William Dembski: Gauging the Success of Intelligent Design

Mathematician and philosopher William A. Dembski explains the theory of intelligent design and examines its successes and challenges over the past decades. A founding Senior Fellow of Discovery Institute's Center for Science and culture, Dembski currently serves as a member of Discovery Institute's board of directors and as a Distinguished Fellow of its Walter Bradley Center for Natural and Artificial Intelligence.
Dr. Dembski holds PhDs from the University of Chicago (mathematics) and the University of Illinois at Chicago (philosophy). He has held National Science Foundation graduate and postdoctoral fellowships. He is the author or editor of more than twenty books about intelligent design and other topics, including The Design Inference: Eliminating Chance Through Small Probabilities (Cambridge University Press), No Free Lunch: Why Specified Complexity Cannot Be Purchased without Intelligence (Rowman & Littlefield), The Nature of Nature: Examining the Role of Naturalism in Science (ISI Books), The Design Revolution (IVP), Debating Design: From Darwin to DNA (Cambridge University Press), and Being as Communion: A Metaphysics of Information (Routledge).
This talk was originally offered as part of the 2021 Dallas Conference on Science and Faith sponsored by Discovery Institute.
============================
The Discovery Science News Channel is the official KZbin channel of Discovery Institute's Center for Science & Culture. The CSC is the institutional hub for scientists, educators, and inquiring minds who think that nature supplies compelling evidence of intelligent design. The CSC supports research, sponsors educational programs, defends free speech, and produce articles, books, and multimedia content. For more information visit www.discovery....
www.evolutionne...
www.intelligent...
Follow us on Facebook and Twitter:
Twitter: @discoverycsc
Facebook: / discoverycsc
Visit other KZbin channels connected to the Center for Science & Culture
Discovery Institute: / discoveryinstitute
Dr. Stephen C. Meyer: / drstephenmeyer
The Magician's Twin - CS Lewis & Evolution: / cslewisweb
Darwin's Heretic - Alfred Russel Wallace: / alfredrwallaceid

[@rejectevolution152]

Paradigm is shifting. Keep it up.

[@drchristopherjsernaque]

An excellent presentation. Hats off to Dr. Dembski!

[@raymondwolf22]

"How do we get this out there, so people can receive it?" (-Dr. Dembski). You just DID! Thank you. -R.

[@johnbrown4568]

Thank you for this well presented assessment of the current societal situation of intelligent design.

[@jamesolsson9705]

One of the analogies used is a metaphor about paying bills (19:22). He says: "This is the beauty you know, as far as materialists are concerned; it's kind of a sort of a socialism of biology, you get a free lunch, you don't have to do the actual design work, you get the design up because natural selection is so brilliant, you know, can do all of this. And, what intelligent design is saying is, 'No, you gotta do the accounting, and at the end of the day, all the bills need be paid; the currency of those bills is information, and you gotta account for it. And the type of information you need to build these systems you cannot simply get them for free, it requires an act of intelligence." The obvious unpaid bill here is where did the intelligence come from? In what is this intelligence contained? How does it direct itself to vast quintillions of cells simultaneously? Where did this intelligence obtain its learning? Gird up thy loins and answer thou me, for I will demand of thee!

[@chrisxavier1848]

Bill, I can't remember this second who said it, but "Science advances one funeral at a time." It's just a matter of time.

[@jbisntme]

How can you look around , even being a materialist , and not even consider that there is some kind of design in the world around you ? Before science this wouldn’t have even been a question. AFTER science this will not be a question…..

[@Jonas-gl9ke]

How would you define “materialist”? Science depends on methodological naturalism to make falsifiable predictions. We have no known mechanism for identifying and confirming supernatural existence or supernatural causation and so only natural explanations are considered. It is not an assertion that the supernatural does not exist but is a recognition that when investigating the natural world, we are currently blocked from investigating the supernatural world. It does not mean we are forever blocked from investigating the supernatural. Science is the single most demonstrable reliable pathway to discovering truths about the natural world we inhabit. Appeals to other ways of knowing have not demonstrated they can provide accurate and reliable information. Philosophical naturalism is a belief that only the natural world exists and there is no supernatural.

[@kathrynmcmorrow7170]

Right? Like who can deny examples like symmetry?

[@MrWholphin]

ID argues for something intuitively obvious to a populace that has been conditioned to bypass the obvious. Possibly the only way to break through this is to make repeated successes in the arena of research and model predictions that can’t be ignored.

[@paddingbox9845]

"You can be highly successful at making money but if you lose your family in the process have you been successful?" deep!

