Neil Tyson presentation about intelligent design
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 16 апр 2011
- Update 2023: Comments should be enabled again
I downloaded this video from the now defunct Google Video and uploaded here so it's archived and isn't lost after Google Video deletes all its content. Original description bellow:
This is a presentation on science, religion, and how poorly-designed humans, the Earth, and the universe really are. The presenter, Neil deGrasse Tyson, is the new host of the PBS-TV program "NOVA scienceNOW", director of the Hayden Planetarium in the Rose Center For Earth and Space at the American Museum of Natural History. He is the recipient of seven honorary doctorates and the NASA Distinguished Public Service Medal.
Update: Unfortunately RUclips doesn't have any option to stop sending me notifications about new comments on this video via G+. The only way I can possibly avoid getting spams of notifications every minute is to disable comments all together, so I'm doing that. If RUclips ever adds the option to let me disable notifications then I'll open comments again. Until then, I'm sorry, but comments will be closed.
I like to think I have a pretty decent grasp on things in terms of science, mathematics, and philosophy, but when I hear people like Neil DeGrasse Tyson talk on certain subjects I'm reminded I still have much to learn. It's a very humbling and beneficial experience each time it happens.
*****
Carl sagan is the father of modern scientific rational thinking :)
I could listen to Mr. Tyson 24/7
I love the energy and passion. Coupled with self awareness, Tyson is a brilliant example of the best people can be.
too bad only a 1/2 million people saw this video
When this man speaks... the planet should listen.
Ignorance=Religion
Tyson should be cloned and put in every science class in the world. What smart kids we'd all have. He's the perfect teacher.
taledarkside That comment shows you are in desperate need of any intelligence. You belong on a religion page where things like that matter, not here where people are trying to escape ignorance.
Tyson's grasp of objectivity is incredible. *applauds*
***** where is the fairy tale about black holes? They're indirectly observable based on the gravitational effect they have on stars, light, and other objects.
Please present an argument that actually makes sense, because that was utterly rubbish.
***** I would have if you weren't condescending in your initial post, so let's not call the kettle black.
It's a theory yes, they don't know wtf black holes really are, but they know how they're made and what they're made of. The only reason we can't see them is due to their gravitational extremes.
You can call it whatever you want, but black hole is the most accurate description of it so far. It could contain other things, but we know for certain that each cnotains the mass of many suns and planets, to say the least, and probably dark matter as well.
Even so, your outright dismissal of it and using it as an example actually shows how little you know about these things.
Black holes are not a belief - they exist.
***** this is true, of which yet, none have been found. So until that point, they're the best conceived theory. I mean I doubt they're wrong considering they use gravitational lensing and the mathematics involved to unwarp pictures as a result of that gravitation.
I meant to say they're a theory in respect to what they actually are, but in terms of their effects on the universe - that's well documented and testable.
***** actually, just reading up on them again - I was wrong (and so are you). They're not theoretical, and haven't been for some time it seems.
***** Damnit, I had a good response but I somehow lost it :(
Anyways, thanks for that link - but it's old news. Hawking radiation hinted at this for a while, and it only challenges the theory of information not being able to escape, nothing more.
I guess my point was more about the point of black holes existing, which your initial post implied either didn't exist or was just utterly wrong (hence my point about indirect observations) :)
Should We Teach Intelligent Design
Sure, in comparative religion class where it belongs.
pirateturns360
Yes, go ahead and link discovery institute websites. Seems legit.
Gregory Apple
I hope you are just a troll.
Gregory Apple
You think evolution isn't falsifiable? You think evolution isn't repeatable and demonstrable?
Find a true in-between form. Find fossils where they should not be. - Evolution debunked.
We have direct laboratory evidence of evolution. See Lenski experiment.
Admittedly, I do not know very much about cosmic theory so I will leave that, but to really suggest that evolution is not falsifiable or demonstrable is simply a gross misinterpretation of fact.
Oh, and just so we don't get into this argument; hypothesis =/= scientific theory =/= layman's theory.
Gregory Apple So, polystrate fossils (a term used primarily by creationists) which are formed by fast sedimentation in rift areas disprove evolution. K.
So micro and not macro, got it. Manipulation? Wow.
Welp, it seems some comments got modded. (Or atleast they no longer show on here for me even though I got notifications.) Basically I am stuck talking to idiots who think that macro evolution cannot be fact even if micro evolution is. Clearly they deny time. These idiots also think that adaptation is not evolution, and no doubt deny the existence of ring species too.
Speciation, which is the whole bullshit that Gregory Apple is trying to talk about, is not an explosive event. Allopatric, sympatric, parapatric speciation, you really need to learn your shit. Seriously look up ring species, even if you genuinely are a completely intellectually bankrupt moron.
And just in case anyone thought it'd be harsh to call them morons; one of them mentioned irreducible complexity.
Gregory Apple Abiogenesis is not evolution, and probability is completely irrelevant, even if the numbers were not pulled out of thin air.
pirateturns360 You are not even worth my time. At least this other idiot comes up with stuff.
Tyson's one of the greatest public speakers I've ever heard, so much passion and enthusiasm, he keeps his audience enthralled. One of the coolest guys on the planet.
Mankind will always replace the limits of their knowledge with God.... but what about the limited knowledge of the origins of God? what do we replace that with?
