What Darwin REALLY Thought About Intelligent Design (Important)

In this video, Stephen Meyer, John Lennox & Michael Behe talk about intelligent design and Darwin's Theory of Evolution.
If you enjoyed this video, make sure to subscribe!

[@jackleighton5789]

I'm intellectually honest enough to say that I don't know if there is a God or not, but I do find it very interesting that most atheists argue from a place of anger rather than discussion. Science hits some pretty hard walls that it has yet to explain. Does that mean that science will NEVER be able to explain these phenomenon? Maybe....maybe not. I've always believed in God, but like most I struggle with my faith. I will end with two comments 1) if the 80 or so years that we spend here on earth is "it," then I see life on earth as a cruel, cruel joke. 2) I don't believe the apostles (believers) of Jesus would have died for a lie. Yes, many have joined cults and died for the lie. The difference in this case is that the disciples of Jesus had all gone into hiding after His crucifixion, because they were being hunted and killed and therefore afraid. I'm sure that they were all thinking the same thing, "perhaps He was a charlatan." It wasn't until He appeared to them after His resurrection that they came out of hiding to preach His word to all that would listen, all while knowing that doing so meant their certain death. It is human nature to lie to get out of trouble, but we don't lie to get into trouble.

[@joejoe-lb6bw]

It's simple, take a look at Conway's Game of Life, a cellular automaton. From simple "rules" (which determine survival) patterns are formed. Now imagine a GoL operating for millions of years, with complex patterns that themselves spawn new rules, .... we get humans. To think that designs need a designer sky daddy is not science. It that creator not also a 'design'? So who designed the designer? Why can't people just acknowledge that just like science doesn't have all the answers, neither do the Theists? Of course, the above depends on millions of years of Earth being around, not 6000 years. 🙂

[@dakotakinnard]

You can believe in intelligent design without believing the universe is only 6000 years old. How can something like a cell, that knows it needs to arrange each part in such a way it’s able to be split in two, be able to do such things without being designed? If a game developer writes code and turns on the video game for the first time it will follow the code that was written. We know it was designed intelligently outside of the universe that was created virtually.

[@reimei2819]

God could be a 'her'

[@jonathanabrams6950]

So the argument is, "I don't know how things work. Therefore, it must be God."

[@m0x910]

Misrepresentation! Actual argument: 1. Natural phenomenon and or mechanisms have never been observed or experimentally demonstrated to produce semiotic information.2. Only intellects have been repeatedly and exclusively observed and demonstrated to produce semiotic information. 3. Every instance of semiotic information with unknown origins is assumed to originate from intellects. 4. DNA = semiotic information therefore DNA is the product of intellect.

[@leif54240]

Student , did you pay attention? The argument is about refuting Darwin. The God hypothesis is not being discussed yet.

[@Scartoons-t1h]

We've moved on from Darwin. ID is a joke and not based in any sort of evidence.

[@m0x910]

Except every experimental evidence and observable phenomena that irrefutably implicates intellect as the causal agent for the semiotic information represented by DNA…

[@dakotakinnard]

I’d like to see your evidence disproving intelligent design

[@Scartoons-t1h]

@@dakotakinnard Of course. To prove ID, you first demonstrate that there is an Intelligence. This has never been done. Could life evolve without an Intelligence? Yes. This is supported by the evidence: Natural Selection explains the diversity of life observed. The model works and is supported by evidence. A Super Intelligence is neither observed nor is necessary. Science.

[@Scartoons-t1h]

@@dakotakinnard There's no evidence supporting ID. Why try and disprove something for which there is no evidence?

[@dakotakinnard]

@@Scartoons-t1h there are a plethora of things that suggest ID throughout our universe. If you look at computer code and say, “there’s no evidence of ID because there’s no evidence disproving it,” that would be an idiotic thing to say. The fact that it is written suggests ID and the same could be said for DNA, cells, microorganisms and many other things that seem to be “written code”.

[@PatStream]

Love your channel!

[@billjohnson9472]

relying on quotes from a scientist who lived over 100 years ago is very weak

[@Reclaimer77]

Not even a human software designer would include every version ever made and every patch/update for every version in the current version installer. That's what DNA is. Meyer uses a lot of analogies to trick people, but the hallmark traits of design are not overbearing complexity and code piled on top of code. The vast majority of any living things genetic code, even plants, does nothing. It's just accumulated from billions of years of evolution and common descent. The traits of things designed by intelligence is simplicity and designing just-enough to do the job without too much getting in the way. That's NOTHING like what we find in biology. Meyer fails with his central premise.

[@m0x910]

You are so far behind the science. “Junk DNA” does have a function. This erroneous assumption born from the lie of macroEvolution was disproven when the function of “Junk DNA” was discovered: It’s mostly regulatory code, regulating coding genes and the storage and folding of DNA around histones etc.

[@PaulNovi]

But RNA “knows” to unzip DNA, ignore all the junk, and use other RNA and the exact raw materials it needs to build proteins in a coordinated effort with other cells right when the body “knows” it needs it. That’s still insanely simplifying the complexity of a cell. Ya, that doesn’t just happen

[@francisa4636]

Oh dear more ID nonsense

[@charlynesimms9451]

Listeners see: Dr Boz Ratio 🧬

[@rlstine4982]

@8:35 : "creation of new information is habitually associated with conscious activity". What "information" are we talking about here? A light wave emitted by a star contains information, such as its wavelength and amplitude... Analyzing this information over time allows us to deduct the direction of movement of a star (getting closer or farther from us) or what it is made of. All this information produced by a star has nothing to do with conscious activity...

[@derhafi]

"What "information" are we talking about here? " predominantly it's pseudoscientific propaganda mill information. :-)

[@GoogleSucks-i1d]

These guys just make things up.

