Stephen Meyer & Saleem Ali: Where does order in nature come from?

Prof Saleem Ali of the University of Delaware is author of 'Earthly Order: How natural laws define human life' and describes the way order in the universe drives order in human and social settings. He engages with Dr Stephen Meyer of the Discovery Institute, whose book 'The Return of The God Hypothesis' makes the case that order in nature points to a divine mind.
For 'Earthly Order' saleemali.net/
For Stephen Meyer returnofthegod...
• Subscribe to the Unbelievable? podcast: pod.link/26714...
• More shows, free eBook & newsletter: premierunbelie...
• For live events: www.unbelievabl...
• For online learning: www.premierunb...
• Support us in the USA: www.premierinsi...
• Support us in the rest of the world: www.premierunb...

[@jacobogutierrezsanchez]

Thank you for the conversation. After reading Stephen Meyer's book "Signature in the cell", I think that an Intelligent Designer is the explanation of the information.

[@MrCallidus]

Brilliant discussion - Meyer is the G.O.A.T. 🐐. Thoughtful contributions from both, though! What a shame that this high level of discussion on such central topics rarely takes place within the hallowed halls of academia.

[@peterboos930]

Wonderful discussion. Thanks Justin for your brilliant balance in moderating the debate.

[@emiubicaritas]

I love this kind of discussion! Intelligent, educated, thoughtful and honest people discussing meaningful questions with sincere respect and intellectual rigor. I find the two men's perspectives on order fascinating, and I find Dr. Meyer's arguments about the need to explain the origin of information (as opposed to simple order) in biology especially compelling. Thanks, Dr. Ali and Dr. Meyer!

[@AlejandroDeLaRosa05]

I have recently been binging your conversations. Thank you so much for your content, Justin. It really means a lot!!

[@Hello-pz6hb]

Fascinating discussion. More of this please!

[@dillpickler5700]

Great conversation--thanks for having these excellent thinkers on your show!

[@johnny.musician]

Excellent conversation, thanks so much. All of which brings the question, who ‘designed’ the laws of nature? Science and mathematics observe and describe nature as it is, but neither actually explain them. Praise God.

[@yasinali6223]

Justin thank you for yet another very interesting and well mediated Conversation. I am a Muslim and yet Stephen is my Hero in a way increased the conviction in my faith. Saleem to my understanding is like "shy" to define his position with reasons that don't exactly negate belief in God. All he mentions is caution because there are "problems " than ensue from this belief.

[@alanjackson137]

Hello Dr. Meyer. You are my long lost professor from Whitworth. Always nice to see and hear you.

[@fukpoeslaw3613]

Whitworth I don't remember, but greetings back anyways.

[@zgobermn6895]

This is an excellent discussion. Thanks Justin.

[@whywearehere7517]

Amazing intellectual conversation

[@lesleyhowie1239]

I'd love to know what the fossil is that Stephen Meyer has in his background...he is extremely convinced and reaffirms my faith in God every time. I listen to him.

[@rosconelli]

Fantastic, thank you.

[@williambillycraig1057]

Great interview.

[@tonyatkinson2210]

Answer : we don’t know .

[@michaelgonzalez9058]

Therapy is a constant of the life

[@randyrobinson2609]

For a clear view on the Chemistry of the Origin of Life area, look for Dr. James Tour's discussion. Life from non-life does not seem to work in the chemical world.

[@subductionzone]

You mean the man that lied so badly that he had to apologize to Jack Szostak? Sorry, but he is completely out of his depth when it comes to the science behind abiogenesis. He is a synthetic chemist and makes the error of trying to treat the science of abiogenesis as if it had the same sort of goals that he has in his work.

[@noybiznatch]

​@@subductionzoneYou are a talking monkey that came from primordial ooze. Who cares what a bunch of carbon atoms has to say?

[@catholic_hermit]

Justin, how about a conversation between Stephen Meyer and Sabine Hossenfelder?

[@6barphraseheyhey374]

I'm an agnostic, new to Stephen's work but find it incredibly fascinating. Trying to find debates that challenge him and provide opposing views. But Salim totally flounders here, provides nothing with any teeth.

[@Jewonastick]

Look up "Stephen Meyer Exposed" here on KZbin. The guy is a professional lier.

[@duckman4215]

Agree. Good for Professor Saleem but he still comes off as a bit condescending as most academics.