***** we don't know, just because we don't know, doesnt mean we can go ahead and say god did it. we first have to produce evidence that god exists before we can use him as a causal agent for anything
***** "Time" was created with the big bang. There was no "before" the big bang. "Asking what was before the big bang, is like asking what is north of the north pole." -- Stephen Hawkings
***** All the energy in the cosmos has always been present in our pre-bang cosmos in the form of quantum electromagnetic fluctuations on a Planck scale. Steven Weinberg, Nobel prize winner, and Lawrence Krauss can fill you in. But gods certainly are not involved. Conservation of mass-energy proves my first point. Energy created all the matter in the cosmos.
***** For someone who claims they would unlearn "Science" you spout a load of BULLSHIT. The SCIENCE *PROVES* the exact OPPOSITE of what you post.
What Don mentioned was not his *opinion* nor my *opinion* nor Krauss' *opinion*. It is Science FACT, until more advanced Science proves otherwise.
All your babbling about fantasy cannot change that FACT.
Humans do not NEED to be there, any more than they need to BE out in space to make observations. None of us have BEEN to Jupiter, Saturn, or the surface of Mars. But we know what is going on due to SCIENCE, and not due to an idiot's Cu-age text or his *faith*.
Either put up a disproof of what Krauss says in that video or SHUT THE FUCK UP, ASSHOLE.
***** There's no debate to be had when your unsubstantiated FANTASY is shot the fuck down in the first salvo of FACTS, FUCKTARD.
In other words, the human gross discomfort with an incomplete Gestalt drives us to insert God when we should simply be patient with the pace of scientific discovery. Another way of seeing this is through Maslov's ideas of what constitutes emotional maturity -- the ability to tolerate the existence of unknowns and the greys in life instead of preemptively and falsely defining them in terms of black and white. Brilliant, Dr. DeGrasse Tyson, brilliant! What you've said, in essence, is that those pushing Intelligent Design need to either resist temptation of a known human weakness or simply grow up or both, but you've softened that criticism by recognizing its innate humanity, even in the best of our scientific geniuses.
Marla Stevens I enjoyed this talk and agreed with almost all of DeGrasse Tyson's points. However, there are no cogent arguments against the _existence_ of God here at all but only an argument for atheism as a working methodological assumption for scientific inquiry. That part of Tyson's talk was quite persuasive. The arguments from natural evil spatchcocked onto the end, however, were not worthy of the rest of the talk.
Ben Mines When religion is used to interfere with the teaching of known science, as is becoming more frequent here, when policymakers are either science deniers or so frightened of the power of science deniers in their constituencies that they run from science in their deliberations and block its being properly taught, that, in my opinion, is religion run amok and is evil, natural or not.
Marla Stevens I take your point but again, it has nothing at all to say about the _existence_ of God. A person could hold a religious belief that is basically true while mistakenly being led by that belief to support ill-conceived policies regarding the role of science in education and government. Mistaken because, presupposing the truth of their beliefs, science would ultimately serve to reveal and corroborate them. And actually, opposition to science would therefore show a lack of faith in the truth of their worldview and should be regarded as irreligious! In any case, God is a metaphysical proposition that is entirely separate from this conversation about public policy. And this is easily demonstrated: Historically, atheists (such as Stalin and Pol Pot) have implemented disastrous public policies. You would not invoke _this_ as proof that God _does_ exist, would you?
Ben Mines I had nothing to say about the existence of God one way or the other, but see your point. I certainly would not invoke this as proof of God's existence as both theists and atheists have implemented disastrous public policies and because I don't know if Stalin and/or Pol Pot's disastrous public policies were driven by their atheism. However, I can imagine that it would be possible for some atheist policymaker to create bad policy driven by atheistic philosophy.
I don't remember if Tyson ever got a Nobel Prize, but he sure as heck should. The man's a master at both working with and expressing science so even the simplest of us can understand it. (Also, he's got one damnable fine sense of humor, explaining to John Steward why zombies are impossible)
49metal Ah, good point. I misspoke, true. There is a vast difference between Icons and candidates for the Nobel price. It just is that it seems to be so many different people and acheivements being worthy of the prize, I wasn't sure if Tyson was one of them
49metal
While Nobel laureate Richard Feynman may be unknown to the general public, he certainly wasn't hard to listen to. On the contrary, he was an excellent teacher and educator, loved by everyone in the science community. His "Feynman Lectures on Physics" became legendary.
Tom Robbins I agree with you regarding Obama, but since when is one RUclips viewer's opinion representative of the Nobel Prize committee? Also, is sheepal a province in Nepal or did you mean sheeple? Either way, the "no questions asked" wholesale acceptance of rhetoric from the pulpit is the type of mentality that affords some the label of "sheeple", in my estimation.
Tom Robbins Actually, there is a "right" and "wrong" when it comes to what comports with the evidence. Yes, Darwin knew absolutely nothing about the inner workings of a cell or anything about DNA. That's why nobody considers his work an authority when it comes to genetics and phylogeny. However, he was right about natural selection. If you're claiming that modern biologists adhere to evolution only because Darwin promoted it, you couldn't be more in error. He got many things wrong, and those things were discarded. Only his findings that survived 150 years of rigorous testing are the ones that persist. In fact, modern evolutionary theory barely resembles Darwin's work. Your objection is akin to saying we should dismiss Newtonian mechanics because Newton didn't know about special and general relativity. He also believed in the philosopher's stone and alchemy. Should we dismiss all of his work, then? Like Darwin, he got many things wrong. That, in no way, invalidates the laws of motion, however. Darwin's ignorance of genetics does nothing to invalidate natural selection. Moving right along...
I'm not sure what you're implying regarding the complexity of modern cells, but if you're claiming there must be a "supernatural" cause, that is, by definition, an argument from ignorance. It's the claim that it's just too complex to explain, therefore it must have been due to an intelligent designer.
