The Comprehensive Guide to Science and Faith with Dr. Casey Luskin

[@johnbrown4568]

Eric, great interview with Casey. Thank you for posting this video.

[@gordondalrymple7644]

It takes way more belief to think we are products of evolution than created by Intelligent Design

[@larrywilliams5490]

I got the book on my list.👍

[@JamesRichardWiley]

Eric knows things I don't know because he has a book.

[@dpacko4700]

There is a great video by Destin Sandlin at Smarter Every Day called "Nature's Incredible ROTATING MOTOR" re: the bacterial flagella

[@bren4681]

Excellent discussion. I just don't get the green socks. 😊

[@heatherjaracz]

It's just to make you wonder, "Why green socks?" 😂

[@cptrikester2671]

Given enough time and research, many evolutionists will conclude that there is a Creator.

[@rishabi6936]

Goated comment

[@shipwright6122]

😏

[@conniejohnson5249]

Erik. There is a new corporate structure that tends to denigrate " individual heroics ". It appears that people that go above and beyond are to be ashamed of doing greatness and that we should all be mediocre. I would like to see someone actually talk to someone in corporate America about this and to figure this out. I assure you it is not a good thing,

[@chrismessier7094]

i'm one of them. i'm two of them lol!!! Eric XD

[@watchmen6504]

Casey Luskin should get to debate Bill Nye. He would destroy Bill, who isn't even a real scientist.

[@beste7187]

Luskin should perhaps make an effort to enter into a real academic discourse with the scientific community, but he never does. No paper, no research, nothing. And he loses discussions with scientists by a landslide

[@glengardner4126]

Dr Luskin needs to reconsider his use of the term "polite" or at least provide his definition of the word. Excusing a "scientist" actions that are motivated by agenda promotion as being polite is simply saying lying is truth telling.

[@mikejurney9102]

irreducible complexity... yea, for modern cells. That doesn't prove that there could not have been something more simpler to begin with that got more complex. In other word we could have jumped from simpler irreducible complexity to more complex irreducible complexity. Only those mutations survived that were sufficiently self sustaining due to their irreducibility.

[@michaelbabbitt3837]

Who makes it ‘jump’?

[@mikejurney9102]

@@michaelbabbitt3837 Doesn't matter. It only matters whether something can jump from one irreducible state to another. Just because we now have a complex, irreducible system of interconnected parts does not prove that it cannot develop from a simpler system of interconnected parts. There could have been many slight changes from the simpler system to the more complex system. But only the ones that can continue to function and reproduce are the ones that survive. We may have irreducible cells now. But how can you actually prove that no simpler state is even possible?

[@cptrikester2671]

@@mikejurney9102 apparently, someone drowning in a sea of stupidity will grasp for any illogical straw in an attempt to make a raft. Just because it can be said, doesn't make it real or true.

[@ronaldmorgan7632]

In that instance, I think that you are saying that some or all of the parts are there but doing something else. Then, somehow they reform into some other function. The doesn't seem likely to me.

[@mikejurney9102]

@@ronaldmorgan7632 What seems more unlikely is for all that irreducible complexity to spontaneously form from a chemical soup. It seems intermediate states are necessary for development. It may have been that the simple cells may have been subject to subtle changes more readily. And only now do we have cells that have proteins that help correct genetic errors. Early genetics may have been in a state where they were spontaneously coming together and falling apart rather quickly, which facilitated rapid evolution until more stable structures fromed.