79 Comments

  • Peli_can Dude

    Interesting angle for sure.

    I remember watching Stephen Meyer when I first started researching evolution and other aspects of what the atheist contingent was using for arguments. Dr Meyer's presentation on Intelligent Design was like a shot of adrenaline to an athlete struggling to finish a race respectively and launched my belief into sub Theological orbit…much below God but much above the atheist level of understanding.

  • Les

    No experiment validates evolution and no computer simulation indicates that evolution could work even in theory.

    Enough said!

  • eroceanos

    I don’t understand how Neo-Darwinism has survived as a scientific theory for so long. The absurdity of it’s hypothesis is an insult to good science. It’s the most sustained succes of the labeling of our ignorance as science, that has ever occurred. I expect, that in a hundred years from now, biologists will be astounded, by the very idea that this absurdity was once accepted as science.

  • MrModeratemuslim

    I love this guy. I wish all people who believe in God open their eyes and see the systematic avalanche heading their way and stop bickering among one another and pool their resources for common causes such as researching these issues. Yes we fundamentally do and will always disagree on fundamental beliefs, but we can alsp agree on other things that we should work together on.

  • MrIntelligentdesign

    Stephen, YOU ARE TOTALLY wrong in both the topic of intelligence and biology! Oh my goodness! CALL ME and I will explain to you both topics in the most correct scientific explanation.

  • ᆞCarla

    Why do you mix creationism with evolutionism? The truth is only one . You seem to lose your first love for God and compromise with Dawinism. God must be disappointed with you.

  • Giorgi Kvatchadze

    Thank you for putting this up. Very informative. I always look forward to Stephen Meyer's new works and presentations.

  • Luis Villafane

    I'm sorry prof. Meyer but the argument put forward in this lecture for intelligent design is very weak and unconvincing. All he dose is point to several problems in the fossil record, mechanic, etc. ( all of wish are widely known and all they demonstrate is that scientist haven't finger it all out yet) and from there conclude that since all information need a mind, God did it. A assertion that he don't even bother to give evidence for. First of all, that's a God of the Gaps argument. And second, his argument have even less explanatory power that the evolution theory he is trying to debunk. He don't put forward any other theory other than say God must did it wish is not satisfactory for all host of reasons. Least of them because doesn't explain how he did it, why he did it, wish mechanisms he use, etc. I imagine that in his alternative explanation God just poof things in to being, wright? Is that the best he can came up with, I'm sorry, I'm not impressed.

  • misterlyle

    "You can't change them very much–at all," he says explaining why gene networks cannot evolve. And yet evolutionists teach that each step in the evolutionary process is minimal–not very much of a change–at all. This talk is filled with technical jargon, but not coherently defending the Supreme Being's creative power.

  • Aquilla Fleetwood

    Google, the Northern Cross, by Aquilla Fleetwood, youtube!
    Google, Night Signs, by Aquilla Fleetwood, youtube!
    Google, Hebrew Word Pictures, by Aquilla Fleetwood, youtube!

  • Kristoff Taylovoski

    ??? Theistic Evolution…..??? Evolution is not a faith but an observation….No no….I am OK with the Magic Explanation by the good Doctor Stephen Meyer…..

  • Holy Moly

    The introducer can't even pronounce 'Cambridge' !! 😀 LOL. You have a Cambridge, MA, FFS. You know, the one with Harvard in it. 😀

    Not a good start!!

  • Holy Moly

    One of the critical weaknesses in Meyer's position is the use of 'information', as being only produced by 'intelligence'. Question: what sort of 'information' could not emerge through the process of evolution? He has no answer. His argument that information only comes from intelligence is entirely spurious.

  • Holy Moly

    OK, this is just disingenuous now. 32:00 onwards. There is no suggestion that evolution works in this way. Meyer knows it. It isn't a matter of completely functional mutation or nothing. Small functional increments are sufficient.

  • NICOLAS S BROWN

    There are only two possibilities: life, the world and everything was created entirely by natural law processes, or it was not. Theistic evolutionists try to believe in both at the same time, a form of cognitive dissonance. www.lifewithoutevolution.uk

  • Geo Bla

    It's interesting how evolution fails right from the start to explain how this combination of complex information that was needed to create even the simplest organism came about ,but is explained and credit to God by Theists.