Modern cells are not representative of the first fully self-replicating molecules. Modern cells and prokaryotic organisms are grizzled heavyweights that have survived the test of time and were able to adapt when differing environmental pressures and natural selection criteria drove out their competition. Nobody is claiming it was random chance. That's not even a concept within science. Only creationists use that term. Selected mutations resulting from natural selection are the opposite of random. Those that are able to adapt are more likely to breed. That's not random. Besides, even if we knew nothing about the structure of a cell, or had zero explanation at all regarding the internal mechanisms, that wouldn't make some other explanation suddenly plausible. People tend to look at complexity and think there's no way this could happen naturally, it must be a designer. Well, that is an argument from ignorance as well as the god of the gaps. A designer has to be demonstrated in order to be a plausible answer.
You can attack Tyson's credentials all you like and perform a complete character assassination, however that does nothing to diminish the actual data he's adhering to. Ad hominem attacks are, typically, only used when you don't have any documentation or data on your side. It's a transparent tactic and it's not one that I advise using in open and honest discourse. He has every right to speak about whatever he pleases. That's the beauty of free speech. You don't have to take his words to heart. Nobody is forcing you to do so. Who are you to stifle opinions? Nobody should simply take his word for it, either. Anybody who understands the scientific method will always ask for support in the form of evidence.
Lastly, I don't know a single scientist who claims he/she knows all the facts. If that were the case, there would be no point to performing science. All science would stop. It would be a very sad day indeed. Only the fundamentally religious claim to have all the answers because they have a special friend that knows all the answers. Well, that's when all investigation stops. When you're convinced you know the answer to everything, what's the point in continuing to do research and actually search for the real answers? I do believe you have things exactly backwards. You're welcome to disagree, but I hope you can provide data in lieu of arguments from ignorance and personal attacks. Take care.
Tom Robbins
I don't think you actually read a single word I wrote. Pity, that. Open and honest discourse doesn't seem to be the cup of tea for the extreme fundamentalist wing of reality-deniers. I pointed out every fallacy you perpetrated, yet you still sling the same common misconceptions (you expect to see partial organisms? What?). I highly doubt you're even peripherally familiar with the actual propositions within evolutionary biology and I suspect you've constructed a towering straw man, which you will proceed to burn down while proclaiming victory. Good luck with your intellectual dishonesty and refusal to be objective, I'm sure there's an open position in politics with your name on it.
If you want to be taken seriously and show that common descent is innaccurate, actually show your data and publish your results. Remember the Dover trial? Perhaps you could do better. Alas, no, you won't do any of that. You'd rather squawk loudly on the internet with no intent of educating yourself or your kin. It's a shame, really. I almost had a shred of hope for you. Almost.
I keep praying god will regrow my buddies arm...
Delusional man has always made up gods. What makes you think combining all gods into one god will make it true? Even with one god there are different religions that claim their god is the right one while none of them have any evidence besides superstitions and fairy tales. What makes you think your god is the true one? Just because it says so in your holy book? Yeah right! This is the trick religion plays on the naive mind. A claim that god exist requires a godly evidence. On his own, delusional man is quite capable of making up a holy book and present it as the "words of the lord" and while at it throw in a couple of miracles and a resurrection story to make it real. The strange part is that god can create humans and can even resurrect someone but could not keep him alive throughout the years for humans to see today and really believe there is a god. I think that would be a godly evidence to prove god's existence, but apparently god didn't think of it even though he knew multiple religions will cause ambiguity and wars.
There are more evidence for the evolution theory than there are for the god hypothesis. There are plenty of fossil evidence and DNA evidence for evolution and absolutely no evidence for the god hypothesis besides fairy tales and superstitions.
Looking at the picture of the moon, one can see that the asteroid impact craters from millions of years ago are still intact. This is because the moon has neither an atmosphere not an active core. Thus, there are no climate changes, no hurricanes, no tornadoes, no tsunamis, no typhoons, no rain, no snow, no lakes, no rivers, no fire, no hailstorms, no ice ages, no plants, no tides, no trees, no earthquakes, no volcanoes, no lava, no mountains pushing up and no landslides on the moon. Earth used to be one giant continent but now vast ocean between land masses. Mountains used to be in the bottom of oceans and vice versa. Try imagining hundreds of millions of years of these activities on earth. Not every dead creature turns into a fossil and plenty that did have been wiped out due to earth being dynamic. So, it is reasonable to have evolution evidence gaps. But it is not reasonable to arrogantly ignore evolution evidence and desperately fill its gaps with the evidence-less god hypothesis. The time involved in evolution is mind boggling and beyond comprehension. Most people can't even reflect on their own lives.
Fanged carnivores like lions or poisonous snakes with hypodermic fangs that need to kill purely for survival are expected from an evolutionary process but not from an intelligent moral designer, unless the intelligent moral designer enjoys watching bunch of lions catch a pregnant deer for lunch and feed on her as she watches herself being being eaten. If god initially designed carnivores as fang-less herbivores, then god does not have any control over its creatures evolutionary path.
Humans sexually maturing at around the early age of 12 is expected from an evolutionary process but not from a moral designer unless the designer did not know teenagers should not have sex.
Millions of children born handicapped yearly and die before age 5 while god is busy handing out miracles to the TV faith healers so they can collect donations and fly personal jets as millions of other children are starving. If children being born handicapped is gods way of punishing the sinful parents, then we owe an apology to those parents for praising such god.