[@m0x910]

They are talking about semiotic information (e.g. DNA), which has exclusively and repeatedly been demonstrated to emerge from intellects.

[@rlstine4982]

@@m0x910 Who repeatedly demonstrated that semiotic information emerges from intellects? There is for example a whole field of studies on Ecosemiotics which focuses on semiotics from the perspective of ecology.

[@m0x910]

@@rlstine4982 As i argued before an intellect would be responsible for all of nature, there is no surprise that nature is packed full of semiotic information. DNA is part of said nature (its foundation actually) that’s why I specifically selected it.

[@coolumesque]

Originally there was 1 religion across the entire world as seen in far ancient art from every part of the globe. It taught that there are levels to reality & the earth level is a subtle level created from light & it was created in an ocean that is full of life forms, & life from that ocean passed through into the oceans of the earth & came ashore. This is why ancients regarded God as half fish & half man when God came here, because God travelled through water to reach us. If you study the reports of people having spiritual experiences you will find that many of them explain that God takes the people out of this world & into an ocean to teach them that we all exist beneath the waters of God's ocean. Genesis explains that in the beginning God was with an ocean & then created light & then created the universe in that ocean, & then brought forth birds & life in all its forms from the waters. And when God had finished creating the universe it remained beneath the waters of God's ocean. Genesis is basically describing the creation of a holographic universe in God's ocean. The thing that Genesis does not explain is that God's ocean is filled with life forms & that's where life on earth came from. The far more ancient religion knew that life came from God's ocean to our world, but Genesis gives the wrong impression that life did not exist until after God created the world & brought life forth from our oceans. Genesis gives the impression that God was a magician who produces something from nothing & that is not what the more ancient peoples taught. Genesis says life in all its forms including birds came forth from the waters. And then Darwin decided that life in all its forms including birds came forth from the waters. Christians think God magically created life in the waters & science assumes life simply created itself by random chance. Personally I have been visited by God since I was born & I was born & raised in an atheist family who never spoke of God or religion. God has always taken me into an ocean & shown me how the universe is made from holographic light in that ocean, & shown me how life forms from that ocean pass through into the oceans of the earth & adapt to living on dry land. I was taught all this by God before I saw that religions were saying different aspects of the same thing. So I know that both religion & science are correct when they say life came from the waters originally. The difference is that science refuses to accept the spiritual side of life that millions of people have had encounters with. They are studying the holographic universe as if that is all that exists to reality, & they are incapable of researching the more subtle spiritual aspects of the universe. And religion refuses to acknowledge the far more ancient religious knowledge that taught how the ocean that the universe was created in is filled with life forms, & life came through from that ocean to the earth. Millions of people have near death experiences & while their bodies are clinically dead they find themselves in the spiritual dimensions of life speaking with the life there. And then the spiritual people say it's time for the people to return to their material bodies & they find themselves entering their bodies & the bodies come back to life. While they are in the spiritual dimensions they have no desire to return to earth but they are forced to do so, & when they return the material bodies come back to life. This in a sense shows how the soul plays an important part in animating the material body & making it continue its existence on earth. It shows that the soul plays an important part in the existence of life on earth. But science has no interest in the soul & aggressively argues against the existence of the soul, & so it is incapable of looking into the subtle dimensions of reality that are the cause of life on earth. Science is skimming across the surface of reality & thinks that is all there is, & they are incapable of looking deeper into the cause of life itself. And religion is trapped in a few old stories about God & are incapable of expanding their knowledge of God & the soul. Christianity is a new age religion that has forgotten the far more ancient knowledge of God that taught far more detailed knowledge of God. So both science & religion are completely out of touch with the facts about reality that the peoples of the far ancient world were well aware of. Best Wishes

[@Sstucash]

🤣🤣🤣

[@martinlag1]

So Newton didn't have a mechanism for gravity.... Well Darwin proposed a mechanism for bioogical evolution that we can all observe. What's wrong with ignoring this mechnanism and going with ID which has no mechanism? How narrow minded for scientists to ignore the god hypothesis when natural selection adequately explains biological evolution.

[@m0x910]

Except the proposed mechanisms for macro-evolution have never been observed to cause said phenomenon. ID has a tried and tested mechanism that is repeatable and observable: Every time someone or an AI designs and creates anything, intelligent design is demonstrated.

[@GoogleSucks-i1d]

Theists will say anything. Think about it, an adult with an invisible magical friend, LOL. Definitely a few sandwiches short of a picnic.

[@m0x910]

Atheists will believe anything… except the truth. Definitely have a strange denial complex.

[@michaelgonzalez9058]

I AM GOD

[@GoogleSucks-i1d]

Here's a clue to identifying kooks 1) no real scientist looks for Bigfoot. Kooks do. 2) no real scientist thinks DNA is a written code. Kooks do.

[@oscargr_]

So Newton didn't have a mechanism for gravity.... I have NEVER heard an apologist have a mechanism for "creation". They all end with "god spoke it into existence" I have asked so many times where did god get the "ingredients" for energy (or matter) from? How did god create energie from "spirit"? If god is all powerful "before" creation, did he use some of that power for creation? What is the mechanism for creation exnihilo?

[@johnbr59]

But that's the point, there is no mechanism within the universe for such things, but God is beyond the universe since He created it

[@Scartoons-t1h]

Magic. It were magic.

[@oscargr_]

@@johnbr59 You are completely ignoring the question, or simply special pleading.

[@johnbr59]

​@oscargr_ did you watch the video? you atheitards are all the same. you a priori rule out anything beyond the naturalist explanation (i.e. the supernatural), and so you cant be argued with at all on the topic. so what's the point even talking to you?

[@oscargr_]

@@johnbr59 Why the adhoms, do you know me, or are you just pleasing god with that?