[@DGRVP]

Ahhoi, Greetings from Bangalore

[@ksbrst2010]

It is a total misunderstanding that you need any help to get order. While in thermodymik aystems everything goes to a higher entropy it is wrong translate it with unorder. The entropy differences between ordered and unordered are tiny and in nearly every system you have an otside enegy source.

[@michaelgonzalez9058]

Stability of the body

[@berglen100]

THIS WORLD IS A DREAM, HOW TO BECOME LUCID | FULL LECTURE | NEVILLE GODDARD

[@mrshankerbillletmein491]

When considering the order we find is it best explained by so called natural forces or a mind. I think Fred Hoyles common sense approach stands well. I think you have to work hard to expain it all by chance.

[@michaelgonzalez9058]

Right ?because glue is perfect

[@michaelgonzalez9058]

That Israel is😊😊

[@rolssky1]

From quantum physics experiment it seems that the electron itself has consciousness. Basing on this, nature would have an order by the combination of different elements. Water is conscious, air is conscious, rice is conscious, sun is conscious, meaning the nature is conscious but not to the level of human consciousness but almost similar to the subconscious mind. By this consciousness, whereas energy also is active in all the universe, everything would be organized to have order. If we call this conscious energy God, this is not the all powerful, all knowing, all merciful God which would create hell and heaven. Energy is neutral, it could be good or bad.

[@michaelgonzalez9058]

Its not RNA as plasma

[@michaelgonzalez9058]

Its complexity

[@edhouse4826]

Stephen out of the ballpark. Saleem was unprepared, so invoked the green agenda for points with viewers. My book proceeds for planetary science etc. PhD vs kindergarten.

[@merrybolton2135]

hi

[@farmuhqas]

Cultural Muslim who is not sure whether a God exists. Confusion of the highest order. Meyers absolutely certain there is a higher power who has consistent views.

[@paulspruett]

Paraphrased highlights from Saleem Ali: I think these debates are good and interesting, but it would be arrogant to come to any conclusions. Other people disagree with Steven. There's other avenues of research and theories about the origin of life, so don't jump to conclusions. Aluminum! Why did life reject aluminum? If we start asking these questions then we go down hopeless roads, like asking "who created God?" We're too committed to causal thinking. This kind of design thinking affirms religion, which is divisive and exclusivist. I like liberalism and pluralism. I like to consider energy flows, synchronicity, global consciousness, blah, blah. All this really doesn't matter to my concern for environmentalism. We should ignore these mystical questions and focus on the concrete problems of the world.

[@dadsonworldwide3238]

Natural theories are majority occurrences of order yet with fringes and paradox. This is treated as absolute realism extremism in 1900 until recently.😊 Math is obviously man made and its an approximation we try to use on a paradox. When we have 2 known standards we can be some what precise with general order but reduce it and you find fringes and paradox.

[@20july1944]

All the atheists should post here in the comment section, which is not a cascading food fight like the "chat". Please repeat your questions here.

[@tonyatkinson2210]

Why do you thinks appeals to the supernatural have any place in science ?

[@20july1944]

@@tonyatkinson2210 What are the initial conditions and/or first event of your all-naturalistic model?

[@tonyatkinson2210]

@@20july1944 you gonna answer ? I answered yours . We don’t know . There are numerous hypotheses and speculations , some of them naturalism , some of them supernatural . The latter ones however aren’t scientific . And that brings me back to my question: . How can ID , creationism and supernatural explanations have any place in science as explanations?

[@20july1944]

@@tonyatkinson2210 You have no alternative to the supernatural. I'd be delighted to discuss whichever theory you favor.

[@tonyatkinson2210]

@@20july1944 there is no scientific theory (given what I know a scientific theory is ) that answers those questions . But your hypothesis isn’t scientific. Which brings me back to the question . How can you claim ID / creationism is science when it’s unfalsifiable ?