[@marynunn1708]

Yes we’ve got the better case and the better argument. And if you’re being completely honest we also have facts on our side. The problem with widespread adoption of these truths isnt intellectual or one of comprehension. Its a willingness to to believe (trust) this truth. It centers in the will i.e. the heart, not in the mind. Only honest seekers will see and believe. In other words, we’re living inside a modern day parable. One story, two outcomes, depending on how your heart “wants” to see things. Great lecture! Thanks so much!

[@oskarsitarz569]

Im Catholic and I used to have no problem with evolution and my Faith in God but I have to agree that evolution theory is something on which I doubt a lot, partly thanks to Inteligent Design movement. I hope that Truth will win, God Bless You Docs :)

[@ElonTrump19]

If you don't mind can I ask if you believe in scripture and it being given by divinity to be used for reproof and doctrine?

[@johngajdos7950]

Feel safe to fully doubt all that evolution presents. It is nothing more than a stumbling block. Evolution is absurd

[@refuse2bdcvd324]

The truth will definitely win. Jesus said, "I am the way the TRUTH and the life..."

[@dominikhk9134]

Science is not an election campaign. Intelligent design has not made any useful contribution to science yet. If they want to, they should (try to) publish papers and let them be reviewed. Thats it.

[@infinitrixtv5847]

What an amazing time for science and the world of arts, and beauty all on the same page. Newton, Kepler, Maxwell, and the founders of the sciences saw the wonderful pattern in nature that can only be attributed to a Powerful Mind behind it.

[@nil1473]

👌👌👌amazing...mind bending...awe inspiring...god bless discovery science team...

[@DiscoveryScienceChannel]

Thank you so much 😀

[@nil1473]

@@DiscoveryScienceChannel pleasure is all ours...thank you again..🙏🙏

[@geobla6600]

It shows the sad state of materialism when you have to find all the ignored and omitted science which is never addressed because it fails to support your ideologue thru groups like the ID Community. A materialists has to do the opposite of what they endlessly claim but fail to do , which is to ignore their personal bias and actually critically evaluate the science where ever it leads you.

[@Polynuttery]

I love Bill Dembski 😎

[@summerlakephotog8239]

Perhaps it’s time to focus less on debating the materialists and more on discovering the unknown elements of the design leading to transformational discoveries. This is what Newton did thereby ushering in the Industrial Revolution. Maybe we could discover how to harness ubiquitous electromagnetic energy in the unified field.

[@Xgy33]

I pray for the movement to gain track

[@Bambotb]

God bless all these great people..this is what being a God's soldier really is

[@alfrazz1799]

Why does God need soldiers given that He is omnipotent? Are these soldiers going to be His "hit men"?

[@itsme36910]

@@alfrazz1799 you are a troll,and in response to your question God has a job and we have to be busy doing something, laziness is bad either if you believe in God or not.

[@AndyC1]

@@alfrazz1799 God doesn't need anything.

[@tolotolo2380]

I wish that following Herman Hesse’s notion of being free to change your mind including your most cherished convictions would be a bed rock for scientific discovery.There is a lot of opposition to it but all those brave hearts from all walks of scientific community that follow that path give us hope and bring us closer to the truth whatever it is

[@Andy-ej4bb]

The ability, desire and even obligation to change your mind are at the very core of science.

[@jnavarro101]

These are indeed exciting times as science is quickly moving forward with new arguments that defy the evolution establishment. I am looking forward to seeing the new discoveries and scientific evidence that will inevitably come in the years ahead.

[@alfrazz1799]

Well, are we free to consider any god to be the designer (a democratic approach)? Or is this a presentation that, in the final analysis, presents the Christian God of the Bible as the designer? Then, you can rest comfortably because you have arrived at the final answer and further consideration is pointless. Thank you for you posting.

[@castelbergtom2252]

Easy question: There is only one true God. It’s JHWH and his son Jesus Christus. Every knee will bend before Him.

[@svennielsen633]

Dempsey made the right argument: science demands that you can explain everything in a logical way. But "chance" is not a scientific explanation. It is simply another way of saying "I do not know". And from the mathematical point of view it is completely unscientific. By the way: the chance of getting just 100 "heads" in one sequence is roughly 1 divided by a tentrilion or 1/1.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.

[@khufu8699]

Thank you Bill. Good talk. :-)

[@DiscoveryScienceChannel]

Thanks for listening

[@JV-tg2ne]

Thermodynamics states matter cannot create itself, it is logical to deduce that life follows the natural laws of thermodynamics as well

[@thomaswayneward]

LOL

[@emilyrl.]