    These Theists actually fail in both science and religion by their explanations and by
    doing so have the least amount of merit in their claims.
    They ( Theists) have obviously come to the same conclusion as far as intelligence
    is needed to create the magnitude of information required to first form life , but then
    speculate with their evolutionery brethren that evolution created most of the life
    forms we see today.

  • SnoopyDoo

    31:00 Meyer uses the combination lock to explain how a value of 10^77 is so large that there is not enough time in 3.8 billion years to go through all the combinations. I wish he would stop using this ridiculous analogy because he presents it as though you have only one lock and go through all the combinations sequentially. Sure, if that were the case you would need a lot more time than 3.8 billion years. But what he consistently avoids saying in every video where he presents this analogy is that there is not ONE combination lock but trillions upon trillions all running at the same time. In that case, you don't need 3.8 billion years. This is also why cryptocurrency mining such as bitcoin requires thousands of computers to crack the "lock" in order for them to be rewarded with the prize money. I don't support Darwinian evolution but neither do I support Meyer's seriously flawed reasoning.

  • Bob Hughes

    A key point appears to have gone over the heads of many viewers so allow me to clarify something: Stephen Meyer does not support theistic evolution. He is a strong critic of neo-Darwinian evolution.

  • luvdomus

    Meyer is never published in scientific journals, only in religious propaganda, he has no influence or visibility in science at all, he is only a celebrity in the Evangelical movement which sees science as an enemy and a threat to "faith."

  • Kuffar Legion

    National Academy of Sciences

    …there is no debate within the scientific community over whether evolution occurred, and there is no evidence that evolution has not occurred. Some of the details of how evolution occurs are still being investigated. But scientists continue to debate only the particular mechanisms that result in evolution, not the overall accuracy of evolution as the explanation of life's history.

    American Association of University Professors

    "The theory of evolution is all but universally accepted in the community of scholars and has contributed immeasurably to our understanding of the natural world. […] The American Association of University Professors deplores efforts in local communities and by some state legislators to require teachers in public schools to treat evolution as merely a hypothesis or speculation, untested and unsubstantiated by the methods of science, and to require them to make students aware of an "intelligent-design hypothesis" to account for the origins of life. These initiatives not only violate the academic freedom of public school teachers, but can deny students an understanding of the overwhelming scientific consensus regarding evolution."

    American Association for the Advancement of Science

    The [intelligent design] movement has failed to offer credible scientific evidence to support their claim that ID undermines the current scientifically accepted theory of evolution… the lack of scientific warrant for so-called intelligent design theory' makes it improper to include as a part of science education.

    American Anthropological Association

    The Association respects the right of people to hold diverse religious beliefs, including those who reject evolution as matters of theology or faith. Such beliefs should not be presented as science, however.Science describes and explains the natural world: it does not prove or disprove beliefs about the supernatural.

    American Astronomical Society

    Science is not based on faith, nor does it preclude faith. Whatever personal beliefs teachers, students, parents or administrators may hold, the teaching of important scientific concepts, such as the formation and aging of planets, stars, galaxies and the Universe, should not be altered or constrained in response to demands external to the scientific disciplines.

    National Association of Biology Teachers

    Scientists have firmly established evolution as an important natural process. Experimentation, logical analysis, and evidence-based revision are procedures that clearly differentiate and separate science from other ways of knowing. Explanations or ways of knowing that invoke non-naturalistic or supernatural events or beings, whether called creation science,' scientific creationism,' intelligent design theory,' young earth theory,' or similar designations, are outside the realm of science and not part of a valid science curriculum.

    Geological Society of America

    In recent years, certain individuals motivated by religious views have mounted an attack on evolution. This group favors what it calls creation science,' which is not really science at all because it invokes supernatural phenomena. Science, in contrast, is based on observations of the natural world. All beliefs that entail supernatural creation, including the idea known as intelligent design, fall within the domain of religion rather than science. For this reason, they must be excluded from science courses in our public schools.

    The American Chemical Society

    Evolution cannot be dismissed or diminished by characterizing it as mere conjecture or speculation.The inclusion of non-scientific explanations in science curricula misrepresents the nature and processes of science and compromises a central purpose of public educationthe preparation of a scientifically literate workforce.