[@Erik_Danley]

Pay attention to how materialist liberals argue. If you have a differing opinion, your view is “controversial”. But then he claims humility

[@mikebellamy]

A very significant problem here is the correct definition of the term ORDER! Let me enlighten you.. from Ludwig Boltzmann Thermodynamic order = the inverse of the term DISORDER which is the definition of ENTROPY! You may like many NATURALISTS disagree! Well they are wrong because.. ENTROPY = log (W number of microstates in a chosen macrostate) which the naturalists don't like because its subjective Now Wtot is the total number of microstates in the system and log W tracks with W/Wtot But W/Wtot is just the probability of the system being in the chosen macrostate So entropy tracks with the probability of the system being in a chosen macrostate and it increases with increase in probability of the system's state. Higher probability just means more random. So DISORDER = probable and therefore ORDER = Wtot/W = IMPROABABLE and an ORDERED state is and IMPROBABLE or LOW ENTROPY state! Which means since we KNOW entropy increases with time therefore entropy decreases into the past or the universe must get more ordered into the past which naturalists don't like because it means the universe was created in its most ordered state ever or most *improbable* state ever!

[@subductionzone]

No, that is an overly simplified definition of entropy. Overall the entropy of the universe is increasing. That does not mean that there cannot be pockets of order. And that is a good thing. Your mangled version would make life itself impossible. The mere existence of life refutes your poor interpretation.

[@pabloandres6179]

Meyer is a pseudo scientist Justin , pls don’t have him on .

[@HolyTerminator]

Assertions without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.

[@TyrellWellickEcorp]

😂😂 love for you to back that claim up with some evidence.

[@Benjamin-fu5ij]

LOOOOOOOOOOOOOOL talk about anti-truth. Stephen Meyer is a million times the intellectual you can ever hope to be.

[@fukpoeslaw3613]

@@Benjamin-fu5ij intellectual yes, pseudoscientist also.

[@pabloandres6179]

@@Benjamin-fu5ij he’s been debunked by professor Dave . Btw I’m a Christian . Stephen is a con man

[@gfujigo]

Intelligent Design is a rejection of the Bible. It is wrong.

[@fukpoeslaw3613]

Isn't intelligent design in accordance with the Bible?

[@gfujigo]

@@fukpoeslaw3613 Nope. First, intelligent design basically agrees with atheistic materialism that physical reality is just physical and requires and infusion of intelligence from outside the system to explain certain things we see in life or in the cosmic fine tuning. The Bible teaches that all reality is in God, of God, through God, and to God. So physical reality is not just mindless substance, God is the very being of physical reality and there is much more to even physical reality than what is physical. So God doesn’t infuse anything into what God is already doing. God is not some cosmic mechanic. God is the being of all reality. Second, to the extent that they try to get scientific knowledge from the Bible, Intelligent Design prioritizes science over what the Bible has revealed and what the church has taught. Science is not the only potent form of knowing objective truths about reality. Theological, metaphysical, and spiritual truths are even more foundational than scientific truths. The Bible is not trying to convey scientific truths it is conveying truth of a much more important and fundamental nature. The Bible is conveying truth about God - our origin, our destiny, our purpose, our meaning, and our value. The Bible is to make us wise unto salvation. Science helps us understand the creation. Science is not the only way to know objective truth. Furthermore physical matter is not just mindless substance. The Bible teaches us this so there is no need to conjure up a cosmic designer view of God. The lone atom floating in a galactic void is just as much the result of the creative and intentional act of God as is the DNA molecule. Both of them are created to do exactly what they are doing and both have the same evidential value that points to God. As we discover more about what nature does, we are simply discovering more about the creation and how God made it to function. God is always in and the being of all of nature so there is no need to infuse information to the system because God is not external to the system because God is the system.

[@dillpickler5700]

I think you are a bit confused. ID does not cite the BIble as part of its argument. It just cites the evidence from nature. But that does not mean that ID is against the Bible.

[@TyrellWellickEcorp]

How can you possibly reconcile what we now know about the lack of creative power of mutation and selection as gods way of creating life?

[@gfujigo]

@@TyrellWellickEcorp Evolutionary theory has far more mechanisms than mutation and selection. For example there are epigenetics, horizontal gene transfer, etc. However the real problem is assuming that physical reality is just that and so God needs to operate on it as if God is some type of mechanic. God is the very being of physical reality and there is much more to physical reality than what we can observe using science. For example, look at our brains. The contents of consciousness never appear physically in the brain. So this is clear evidence that there is more in reality than just what we observe physically. Physical explanations do not exhaust all explanations. A scientist can describe my brain activity but that physical description doesn’t capture the contents of consciousness. So just because we observe physical evolution doesn’t mean that there is not a deeper reality at play. The Bible teaches that all of reality is from God, in God through God and too God. God is the being of all reality so whatever we observe is simply an example of God’s sustaining power. So our task is to study the creation to learn more about our creator.