Brilliant.

[@jvt_redbaronspeaks4831]

Great to hear Dembski. PLEASE, have him do more lectures & question answer segments. He does not make a public approach very often. Invite him to do more.

[@samipan3410]

Excellent presentation, great speaker.

[@chrisxavier1848]

You get to God from design via the evident purpose of the creation on as seen by its effect on those of us who understand it. _is it by accident that what we see stirs us to awe?_

[@Him.TheOneAndOnly]

I think the natural man subjects his beliefs to his motivations, and most of religious thought and philosophy is to fix that, to where primal motivations do not enslave man

[@les2997]

Does ID imply that humans are not purely material since a material process can't generate information and yet humans can?

[@LilBitDistributist]

Well yes because our mind is immaterial and mind is where complex specified information is generated from within our daily repeated observations.

[@christopherwinner4]

It does. Intelligent Design requires an Intelligent Designer, which implies personage. Information isn't generated by animal, vegetable, or mineral, only Intelligent personage. Even to say a material process 'could' generate information would be a "God of the gaps fallacy" since the materials were all generated via information, which only generates from Intelligence.

[@MyMy-tv7fd]

I have never taken evolution or atheism seriously, they are both meaningless to me. Creation by God = SID (Super-Intelliegent Design)

[@alfrazz1799]

So, a different consideration is "meaningless" to you. Can you expand on your comment?

[@GreatBehoover]

​@@alfrazz1799 He sees that FAITH in Everything created by NOTHING as being ILLOGICAL and MINDLESS. He sees the FAITH in the MYTHOLOGY of abiogenesis as being ILLOGICAL and MINDLESS. Do you have some UNASSUMED OBSERVATIONAL SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE to disprove his OBVIOUSLY correct assessment that only a SUPERGENIUS could have designed DNA CODE and life? By all means...instead of questioning him...post your best peer reviewed scientific paper DEVOID OF FAITH STATEMENTS AND CIRCULAR REASONING that prove life is accidentally wrought as silly naturalists BELIEVE in their MYTHOLOGY. 🤔🤔🤔 Go ahead...we will wait for you to post such evidence... ....🤔🤔🤔 ....🤔🤔🤔 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣

[@rodneynorfolk9737]

Thank you.

[@JungleJargon]

It just dawned on me the other day that a thousand years and one day happen at the same time in different places in the universe. It's simple (observed) general relativity. Time slows down and distance contracts because of gravity where there is a lot of matter. Conversely, time speeds up and distance expands where there is no matter in outer space. This eliminates the need for dark matter since time speeds up in the outer spiral arms of a galaxy where there is not nearly as much matter. It eliminates the need for dark energy where space expands in outer space where there is no matter. Another result of general relativity is that billions of years pass by in outer space (13 billion years) at the same time as thousands of years pass by where we are inside of the Milky Way galaxy. ...! Conclusion: The time it took for Creation and since Creation in the Bible is absolutely true!

[@bluejysm2007]

Great presentation Dr. Dembski, ID theory got lots of attraction after 20 years. Great job.

[@1974jrod]

Miller and Yuri experiment proves it took intelligence to perform the experiment in the first place.

[@KenJackson_US]

My response to their experiment is to ask _so what?_ The molecules they produced are small, 10 to 29 atoms each. They never succeeded in bonding two of them together, even though most proteins are longer than 100. And the most important aspect of proteins is the order. How did the amino acids in a protein get put in the right order? Miller-Urea provided zero insight.

[@nanomonkey3143]

Miller made 85% tar, a lot of carboxylic acids, and other goo that is completely toxic to life. He made 1 to 2% glycine, a little alanine, and about 8 other amino acids found Nowhere in nature, and all of them racemic, even though nature employs one stereoisomer exclusively. Clearly Miller demonstrated how life on planet Earth did Not begin.

[@christopherwinner4]

Am I mistaken that the amino acids they created were left-handed so of no value to us?

[@surrenderdaily333]

Lee Strobel is one of my favorite authors. The other one is J Warner Wallace who wrote books like, God's Crime Scene: A Cold-Case Detective Examines the Evidence for a Divinely Created Universe, Cold-Case Christianity Participant's Guide: A Homicide Detective Investigates the Claims of the Gospels, and, Forensic Faith: A Homicide Detective Makes the Case for a More Reasonable, Evidential Christian Faith, plus similar books for kids. Both of these authors have similar stories of how they came to faith by using their individual skills to disprove Christianity.

[@DavidVonR]

Both Strobel and Warner Wallace are great authors!