    American Institute of Biological Sciences

    The theory of evolution is the only scientifically defensible explanation for the origin of life and development of species. A theory in science, such as the atomic theory in chemistry and the Newtonian and relativity theories in physics, is not a speculative hypothesis, but a coherent body of explanatory statements supported by evidence. The theory of evolution has this status. Explanations for the origin of life and the development of species that are not supportable on scientific grounds should not be taught as science.

    The Paleontological Society

    Because evolution is fundamental to understanding both living and extinct organisms, it must be taught in public school science classes. In contrast, creationism is religion rather than science, as ruled in recent court cases, because it invokes supernatural explanations that cannot be tested. Consequently, creationism in any form (including scientific creationism, creation science, and intelligent design) must be excluded from public school science classes. Because science involves testing hypotheses, scientific explanations are restricted to natural causes.

    Botanical Society of America

    Science as a way of knowing has been extremely successful, although people may not like all the changes science and its handmaiden, technology, have wrought. But people who oppose evolution, and seek to have creationism or intelligent design included in science curricula, seek to dismiss and change the most successful way of knowing ever discovered. They wish to substitute opinion and belief for evidence and testing. The proponents of creationism/intelligent design promote scientific ignorance in the guise of learning.

    Many other scientific organizations are opposed to teaching intelligent design as a science-based alternative to evolution, including:

    New Orleans Geological Society

    New York Academy of Sciences

    Ohio Academy of Science

    Ohio Math and Science Coalition

    Oklahoma Academy of Sciences

    Sigma Xi, Louisiana State University Chapter, Baton Rouge, Louisiana

    Society for Amateur Scientists

    Society for Integrative and Comparative Biology

    Society for Neuroscience

    Society for Organic Petrology

    Society for the Study of Evolution

    Society of Physics Students

    Society of Systematic Biologists

    Society of Vertebrate Paleontology

    Southern Anthropological Society

    Virginia Academy of Science

    West Virginia Academy of Science

    American Association of Physical Anthropologists

    American Geophysical Union

    American Society of Biological Chemists

    American Psychological Association

    American Physical Society

    American Society of Parasitologists

    Association for Women Geoscientists

    Australian Academy of Science

    California Academy of Sciences

    Ecological Society of America

    Genetics Society of America

    Geological Society of America

    Georgia Academy of Science

    History of Science Society

    Iowa Academy of Science

    Kentucky Paleontological Society

    Louisiana Academy of Sciences

    National Academy of Sciences

    North American Benthological Society

    North Carolina Academy of Science

  • Bob Free

    Read Romans 1 an the answer is all there.though they knew GOD ,they did not want to acknowledge HIM in any way. We All have the Light of Creation and the Light of Conscience in side of all of Us!!

  • Les

    Too bad for evolutionists no experiments shows that a natural process may create a code or generate information.

    If you can't test it, then it's not science.

  • Mrme myselfandi

    LULZ!! It just hit me that this guy looks like Sam Donaldson from way back. The funny thing is at first I could swear he was from star trek with those crazy eye brows, and I couldn't place his name, and then it hit me he was a new anchor back in the day and BAM! There he was. Anyway…it's uncanny. And…I can't forget….while I'm here….Praise Jesus…all that.

  • David Butler

    4:23 "A former geologist and college professor"…Um, no. Dr. Meyer got a Bachelor's in Earth Sciences (This was more or less what they call today a 'Geoscience' degree) from Whitworth college. These degrees typically teach a few courses in Physical sciences that range from Basic classes on geography, geology, physics, etc. He's not a damned 'Geologist'. LOL. He got a job with ARCO doing basic field work using company tools to interpret survey data, like a lot of Texas grads tend to do. Like those guys you see at construction sites sighting the land and mapping it, but for oil company stuff. But he quit that, and went back to school to study philosophy

    What's even funnier is that in OTHER presentations, this college background is often touted as a 'Physics' degree.

  • luvdomus

    Of course you can always pretend that your favorite divinity– however you define it– is ultimately behind any natural process, be it evolution, or the weather or the orbits of the planets. That has nothing to do with science, which only concerns itself with the practical method by which these processes work, not the psychological coping mechanisms you wish to attach to them.