We were used to listen to Mullas and Priests only. Now days due to the wealth of internet we can listen to great guys like Neil DeGrasse Tyson and so many others like him. Probably a new social revolution of scientific motivation is on its way.
This is one heck of a great talk. What does Newton, Islam, The Noble Peace Prize, 911 and Intelligent Design have in common?
"If there is a moral law giver (God) then moral right and wrongs are objectively true, rape and murder is wrong everywhere. If there is no moral law giver, then morals are subject to opinion! Got it?"
*Morals:* a person's standards of behavior or beliefs concerning what is and is not acceptable for them to do.
Do you mean killing is wrong everywhere?
The problem with using the word "murder" or "rape" is it's defined as being an unlawful act. So, of course, it's wrong everywhere. (It has NOTHING to do with a moral law giver. It's the definition of the word.)
*Explanation:* (The very definition of murder is UNLAWFUL KILLING. If it's a lawful killing. It's not UNLAWFUL. Therefore it's NOT murder. So you have to define your position without the word murder. Same with rape. It's very definition is an unlawful/criminal act. If the act is considered lawful in that part of the world. It's not technically rape. Since it is lawful.)
*Hint:* Capital Punishment is legal many places. It's premeditated killing. It's technically murder but LAWFUL. So therefore not considered murder. Understand?
Why do all creationists have a boner for truth fallacies, logical fallacies, etc?
Morals are subject to opinion. At least in the USA they are. We live in what you call a Secular Nation. Laws do not come to us by God or the Bible. Laws are decided upon by mankind. (You need to prove that any law actually came to us by a God. And you must prove that God exists. Until then, we must assume ALL laws came to be known by man and through man.)
If we allowed laws from the Bible. The USA would be even less moral than it is now.
1) killing of Homosexuals
2) killing of disobedient children
3) forcing yourself onto your enemies women
4) killing of blasphemers
5) killing of nonbelievers
6) killing of nonChristians
7) smashing babies against rocks
8) train your bears to maul children
9) Slavery would be OK
10) Selling your daughter would be OK
and much, much more........
So he wanted to get across... Even if God created the universe it would still be interesting how he did it, compared to just accepting something you don't even know whether it is true or not.
Took a little long to lol but I get it. He had to have evidence for his claim to back it up.
Christian Velez Some of that evidence is the recording of the history in our Science.. to some degree.
jcem24
Yup.
21:26
"Whoa, we got a badass over here!"
His enthusiasm is amazingly contagious. Inspired, his inspiration is inspiring. This is a must watch video.
Well said. This guy exposes religion in a logical way, we need more people thinking this way in this divided World filled with contradicting superstitions. Silly to think that 'god' is immaterial, invisible and just conveniently happens to be mysteriously beyond the physical world.
InnerMittenSignal First and important thing realized when reading your post is you and I have different definitions of the word 'religion'. To me, the most common use of the word 'religion' means believing in the supernatural. So to me, any god, including Jesus Christ, afterlife, ghosts, angels are all religion since they have a supernatural part to them. Now, one can use the word 'religion' in other ways, such as religiously going to baseball games, or being a part of some group, such as a fan base of a sports team.
Larry Jake Scientists are not some beings detached from culture. They are part of culture, they are human and they do have a say if so they choose on all other topics from favorite colors to religion.
I still refuse to get past the part where they say God loves us and is all forgiving,and expect me to beware his hell and punishment.
+InnerMittenSignal
I don't need faith, I just need to understand. I don't need god, I need science.
+InnerMittenSignal You clearly doesn't know how the brain works. Le last results of scientific studies on the subjet say our brain works in a blend of ananlogy, adquired reflexes and emotions mode. The littles "trust" you mention (yes we don't check the solidity of the floor each time we step on it) aren't trigged by faith but by analogic thinking. We assume that the floor will be as solid as the last times that the previous times, mainly because it looks like the same floor. In one day we have a lot of little decisions to make (coffe or tea ? metro or bicycle ? meat or fish ? etc...) and if our brain was working in a strict logical manner our life would be hell. At each little decision we just don't have enough time to check out all the possibilities. And here comes the analogic way of thinking : it's ways faster, easier and very efficient in the day life. (tea or coffe doesn't really matters...). And if you're not aware of that you'll use the same mode of thinking about the more important things.
Many people cannot accept the concept of chance. As stated by Tyson, the universe is not really for us or against us, although the fruition of life on the planet -- even after periods of mass extinction -- is due to natural events. If we can more or less explain these natural events seems to subtract any supernatural elements. So many religious people I've spoken to cannot digest the notion of what can occur naturally over the course of millions of years. There are designs governing our universe but it's a stretch to call them intelligent. If you are familiar with chaos theory, you'd have to admit that this so-called intelligence is rather half-witted. I think the Taoists got it right thousands of years ago by their concept of the yin and yang. Order and chaos are bound together, each having an element of the other. Intelligent Design proponents seem to be clinging to their diminishing religious beliefs that there must be a God who is in control of everything. Tyson is right when he says that these "believers" will hold onto their need for a heavenly daddy for a very long time to come.
If you could put the universe in a tube, you'd end up with a very long tube. Probably extending twice the size of the universe, because when you collapse the universe, it expands, and it would be, uh...You wouldn't want to put it into a tube. - Dr. Donna Gust
what do you think of deism and/or letsism them
Shawn Schaitel Like most astrophysicists, the concept of a deity doesn't hold a place in the creation or continuation of the cosmos. This is a sad, ugly hangover conception of ignorant beings in the conception of machinations totally beyond their comprehension.
Jay, you start us off and the rest of us will try to catch up.
jay jayjay Neil as a "deceiver?" I don't think we'll have to go any further. Have a nice day.
