious eternal state of affairs like a multiverse or cyclic universe would seem to be simpler in that unconsciousness is simpler than consciousness.

[@mooseminddayan4650]

Dr Shermer is unbelievably tolerant and patient. I admire that so much.

[@SimplifiedTruth]

I agee. Like him a lot. I believe he is sincerely listening and trying to examine each idea and view the best he can. He really tries to see it the other person's way. Which other atheists, agnostics did the same.

[@Andre_XX]

I don't think he was forceful enough in pointing out the flaws in what Meyer was saying.

[@markcredit6086]

@@Andre_XX what flaws Shermer is barley qualified to talk to him

[@Andre_XX]

@@markcredit6086 A guy who believes in supernatural forces of a "transcendent influencer" (whatever the heck that is supposed to be) is suffering from a rather serious and disabling flaw.

[@philstilwell]

I am not sure to make of Stephen's conflation between philosophical naturalism and methodological naturalism. If I caught it correctly, he has a degree in philosophy of science. Can this be true? Does he not think the conceptual gap between philosophical naturalism and methodological naturalism is vast? Why would he call methodological naturalism a "bias" that does not allow for the miraculous instead of the inductively assessed balance of the supernatural explanation track record against the natural explanation track record? And if now wants, for some odd reason, to equate methodological naturalism and philosophical naturalism, what does he want to call this assessed balance of the supernatural explanation track record against the natural explanation track record? It is clearly a concept of immense value? If we start calling philosophical and methodological naturalism identical, we will need to agree on a coherent tag for this inductive track record concept. This concept is at the core of a coherent epistemology: that which has shown to have the most predictive power in the past, to the degree that it has proven predictively superior, to that degree we favor it in the future. Stephen, if you're reading, could you explain this odd conflation between these two very different kinds of naturalistic dispositions?

[@Burtimus02]

I would love to see a response to this.

[@xnoreq]

Conflating the two for a philosopher, especially one with a degree in philosophy of science, is intellectual suicide. But the agenda is obvious: denigrate "natural" science to clear the field for inserting the supernatural aka the arbitrary, or even shorter: BS. Because you can make up arbitrary supernatural claims. Their truth can not be determined and they are indistinguishable from other nonsense.

[@tonguemybumb]

yeah and just before he says that he mentions confirmation bias within the scientific community. clearly he doesn't understand how peer review works and independent reproducibility.

[@henrybarrick7205]

Great coversation. Thank you for hosting it and making it available. I'll be back to see more.

[@vintagetrikesandquads4012]

I would like to know what Meyer thinks makes the strongest argument for God, the origins of the universe or the origins of life? It almost sounds like life is the greater miracle.

[@Luke-pc5rb]

Almost finished the book. Fantastic read. Meyer makes a great case for ID while refuting his critics and fearlessly examining alternative ideas about the origin of life. This is no God of the gaps, this is examine the evidence and ask yourself what is more probable based on the evidence we have.... random chance or intelligence.

[@mavumamduduzi632]

No one could have said better. Thank you

[@Andre_XX]

Random chance is at least a known phenomenon. Immaterial, originless intelligence is utterly unknown. Don't be too persuaded by sophisticated-sounding illogical nonsense.

[@HappyBloke81]

@@Andre_XX Random chance doesn't exist. Random chance means "I'm ignorant to how this is happening" And that is not an explanation. You can't say "I don't know did it"

[@Andre_XX]

@@HappyBloke81 I was trying to point out that even random chance is a known phenomenon - unlike supernatural bs. Evolution is a two stage process (1) random chance (2) non random selection. Creationists tend to concentrate on saying it is all random chance, which it is not.

[@HappyBloke81]

@@Andre_XX random chance is a known phenomena? Wow I've never seen it in existence. Can you show me where to see it

[@sebastiantorker4930]

Do you really need to imagine a creator (not that I’m aware of any proof for his existence) when it’s a proven fact that 50% of children in human history didn’t make it past the age of 5 (meaning that god intentionally condemned them to dying prematurely)

[@gretareinarsson7461]

What a fantastic conversation. Much better then debates.

[@RobSed55]

Thank you. Enjoyed being able to listen to a 2 hour conversation.

[@peterockbx]

Excellent, thanks Mr. Meyers

[@seankennedy4284]

The presumption that scientists should not, and therefore do not, select and interpret evidences according to preconceptions and paradigmatic biases is unhelpful (and _itself_ a paradigmatic bias). In short, to err is human. Science is merely a tool of human use, not an innoculation against bias, mistake, or alas dishonesty.

[@zafirivanov1230]

I have heard a lot of different definitions of Science. I often say something along the lines of its a set of practices and tools for increasing or decreasing confidence in an idea. I've come across a few definitions that state it is a set of practices to minimize bias. My favourite definition is from Lisa Feldman Barrett- "Science is the quantification of doubt." I not sure if it is true, but I do like it.

[@Andre_XX]

"Science is merely a tool of human use..." I'm not sure the word "merely" is appropriate here. It is the best tool we have, and with no close second.

[@sanjosemike3137]

I had the privilege and pleasure to meet Dr. Michael at a seminar of the Skeptic Society when I was an atheist. I enjoyed his seminar immensely and am glad I attended. I met really nice people and the scientists who spoke were gracious and friendly. Dr. Shermer is not afraid of those who disagree with him. I wish him good health and good luck! Sanjosemike (no longer in CA)

[@glennwallace1365]

I commend Michael Shermer for so patiently listening to Mr. Meyer's retrodictions. Reminds me of the Scopes monkey trial.

[@offcenterconcepthaus]

Good show. Two things: conflating "religion" isn't helpful, the various religions posit much different realities; each religion is a description of reality with (ideally) predictive power.

[@anthonypolonkay2681]

I would say that at minimum the thing just about all religions do agree on is that there is some form of transcendent being/power that exists. And that this power is responsible for all of existance. And the functional part of that that would minimally have to do with us is the fact such a being/power exists, and is responsible for our existance, that naturally lends itself to meaning there is some form of objective right, and wrong that exists. We may not know it innately, but that it is there.

[@Jim-mn7yq]

I guess it's not much of a secret that Michael and Stephen are friends.

[@jacklcooper3216]

Great conversation, Stephen is very formidable, and correct The Morality argument is not a strong point ,,until the stronger ones are posed . Just a good ice breaker

[@franmorrison1080]

kzbin.info/www/bejne/poS4Y558nd1meMU

[@gilbertbloomer586]

I find this mutual sharing of understandings much more fruitful than polemic arguments that demonise the other.

[@bellezavudd]

So many hopeful that the possibilities of deism equals the probability of their particular theist beliefs. Like the pigeons ," Mine! MINE, MINE !

[@grassCrow]

that seems to go both ways … you also suffer from confirmation bias

[@bellezavudd]

@@grassCrow No doubt, I am quite capable of confirmation bias. However that's not what I'm referring to here. This is concerning those people who are (desperately) hopeful , that out of all the thousands of recorded religious fantasies theirs is the real and right one.

[@clubadv]

Stephen Meyer is easily the best ID interlocketer out there.

[@Unconskep]

ID has a big fat problem ( mechanism) there is no way of testing, analysing, evaluating, researching, studying or providing it ,thats why the book is called the God hypothesis, you can't need evidence for a hypothesis, to prove anything beyond reasonable doubt you must provide mechanism,......there is no mechanism for ID or a biblical God

[@Unconskep]

@@mattberrytr1 yes but multi universe is natural phenomena, it only takes a piece of inflationary vacuum the size of a kilogram to start a big bang event, quantum theory allows this to happen without God, there is a strong theory of the inflationary vacuum increasing faster and getting hotter, however this huge amount of energy had to go somewhere, it went into creating the big bang, it's like thousands/ millions of tiny bubbles forming in a huge ocean, ever expanding and our universe is just one of those countess bubbles, black holes have evidence of an older universe, there are stars older than our known universe Our universe could be expanding off a dying universe and when our universe ends another expands off ours eternally, in an expansion and contraction ,getting better every time ( fine tuning) just like evolution our universe could be an improvement from the last and so on.

[@xnoreq]

@@mattberrytr1 The multiverse is a scientific hypothesis. God claims are often untestable, arbitrary claims that are indistinguishable from nonsense. And this is not an accident. The history of religions and belief in gods shows a clear development away from falsifiable, testable god claims to arbitrary god claims that are immunized against any kind of criticism. What believers haven't realized is that this completely destroys any significance of the claim. If you have a claim which you can make arbitrary excuses for, then it also has zero explanatory power. It's useless.

[@filamcouple_teamalleiah8479]

I have several issues with Meyer's critique: regarding RNA World he seems to forget that time plays an enormous role. We know that after the last major asteroidal bombardment there was a period of 300-400 million years wherein the billions if not many trillions of replicators could have formed. These in turn could have easily become protobionts and later cellular culminating over this period into a plethora of "LUCA LIKE" ancestors competing for nutrients and energy. Nearly 1/2 a billion years is a long, long time. The interesting comparative molecular similarities between rhodopsin, hemoglobin, chlorophyll a,b,c,d, and the tetrapyrole (bile pigment) phycobilin found in bluegreen algal phycobilisomes shows pretty clearly the antiquity of these various pigments, their importance to life, and the conservative nature of evolution. Regarding the appearance of a profusion of Cambrian life, again we know that there existed a variety of organisms, albeit very poorly fossilized as Edicaran fauna, that are at least 100 million yrs older than early Cambrian fauna. So his reluctance to mention time is an obvious bias. There was no "Cambrian Explosion."

[@robertspence7766]

Good conversation. This is a year old, however the repeated statement of "fine tuning" assumes that our fundamental physics constants can only support the universe and life if they are exactly what they are. Current models show that we can make a certain range of adjustments to multiple or all constants and still have a Universe consistent with what we observe, including the processes necessary for life.

[@Titurel]

So basically we need a creator to explain information and complexity because it just cant have "happened". So we need a creator who embodies information and complexity who seems to have just "happened" by always existing. But it's dressed up in scientific jargon so ok then!

[@PeaceTrainUSA-1000]

The argument is that information has in our current experience always been found to have a root source of consciousness, so it’s reasonable to assume that information found in DNA was also sourced from consciousness. What would be novel is information from randomness.

[@robdielemans9189]

This is great, I also love having conversations with friends of mine or random people for that matter that I don't agree with. Stephen's viewpoint is well substantiated if and only if you consider the whole universe deterministic. Now when it basically comes to irreducible complexity where you can only understand it or explain it if you incorporate an intelligent designer, then that is an ancient pattern where at first we can't explain why X works, therefore god, then over time someone makes a solid case into explaining why X works, and then the theists just crank up the microscope, find at least 1 aspect that is (still) not explained using current models and say, but how do you explain this? So far the answer to those questions were just a matter of time.

[@familykeepersca]

Well said! Now help explain how a spider knows how to weave it's web, are there math skills, or wisdoms in their action and work? and "how" does it knows what to do? As we all knew, all creatures except humans know when to do what? I totally agreed it's the gap of God if any one said God made it! Answering this way is traditionally Creationism-no explanation; not wrong, but outdated.

[@robdielemans9189]

@@familykeepersca "As we all knew, all creatures except humans know when to do what?" That's a rather bold assumption to make. I don't agree with it. So the fallacy here is that you project human traits onto an animal and then ask a question only fit for humans. How do you know that a spider even thinks at all? Portia shows remarkable intelligent behaviour I grant you that. I could ask you how do you know when to breathe, or digest food, or know when to go to sleep. Also look into emergent behaviour that one accounts for loads of things that when viewed initially looks very complex, sparrow patterns is the first thing that comes to mind.

[@Davidjune1970]

The origin of the universe was the biggest black hole in history. According to your posit the only variable needed to explain how that blackhole was torn apart is time, that does not make sense as we know you need energy to tear a blackhole apart. We cannot even conceive of how much energy it would take to pull a blackhole apart let alone the largest blackhole that ever existed. How that amount of energy was enough to ensure the universe was fine tuned for life. That the amount of energy to pull it apart was enough to ensure planets, stars and galaxies could form, yet not so much that the universe will ever collapse. Materialistic science cannot explain that, nearly infinite energy to cause the universe to come into existence doesn’t just happen when you wait. No one has ever observed a blackhole being destroyed. In fact we see blackholes destroying galaxies, stars and other chunks of the universe … not the other way around. So if it doesn’t happen when just waiting … what did it, what type of energy tore the blackhole apart, how did that energy get there, what explains the varying speed of expansion of the universe

[@bucketofbarnacles]

I appreciate conversations like this. I say this even as I am a firm believer that there is a gaping hole in the intelligent design argument: What is the origin of the intelligent designer? Nevertheless, I enjoyed this and hope there are more. Michael, we need such conversations at the political level as well. Regarding “Valuing is something that only persons can do.” As far our knowledge goes, this is true.

[@robinrobyn1714]

There's no'gaping hole' in the Intelligent Design argument. Let me help you out, because you are thousands of years late in getting the memo: There's no origin of what the ancient Greek Philosopher Aristotle termed-' The Unmoved Mover'. Aristotle is the person who codified Logic itself.

[@chikkipop]

@@robinrobyn1714 Nonsense. That's no more than a declaration. It's the antithesis of logic.

[@robinrobyn1714]

@@chikkipop Nonsense. Nothing more than a declaration. Your words are completely devoid of logic.

[@robinrobyn1714]

@@chikkipop If you are an ignorant Atheist s.o.b. that's your problem. Aristotle codified Logic, and he posited, as logical and axiomatic, " Ho ou Kimonous Kinei"(' Unmoved Mover"/" Uncaused First Cause")

[@chikkipop]

@@robinrobyn1714 *"If you are an ignorant Atheist s.o.b. that's your problem."* Ahhhh, but if I am an *informed* atheist, it is the problem of arrogant and misguided believers like you! ;-) "Posit" means a statement which is made on the assumption that it will prove to be true. Claiming an ancient figure is the final authority on logic is self-evidently false. Secondly, an "Uncaused First Cause" does not imply an intelligent designer. The first cause can simply be the force of nature. Until such time as science advances in its understanding, if it ever does, defaulting to a "god" is simply the unwarranted conclusion of those uncomfortable with mysteries. If I had to guess which was more likely -- some form of uncaused intelligence, or nature as a brute fact - I would go with nature, since we already observe it, we have proof of its design power, and we have abundant evidence of the psychological needs leading humans to invent comforting answers. Including asshats like you. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

[@williammcenaney1331]

This video skyrocketed my respect for Dr. Shermer. When he last debated Dr. Meyer, Shermer sounded like a philosophically superficial entertainer repeating answered atheistic criticisms. After that debate, I wanted to ignore him. To me, he still seems philosophically ignorant. But he deserves much more attention than I expected to pay him.