  • Paul Dana

    Religions are billion dollar per year scams that "sell" stories in mythology for donation dollars. Invisible gods, devils, and demons only exist in mythology but the religions claim they really exist to scare people into donating 10% of their money to uh "spread the good word". By "spreading the good word" they gain more donating members just like pyramid schemes. Religions start by indoctrinating (grooming) children with their beliefs in an INVISIBLE "God" and then when the children reach adulthood they begin donating money and continue donating money until they die. So 18 to 20 years of grooming nets 50 to 60 years of donating. It's all about making untraceable TAX EXEMPT money for the owners of the churches while the gullible members never realize their INVISIBLE "god" only exists in MYTHOLOGY and they're being scammed out of their money.

  • John Murphy

    There is one thing for sure , every atheist that ever was and is that sheds his flesh upon death , they find out the truth that they were in fact wrong as they stand in front of of Jesus explaining what they knew to be true but for the love of money perpetrated a lie .

  • Paul Dana

    Religions have been scamming people out of their money for thousands of years while NEVER PROVING THEIR INVISIBLE "GOD" EXISTS. There are around 2000+ religions competing for YOUR money and the Christian religions (around 34,000 of them) are the most successful as they pull in a billion TAX EXEMPT dollars a year for the owners of the churches. Invisible gods, devils, and demons only exist in mythology.

  • Paul Dana

    Remember folks, Stephen Meyer is NOT a scientist by any definition. He's a PHILOSOPHER of science which means he doesn't have a clue what he's talking about. He gets paid to preach to the choirs at Christian colleges with the hope of bringing in even more donation dollars from the gullible members. Religions are the greatest money making scams in history as 85% of the donation dollars go directly into the pockets of the church's owners as their untraceable tax free income.

  • Paul Dana

    Why does your invisible "god" cause pandemics, starvation, wars, earthquakes, cancer, tornadoes, tsunamis, birth defects, volcanic eruptions, drownings, famine, horrific crimes against humanity, and continuous buggering of little boy's butt holes? Is he too busy performing miracles elsewhere? Or jerking off while thinking about a big fat sow? Or perhaps snorting a line of coke off a hooker's ass? I think your invisible "god" is a real prick as he demonstrated it thruout the whole entire bible. He was just a bloodthirsty vindictive mass murderer who killed anyone who dared to cross him. How could anyone with critical thinking skills worship something like that?

  • Colin Dowson

    This Nut doesn't know what he is talking about!
    Evolution has been tested to the hilt at leading Universities!
    Another self deluded Apologist and liar… Information isnt a sign of intelligent but natural order at work!!

  • Colin Dowson

    To Stephen Meyer who doesn't understand Evolutionary Science or have a PhD in Ancient History or Cosmology, who conflates Authenticity with Credibility,Causality with God,Information with Intelligence and uses the Fallacy of Composition like it is a Theorem:
    New information is generated by Nature (in fact even Dembski admits, as much as 500 bits of new information can be created spontaneously in a single natural event, and routinely several dozens of bits event per event). And it's a fallacy of affirming the consequent to say "we know minds produce information, therefore when we see information produced a mind did it." So Meyer is trying to avoid the fallacy of argument from ignorance by replacing it with a fallacy of affirming the consequent. It Doesn't work.
    God and ID are Pseudoscience…they can explain anything you want !!
    Instead of citing some improbable and untestable Deity,remember we have invented 3000 of them,including 4000 fake Religions,why don't you wait until Science solves the problem..citing God when the problems get hard is weak and disingenuous thinking!!

  • Colin Dowson

    Stop listening to these Fools who cite God because they don't understand Evolution…let Science explain it thx

  • James Richard Wiley

    Stephen C. Meyer (born 1958) is an American advocate of the pseudoscientific principle of intelligent design. He helped found the Center for Science and Culture (CSC) of the Discovery Institute, which is the main organization behind the intelligent design movement.
    Intelligent design (ID) is a pseudoscientific argument for the existence of God, presented by its proponents as "an evidence-based scientific theory about life's origins".
    Proponents claim that "certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection."
    ID is a form of creationism that lacks empirical support and offers no testable or tenable hypotheses, so it is not science.
    The leading proponents of ID are associated with the Discovery Institute, a fundamentalist Christian and politically conservative think tank based in the United States.
    Wikipedia.