This guy is fantastic. Each time I listen to him, his knowledge and his humbleness I admire him more. He doesn´t pretend to be someone which he is not, he´s just what he is.
I don't want to ever question Mr. Tyson, but I don't think there's something significant missing in the fact that there is always a percentile of scientists who are religious. If you are raised in a religious home then that tends to stick with you. For example: my father is agnostic, but I am an atheist. His immediate family was very religious and a part of that will always be with him. His restrain or religious influences and his attention to facts and science are what allowed me to become an atheist.
I would be interested to see what % of these top scientists chose to be religious vs. who were born into it, as most of us are.
You are awesome, Neil!
a tragedy that islam should have gone so backwards because of the rantings of one idiot preacher.
The second he used the term "Almagest" I couldn't help thinking "This presentation belongs to the void!" (if anyone gets this reference, awesome)
Thank you (Vandre Brunazo) for Uploading this video! kindly appreciated for your contribution:D
Fuck Obama, MAKE THIS MAN PRESIDENT!!!!!!!!!!!!
Can't. It'd take testicles.
And Americans with forethought.
Tyson deserves a Nobel Prize for Education. Guy's done more for popularizing science than 99% of scientists.
We are the middle children. Born too late to explore earth, born too early to explore space :(
This presentation is absolutely terrific! The clarity, the depth of Professor Tyson's historical perspective and analysis is second to none! To the very end, with his clear question to a brilliant audience, Tyson amazes us breathless.
thank you for posting the full length video!
I have a M.S. in physics. It amazes me how people who can not even add or subtract have and opinion on Science. Not to say science has all the answers, but we admit to it. We know how a Magnet works and I will bet someone without a degree in physics could even understand it. Please read a book on Quantum Field Theory before making any statements on science. There is a book on line by Mark Srednick (Quantum field theory) for free, read it then you can join in on the discussion. You will only need a little tensor analysis, Quantum Mechanics would really help. Special and General Rel. would be a big plus. Look at them then you can join in on the discussion!
Just discovered this guy - he is simply fantastic! I definitely need to see some more with him.
I was JUST having this discussion, except I was talking about the "religiosity" of militant anti-theists.
I was saying that when you've settled on a conclusion and you, for whatever reason, become complacent about the edge of your knowledge AND have the arrogance to think no one else can possibly know ... that's when you take a POSITION.
Positions are the opposite of a Process. Science, Math and Logic are processes we follow about issues, not positions we take on issues!
You can still get out of the way of progress by stating that you no longer wish to engage in the process but you must resist the temptation to take a position (especially when you've reached a position of authority) that way the work can continue.
That's EXACTLY what I'm talking about.
I think on RUclips people are mostly venting out a certain level of frustration they can't in their normal lives. It has nothing to do with the creation v evolution argument. They simply can't tell their boss that he's less competent than he believes he is or their wife that she needs to find some deeper sexual passion.
However, when we're talking about lobbyists for science education vs. creation education, women's health vs. anti-abortion/contraception, ecological education and regulation vs. carbon energy ... now we're really talking about the issues.
Do we ever talk about how lobbyists are funneling money to make certain policies? NO! We yell at a RUclips troll because it's easier than getting our parents to understand that they were insensitive to our needs or (insert personal pain here).
I accept internet discussion for the expression of "id" that it is. However, when scientists (like Richard Dawkins) become acerbic and intractable, it debases what could be a great chance to reach out to the other side.
And don't get me wrong. You have to be confident about what the answer ISN'T. But simply because someone has a different view doesn't mean that person is the enemy.
David Toner Don't worry too much about acerbic. I pride myself in my vocabulary and Christopher Hitchens would regularly and smoothly use words which I swore he was just making up.
Rational conversation occurs when people disagree and rationally must compare views. It often hard to tell if people genuinely disagree, are playing devil's advocate, trolling or something else.
The Dunning-Kruger effect is something I discovered recently which makes me review some of the more outrageous statements people make as genuine belief. Have you heard of this?
Yes, we should teach both sides, not only when it comes evolution vs. creation but also when it comes to round earth vs. flat earth, helicocentric model vs. geocentric model, birth vs. stork, Santa vs. your parents secretly putting gifts they got at the mall under your Christmas tree. So not just Intelligent Design should be taught as an alternative but also flat Earth, the possibility that the stork being the one who brings the babies and other equally valid theories.
Thank you so much Neil
I feel like I've been writing a story my entire life but was at an impasse for one of my characters, your presentation gave me another perception. The depth of the struggle that must be overcome for life to exist is a thought that is very distant from our everyday understanding, to be made aware of this on not only a cosmic scale, but fundamentally on all levels helps to show how precious an opportunity it is, and the importance of not letting it be taken away from others.
“The first gulp from the glass of natural sciences will turn you into an atheist, but at the bottom of the glass God is waiting for you.” -W.Heisenberg
There's evidence that would support the man's claim.
This sounds much like a paraphrase of Tyson's entire presentation, in that God is always on the frontier of knowledge, until someone lifts the curtain and goes one step further.
I'm not saying there is no God, but superstition seems to impede progress in knowledge frequently if history is any gauge of reality.
+Eric Morisch Of course, one could argue that if God exists and he has revealed Truth, then any knowledge beyond that is truly superficial in that it isnt efficacious for salvation, etc.
Of couse, that's probably a straw man in that nobody would deny that the advanceof science has provided us great benefits and will continue to do so.
+Eric Morisch
Issac Newton, on completion of his "Principia", (Arguably the most famous of scientific works) encouraged belief in a God.
Just one of his quotes from mentioned:
“Blind metaphysical necessity, which is certainly the same always and every where, could produce no variety of things. All that diversity of natural things which we find suited to different times and places could arise from nothing but the ideas and will of a Being, necessarily existing.”
To use the term "superstition" is misleading, false, and missing the point. He well understood it most certainly did not impede his work, but in fact, "drove it". As did Galileo, Kepler, Pascal, Schrodinger, Bacon, Collins, Maxwell, Plank, Faraday, Boyle, Heisenberg, Kelvin, even Einstein...
When he asked Carolyn Porco about whether he was correct about Huygens, it reminded me of a point made by Sam Harris. In his debate with Deepak Chopra Harris debunked the notion that scientists were arrogant, by poiting to the fact that they would always offer caveats to their statements and remind the listener that someone else might be more knowledgeable on certain topics. Way to go Tyson! :o)
Where and when was this talk given? Any links to the other speakers at this conference?
NDT is amazing. He is easily my favorite inspirational science speaker and one of my favorite scientist. I agree with him wholeheartedly on this. If scientists had a universal creed, the first tenet should be:
1. God is not the answer.
Excellent point Neil. If ID is part of scientific history than it and should be taught, but in the same frame work as concepts like the luminiferous aether.
If only there was a love button for this video.
Fascinating. Food for thought.
I think the debate of intelligent design, or lack thereof, boils down to an age old dichotomy: "We are either here as a result of purely un-purposed, and unguided natural processes. . . or not."
I agree with Dr. Tyson that anyone sincerely interested in answering either proposition should not stop pushing the limits of human knowledge. Because the odds of one is merely the inverse of the other. So the more we know, the better we can estimate.
Drakes Equation is handy in this regard.
So, do you consider the existence of the universe do be sufficient proof for the existence of a being to create that universe? I think that's where I would start. Also, could you please clarify the quote you used regarding not having enough sufficient evidence. Thanks.
I find that this is the primary reason, in my first world country, that I am concerned about the advancing agenda of the religious communities. To be honest, if they weren't so concerned with stifling science and education, I would have far less problems with their activities, and wouldn't seem nearly so militant an atheist.
Every time that I hear someone who doesn't know why religion and science are generally irreconcilable, I point them here.
"we don't impose the pattern"
Yes, we do. If snake eyes have special meaning in a game, you ARE imposing the pattern of snake eyes to a dice roll as a goal (or as something to avoid if snake eyes makes you lose the game).
And I feel compelled to state this again: remember that ONLY a probability of 0 makes something impossible. If you have 1 chance in 10^40 that event X will happen, and you get 10^50 trials, statistically, event X is inevitable.
About 6 minutes into this video, the sound crew adjusted the audio for his mic. Not that I'm picky, but I heard some echos after they adjusted it.
Thank you for posting!
Unfortunately, the intelligent design proponents do not want to invoke the hand of god at the limit of our knowledge, but rather at the very beginning. If one accepts the tenants of intelligent design and takes as fact the belief that the earth was created 6000 years ago, then one must also explain many other previously understood phenomenon and explain them as an act of god. Radiometric dating ceases to work, geologists are stripped of the tools of their profession, biologists can no longer explain the state of life, etc. It's insane.
I see two key areas where people get caught up in discussions about ID.
1) They tend to set up cartoon analogies of ID or God. "Lampooning" is a more precise word.
2) Words like "impossible" or "nearly certain" or "impossible to know" gets tossed around.
3) People begin to introduce idea such as "infinite universes" or "mega-verse."
All such terms expose philosophical assumptions, because *none* of them are based on any, actual, empirical observations.
To go deeper into the dice example, just to make it extra clear...
Consider having 3 dice. My argument is that getting 3x 6 is equally probably as getting a 1, a 4 and a 5. But one needs to remember that the "special status" we impose on 3x 6 is just our human urge to find patterns in everything.
What is the difference in probability to getting 1, 2 and a 3 as opposed to 3x 6?
Nothing.
There's 1 chance in 6 to get a 1,2, 3 or 6 on each dice.
Does everything in the universe follow the path of least resistence?
Not really angry but he does get hyper and excited when he gets going. I love it though haha; could listen to him got hours simply because theres so much emotion and passion in his presentations
What a fine spoken gentlemen, even if what he has to say is amazing and truly awesome. All I can take away from this is that he is very kind and per even confident in his opinion, bravo.
However, I did answer your question. You asked about something that exists (like people, dogs etc.) that did not previously exist in that "configuration", which does not have a "creator" (an engineer, a parent etc.) and I chose "mountain". However, this doesn't advance our discussion. Your observation on "things always existing in some form" DOES though. Well done. Standing ovation.
I love how Tyson speaks and explains himself
This is a great presentation of how, throughout history, brilliant minds reached their limits of figuring stuff out and then invoke god/intelligent design (but not before that point). Tyson presents it as a consistent pattern. Among a number of take-home points is that once a scientist has reached that threshold, then they are no longer able to make a contribution to knowledge. Invoking intelligent design prevents further discovery. Yes, there's a big lesson here. Never give up or you won't learn anything.
And what about those 15% of scientists that believe in god/intelligent design? Where are they coming from? Is it just that they have reached that threshold where they have given up and are effectively dead wood and will no longer be able to make a contribution to knowledge?
joe schmo Not necessarily. The issue that Tyson is raising is that when you reach the limit of your knowledge and invoke god as the explanation you no longer keep looking for an answer. What he said about Issac Newton is a good example of this. Up until that point in history the answer for the movement of the planets was "God works in mysterious ways." When Newton codified the laws of motion and universal gravitation he was saying that god was not necessary and natural laws acting over physical forces would explain what we see.
However, apart from a two body problem he was not able to balance the mathematical equation of the solar system for as long as it needed to be balanced. What Tyson is saying is that instead of looking for an answer he just attributed it to god and walked away. He made no further progress and it took over 100 years for someone "without god on the brain" to look for an actual answer and develop a new kind of math to answer the question. This is telling, because Issac Newton invented (or rediscovered) a new kind of math to answer his original question. There is no reason to think that Newton would have been incapable of developing perturbation theory. But once he accepted "God works in mysterious ways" as the explanation he moved on to alchemy, or whatever.
It is kind of like Evolution in modern society. Charles Darwin proposed a theory (which has been greatly modified over time) that explains how natural processes can result in the diversity of life without the need for a supernatural creator. And yet we have people like Michael Behe who insist that the science shows that not only is a supernatural "designer" necessary, but that we may never know anything about this "designer" other than the fact that he must have designed. While Behe can contribute to Biochemistry or whatever else he views as important he can no longer contribute to evolutionary theory. He has accepted "God works in mysterious ways" and is no longer looking for the answer. He has actually said to not bother looking for explanations because they won't exist (despite the fact that when other's look for such explanations of biological processes they found them).
What Behe really is doing is waiting for someone to come along and describe every unknown facet of biochemistry as being indicative of "Intelligent Reactions" where a supernatural force causes the Kp value of proteins to drive homeostasis in living systems. No need to look for explanations of metabolic pathways, it is all the work of a shadowy supernatural force!
Velo Ciraptor
Uh, thanks for your thoughtful and lengthy reply. But I thought I said the same thing?
"brilliant minds reached their limits of figuring stuff out and then invoke god/intelligent design (but not before that point)" versus...
"when you reach the limit of your knowledge and invoke god as the explanation you no longer keep looking for an answer."
I suppose you're emphasizing the point that one ceases to look after god is invoked. I thought that was assumed. But thanks for setting me straight:-)
joe schmo Well, it seems that we are in agreement but I was attempting to respond to the latter part of your post where you said "And what about those 15% of scientists that believe in god/intelligent design?" and "...are [they] effectively dead wood and will no longer be able to make a contribution to knowledge?"
It is kind of like what joskemom attempted to argue when he said "explain how they made discoveries while believing in God?" It is not that if you accept the notion of the supernatural or believe in god that you will no longer be able to be a scientist or make any discoveries. It is the rejection of god as the answer that leads to discoveries. Newton was being less religious than his contemporaries when he proposed a natural explanation for the movement of the planets. And he was attacked as being godless or otherwise heretical for proposing that god need not be evoked to explain all the movements of the solar system.
The problem is with all the other people who accept the supernatural as an explanation. Even Ken Miller, a very vocal advocate of evolutionary science, has said that his religious beliefs cause him to see quantum effects as the result of divine intervention. What this means is that while Ken Miller may be a brilliant biologist, he will not be advancing any ideas in quantum mechanics. You might say that this is more typical of people who are speaking outside of their expertise (which might account for why so many scientists cited by creationists are engineers) and therefor is no great loss to science. The real problem arises when people who would otherwise have become great scientists and advanced our understanding of the world are stymied by having the misfortune of being indoctrinated into illogical religious fundamentalism.
And I think Drakes Equation is so handy, because it helps us to really focus our thinking. "What are the odds of sentient life on other planets as a result of natural processes" can be adapted to, instead, ask "what are the odds of our own sentient life as a result of natural processes?"
You have to roll the dice for a universe to support life. Then roll the dice for a planet which can support sentient life. Then again for abiogenesis. Then again for evolution resulting in us.
That "entertainment complex in the middle of a sewage system" line was hilarious
Also, there have been very recent studies in the last year or so that have allowed us to more accurately trace specific types of mutation in our genome, back to ancestors that we consider totally different species. The more information that has been gathered, the more it points to this as well.
"I'm a smart person, yet I can't for the life of me fathom how (insert conundrum of nature) could've happened... yet it is marvelous to behold and to study... I can't help but feel thankful that this phenomenon exists... I can't put my mind at rest unless I invent a being to be thankful to!" --- this subroutine may be something etched into the very wiring of most of us, including many geniuses, or it may be borne by culture, admittedly every culture (so far)... it'd be cool to find out which
This... is... an AMAZING lecture.
Neil KNOWS how to speak publicly. He is incredibly insightful and articulate.
Hawking once asked, “What is it that breathes fire into the equations and makes a universe for them to describe?” Even if we do not want to walk the path of attributing things we do not understand to some intelligent design or designer, we do need to ask what is the fire (source) of the presupposed existing equations that allows for a universe instead of nothing. Of course it has not been found to date but we will continue to search for it.
Love Neil. science will continue to answer what, when, and how, but of course that annoying question of why will continue to elude us. Not simply causation but reason why, purpose why. that's as much what religious thought is about as it is not knowing how some specific biological, chemical, or physical process works...and of course that need stems from ego, the need to feel significant or at least fear of feeling insignificant.
A significant, sudden, and dramatic change in behavior. The other "signs" also include CHANGES in dietary habits, social behavior, risk taking, etc.
Yet when asked in interview Dr. Tyson cannot accept the label or membership in the atheist movement. In an interview with Big Think, Tyson said agnosticism was the best description of his views about truth values of claims pertaining to the existence of God(s), but that "at the end of the day I'd rather not be any category at all."[40][41] Similarly, during the interview "Called by the Universe: A conversation with Neil deGrasse Tyson" in 2009, Tyson said: "I can't agree to the claims by atheists that I'm one of that community."[42]
One of the most articulate presentations on why religion is institutionalized stupidity and why it's so dangerous.
“The Divine Light is always in man, presenting itself to the senses and to the comprehension, but man rejects it.”
--Giordano Bruno
I, personally, advocate what I call a "neutral methodology." Drakes Equation was developed to help us focus our thinking as to exactly "what are the odds of life emerging naturally-- without anybody interfering?"
It allows us to set aside rhetoric, and take a systematic approach to the immediate question at hand.
What kind of universe can yield intelligent life? What kind of planet? Abiogenesis? Evolutionary course resulting in sentient life?
Without anyone interfering?
You have made an *excellent* observation. And yes, that is indeed the rub-- nobody knows for certain how many rolls of the dice are allowed, because nobody knows how many universes there are.
This is precisely why ID is, to my mind, a more convincing hypothesis than an infinite number of opportunities to roll the dice (string theory multiverse).
It proceeds very naturally from what we *can* observe. I'll expound and support that last claim.
I look forward to the retort to that..
I absolutely agree with your premise. I am guessing it is the 500 characters which limited you from a more expert support of your conclusion.
But absolutely. . . "How" and "Why" need to be treated as entirely separate questions.
Erudite as usual. Thank you
Uncertainty is the only certainty. I thought that the concept of Zero evolved in India.
David did you get my inbox about ring species? I was on my phone and couldn't reply here
There are no words for how much I love this.
Either you simply didn't think about what I said, or you're just ignoring it.
At a casino, you are also giving special status to specific outcomes. That adds variables to the probability calculation that ONLY matter in context of those games.
But in the great scheme of reality, these contexts are irrelavent.
Hence, any result you get from any dice throw has the exact same probability as any other roll - UNLESS you predetermine a specific outcome as a goal, by attaching special status.
How do you define the natural world?
Brilliant statement. "I do not want the scientists in the lab telling me if we can not answer that question then it must be god!"
Yeah, but sometimes you're really not in control. I mean we're kind of like rowing boats in a storm, frantically rowing to try to gain some control in the tempest, but ultimately we're not really making much impact and the ocean is going to carry us to wherever it will. He makes many great points here, loved this.
36:43 Well well, Dawkins in the house.
I love Dr. Tyson, in a totally non romantic way. He is the best voice for these subjects since Sagan had to say goodbye.
great lecture
We need to see a Neil Tyson vs Stephen Meyer debate.
Humankind changes along with the Earth, traditions and knowledge may disappear or be replaced, but our independent thought gives us the capacity to discover or rediscover what we were and can be. That's more important than hardlining ourselves to a narrow set of principles because they were founded from ancient vagueries. Don't let some one or thing have to determine your life's value for you, doing so deprives you of your free will-then you may as well not even be alive.
Interesting.I'm a physics major.I think we are the ultimate creators of everything and when humans discover the origins of life I really think its not going to change our lives.This I think is because we as individuals are forced by our conscious minds to look "farther."If you think about it(now I'm going out of my box)language,behavior,math, are all ways of controlling something almost like a measurement.I think that is how life can exist,cuz of time and all these things are notches in a clock.
i did, thank you! i watched them and believe it is still talking about change within a specie not a change from a specie into a different one. can you point me to anywhere online that shows an actual fossil record that records the change from specie to another over the years?
very well-said !
-from Indonesia-
This lecture goes into a folder entitled "greatest arguments" on my desktop (for so many reasons). Is there any argument, whatsoever, against any of the points that he so eloquently raised - especially against the idea that "God ONLY comes in when brilliant scientists give up" (apart from the pointless argument of shouting "la la la, I'm not listening" ?
Vandre - Thanks for posting this video. Neil deGrasse Tyson is awesome. I really like listening to what he has to say. His show StarTalk Radio is funny and educational as well. You should check it out. Cosmos is superb too. :)
Wow, those last few minutes really hit home.
Terrific presentation, Neil deGrasse Tyson never fails to enlighten.
What an incredible lecture.
I'm no Neil Tyson, but I know a bit of astronomy and a bit of history. How come when I talk to people, and say to them exactly what Neil Tyson is saying to this audience, they tell me to take a flying leap? Do they say the same about Neil Tyson behind his back?
the speaker's brilliant talk does not consider the possibility that Newton's religiosity was a prerequisite for being published
Dude, great videos and I was very impressed with your collection! I am still looking for transitional fossils between species...like from shark to cow or whatever the case may be. I think the evidence is there for micro evolution but I have yet to find it for macro evolution.
Absolutely brilliant speech. "Bible tells you how to go to heaven, not how the heavens go". Just love it.
Human knowledge has progressed to a point that we are now able to assign fairly specific values to the odds of such pre-requisites for sentient life occurring without anyone's interference.
And yes. They are overwhelmingly low. Realizing this, the naturalist (I think) discredits himself by introducing an entire series of unobserved mechanisms at every single level.
I'm not against pursuing said mechanisms. But I find it odd that the naturalist has faith in some of them panning out.
...however this area is a specialized field of biochemistry. The vast majority of biochem researchers are working in areas such as cancer therapy, AIDS, toxicology, etc. instead. And you know, I'm OK with this because our current, incomplete understanding still allows for us to save lives TODAY regardless of their beliefs. Kudos to them for putting the well-being of others ahead of my selfish desire to win an argument on you tube or other forum.