[@revelationtrain7518]

Thank you

[@espucs]

Materialists explain life the impossible way.

[@nativecompanion1562]

Just pointing out that design implies a designer seems to invite a lot of vitriol.

[@norbertjendruschj9121]

The vitriol stems from the fact, that creationists have the idea of god first and form their theory for explaning the natural world according to this idea. This is simply not the scientific way but they still sell it as science.

[@cedriceric9730]

Yes , but it does . If you find a fully functional car on Mars , how can you assume that random movement of dust built it accidentally?

[@vanessac0382]

Students should watch this

[@mrmarcioconte]

Excellent

[@ThePonderingPiper]

I would highly recommend The Urantia Book to anyone who are interested in the topic of Intelligent Design.

[@mosesgarcia9443]

THis was never a Science vs. Science issue. It was a Narrative vs. Narrative issue.

[@marceloribeirosimoes8959]

We all can see the design. The problem is to make all those that DON'T WANT that there's a Creator, to accept that..

[@zgobermn6895]

Is this a new talk by Dembski?

[@DiscoveryScienceChannel]

It's from the Dallas Conference on Science and Faith in March 2021.

[@robertecarpenter]

i was going to give a thumbs up on this one, but the number was on 665. Yeah, i just was not going to be that next number. So I give 5 stars here. Rob

[@marieindia8116]

That's incredibly superstitious

[@johngajdos7950]

Man used to believe the Earth was flat. Then he used to believe it was the center of the solar system. Let's hope very soon, man will believe in God as the designer of all things.

[@AndyC1]

When protein is mentioned in the cell as the main building block, is it the same kind of protein as what you eat found in jerkey and meat etc?

[@marieindia8116]

Actually it takes 20 different specific proteins to make that sandwich.

[@FelonyVideos]

Hilarious: When aetheists finally realize ID is the only logical answer, the next word out of their mouth is "aliens". 😂😂😂

[@therick363]

ID has no logical explanations or predictions. There isn’t any actual scientific evidence for ID. It can’t predict or explain what we see.

[@marieindia8116]

Ain't it the truth. Sad they would rather trust aliens not to care about their personal lives...

[@marojupavan]

Exactly …Hinduism is the religion which combines science and predicts accurately everything . Atheists don’t get it

[@sttonep242]

What?

[@numericalcode]

ID is a scientific, not religious theory. It also proposes that microevolution occurs through Darwinian selection. Wouldn't success mean becoming the next dominant version of evolutionary theory taught in the textbooks and universities?

[@proximaism]

Dembski aged well. damn im old hahaha.

[@GreatBehoover]

The battle was over for ww2 and many had no clue it had ended. many refused to accept the loss. they remind me of the naturalists clinging to their silly faith! And again....if any silly naturalists would like to embarrass themselves by attempting to show how DNA CODE can SELF-CREATE and SELF-ASSEMBLE into cells...be my guest!!🤣🤣🤣🤣 You will quickly see the naturalists are the believers in a MYTH!!!🤣🤣🤣

[@FXNorm]

Who's dumb enough to believe there's no design? Do you really think a drop dead gorgeous woman came about by blind chance? You're sick if you do.

[@amjadabbassi2440]

Dr. William Dembaski is one of the greatest minds of his generation. Thanks to him and all the other pro intelligent design scientists, we have come undeniably close to a paradigm shift. A scientific world that has been dominated by pro Darwinism and anti creationists is finally being well fought against. May Allah strengths those in true pressure of unravelling the beauty behind our marvellous universe, for the sake of knowledge.

[@michaelgonzalez9058]

This generation is evolving

[@rubenbehnke2283]

Aren't there 4 DNA bases, not 3?

[@goldenstar7400]

Realistically Dr Demski, any being powerful and intelligent enough to have created any life at all on this or any other planet would be considered a God even if they ever just aliens.

[@eu29lex16]

I wrote something about abiogenesis, there are multiple people who don't agree with it an it makes sense why. To a degree. the body/cells produce systems all the time via a multitude of organs, and you also have the proteins produced by RNA with blueprints from DNA. Also, there is not one bluprin for all tech, in the same way not all begins have the same DNA. Also, you can't make any RNA without DNA, and thus you can't make any proteins but you also you proteins for DNA, which is a loop showing they can't make each other, mechanisms like these can't make themselves or appear randomly. Also, you can't make a single protein without the help of DNA, even the RNA used for it has to come from DNA ! Also no RNA based creature exists, there are only a couple of viruses but viruses are parasitic, they cannot sustain themselves, cannot feed themselves on their own and cannot even reproduce themselves on their own, only a DNA-based organism can help them with that. "Plus the mechanisms that make the brain, brain, digestion, skin, bone, eyes, ears, etc. And frankly and naturally speaking ,biology should not be a thing, matter does not need biology to exist ! Also, not only that you can't make a single protein without DNA, you also need vitamins and CARBS for protein structure to not rot ! Yeah, and you can't make vitamins without having prior vitamins and carbs ! And yeah, vitamins and carbs can only be made by other organisms, you never find them lying randomly in the ground, they must always be produced." Basically, the summary is this : You can't make proteins without any DNA-derived material and you can't make DNA without proteins ! And all RNA-based biology we found are some viruses. But they cannot feed themselves or even MULTIPLY without the HELP of DNA-based creatures. Also, we don't know how to make DNA from basic matter, not even proteins. And even then, you need the right information for it, we don't know how to implement/inscript that.

[@eu29lex16]

Yeah, I think natural or realistic theism is the best way to go. Natural theism means having no religion, you just look at this realistically and naturally. For example, the soul/consciousness are natural things if they exist and they are universally true, not bound by local dogma Yeah, the only thing we can know about God is by studying how nature itself works. If you look at how nature works, you see that every being follows the same nature/pattern, otherwise it can't exist. Also, by looking at the body you find out other stuff. The consciousness needs a body to live and nature, in the same way a God needs a body to live and also nature in order to live. I mean, being the consciousness of the body doesn't mean you can control it's physiology, just influence it's workings. The body works damn similar to nature cuz ..well yeah, it has to adapt to the way nature works in order to function. Also, mithocondria is the energy generator , like the core of the earth or sun. Everything has a core. I think even God has one, he probably has a core better than most. But still, He does need one.

[@terriekraybill9724]

Dembski asks a great question @18:45 that I have had myself- why *e*volution all the time (greater complexity and sophistication), rather than *de*volution (more simplicity)? If survival is the only consideration, then why should the tree of life "march forward" as evolutionists like to celebrate? It could just as well go backward. Another thing that seems assumed to me is the suggestion that a well-mutated organism will always survive to pass on its genes. But even if it is better suited to survival, it may still simply not be lucky. Its survival is more likely, but by no means guaranteed. Is that worked into the math by evolutionists?

[@seaknightvirchow8131]

The reason that ID has not convinced many is not because it isn’t compelling but because there are men who are committed to materialism and atheism. The Apostle Paul in Romans 1 says that these are willfully suppressing the knowledge of the creator. Evolution is a religion. To say that detection of design is not scientific is to deny knowledge itself. Forensic pathology is one field based on separating accident, natural processes, and design with respect to death.

[@robertbeniston]

It is not a question of science verses faith. It is a question of beliefs . A person takes their belief to the examination of the facts and interprets the evidence through their beliefs. If they do not believe in God thy look for an explanation that does not include Him. In which case everything always has been here as is, or it developed from simpler things by law. If you believe in God then God designed and created everything. No one ever established Whether God exists or does not exist by evidence alone. God is spirit and therefore you can not prove anything about spirit by examining physical matter, a different substance. Spirit can only be referenced by indirect means-that is its affects on matter. So is something able to come into existence by development or does it need design and creation. That is the question. Also there is the willingness to look at the evidence in an unbiased way. If your preference is for one belief position and therefore you refuse to accept evidence for the other view (I mean refuse to look at the evidence and reasoning-not look at the evidence and believe it to be invalid) then you are biased . Also if you insist that that something came about a certain way and can't prove it you have no right to insist you are right. For example, If you claim that the living cell came into being by chemicals coming together and you can't prove it and then someone says God created it then you have no right to object and say it is not science. The position around 24.00 is a case in point. The university is confusing their belief and disagreement with Behe with evidence. They say that evolution has been supported by findings over 140 years. Are they right? Can they show how the first living cell came about, for example. Wikipedia is another example: their mention of pseudoscience is a belief position not scientific. The fact that atheism and evolution is dominant in our present culture does not, of it self, prove that they are right.

[@michaelgonzalez9058]

The brain is always is progression

[@chrisholding2382]

Binary vs quaternary excluding uracil :)

[@coldcrankinamps]

Apparently we only "dance to our DNA" according to materialists. The Achilles heel of athiests both scientifically AND morally.

[@michaelgonzalez9058]

The quantum computer is going to through all the info available

[@mrshankerbillletmein491]

If a person will not believe Moses and the Prophets they will not believe intelligent design

[@chronecro]

I would prefer to live in a world of ethics than one of morals

[@surrenderdaily333]

Each time you flip a coin, you have a 50-50 chance of it coming up heads, or tails. But every subsequent flip the chances of it coming up on the same side is cut in half. That's the way a theologian explained what he called, "the law of compound mathematical probability" when he was trying to explain all the prophecies in the OT coming to pass in the life of Jesus Christ. But I'm no mathematician at all so I wouldn't know if this is true. I'm just intrigued by numbers even though I'm not good with them. I like the theories more than the figuring.

[@thispresentmoment7797]

Where can I find that the math of evolution doesn't check out

[@cedriceric9730]

It's everywhere, everyday. " Scientists" deliberately and pointedly ignore that issue but no matter . The mathematician's have already provided the tools . Anyone can do it. One example , why doesn't time run backwards yet according to all reason it should be able to? Why in all the time tea was invented has never a cup of tea ever unstirred itself yet there is NO law of physics preventing this ?

[@dougsmith6793]

If the materialistic view in science has become popular, it's because it actually makes a scary amount of sense, and makes a scary amount of testable predictions that have been verified a scary amount of times. Galileo is actually credited as the father of modern science when he said, "Measure what is measurable, and make measurable what is not so." Science is "stuck" on materialism because it is, by definition, stuff that can be measured. And sticking with that definition is what has made it possible for Dembski to appear on a youtube channel and tell others how materialism is insufficient / inadequate to explain how things work. I doubt he gets the irony in that. Organisms that "just happen" to look like they were "designed" to fit a particular environment is exactly how organisms would look if they were designed by the environment through an iterative process that didn't require any foresight or intention at all.

[@thedynamicsolo4232]

Do you have any resources to clarify your point?

[@chronecro]

I would argue that life is a field type property and exists from the very inception of time in our universe, Life must exist everywhere possible just as it would as a peculiar field to date not recognized - It's no less absurd to believe in a superman than to believe life is simply a necessary function wherever it may find itself

[@chronecro]

Intelligent design is people with a difficult conscience

[@AndyC1]

Intelligent design is people? What lol

[@ElonTrump19]

You are arguing like an evolutionist. Have them explain affinities that lead to design . Don't be embarrassed in Jesus because we were made in his image. That is where design leads. Trying to placate those who choose pride over truth dilutes the Word.

[@jasonwarren9279]

ID has failed to gain traction because its proponents seem to think that the debate is secular and scientific. No. The debate is religious and political. Dawkins, Gould, Krauss, Hawking, Sagan, Hitchens... All these guys were arguing from a religious position, actively misconstruing their positions in order to undermine Christianity. Y'all keep bringing catcher's mitts to the boxing ring. No one wins by playing by the enemy's rules, and then letting the enemy score the bout.

[@KenJackson_US]

*Jason:* _"The debate is religious and political."_ Absolutely FALSE! Do you even know what a protein is?

[@christopherwinner4]

There is no lack on the side of ID proponents. All the names you listed were promoted by the nigh omnipresent media which is the only reason you know their names. Thousands of other atheists wrote the same concepts as them but you are unaware do to your media not telling you. Arguing from ignorance isn't a solid foundation. Reasoning should be more important than garnering attention from an inflammatory remark.

[@marieindia8116]

One could argue that the resistance is great because of a factor rarely considered. Please check Luke 4:6, Ephesians 2:2

[@rubiks6]

I'm sorry, but can you explain how there can be intelligent design without an Intelligent Design *_er_* (God)?

[@sombodysdad]

There can't be. But we don't have to know the who or how before we can determine that design exists.

[@blusheep2]

The Intelligent Design argument helps us move to a place where the existence of God is not just plausible but probable. The argument isn't specifically about God. Its about the evidence that life must have been designed. This could be a God or it could be an alien race, but design happened. So at a minimum the argument/evidence opens the door wide in the direction of God, even if it doesn't prove God. Your question is assuming the conclusion, which isn't the way to start discovery.

[@cindychristman8708]

I'd be more impressed if he gave EVIDENCE for ID and a god. A deistic god could have created everything. What is a "god"? Where did a "god' come from? Why can't we detect a god? Inquiring embodied minds want to know.

[@AndyC1]

God is a spirit. God had always existed(Didn't come from anything. Alpha and Omega.) We can detect God through each other.

[@marieindia8116]

The speaker just told you that physical evidence cannot be pushed to prove existence of the spiritual world. However, to refine and reference the comment above, here is the Bible's simple and enlightening answers to your questions. What is the Creator would be a more appropriately specific question to ask, for the title of god can refer to anyone or anything admired for power or skill. Eddie Van Halen, guitar god, for example. So, what is the Creator? John 4:24 God is a Spirit, and those worshipping him must worship with spirit and truth.” Where did the Creator come from? Isaiah 40:28 Do you not know? Have you not heard? Jehovah, the Creator of the ends of the earth, is a God for all eternity. He never tires out or grows weary. His understanding is unsearchable. (Since God made time-space-matter, he would have to be above all those things.) Why can't we detect the Creator? Exodus 33:20 But he added: “You cannot see my face, for no man can see me and live.” (so actual physical contact with the Creator would be devastating to a human, much like getting close to radioactive material, or approaching our sun. Too much energy. So layers of protection are there for our benefit.) I hope this answers your questions.

[@chronecro]

Life is god enough, there is no supernatural anything

[@stevenwiederholt7000]

#chronecro Did you watch the video?

[@AndyC1]

chronecro-Proof?

[@michaelanderson4849]

Oh dear! 🙄

[@stevenwiederholt7000]

I have a question. IF Materialism/Naturalism/Whateverism is true, and we are only the product of "blind purposeless process". Why did John Gotti die in prison?

[@betsalprince]

Because you don't have to appeal to divine agency or some God-given inherent purpose to live your life. Human beings are capable of creating their own purpose.

[@jamesbillington9280]

Speaker says "uhhh" alot. Stop that!

[@AndyC1]

Why.

[@chronecro]

There is absolutely no justification to believe in any supernatural being. No evidence. Nothing. Ever.

[@AndyC1]

chronecro-You are the lack of evidence

[@marieindia8116]

You must be the single one person who cranks up the algorithm for this video, haha, God works in mysterious ways...

[@goldenstar7400]

The practicality is that if intelligent design is right, there has to be a God of some kind. There is no practical way around it and it is the one thing materialists, especially atheistic ones simply cannot abide. They will deny God while he is slapping them in the face.

[@mahmoudabedalqader9867]

why don't you study Islam, it will not contradict with original correct Christianity or science, you should only study without pre-judging and with an open mind.

[@marieindia8116]

I did, and... It doesn't work.

[@refuse2bdcvd324]

The irony of atheistic darwinism is that if the Bible was to state that God designed life to develop from nonliving material atheists would actually be able to say "that's nonsense, we know through observation that living cells only come from preexisting living cells, therefore what the Bible says is false." If the Bible said "Nobody designed animals, God allowed a simple life form to evolve into more complex lifeforms over time, and eventually apes became humans," atheists would be able to say, "no scientist has observed the transition of a non human to a human, all we ever observe is that animals reproduce after their own kind, therefore the Bible is false." If the Bible was to say, "God allowed fossils to exist to prove the transition of one kind of animal to another." Atheists could say There are monumental gaps in the fossil record between the fossils of humans and any other creature and fossils can't tell us what characteristics their parents had, let alone what characteristics their great, great, great... grandparents had, therefore it would be illogical to look at the bones of a human and assume they came from a nonhuman; Therefore the Bible is false." If the Bible said, "The transition between apes and mankind took millions of years," atheists could say, "No scientist has observed millions of years, therefore what the Bible says is not credible." The only reason why atheists believe in darwinism is because they don't want to accept what the Bible says. It's not that darwinism is a credible ideology. It fails the standards of science in every way. the Bible stands up to the test of science time after time regarding what is testable, observable, repeatable, and verifiable. Trust documented history and observable science; embrace Christ.

[@kosardb]

Using terms like "Darwinism" makes us look at you the same way you would look at us if we said "Christianism." So.....care to read a book and use proper nomenclature?

[@sttonep242]

Nothing more intelligent than eating and breathing from the same hole😂

[@sombodysdad]

How could we talk without that?

[@timid3000]

One system expertly designed to perform multiple functions. To eat, breath, speak etc. to believe that system built itself by chance is beyond ridiculous.

[@chronecro]

Most educated people are not going to give serious consideration to intelligent design as it presupposes a magical being - don't give me a god, give me a purpose, then I will believe

[@AndyC1]

chronecro-God gives you purpose. Without God there is no purpose

[@marieindia8116]

The purpose is written, but will you obey it if you knew it? To check, research Genesis 1:28, and a more recent update is at Matthew 22:37.

[@matterasmachine]

god is much deeper and simpler. All matter and energy are created as god's copies. God is quantum of energy, reduced Planck's constant, simple discrete machine, base building block of universe.

[@Jamienewman0]

Anyone who thinks that the human body was designed "intelligently" probably has never lived in one. I'd be far more willing to entertain the notion that the universe has a creator if you were willing to admit that he -- or it -- is either incredibly inept, or willfully malicious, or just a bored prankster with no other goal than to keep himself entertained.

[@thomaswayneward]

Congratulations, you have presented another evolutionary fact. LOL

[@oskarsitarz569]

@@thomaswayneward He would obviously did it better 🤣😂

[@christopherwinner4]

That's the fallacy of incredulity. Very childlike argument. Truth is not dependent on your feeble beliefs. Arguing as if truth is dependent on 'your' beliefs, let's be honest, the beliefs aren't even yours, you just parrot every other edgy internet atheist from 1995, shows how limited you are in adult conversations. Many intelligent atheists admit human biology appears intelligently designed so maybe you should study things before echoing fallacies from decades ago for all to see.

[@DiscoverJesus]

God loves you mate.

[@therick363]

@@christopherwinner4 you have a point about arguing as if truth is dependent on someone’s beliefs. So the question had to be asked-what is the truth?

[@chronecro]

Faith is a lapse of responsibility

[@AndyC1]

How

[@marieindia8116]

You obviously don't know what faith is. Hebrews 11:1 defines faith as requiring evidence for unseen things. What you really are referring to is gullibility, which Darwinists angrily submit to on a daily basis to keep their jobs.

[@Andrew-pp2ql]

How many people who work for the discovery institute are Christians? Actually what percent? Very difficult to convince the public at large design science has nothing to do with Christianity but science when the institute was formed and operated by Christian’s. Perhaps I’m wrong…30 percent of the staff don’t hold to Christianity….why I ask?

[@christopherwinner4]

It's actually not difficult. You are just using a logical fallacy. Instead of addressing the "science" you go straight for "ad hominem". Your comment didn't mar the Discovery Institute at all, but did show you have no affinity for science, or her mother, reasoning. Btw, have you ever asked how many deniers of Intelligent Design have an ulterior motive for doing so? No? That's called being inconsistent in your reasoning. You may want to troll Joel Osteen for an audience more on your "scientific" level. Jk but if you really want to have an intelligent conversation we can do that. If you just want to do some name-calling instead, I'll be your Huckleberry.

[@elmerrojas3993]

The irony of this talk is that they confuse many terms, appealing to the fallacy of artificialism, that is, they impregnate any thing or natural process with overtones of artificiality and then build a straw man that involves a design, an intention or a causality; it is illogical to say that DNA is information or the genome is a computer program or the cells "know" their respective positions during embryogenesis. Obviously these arguments are complemented by pseudo-mathematics and pseudo-philosophy, Intelligent Design raises more problems than it solves... who designed the designer in the first place? and I know that many will argue that the designer does not need design because it is metaphysical, immaterial, spiritual, etc., but this is nothing more than a fallacy of the Special Plea, a typical way of avoiding questions of principle. Dembski ignores the advances made with evolutionary algorithms whose capacity surpasses that of their human designers, his definition of specified complexity is circular, and his probability calculations are off by a bunch of statistical magnitudes. So what are they afraid of, the existential void, that there is nothing after death, meaninglessness. Give me random processes and I will give you a universe full of meaning and purpose.

[@j.josephrossi9085]

Without going into detail, I gave the speaker a thumbs down because of his delivery. I find the subject of "Intelligent design" tremendously exciting, but if the speaker expects his audience to feel likewise he might want to consider taking a course in public speaking.

[@Joe-gi3nj]

What are you talking about? I thought he did a good job. Honestly, I have no idea what you’re talking about. Perhaps, you can clarify that more for me.

[@justifiedFaith209]

I understood it just fine. The content far outweighs my concern over a perfect delivery. Lol. Talk about focusing on the irrelevant.

[@marieindia8116]

Are you a public speaking tutor who is begging for students?

[@seaknightvirchow8131]

The reason that ID has not convinced many is not because it isn’t compelling but because there are men who are committed to materialism and atheism. The Apostle Paul in Romans 1 says that these are willfully suppressing the knowledge of the creator. Evolution is a religion. To say that detection of design is not scientific is to deny knowledge itself. Forensic pathology is one field based on separating accident, natural processes, and design with respect to death.

[@therick363]

There are theists who believe in a Creator and also understand and accept the science of evolution. So NO it’s not “materialism and atheism” HOW is evolution a religion? I hear creationists say this all the time but no one ever actually bothers to elaborate and back it up. Will you?

[@AndyC1]

@@therick363 Evolution contradicts the bible in terms of how God created everything