  • Paul Dana

    Hey Meyer, how about making your nonsensical assertions to the world's top evolutionary biologists instead of gullible church members? Is it because you're full of shit and you KNOW you're full of shit? Evolution is a fact and it's time you learn about it instead of attacking it and claiming "magic" is a better answer?

  • Folk Aart

    Why is it always about the Christian god and the silly bible? What criteria did you use to dismiss all the other regions and all their gods? You Stephen Meyer are a blatant hypocrite and a disingenuous fool.

  • Paul Dana

    The invisible "God" is the leading character in Hebrew MYTHOLOGY just as Thor was in Nordic MYTHOLOGY and Zeus was in Greek MYTHOLOGY. That's why religions are still the greatest money making scams in history as they claim their invisible God really exists then beg their gullible followers for 10% of their money EVERY SUNDAY until the drop dead from old age. Religions never ask their followers for their prayers to make money. No, they ask their followers for untraceable CASH money. When you say a prayer to the invisible God in Hebrew MYTHOLOGY you would be just as well off praying to a doorknob or a fire hydrant.

    Now let's talk about Stephen Meyer. He is a PHILOSOPHER of science which means he has no knowledge of any of the scientific disciplines. He just talks thru his ass to his gullible audiences who pay money to hear him babble for a whole hour without saying anything of any use to anyone.

  • To The Sciencemobile!

    I'm curious which ID proponents are the ones who suggest aliens are responsible for the genetic code. Naturally this raises the question:

    how do you get aliens — natural selection? LOL!
    Bare in mind that this is also what counts for an ID hypothesis.

    I guess I can see the attraction with this hypothesis. I think what's so appealing here is the fact that said aliens are probably envisioned having appendages for manipulating the nucleotide bases and other molecules for building RNA and DNA.

    That's the problem with ID: we know how we design things with our hands and fingers. We also have sensory organs to navigate our environment. Do mere minds have these things? Obviously not. How can a disembodied mind "do" anything or even exist outside a body?

    IDers need to do less complaining and more explaining. Can anyone explain the procedure of design without Affirming The Consequent?

  • Ilja Ryabko

    GUIded Evolution is the answer to most controversies among Christians and their view of the Bible. Read Nicolas Berdyaev "The destiny of man" Veeeery deep and informative on such issues!

  • Ilja Ryabko

    Guided!!!!! The key word!!! Think through,what would be more complex and elegant: if God did all things per mouse clicks or pre programming and then Guiding in misterious ways it further:))) God is the best Programmer:) Evolution must not be necessary gradual as well:)) All that brings balance to all problems of wars among Christians on these issues and many others…

  • Ilja Ryabko

    Do not confuse"mechanism lacks creativity" in a sence of naturalistic cognitive way applied to evolution with saying " in mechanism itself God elegantly put His mind,so to speek pre-programmed those things,which He further guides along the way"!!!!

  • dancingnature

    Let’s pretend that we don’t understand the parts of evolution that we do. This is why the science community doesn’t accept ID. Mr Meyer you’ve wasted your education. Let’s pretend that Thor throws thunderbolt too while we’re at it because we don’t understand everything about lightning

  • demi- dogg

    Genesis is wrong. Genesis 2 has Man appear first, before animals & Gen1 ordered "creation" wrong also, with plants on Earth before there was a Sun, Moon & STARS? That's stupid. What is this ID (Invisible Decorator) intelligence & how do we communicate to see if it's capable of changing things? IS IT TINKERING TODAY & HOW & WHY??? & Is it potentially dangerous?

    Fine-tuning argument of perfect design IDiocy, ignores our precariousness and how truly imperfect it all actually is, unless tremendous unnecessary suffering was the plan all along. How do we know your "force" is not a trickster?, fine tuning perfectly for Germs, recyclable materials, & turds. Fine tuned for Chaos, suffering & Death.

    I have a Gaps Game for you now, & more important to "Origins" than anything because your questions answer nothing. EXODUS it's called. Can you please help explain here, what is contemporary scholarly consensus on this Exodus? That's it. You like science, so you must like Evidence. You understand, No Exodus = No Moses.

    He supposedly wrote your Creatorism account.

  • Ilja Ryabko

    demi- dogg this shows great ignorance on your part…I do not worry much about Exodus…The Bible is the gathering of particular religious experience of particular group of people in history:) If you see it that way it is like in the history of science(if you acctually know it:) with many mistakes and even stupid claims on the way…But it gives you foundation for further research! I am very far from ALL kinds of fundamentalistic thinking including "scientific" one:) All our experiences enrich our understanding…Let us not pretend,that you and me could have possibly known anything without our predecessors:) So,you would be on the monkey level till know,if you had to start yourself… So,do not confuse rationalism and positivism philosophy with strict scientific methodology and boundaries:) And natural sciences do have boundaries…What some of those guys like Dawkins,etc claim very often is nothing else but fairytales or their philosophy in the best case!Think honestly about that! Read Arthur Peacocke,Ian Barbour,John Polkinghorne from Oxford,great colleges in different fields of natural sciences!If you are serious,just Google them… After all,what would you have (if you were for example a communist) against God giving some laws for appearance of matter from which actually to built what they claim they will do anyway:))) Freedom is the answer to many oversimplified questions

  • Rob Davis

    Just to make this clear, there is no actual debate about the factual nature about the age of the world, the Big
    Bang or the Theory of Evolution.

    Why do those people like McMurty, Meyer, Turek and their ilk, who'd like you to think they’ve got the goods on a
    150 year body of scientific work, have never presented this "work" at
    a scientific conference- in fact they run a mile from such scrutiny- instead
    they do the rounds of fundamentalist church groups, right wing talk radio and
    jesus-tv shows.  Why do they publish in
    vanity journals and not in science journals? Do you think if a real scientist
    had done work that destroyed any of the most established scientific theories in
    history, he or she would publish in newspapers and church magazines?

    Because they are Con Man who deal in inwards facing propaganda, design to sell their crap books to the
    scientific illiterate.

  • David Wren

    There are very good reasons for not accepting these (Meyer’s) ideas. But “there is no God!” Is not one of them.

  • Robert beniston

    0.56 sorry what do you mean dismiss any input from science? Creationists use science.We are talking belief here not science. Science is used for facts upon which belief is based. interpretation of facts according to belief not belief arrived at by facts

  • T J

    the problem of course is this. Darwinian theory is limited. Yes. But does that imply the Christian God? Not by a long shot. there is an Infinity of other ways that life could have come into being. and the Bible has certainly a lot more contradictions and problems than Darwin. odds are they're both wrong.

  • Paul Dana

    The invisible "God" is the leading character in Hebrew MYTHOLOGY just as Thor was in Nordic MYTHOLOGY and Zeus was in Greek MYTHOLOGY.

  • Richard Rogers

    What exactly do these Theistic Evolutionist believe? They surly don't believe in the God that Christians believe in. Their view seems to imply that God is limited and not all powerful, just a more powerful being than us. If He is all powerful, why would he bother with "evolving" us and not just create us, like He said He did?

  • Paul Dana

    Stephen Meyer is so full of shit he stinks. His INVISIBLE "God" is the leading character in Hebrew MYTHOLOGY and that's why religions are the greatest money making scams in history. Notice how he never makes his absurd assertions to peer reviewed scientific journals but instead preaches to the choir.for $$$$$

  • Paul Dana

    Notice how these dishonest apologists only attack evolution while never providing a shred of evidence proving their INVISIBLE God exists.

  • John-Giovanni Corda

    I like what Meyer says here re: proteins. Having the chemicals arrive in a useful combination is one thing. [ random mutation would have never have arrived at any useful combination; Creation would have "got it right" as the design called for]. The theory of evolution is Miles Away from having any useful chemical combinations supplied via random mutation. Nowhere near even being remotely likely. NEXT we have the problem of how do the 3D protein structures form? Add in More random chance claims that haphazard random chemical mutation [ one at a time!] was what caused random 3D protein structures. Already the exponential odds against that have entered solidly into IMPOSSIBLE LAND. Yet there are many that beat their heads against a brick wall trying to claim that it actually happened that way. The betting man would put his money on God/creator over ToE. ha ha

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *