Это видео недоступно.
Сожалеем об этом.
Is Evolution a Theory? | Reasonable Faith Podcast
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 21 авг 2023
- Dr. Craig clears up some misunderstandings surrounding the term 'theory'.
For more resources visit: www.reasonable...
We welcome your comments in the Reasonable Faith forums:
www.reasonable...
Be sure to also visit Reasonable Faith's other channel which contains short clips: / drcraigvideos
Follow Reasonable Faith On Twitter: / rfupdates
Like the Reasonable Faith Facebook Fan Page: / reasonablefaithorg
This is quite rare, for me to listen to a Christian philosopher: explain biological evolution in detail, defend evolution, and even teach me a thing or two that I didn't already know about evolution. Not that I expect any less from Dr Craig though.
low bar bill as he's known since his confession that he's so desperate for love even god would fit the bill. if you want to learn about evolution bill is not the place to go.
I'm sure he's aware the theory is garbage in some respects. Iirc he has said before that the solar system would have died before evolution could achieve what we see
Well this poor guy is a philosopher... And he needs to get out more! 🤣🤣 Actual scientists are doing great work, proving him incorrect... For a long time now! 🤣🤣🤣 There's no accounting for willful ignorance!
@@HarryNicNicholasthat’s not what he said at all. He was saying that he thinks that Christianity is pragmatically justified. He was making a statement about pragmatism. You can say that the bar for x being justified in one way (pragmatism) without NECESSARILY saying that that thing also lowers the bar in another way (epistemology). I think he has a response to the whole drama too, even the guy who made the comment has a response to it. You should watch them. I think the questioners name was Kyle (who is/was a Christian, btw).
If I’m not mistaken, Craig shortens his questions, and that question had other stuff that made it clear that the questioner was saying that he thinks that because of the huge lifestyle change that’s required for adopting Christianity, we should increase the epistemic standards for Christianity. Craig responds that he actually thinks the opposite because of the incredible value, beauty, and joy that he gets from believing in Christianity. So he was literally saying that if we move the bar for Christianity at all, it should be lowered not raised. It was really a statement about which of the two is better to do.
@@semitopeI’m pretty sure his believe is that evolution is highly unlike given atheism. So yeah, that’s true, but not if we assume theism where there is a god in control of it all.
A guy who chased his dreams of study his entire lifetime. How I wish I could thrive just learning all the time. Really glad Dr. Craig is doing these interviews.
My problem with evolution is that it presumes biological complexity to answer questions about complexity. Every time an explanation for biological complexity is sought within the evolutionary framework, it is "resolved" by pushing back the complexity one generation prior. Eg. How did this animal develop this complex solution to this problem? Answer: Beneficial Mutation happened to a prior generation(s) of this species and it underwent natural selection. How did the complexity of that prior generation come to be then? Answer: Beneficial Mutation happened to the prior generation of that generation and it underwent natural selection.
And this goes on ad infinitum with the original explanatory deficit regarding complexity simply being continuously pushed back all the way until the origin of the extremely complex first living cell when they can no longer use "mutation and natural selection" because evolution requires life. At that stage the explanatory deficit finally exacts its toll and exposes the fact that evolution cannot explain complexity because it borrows from prior generations of complexity to explain current complexity, and the question regarding complexity cannot be answered at the very first generation. If the question of complexity cannot be answered at the very beginning than the entire chain of explanation falls apart.
Using evolution to explain complexity is just like continuously borrowing from different banks to pay off debts to a previous bank.
I think you just need to evaluate biological evolution theory by what it is. It is not a general explanation for complexity so it shouldn't be taken as such. At the same time, I think you are quite incorrect to say that the explanatory deficit is wholly pushed back all the way to the beginning. It is true that evolution requires *some* preexisting complexity, but I think it can hardly be questioned that the evolutionary process *increases* the complexity, immensely. A human body is overwhelmingly more complex than a unicellular organism. Regardless of whether or not the theory is correct, I think it is unquestionable that evolutionary theory explains a plausible mechanism with which massive complexity can result from an initial modicum of complexity.
@@Jasonmoofang "It is not a general explanation for complexity" I would disagree here. the whole premise of evolutionary theory is to figure out how time and chance can result in specified complexity without a need for an intelligent creator. To achieve this it must resolve the issue that is complexity, and even if you would argue that that is not its goal the implications of evolutionary theory is that complexity can result from time and chance alone.
"It is true that evolution requires some preexisting complexity, but I think it can hardly be questioned that the evolutionary process increases the complexity, immensely."
You have missed the point. I did not deny that mutation and natural selection can result in greater complexity over many generations. What I have said is that the means by which evolutionary theory explains complexity has a lynch pin. That lynch pin is as follows:
1: There is a causally connected chain of generations of organisms, each evolved from the previous generation.
2: Each generation may add to existing complexity, but the explanation for the complexity of each individual generation is not found in itself, it depends on the previous generation to explain its current state of complexity.
3: If at any one point of time there is a generation that is unable to borrow from a prior generation to explain its own complexity, there is a break in this chain of explanations and it explanatory power regarding complexity immediately crumbles.
4: There is a break in this chain at the very beginning because natural selection and random mutation cannot explain the origin of the first living cell.
Since the the first living cell is casually connected to anything else that is capable of evolution, it is inaccurate to say that the theory of evolution eliminates the need for an intelligent source behind the complexity of organisms, since all complexity in evolution depends on complexity from the first living cell.
IE There never is one point in time where complexity is reduced to simplicity that can be explained using time and chance. Darwin himself thought that the first cells were just simplistic "protoplasm" globs that he used to justify his theory, but we know know that cells are extremely complex organisms, to call it an initial "modicum" of complexity is understating the fact.
@@Azurewroth
The formation of the first living cells is abiogenesis. Evolution is the change of life over time. The starting point doesn't matter. You have evolution from any ancestor to any of their descendants. Why do creationists always go back to the origin of life, or even the origin of the universe? It's irrelevant for evolution. Does not knowing how the first generation came to be change the fact that there is change over generations? If not, why do you think that not knowing the formation of the first generation contradicts evolution?
"Since the the first living cell is casually connected to anything else that is capable of evolution, it is inaccurate to say that the theory of evolution eliminates the need for an intelligent source behind the complexity of organisms, since all complexity in evolution depends on complexity from the first living cell." -Azure
How does adding a creator solve anything? Do you think the creator is simple or complex? Changing the origin of life, does not change the fact that life changes over generations. It's weird that creationists complain about evolution starting with already existing life, while also start with asserting that there is a god. How is starting with a god different than starting with a lifeform?
"how time and chance can result in specified complexity without a need for an intelligent creator" -Azure
Evolution doesn't result in a specific complexity. It's an ongoing process that basically only has the "goal" of producing creatures that survive long enough to reproduce.
@@Azurewroth Most of what you said is correct. You are also absolutely right that the theory of evolution does not eliminate the need for an explanation for the first living cell. Where you seem to be wrong is you seem to assume that the theory of evolution is meant to also be a theory of the origin of life. That is simply wrong, and if you've heard non-theists attempt to invoke evolution as an origin of life theory - they are wrong, and there is no need for you to follow them in being wrong.
Anyone who knows ought about the theory of evolution knows it is not a theory of the origin of life. But it can supplement one - for eg, in Craig's case, his theory of the origin of life (and indeed the universe) is theistic, and evolutionary theory only comes into the picture after life actually began. That's perfectly coherent.
Keep in mind that complexity is not a signature of good design; simplicity is. Life is complex because it is a collection kludges, add-ons, jerry rigs, and make-do's put together over eons of evolution.
Quite shocking to hear this massive concession to Darwinian gradualism. I found WLC’s protest against late stage or intermittent creation inconsistent. What would be any more “magical” about creating a pod of dolphins or dinosaurs simultaneously than, say, calling all space time and matter into being out of nothing? Isn’t this the same WLC that defends the creation of new bodies in the resurrection? This was puzzling to me.
The cumulative distribution of fossils found all throughout the world is spectacularly well described by gradualism.
For example - human fossils (and fossils of gorillas, bonobos, chimps… even whales, horses, zebras, camels…) are never- not once- found mixed together with dinosaur fossils in the same layer with the same aging characteristics.
Or trilobites!
Or **worlds** of fauna and flora that exist (as far as we have found so far) only in layers found consistently in specific, gradual orders.
Now this may not change one’s beliefs one bit-
And that’s fine.
But in this case we’re openly maintaining beliefs **in spite** of evidence, and not revising our understanding of the universe as we uncover evidence-
Which is what scientists strive to do. Scientists have beliefs…and are able to discard the beliefs when a better explanation is formulated.
Religious commitments are not (always) similarly tentative.
"... he's a young earth creationist."
"Ahhh 😔"
I love this longer stuff. Thank you
Dr. Craig’s expression at “young earth”. 😂
😂
Time stamp?
@@glennjohn39190.40
@@glennjohn3919push play it's in the first paragraph of dialog .
@@hindsight2022 thanks. I listen rather than watch so I had no idea. Not really a strong reaction imo.
"The best cure for Christianity is reading the Bible." *Mark Twain*
Is that how you were cured? :-D
@@KG-jx8zt
Early writers fabricated the resurrection hoax by making up fake testimonials that the disciples & others have witnessed an empty tomb & a risen Jesus.
@@AtamMardes haha it seems you dont know that you are talking about❤️
@@davidloewen3878
You believe in religious fairy tales and myth. 🤣
@AtamMardes uh oh now that you have said that all my faith is gone :((( boohoo.
Am I interpreting him correctly? Does Dr. Craig believe that God created H. sapien in His image through an exclusively blind mechanism of random chance? That God created a single-celled organism and then expected random gene copying errors and natural selection to write novel code that develops novel hardware that brings to fruition novel concepts like hearing, vision, flight and consciousness -- and then eventually H. sapien? And he really thinks random gene copying errors and natural selection have this incredible inventive and creative capacity, which through blind luck happened to create creatures in God's image?
He basically deteriorated god into a gene defect. LOL
Yes, and you forgot to mention the battle between life and a planet that had almost no oxygen when this process started, a handful of life-ending natural events (hello Chicxulub), a sun that was 30% cooler, a planet entirely covered in water for 500M years, and land that was as barren as the moon for another 500M years....and ultimately, a guarantee that there will be no life on this planet in 1B years.
No. I don't think he believes it was a blind mechanism. I believe Craig thinks it is a directed process.
We get got up on time, but a day might seem like an eternity to a fly, but we struggle to remember them because we live on average 73 years. A billion years or two, or whatever, may seem like a long time to us, but I wonder how long it feels to a being that lives outside of time.
@@alaindesgagne369
we have n0 evidence anything, Iet aI0ne beings can Iive 0utside 0f time
0utside 0f time is an inc0herent c0ncept
things need time in which t0 exist
but hey y0u`re a "gr0wn up, " we assume, s0 y0u c0uId have figured that 0ut by y0urseIf with a bit 0f thinking ? perhaps ? maybe ?
give it a try
@@ob2249absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
This was one of the best discussions on this subject I've ever come across on the internet. Thank you!
lol
yes i always go to a church when my car breaks down, get a pastor to cast out the evil demons possessing it.
@@HarryNicNicholas Or pray that god replaces my broken 1972 Yugo with a 2023 BMW.
It's interesting how your comment really seemed to trigger the gaslighting bots, LOL!
In other words, it was quite a good video, on the subject.
@@hxhdfjifzirstc894No it wasn't. Any discussion where everyone thinks god exits is a bad video.
I'm no expert of evolution theory, and its ramifications so I'm open minded. I do know God created but am ignorant of the process.
That's the right attitude to have. It allows one to fully consider all evidence.
god didn't create anything, there is no god. 50,000 years of religions and no one has ever demonstrated any god mate, grow up.
@HarryNicholas I found Jesus, just like millions have. Of course, you're not seeking so you'll never know.
I was surprised by your comment... I'm old and I've been taught evolutionary theory my whole life😮(it never made any sense but I was told it was proven science.... Always got straight A's learning the definition of words.... "Theory"... Is not proven science😂)
@@HarryNicNicholasfully grown here, mate 🤣🤣 fifty thousand years and all science has to offer is, "theories" 🤣... Never underestimate the power of propaganda! 🤣 A fine example is you think theories, are actual proven science... As if words had no meaning at all... Unless they're personally approved😂😂😂
Fathers day comment:
As a father of many kids & grandkids (but one who never had a father myself), I am filled with joy when Dr. Craig leads by example in his character, brilliance and scientific reasoning, as a Spirit filled believer in Christ. This may surprise you Dr. Craig, but thank you for being my imaginary earthly father!
Happy fathers day dads, you rock and are part of an amazing plan to learn to love God, thereby being a good example to our kids.
Never give up, you can do it!
(Thank you God for being our real, ultimate father, you're amazing and we love who and how you are!)
I am a Christian and evolution is true.
I might be making a wrong assumption, but understanding that Craig believes a duck or dinosaur "popping" into existence is too fantastic, to what level of complexity of life would he draw the line and say "This form of life popping into existence is perfectly reasonable." And how would he define "complexity" so as to allow that early lifeform to have a low enough complexity to have satisfactorily popped into existence while also having the complexity required to sire every living creature thereafter?
I think Craig's problem with the popping into existence has less to do with the level of complexity of the thing being popped and more to do with the fact that it is *late* creation - that is, that God popped a big and grand universe with all its marvelous laws and properties at the beginning - but then still has to come back later to do additional "little" pops all over the place.
I can see why that is unappealing. Especially coming from the "problem of suffering" perspective, it makes sense that God would have designed the universe to be regular and consistent, and by that token would avoid having to constantly remake things - both because that interferes with the lawful consistency of the universe - and also because since God is God, one would expect His initial act of creation to be so good that He wouldn't need to constantly show up and perform "maintenance".
Now I think a case can be made that interventions in response to creaturely prayer is different - you could say that His intervention is part of the whole point of those cases. But random intervention in the background functioning of the universe does seem beneath Him.
@@Jasonmoofang don't you wish god would come and explain his mysterious ways. i find it odd that god despite being personal never puts in a personal appearance, he always uses an ignorant stooge to do his dirty work.
why did god design eve to be just a little dumber than a snake? that's the real question. or is the snake a metaphor for AI ? hmmm, mysteries.
There is only complexity in life and the words 'simple', 'basic' , etc, should never be used, even proteins are extremely complex and from a mathematical probability of correct assembly rules out evolutions purposeless random mutational losses of information nonsense.
@@HarryNicNicholas That's the "real" question an atheist asks? Why has Eve and Adam made a really dumb choice??
I observe that kind of choice has been going on ever since.
One of the best discussion so far on evolution. Thank you Dr. Craig ❤🎉
I listened to the podcast already. On youtube it's nice to see the video and read what others think.
i think if you want to discuss whether evolution is science or not you're in the wrong place. go to an actual scientist instead of a hack book salesman like craig. you might as well go to a dentist for a fracture.
Dr. Craig, I don't think God will be impressed with you calling him a liar, good luck when you are stood before him.
Where did Dr. Craig call God a liar? - RF Admin
The Hebrew word for “day” and the context in which it appears in Genesis leads to the conclusion that “day” means a literal, 24-hour period of time.
@@tonbearsexcept for in Genesis 2:4, where the Hebrew word "yam" does not mean "day" as in a literal 24 hour period
I don't say God is a liar. I call all people claiming he exist to be liars - every last one of them.
We get an unnerving insight into Darwin's character from an entry he made in his personal ledger during his voyage on the Beagle. While he was journeying through the Argentine pampas in South America there was a bloody slaughter of the indigenous natives taking place, conducted by the rogue General Juan Manuel de Roses, a self proclaimed despot, in 1833. Indian women and children were thrust through with saber and shot down like hunted animals.
Darwin traveled through the territory as a guest of the General, and he wrote of the war in his diary:
" . . . women who appear over twenty years of age are massacred in cold blood while the children are sold into slavery" however he was also able to write on a lighter note: "This war of extirmination (sic), although carried on with the most shocking barbarity, will certainly produce great benefits, it will at once throw open four or five hundred miles in length of fine country for the produce of cattle." Beagle Diary, by Charles Darwin, edited by R.D. Keynes, 1988, pp.180-181, pp177; and The Correspondence of Charles Darwin, Vol. 1, pp.326, 1821-1861, F.H. Burkhardt and S. Smith ed., Cambridge University Press, University Library, Cambridge, 1983-1984
Practical man that he was, Darwin could definitely see the positive side of this genocide. Perhaps if there had been electric lighting back then Darwin might have also come up with some novel ideas for interior design with the by-products of this slaughter, as some of his followers in the twentieth century did during the holocaust.
Desmond and Moore wrote that "Darwin shook a hand soaked in blood" when he struck up his acquaintance with General Rosas, whom he decribed as "a perfect gaucho." Desmond and Moore, Darwin, pp. 141.
While Darwin was a guest of the General, who had loaned Darwin some of his horses to go exploring on during his sojourn in Argentina, he received a correspondence from Fitzroy back on the ship, who desired to know how Darwin's "campaign with General Rosas" was going.
Desmond and Moore report: "Well armed, with fresh horses and ruthless companions, he had little to fear from the hostiles. Indeed he was beginning to appreciate the 'great benefits' of General Rosas' 'war of extermination ." (Ibid, pp. 141)
In Darwin's mind it was all fairly simple: "Less Indians => more cattle => healthier Spaniards: Survival of the fittest!" (Although the term "survival of the fittest" was not coined until the 1850's by another rogue, Herbert Spencer, founder of the modern pseudo-science of sociology and from whose work the communists and national socialists in the twentieth century built their dark machinations with, Darwin clearly had the concept buttoned down in his notes years before)
Apparently the slaughter of the Indians didn't weigh too heavily on his conscience, for Darwin boasted when describing his living conditions while riding with Rosas' men: "I . . .drink my Mattee; smoke my cigar, then lie down & sleep as comfortably with the Heavens for a canopy as in a feather bed." Charles Darwin, The Correspondence of Charles Darwin, Vols.. 1-9, (1821-1861), Cambridge University Press, See also Browne, pp. 256-257 and Desmond and Moore, pp.141.
Mr. Craig is by far one of the brightest minds of our era regarding science & Christianity
Not really… he’s fallen for the lie of “evolution”… which is nothing but a false religious belief.
that is very sad for christianity.
@@louiscyfer6944 It's probably not great for science either 🤣. It just shows that higher learning doesn't always offer Common Sense 101.
@@KG-jx8zt common sense is not a good thing in general. it refers to intuitive thinking, which does not give reliable answers. in person i can demonstrate the flawed natures of common sense in a few minutes.
@@louiscyfer6944 Common Sense: the ability to think and behave in a reasonable way and to make good decisions.
This was actually pretty good. I didn't expect that. Interviewer did a good job. Guy responding did a good job, too. Good job, Christians. He says at the end, "Christians will only make themselves look silly if they launch these kinds of attacks." Now, we need to get a Muslim on a Muslim channel to talk the same way to the Muslims, so that they can put in the trash ideas like "Adamic Exceptionalism".
I wish we got rid of the 'colloquial' term 'theory'. If we all used the term hypothesis, instead of theory, this would help people understand each other better.
"I have a theory that atheism is a government funded program." No, Wrong. you have a hypothesis. We just need to get rid of the colloquial term 'theory'. Language should help us communicate.
When people say they don't believe in evolution, they aren't saying: "I don't believe in change over time," but in the most basic meaning of the word, 'change over time' is EVOLUTION.
Hi Dr Craig,
Did you ever consider how long Adam and Eve were in the garden of Eden before falling into sin.
The earth was created in 6 days.
Adam and Eve were in the garden many, many years before Eve ate from the tree of knowledge.
Much has been said by historians of Darwin's observations of the finches on the Galapagos islands while sailing on the Beagle, but little is mentioned of another incident Darwin had with some less fortunate birds on a different island during his voyage. We have three accounts of an excursion made by Darwin and the Captain from the Beagle to St. Paul's Rocks between the Cape Verde Islands and the coast of Brazil.
First we shall read Darwin's version of the episode: " We found on St. Paul's only two kinds of birds-the booby and the noddy. The former is a species of Gannet, and the latter a tern. Both are of a tame and stupid disposition, and are so unaccustomed to visitors, that I could have killed any number of them with my geologic hammer." The Voyage of Charles Darwin, Charles Darwin, pp.10, The American Museum of Natural History, The Natural History Library, Anchor Books, Doubleday & Co., Inc., Garden City New York, 1962.
Browne mentioned the appalling incident in her biography of Darwin: " Uninhabited except for dense flocks of seafowl, and previously unvisited by any scientific recorder, they were an alluring target for a restless naval man and an eager friend . . . Darwin and Fitzroy had a marvelous time of it, whooping and killing birds with abandon". Browne, pp.204. See also the original, Narrative of the Surveying Voyage of H.M.S. Adventure and Beagle, Vol. 2:56.
Fitzroy recorded the bloody scene in his personal narrative as well. According to him, one of the seamen asked if he could borrow Darwin's hammer to kill some of the birds with, to which Darwin replied, "No, no, you'll break the handle." Then, apparently struck by the novelty of this idea, Darwin himself picked up his hammer and began killing the peaceful birds in this manner, as Fitzroy related "away went the hammer, with all the force of his own right arm." Narrative of the Voyages of the Adventure and Beagle, by Admiral Fitzroy, 1839. See also Amabel Williams Ellis, "The Voyage of the Beagle, Adapted from the Narratives and letters of Charles Darwin and Captain Fitzroy, pp. 26, J.B. Lippencott Co., Philadelphia and London, 1931.
The challenge I have with the theory of evolution is that from a theological standpoint, whose sin did Jesus die in Redemption of? When was man separated from God specifically? If Christ was God and considered the second Adam in 1st Corinthians then what was Paul's view of Adam and Eve?
Well I know that Maximus the Confessor viewed Christ’s death as cosmological in scope: He redeems the entirety of creation, of which we are the pinnacle of creation. Sin then is a separation of the person from his creator or creation from its creator. This is also the reason why I don’t think penal substitutionary atonement is the best understanding of what happened on the cross as it creates absurdities like what you have raised.
Or maybe Genesis is a mix of allegory and mythology.
why even ask any of those questions when it cannot even be proven that god exists. just a waste of time
jesus din't die for anyone, if indeed he was nailed to the cross that was it, he was dead and stayed dead.
ask yourself how does god be god an immortal, become a mortal, then die, then become immortal again, you have been conned, even if god wasn't imaginary, and who was sacrificed cos souls can't die, so what? a bag of blood an bones.
religion is a fairy tale you ought to have outgrown by now mate.
@@rockmusicvideoreviewer896 You can prove God exists, but only to yourself. God definitely will honor those who seek Him with assurance, true assurance of His existence, His love and His peace.
Have Creationist ever think how we could do research on better corn using their theory?
We sit around a bunch of corn in the lab and pray for a spontaenous changes?
If they go to visit University of Illinois in Urbana-Champaign they can see the oldest corn experiment using evolution theory: mutation & selection. They even built their main library underground to safe the historic corn field. ILO & IHO.
I’m really surprised to hear Dr. Craig trot out the “pop into existence” argument regarding creation.
I find it WAY more probable that God created proto species which were a combination of, or more genetically perfect examples of creatures we find today.
Why is it “like magic” for God to form animals, but not “like magic” for God to create the universe in the first place?
I’m not sure Dr. Craig can be consistent on this one, if that is his position.
I guess the universe “popping into existence” (which is literally verbatim his preferred linguistic description) is “like magic” too. It does seem awfully inconsistent.
Besides, the universe had no primordial ingredients with which to create the universe. The universe was created ex nihilo. So I don’t think his wedding at Cana example holds.
So, I think Craig has descended into the vast literature of evolutionary theory inasmuch as he feels compelled to explain the theory (which still has many holes he did not address), rather than use a biblical starting point off of which to assess the validity of theory. That’s not to say disregard the scientific theories outright, but to deeply consider biblical theology, vice versa.
@@chrispark2698 Sorry, but that is a silly remark. Theology is inherently built upon philosophy. It quite literally cannot go the other way.
@@brando3342
I agree! James White accused Craig of that years ago separating Philosophy from theology
@@eew8060 Yes, James can be quite the pseudo pious character.
Looks like that person deleted their comment, I hope they didn’t get too offended by my comment.
@@brando3342
Lol! Yeah I see they deleted it!
I wish Dr White and Dr Craig would just debate Calvinism/Molinism already. I saw their discussion on Unbelievable..
White has good info sometimes, other times he's 'meh'.
22:14 - I have problem with analogy, please help.
Why you think designer can not replicate "mistake" if he wish. We see that every time, if car engineer make some part in one car, why is not possible to understand he can replicate the same mistake on second etc, exactly on the same spot. Or the problem will be manifested on the same spot over some time. Why only predecessor is only good explanation? And, also, if somebody will tell me why God repeat mistake?, my answer is how we know this is mistake, maybe he knows why, and maybe he didn't do mistake, he maybe create the same prototype which with time comes to same "mutation on the same spot". From my perspective this seems still more like creation argument (I think he confirm that on 25:15 ). Mention "Ford" and "Chevrolet" it more like we have two designers, still for me blur and I cant see it.... Especially because the predecessor was never found (a missing link problem). Maybe I didn't understand something, English is not my language..
28:15 one more explanation, If i was creator, I will also start with simple organisms and go from there to more complicated one.
Thats aligned with Genesis (I will start from this 24 verse, although it is clear that he started first with plants - verse 11, and later he comes to this.) "24 And God said, “Let the earth bring forth living creatures according to their kinds-livestock and creeping things and beasts of the earth according to their kinds.” And it was so. 25 And God made the beasts of the earth according to their kinds and the livestock according to their kinds, and everything that creeps on the ground according to its kind. And God saw that it was good. 26 Then God said, “Let us make man[h] in our image, after our likeness."
Like we see, God says, "it was good". Its not perfect, or bad. It is stated just simple "good". And just then it was the "man's turn". You call it evolution, I call it creator step by step process.. hm..
Darwin summed up his viewpoint on natural selection in the final part of the eighth chapter of his Origin of Species, where he wrote: ". . . To my imagination it is far more satisfactory to look at such instincts as the young cuckoo ejecting it's foster brothers (from the nest),-ants making slaves-the larvae of ichneumonide feeding with the live bodies of the caterpillars,-not as especially endowed or created instincts, but as one general law leading to the advancement of all organic beings [mankind included],-namely, multiply, vary, let the strongest live and the weakest die." (Origin, final paragraph of Chapter Eight on Instinct, 6th edition)
Darwin said that his "general law leading to the advancement of all organic beings . . . let the strongest live and the weakest die" also applied to the various races of man, and he saw "beneficial" results coming from a race war between the different races, or what he called later on in the same chapter the "sub-species" of man, with one race surviving and one race being exterminated!
Darwin elaborates on this theme further on in his Descent, describing this dream of his for mankind's future when the black races of man, as well as the mountain gorilla of Africa, will become extinct, thus enhancing the chances for the evolutionary advancement of the more "civilized" races of man:
"At some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilized races of man will almost certainly exterminate, and replace, the savage races throughout the world. At the same time the anthropomorphous apes, as Professor Schaaffhausen has remarked, will no doubt be exterminated. The break between man and his nearest allies will then be wider, for it will intervene between man in a more civilised state, as we may hope, even than the Caucasian, and some ape as low as a baboon, instead of as now between the negro or Australian and the gorilla." (Descent of Man, Chapter Six: On the Affinities and Geneology of Man, On the Birthplace and Antiquity of Man)
It may surprise some people to find out the dark truth about Darwin, but the fact remains nevertheless that he did indeed propose in his second major work, The Descent of Man, that certain races of human beings were actually sub-species, that a race war among mankind's different races, with the extermination of one race and the survival of another would bring "beneficial" results in evolutionary terms, and he did explicitly state, as we have just read, that black people were intermediate on the evolutionary ladder between apes and white people. and wrote that it was his hope that in the near future the black races of mankind, the aborigines, and the African gorillas would become extinct, thus enhancing the evolutionary potential of the Caucasian race!
Darwin proposed in horrifying and explicit language that black Africans and Australian aborigines occupied a sub-species position between white Europeans and baboons! He not only stated this as his belief, but proposed that in the near future "as we may hope" according to his evolutionary theory, these "sub-races" of man will eventually be exterminated in a struggle for survival, along with the endangered mountain gorilla of Africa!
This type of statement makes the term "ethnic cleansing" seem mild by comparison.
Certain evolutionists, in attempting to excuse Darwin, have made the claim that Darwin was merely an impartial observer of the natural processes, and that he was only noting the historical fact that extinctions have and are occurring. This type of reasoning completely misses the point.
There is a vast difference between observing that there are endangered species, such as the gray whale, the mountain gorilla etc., and encouraging the extinction of those species, which Darwin did! He was anything but impartial. And it should be noted that he made those predictions according to his theory, and said that they would be "beneficial" to evolution, and he applied the "beneficial" results of extinction, as can be clearly seen by anyone with a reasonable degree of intelligence from the above quotes, to the different races of man as well! To blur the line between observation and advocating would be like saying that Hitler was a social scientist who was concerned that the Jews were an endangered ethnic group!
For anyone to make the excuse that Darwin was merely reflecting the contemporary attitude of his day completely ignores the fact that Darwin's Descent was published some fifty years after the great Christian, Wilberforce, lobbied successfully to outlaw slavery in England; ten years after Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation; and seven years after the end of the American Civil War. Also, there were some very prominent blacks at that time in England and America who had attained financial prosperity and achieved notable educational success and who would not have appreciated Darwin's designation of their status.
As an atheist, I find this subject interesting but evolution is both a fact and a theory in that it's a scientific hypothesis which is supported by mountains of evidence to the degree predictions can be and are made which demonstrate the validity of it. Although I realize why a Christian worldview might make it tempting to non=t accept it or to seek out arguments against it. I only care about what's true, myself.
Jesus changed water into wine without using grapes, so the wine did “ pop up” into existence.
Well, as long as you have all powerfulness, energy and matter, you can turn anything into anything without adding anything new. Might not be the same amount but still
Tell me Christian evo’s , you teach mutations are good for mankind. Tell the mothers. We shake our heads.
Hmm..common ancestry with chimps. Wondering if Dr. Craig believes evolution over how God biblically created Adam and Eve in Genesis. Of course, if God used chimps, apes and monkeys as a model for Man, than there would be many similarities between us and them, including those things which works and those things which appears to be broken. If we are to see the Genesis account in a traditional sense, this could very well be unfounded in scientific terms; doesn't mean that the Genesis account when seen in an unconventional sense is not true
"if God used chimps, apes and monkeys as a model for Man"
Im am an atheist, but I would call those animals more like a byproduct of our existence. Idk honestly
God form man from Dust but according to WLC he form them from Monkeys.
Not correct. God actually did nothing, because God doesn't exist at all!
Theres also gravity theory (i.e., general relativity) and germ theory. We call it s theory even though we understand it with great precision.
That "fits and starts" bit is fairly significant.
I often amazed that when engaging atheists that how few are up to date with the The Extended Evolutionary Synthesis (EES). Most are still arguing from the perspective of the Modern Synthesis. It should be pointed out that the EES has so far failed to identify substantial new creative biological processes that could explain the rise of new species (arrival of the fittest.) So we are still kind of stuck between an old theory and a new one. It should be also acknowledged that to this point we have no working hypothesis about how saltation (rapid evolutionary change) actually occurs. This position was noted long ago by Stephen J. Gould who are argued for punctuated equilibrium which postulated long periods of genetic stability with intermittent periods of rapid evolutionary change. The problem for Gould was that he had no mechanisms to support his hypothesis (which ran against the basic assumptions of the MS.) In the end he essentially abandoned punctuated equilibrium. So we need new mechanisms to support a changing understand around essential features of evolution. So far no luck.
EES was proposed by some bioogists during a conference in 2016. It was not generally accepted because the fields of embryology, endo symbiosis, multilevel selection, niche construction, plasticity and evolvability were (and are) already included (and studied) in the Modern Synthesis.
So, we are not "stuck between an old and a new theory", that's just an aspiration of IDiots and creationists. All the fields I mentioned above, do not contradict the Modern Synthesis, in fact they've always been included in it.
"we have no working hypothesis about how saltation (rapid evolutionary change) actually occurs"
Why do you write "we"? ... as if you're a biologist (at least one that is up to speed with the science).
Yes we do have scientific explanations (and evidence) for processes that are saltational.
Already in 1966 has saltational speciation been recognized in the genus Clarkia (Lewis, 1966).
Examples of saltational evolution include cases of stabilized hybrids that can reproduce without crossing (such as allotetraploids) and cases of symbiogenesis. Both gene duplication and lateral gene transfer have the capacity to bring about relatively large changes that are saltational.Polyploidy (most common in plants but not unknown in animals) is saltational: a significant change (in gene numbers) can result in speciation in a single generation.
Evidence of phenotypic saltation has been found in the centipede. Saltational changes have occurred in the buccal cavity of the roundworm Caenorhabditis elegans. Some processes of epigenetic inheritance can also produce changes that are saltational. The mode of evolution of sex pheromones in Bactrocera has occurred by rapid saltational changes associated with speciation followed by gradual divergence thereafter.
You: "The problem for Gould ('s punctuated equilibrium) was that he had no mechanisms to support his hypothesis (which ran against the basic assumptions of the MS.)"
That is BS. PE is a theory about the scaling of speciation in geological time and is perfectly explained within the Modern Synthesis as a change of rate in the evolutionary process when selection pressure is weaker. If you want to inform yourself of what really concerned Gould and the response from the biological community: extinctblog.org/extinct/2023/12/19/gould-repost
extinctblog.org/extinct/2023/6/20/how-to-change-your-life-using-punctuated-equilibria (part 1)
extinctblog.org/extinct/2023/7/1/paradox-of-stasis (part 2)
extinctblog.org/extinct/2023/12/20/equilibium-disrupted (part 3)
Let's assume 6 billion years for a moment.... so the first day consists of a half a billion years of light then FOLLOWED by a half billion years of dark.... morning then evening...light then dark....day then night..... doesn't that follow if we regard the text useful at all...please reply Dr Craig
the entire bible story is a weird thing that only an indoctrinated person would believe
I've struggled to understand evolution for years. I accept mutation. I accept adaptation. But neither of those genetic processes explain progressive complexity. From what I know mutation can never result in an increase in genetic complexity. Mutation causes loss of genetic material. And I understand that mutation can cause a favorable trait as much as it can cause something unfavorable. But how do the most simple life forms, even over millions of years, "evolve" into complex life forms? What is that process that adds genetic information? Is there a genetic process that has been proven to add genetic information? And I don't mean one of those "hiccups" where the same genetic material is copied more than once.
Have you ever considered taking a course on genetics? I know Coursera had a very good online course that should answer most of these questions for you. They are real college level classes that you do on your own time and they are FREE.
@@Kruppes_Mule Thanks for the info. I did take a class in genetics a long time ago, but I don't think expertise in genetics is required if common descent is true. Like any sound scientific theory, common descent should have a simple, but not simplistic, explanation that non scientists can understand. Everything I DO know about DNA, mutation and genetic entropy easily negates the possibility of increasing complexity in any genetic profile, even given millions of years.
I accept mutation. I accept adaptation." - evolution is this but more. Eventually, the genetic makeup of the offspring lacks enough homology (see: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chromosomal_crossover) with the ancient ancestor such that no viable offspring could be made if the two mated. In this way, we say that the offspring and the ancient ancestor are different species.
@@KG-jx8zt Your responses reek of having "learned" evolution from sources whose livelihood depends on them and you not understanding. Again, I recommend if you have taken college level courses that you repeat them as the questions you're asking are things that aren't really in question by anyone other than creationist shills.
@@Kruppes_Mule that's a very simplistic and useless answer.
WLC doesn't deny miracles that happen all throughout history, but by calling them "late creation" he seems to think that they would be ridiculous. Honestly, this doesn't seem logical to me. I'm not committed to young earth theory nor am I committed to common descent. But the arguments given here are not too convincing for me.
The most common meaning of theory is likely the layman one. Unless there really are that many scientists. The scientific one will only come up in certain discussions
At min 16, Dr Craig says it hard to believe that creatures are popped into existence, but isn't that also true of the universe.
It seems just as plausible that God could speak the universe and the creatures in a moment into existence.
Love WLC but I think he should be humble to others with this common reading.
no one in science says things popped into a existence (apart from anti particles) there has always been a quantum field, matter / energy cannot be created or destroyed, basic physics, the universe is eternal, it was just "something else" before this iteration, penrose has some great ideas on cyclic cosmology and others propose "the big bounce" whatever the case no one should be listening to craig if they want science, craig is lying for god as always.
Didn’t the Bible say he Formed human from clay as well?
I am open to being wrong on this, but I have a hard time following the logic of some of this. Why wouldn't similar animals have closer genetic code if God originally built the DNA? The idea that this is evidence of universal common descent seems to be assuming the Theory of Evolution is true anyway. I find God popping T-Rexes, Brontosauruses, and ducks into existence fantastical in how Craig puts it, but that has two problems that I can see. Part is an argument from incredulity, and the other is that God would have not popped every single species of animal into existence, but more like the phyla or some form of higher taxonomic category.
I do really appreciate debunking some of the, what I call, "annoying" arguments such as "it's just a theory". I'd like to see a discussion between Craig and Stephen C. Meyer on some of this. It seems like the Cambrian explosion and events like that make Universal Common Descent, and especially Natural Selection as the means, pretty incredible.
Finally, as far as God "poofing" ducks on a pond, Craig believes that God "poofed" the universe into existence. Why then are ducks so incredible? And certainly God would have poofed cells or DNA or proteins into existence to start evolution even if you believe in the theory of evolution. So why not ducks, or a prior proto-fowl?
The structure homolog argument is just a *circular reasoning*, and that a philosopher of the statue of Dr Craig commits such an obvious fallacy is mind boggling! "What explains those similarities?" Well, creationism explains it perfectly well: since organism are supposed to interact with each other, live in the same environment, or move across environment, eat from different environment, eat the same things, so they *must* of course have similarities! The similarities between organism prove a common designer just as much as common ancestry. Cars and tractors are also similar, but not because they share a common ancestor but because they have a common designer.
🤣 I'm glad you cleared that up with the last statement! 👍🙏...
I watched some more of the video... I got you... All them brains an education he has.... And the consistency of a crack wh@&e..
Cars and tractors don't reproduce
Also if you listen a bit more carefully you'll note that there are genetic ties to these biological similarities that cannot be explained simply by saying "well they have similar functions because they have similar functions within an environment" WLC mentions latent genes as an example
@@jonathanw1106
One thing is very clear when listening to WLC... He is not a biologist 😎
I would be curious on Dr. Craigs take on when our ancestors first had souls. Did Neanderthals have souls? What about Homo erectus? Did Australopithecus species have souls? Ardipithecus? Do chimpanzees have souls?
First, someone should provide evidence that the so called 'Soul' exist, then you could have your questions.
@@dorkception2012 Well, I didn’t claim “souls” exist. I think it is an ambiguous concept. But, because WLC describes himself as a believer in “souls,” I would be curious about his take on when our ancestors first had them.
@@Homo_sAPEien Oh I wouldn't. It was already so painful to listen through the fallacies and utter nonsense, I don't really wish for more of this utter waste-o-time conversations about things that has no useful outcome anyway.
@@dorkception2012 Well, but you admit that you did sit through listening to it. And, you wouldn’t even be curious what he would say for comedy purposes? It would be kind of funny to hear someone speculate on whether or not Homo erectus had a soul, no?
@@Homo_sAPEien For sh*ts and giggles, I would, but there are way more funny and less annoyingly intellectually dishonest ways to get some dopamine, you know. I did listen to find if there would be any honest research behind all of those assertions, and because nobody should diss something after the first error, some truth could be behind fallacies. However, I do agree that would be interesting how he could strawman and red herring his way out of that question! ;)
Asking Craig if evolution is a theory is as reasonable as asking an evolutionary biologist if Jesus was God. Not their area of expertise.
I'm sure there are many evolutionary biologists that believe Jesus is God. Science and belief in God is not mutually exclusive
I am surprised and impressed that he basically accepts the theory (fact) of evolution. Most Christians don't. And he's right the ones that don't look silly. I just disagree with him that god did it as I see no evidence of any god.
Hey WLC, what is your approach then, concerning common ancestry, how do you reconcile this with the biblical account?
There is no reconciliation between evolutionary theory and any biblical account of anything. Evolutionary theory is a grand scientific explanation of life based on many years of dedicated study by thousands of scientists, all of which is published in journals for anyone to read. The bible is a fantasy tale written by clueless people who did not even know where the sun went at night.
Evolution is not a theory, it is best described as a model: collection of theories and other things wrapped into a larger framework, driven somewhat on axioms that are naturalistic (in the sense they spoke of in this talk). I am less dogmatic on the topic, but highly skeptical on what we think we know on the 'evolutionary' model and the moves to higher complexity in it. Evolution is to me best described as an artist's rendering of our observations which are too far from a firm model. Having been in school with science students, I had confirmed the financial, political, and other motivations the scientific community faces (not that they should stop studying their topics, but just be careful when you hear 'the science is settled' or 'we know enough now about this area of historical science').
Take the comments about pakicetus: 1) predictions are the scientific method and we weigh too much on some findings that appear as predictive truth confirmations and 2) transitional creature is a large leap to me even with prediction and the cranial findings (it could be that both 'related' species and non-related- as we would assume- animals have similar traits because there is a common code all life is drawing from.)
"Standing for truth" just did a response video to debunk this one and I will be coming out with a few myself. What a sad day in Christianity when people think they have to compromise their faith to make it work. Sad, indeed.
@newcreationinchrist1423 I checked out your channel and it looks interesting. I will be checking out ur videos. I have never been convinced of evolution. I have never seen the proof that progressive genetic complexity happens. Plus, the evolution story contradicts the Genesis creation story, unless you make the whole creation story a metaphor and deny the existence of Adam, Eve, Cain, Abel, etc. And then you have to dismiss the genealogy of Christ, so it's obviously the wrong interpretation. Trust God's word. It's never wrong. We may interpret it wrong, but that's on us.
@@KG-jx8ztamen. Totally agree! I pray what I have posted blesses you. If you have any questions, please feel free to leave comments. I'll be glad to help as best as I can or at the very least lead you to someone who can. God bless 🙏
Well said..
@@KG-jx8zt you are just uneducated.
I would so much appreciate for a creationist historian/archaeologist PHD to start publicly supporting these scientists to add to what these guys don't do, and get into public debates with "academic" historians and evolutionists who are against God and The Bible. There is plenty evidence for The Bible from Genesis to the first century AD. I hardly hear anyone of them (Lennox, Craig, these guys, and others) ever talk about it except about Jesus. There is MUCH evidence for The Bible from it's beginning to its end.
Stephen Meyer does this.
where did Bill get his PhD in evolutionary biology?
I don't pretend that I have one!
I’m on the fence about this YEC theistic evolution debate. What I don’t think DR. Craig is being fair on here is that he is happy to have God pop creation into existence but not a duck. I understand his hang up with late creation and I think he has a point but if God can pop a universe into existence by the Word of His mouth why not a duck or even a breeding population of ducks.
well, come off the fence, evolution is true, creation is a fairy tale. stop listening to craig, a PHD in bible study, and start listening to PHD's in science, that would be a start don't you agree? do you take your car to church to be fixed when it breaks down?
Does Dr. Craig believe in Intelligent Design theory?
Look up Dr James Tour of Rice University on origin of life.
Look up Dr Stephen Meyer regarding complexity over time.
Dr Craig is a brilliant philosopher. But he’s not perfect and he seems to be overlooking things in his argument. Dr Jason Lyle makes some rather bold claims so I’m not against Dr Craig questioning his ideas.
Keep digging in the pursuit of truth even if it means questioning the status quo. (I’m not talking flat earth levels but using reasoning)
Tour and Meyer both have the same approach. It is too complicated for me to understand so God must have done it. How dumb is that?
Darwin was brilliant in his time, but you don't go to him for the latest on evolution. Just like you don't go to Galileo for the latest on gravity. Many disciplines since Darwin (Genetics, Geology, Biochemistry, Developmental Biology, etc.) have confirmed evolution's factuality.
(gravity was newton, just saying) but i agree - craig is a hack, no one should listen to his science cos is not science his version is voodoo.
To say the earth is millions or billions of years old is scientifically indefensible.
How so?
It was a religious apologist which gives him less credibility than a scientist or a biblical scholar. I don't care what the opinion of a young earth creationist is on the scientific theory of evolution. I like how these non scientific religious apologists. Try to educate scientists on what scientific theories are and are not.
Trying to reason with an evolutionist is not like talking to a brick wall. It's like talking to a brick wall with graffiti on it and then expecting to get an intelligent reply back.
You are using the apriori presumption of evolution as proof for evolution, which is a philosophical error.
A priori 1: Involving deductive reasoning from a general principle to a necessary effect; not supported by fact: "an a priori judgment"
A priori 2: Based on hypothesis or theory rather than experiment.
Darwin did not document one single fact in his Origin of Speciess or his Descent of Man of a genuine evolutionary transition taking place. That actually sums up the entirety of Darwin's Origin of Species and his Descent of Man as well as most arguments of evolutionists. Evolutionists have hijacked science in the name of atheism because of their initial rejection of Revelation. Darwin's Origin and his Descent are mere philosophic diatribes against God's role in the creation of the universe and against His providential rule and ordering of events both in the physical realm of non living systems and in the macro-molecular biological realm of living species; it is not on a par with genuine scientific treatises such as Newton's Principia Mathematica , Boyle's empirical gas law that describes the relationship between pressure and volume of a confined gas, Faraday's laws of electrolysis, Pasteur "renowned for his discoveries of the principles of vaccination, microbial fermentation, and pasteurization, the last of which was named after him. His research in chemistry led to remarkable breakthroughs in the understanding of the causes and preventions of diseases, which laid down the foundations of hygiene, public health and much of modern medicine" (Wikipedia), Kepler's laws of planetary motion, and
Erik Acharius (1757-1819), Swedish botanist[1] who studied lichens
Gary Ackers (1939-2011), American biophysicist who worked on thermodynamics of macromolecules.
Gilbert Smithson Adair (1896-1979), British protein chemist who identified cooperative binding of oxygen binding haemoglobin.
Arthur Adams (1820-1878), English physician and naturalist[2] who classified crustaceans and molluscs
Michel Adanson (1727-1806), French naturalist[3] who studied the plants and animals of Senegal
Julius Adler (born 1930), American biochemist and geneticist known for work on chemotaxis.
Monique Adolphe (1932-2022), French cell biologist, pioneer of cell culture
Edgar Douglas Adrian (1st Baron Adrian) (1889-1977), British electrophysiologist, Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine (1932) for research on neurons.
When you compare Darwin's ramblings in his Origin to the works of these other, genuine scientists it's almost ludicrous that he has been lifted to the status of a philosopher-sage by his slack jawed, gullible band of followers.
Your belief in evolution is motivated more by a prejudice against the sovereignty of God, and a rebellion against His Lordship in your life, as it is written in Psalm Two,
1"Why do the nations conspire[a]
and the peoples plot in vain?
2 The kings of the earth rise up
and the rulers band together
against the Lord and against his anointed, saying,
3 “Let us break their chains
and throw off their shackles.”
Jesus is Lord over Darwin.
Still haven’t had the main question answered. If humans “evolved” why have we lost our ability to survive? No other animal has “evolved” out of it own habitat. Its because we are in this world not of this world…
As an atheist, I wish more Christians thought like Craig. He changes his faith in the face of evidence, and ends up with a more nuanced and robust faith
I don't know if it's "changing his faith,? But maybe augmenting it?
I doubt he has changed his faith. But as a challenge to the existence of God,evolution is an interesting argument. In terms of religion evolution is a successor to the scepticism of the enlightenment.
I’m not sure what you guys think ‘changing your faith’ means, but I mean it in the sense of the Dalai Lama:
‘If science proves some some belief in Buddhism wrong, then Buddhism will have to change.’
A literal, inerrant reading of the Bible is flatly incompatible with the theory of evolution.
Call it what you will, ‘augmenting’, accommodating: in the end, you are changing your faith in some way.
An education in science - even in biblical scripture - will force you to read much of the Bible metaphorically
@@bigol7169 I would separate the issues of genre (literal/metaphor etc.) with the issues of truth (errancy/inerrancy).
Dr. Craig might have changed his mind on the genre of the genesis account, but I highly doubt he's changed his mind on the truth of it.
@@jessethomas3979 please explain more.
“For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth”: doesn’t the literal or metaphorical nature of this verse have a direct effect on its truth value?
The example he gives of wine is a poor one. The passage makes clear that Jesus chose purification jars. That is key. The wedding most likely of a Pharisee or had Pharisees in attendance, and one of the extra-biblical commandments they taught was that no fermentation or vinegar could be put in purification jars. The fact that Jesus used them to do his miracle showed not only his grace to the wedding guests but also his judgment against the commandments of men.
it's what we grown ups call "a story" religion is nothing but stories, anecdotes, tales, yarns. stop taking it as true, it is not.
@@HarryNicNicholas what part of the life, death and resurrection of Christ do you think is a fictional tale? Just wondering.
@@mattb7069
Lol I think it's safe to assume the "resurection" is a fictional tale dear
@@trumpbellend6717 Can't even spell the world "resurrection" no one shall take you seriously.
@@mattb7069The resurrection.
17:03 Did it take Jesus millions of years to convert the water to wine, or a few days or was it instant?
He never did anything of the sort. It is a pure legend, an invention of the human mind.
15:36 Dr. Craig isn’t that what God did with man? Or are you saying that mankind evolved?
you can not have a historical Adam and Eve with evolution. And these guys just showed their ignorance.
This discussion shows very nicely how Christianity, like every religion, is internally divided, because every religion divides human reason.
Yeah except its divided in layers from least to most delusional. Flat earthers are at the extreme
It boils my blood when non-scientists make out that they understand a particular scientific topic BETTER than the very scientists that study it!!
Read "Why Evolution is True" by Jerry A. Coyne and be quiet.
Lol are we hurting your feelings by attacking your religion? 😭
@@brando3342science isn't a religion. Atheism isn't a religion. Stop calling things "religion" that simply aren't. And why do you even think religion is a bad thing? Or what's the point of calling things you disagree with or don't comprehend, "religion"?
@@MrSeedi76 🥱
Grow up and understand the insidious damage that all you history-, science- and reality-deniers do. You'll be brainlessly spouting that the Earth's flat next!
@MrSeedi76
I already told you...
Evolution is not science, but rather it is scientism.
Huge respect for WLC but he's plain wrong on YEC... plenty of evidence supporting it. Fossil records is basically Noah's Flood, if he can grasp that, it will be a game changer.
creationism and intelligent design were both proven FALSE in court in the dover trials, prosecuted by a catholic biologist, kenneth r miller, you just won't accept that you are ignorant - and why? BILLIONS of religist are fine with evolution - evolution is true, just stop being daft ffs
Couldn't agree more. Liquefaction explains the fossilization and layers that we see. We have plenty of fossil specimens that still have soft tissue and bone osteocites. Not to mention nearly all the planets we see still have geothermal activity(including the moon) while other planets still have atmospheres. I think it's Saturn that doesn't have the methane to ethane rate for billions of years. Viewing evidence with confirmation bias is dangerous if your trying to view data objectively
You should look up "the heat problem" for YEC. Fossils appear to be less complex the further you go down. In a world flood model species and complexity should be mixed. There should be many modern animals fossils mixed in with extinct fossils if they all lived together. YEC puts forth hydrologic sorting but that model doesn't work. I'm a former YEC.
Liquefaction goes by density of the pre-fossil specimen but even without that there are plenty of other reasonings for YEC (Polystraight fossils going through multiple layers of strata), the mountain chains look like they we're melted like an accordian (as if they we're completely soft when they rose to the elevation they are now(Brian Nickel has great videos on this if you are into material mechanics) And last but not least there is plenty of evidence in space dictating a young universe (planets assumed to be old cold and dead are very much so geothermally active including our moon, no accounting for the sheer amount of material jupiter requires to be as massive as it is in the location that it is). If anything it is well worth looking into with an open mind @@brandonsawyer7493
Best not putting all your religious faith in YEC, just my advice I would love to believe it so there’s no bias from me but honestly I would recommend finding a middle ground because if YEC is true then 99% of science would have to be a full blown conspiracy but if you pin all your hopes on a young earth and no common ancestry then you could lose your faith altogether because in all honesty the likes of Ken Ham and Ray Comfort etc are not following the evidence, might be worth reading John Lennox’s book seven days that divide the world at least that take Genesis seriously but finds some common ground with the scientific facts
Am I the only one who looks at their bookshelves for nuggets?! 😅
It is pretty sad to watch Christians struggling with undeniable scientific facts on the one hand and desperately trying to smuggle the supernatural in via the back door. At least Craig is a bit better than that sad, hopeless case, Jason Lisle.
I agree evolution is not a theory, but I disagree with the explanation by Craig.
There's for instance the germ theory. But it doesn't mean a germ is a theory. Germs are entities. Even if didn't exist or we didn't know they existed, they still wouldn't be theories. The germ theory is a scientific explanation for some diseases, saying they are caused by germs.
Evolution is a kind of change. The theory of evolution is a scientific explanation for evolution, namely natural selection and common ancestry. If someone says "evolution" is a theory, as far as I know, often it means there's a scientific theory for evolution or (often by creationists) it means evolution (or some aspects of the theory) aren't known.
Some creationists say the theory of evolution is not a theory because it would imply scientific credibility.
Poof, a couple of ducks appear, sounds magical and therefore implausible to Craig, but: poof, Jesus turns water into wine and rises from the dead, doesn't sound magical and therefore credible? These arguments are ridiculously religiously biased. Is it about believing what Craig finds credible? I find Craig's Christianity completely unbelievable. And I think I deserve a heart for my comment.
paulogia came up with a good way to explain evolution to the folks who "don't get it" - it's like language,
latin is the common ancestor to italian, portugese and spanish, but at no point did a roman give
birth to a spanish speaker, romans only begat romans (!) words got added to latin and words became redundant
until it evolved into spanish, spanish, italian and portugese are all "cousins" like humans and apes,
and "if spanish is evolved from latin, why is there still latin" - why are there still apes, the answer should
be obvious, latin did not have to "become extinct" for spanish to evolve.
You could say that Darwin's Theory of Natural Selection - was originally just that - a Theory - but the plethora of supporting evidence discovered since his time - most notably the study of genomes - his Theory should now be upgraded to Darwin's Principle of Evolution - alongside other established Principles such as those of Isaac Newton.
Except not really
Theories in the scientific sense don't correspond to the common colloquial usage
Theories in the scientific Sense aren't just mere plausible explanations
Those would be hypotheses
But explanations supported by the data
Like the theory of relativity
The confusion arises because
The use of the terms law and theory are inconsistent
@@kiroshakir7935 Exactly.
Cell Theory, Germ Theory, Oxygen Theory, Theory of Plate Tectonics, Theory of General Relativity etc. I could go on...
People have no issues with any of these until it comes to evolution. Then its "Evolution is JUST a theory and all the others are laws"
For some reason its ok to just cherry pick which branches of science work and which don't, its so dishonest and i don't think people realise it.
So who is right, Darwin or Jesus?
Darwin.
WLC needs to talk to David Berlinski.
He needs to talk to Kent Hovind, who has already destroyed evolution.
Craig has a better camera than the other guy lol
Mmm. The arguments presented here in favor of evolution are un-convincing.
Yes mutation rate for perfect adaptation to the environment again Mendel pondered. E=MC2
A good example is during the end of the ice age bronze age villages especially near the black Sea flooded once fresh water know salt water.
18:04 literally just assertion without evidence and argument from authority. This guy is supposed to be a scholar???
He looks a little like David Lee Roth
You are making the same mistake that Darwin did. Breeding cattle and livestock depend upon intelligent intervention to produce new strains, this is not natural selection, and this was a relatively minor adaption, they didn't "evolve" into anything other than more cows. We still have no evidence that cows, Bos taurus and Bos indicus, came from anything other than Bos taurus and Bos indicus. Cow have an amazing digestive system. Cattle have one large stomach with four compartments; the rumen, reticulum, omasum, and abomasum. The rumen is the largest compartment and it harbours the most important parts of the microbiome. The reticulum, the smallest compartment, is known as the "honeycomb". The omasum's main function is to absorb water and nutrients from the digestible feed. The abomasum has a similar function to the human stomach. There is absolutely no evolutionary evidence to show where this remarkable digestive system came from, except other cows. However, you are assuming that new genetic material is introduced into these breeds. No, only certain genetic strains are selected, and these have certain biochemical limits.
I'm going to waste my time further and present some facts for you, logic. but it will probably prove to be of no avail. . but it will probably prove to be of no avail.
No one is contesting adaption and variation within certain limits, or clades, but using the argument that since dogs and wolves and chihuahuas have a common ancestor, then by extrapolation bananas and pine trees and kangaroos also have a common ancestor is similar to the logic that if I begin jogging and in my first month I can jog a mile in 12 minutes, and after jogging for six months I can jog or run a mile in six minutes, then after a year I should be able to run a mile in one minute.
There are certain biological limits to change, there are parameters. You may through selective manipulation grow a larger peanut, or a larger grape or apple, but you will never succeed in growing a 200 lb peanut, or a peanut that would have an orange peel on it's surface. All of the major phyla appear suddenly in the Cambrian layer with no transitional ancestors from different species.
Darwin in his two books of fables, The Origin of Species and Descent of Man, failed to document the so-called evolution from ape to man. He had no evidence for it. Darwin did not document one single instance in his Origin of Species or his Descent of Man of any evolutionary transition from one species to another. He also provided no fossil evidence for evolution and admitted that also. He did propose that flying fish might have turned into birds. If you want to believe in that type of nonsense suite yourself, but don't call it science, and don't insult the lineage of true scientists such as Helmholtz, Faraday, Pasteur, Newton, Lister, Leonardo da Vinci, Copernicus, Tycho Brahe, Johannes Kepler, John Bainbridge, Bonaventura Cavalieri, Christiaan Huygens, Isaac Newton, Thomas Wright, Johan Maurits Mohr, Pierre-Simon Laplace, John Albery, William Thomson, 1st Baron Kelvin, and so many other real scientists who produced real Laws of science and gave us real workable equations with your Darwin, who was a poor student in school and never came close to obtaining a scientific degree.
I appreciate Dr. Craig for researching these topics. He's clearly spending a lot of time researching this and other related topics.
I do think it's possible for God to act with those miracles of new species coming from nothing, in the same way He made the universe, and I don't think that theory can be totally tossed aside as Craig seems to think, but either way, great discussion!
If you believe in evolution then you deny the authority of scripture.
That is everyone's choice of course, but nevertheless, that is the fact!
@@mbgrafix That's such a silly statement.
I know people who accept both.
Don't be overly-simplistic. Critical thinking is an important skill to cultivate.
@@mbgrafix Utterly false. You're just repeating Ken Ham. There's a diversity of perspectives among actual Christians.
@@natebozeman4510
Oh really? Tell me then your answer to Luke 3:23-38?
Which is true? Bible or Darwinism?
@@mbgrafixsuch a false dichotomy!
I seem to remember, from a long time ago, that he used to make fun of the idea of evolution. How times have changed!
You sure that was Craig? As far as I remember, he was always skeptical of the explanatory scope but he still took it seriously.
Unless you can site a specific document/video then your statement can't be taken seriously.
@@rebanelson607 I'll try to find the video, where he made a joke with which he made the idea of evolution seem absurd, but it was in a video made at least 10 years ago.
@@rebanelson607 I also recall older videos of him being somewhat skeptical of evolution. If we're not mistaken, his views have "evolved." There's nothing wrong with this, and I don't consider it any sort of attack. He's clearly read the literature and finds the arguments plausible. I'm more an ID guy, so I'm curious what their position is on the evidence that WLC mentioned.
he's a nincompoop? why people think he's so great beats me, and why anyone is listening to a PHD in bible studies talk about a science topic is typical of the religious, poking their nose in places they have no business poking, craig has been shown to be wrong on plenty of occasions, but typical religist he just keeps on ignoring the truth until no one sign up to religion anymore cos they are all liars and dishonest, and abusers too these days.
This is where Dr Craig flies off the deep end, I'm shocked he argues that "similarity, therefore descendance." Because 2 things are similar says nothing about whether one "descended" from the other, this is as fallacious as claiming correlation therefore causation. I could argue that because I have 100% particle similarity with a Chlorine gas (we both have protons, neutrons and electrons), therefore I came from Chlorine gas. It is absurd. Commonalities in DNA, and even the building blocks of our universe, point to a common creator, and say nothing bout us "coming" from it. If Dr. Craig wants to think a jellyfish is his great grandad, go for it, but I'll put my faith in the BIble.
Where in the world did you get the idea that that's what Dr. Craig is arguing? Certainly not from this video. - RF Admin
yes, from the video. he is arguing similarity therefore descendance. id love to hear him explain how a primate non-human gave birth to the first human with the Imago-Dei. Dr. Craig seems to argue in favor of the position that the first human being created in the Image of God was birthed through the vagina of a non-person (primate?). If he is not arguing for this, he should state clearly whether or not he denies that the very first Imago-Dei has (a)a non-person biological parent, or (b) was created directly by God. I await his answer because he seems to avoid it.@@ReasonableFaithOrg
@@ReasonableFaithOrg 13:55 total liar
@@NaplesInsider Are you under the impression that Dr. Craig is making the argument as @marshill88 has characterized it? That "similarity, therefore descendence" and "correlation equals causation"? - RF Admin
Did you know that one of the commercials while watching this video was a mormon come join us! Video.
Yikes. 😬
Mendell was way ahead of Darwin he saw amazing adaptations designs off the chart to me giving god all the glory.
I think there are still questions about common descent. And common mutations don’t rule out common design. Design doesn’t exclude the possibility of broken genes. I think the real weakness of the extended synthesis is gradualism. There are big holes in the theory. There simply isn’t enough time for whale evolution, for instance. Lots of unanswered questions still.
Big holes? You mean the 1000's of evidence against some still unanswered questions?
Yeahright, that's a real reason to question the theory, while theistic holy book claims got destroyed one after another.
Which one is more plausible, I wonder....
@@dorkception2012 Interesting name for yourself. So firstly, no, biblical claims have not been destroyed one after another. Second, we can gather facts about nature from various disciplines of science, but we make inferences about what we can conclude about those facts. So yes, there are many problems with the standard evolutionary narrative.
@@mc07 Really? World wide flood, debunked. Firmament, debunked. Resurrection, debunked. Talking snakes, debunked. Should I continue?
@@mc07 "So yes, there are many problems with the standard evolutionary narrative."
That's your opinion against the scientific scholars of the whole world. Truly valuable opinion. ;)
@@dorkception2012 ok, world wide flood, we don’t know. It is plausibly interpreted as a regional flood of the ‘known’ world of the author at the time. Firmament - this is ancient language. Personally, I don’t believe it was actually viewed as a solid dome. It’s figurative language. The resurrection - your claim is false. The most plausible conclusion based on the evidence is that the resurrection is true. The alternatives have too many problems. And if you allow for the possibility of the supernatural, without being biased against it, than it makes it an even stronger conclusion. Talking snakes? This can easily be accounted for as being figurative as well. But how would it be debunked? No one alive today was there.
I hope Dr. Craig isn't advocating for a kind of "front loaded" view of theistic evolution.
I do not believe the analogy of the water into wine is a good representation here since that has more of a theological nature to it. Jesus's miracles parallels God's plagues, with the water into wine a blessing, and the water into blood a curse, so Jesus was following the same order as God up to the final plague of offering the first born son to Jesus as the offering of the firstborn Son, however I do see evolution in a new light after this talk! No matter how we look at it though I think ultimately it comes down to Life is a miracle no matter how it came about! Keep up the good work.
Not a theory. A religious belief.
Why?
No answer, but of course. It's way easier to say "Na-ah" than actually refute something, right?
Pathetic.
I find it quite sad that WLC has abandoned the God revealed truth of creation from the Holy Scriptures. Equally sad is his illogical belief that Biblical special creation does not adequately describe all seven of his claims that “evolution is true.” Common features, for example, are satisfied by recognition of a common Designer, who expertly “reused” workable physical designs in multiple creatures.
“Evolution” is nothing more than a godless religious belief based on speculation and conjecture… a system of “everything happened just so” stories with no basis in actual objective, observable science.
There’s thousands of transitional species
I want one of these shirts :(
What is biblical creation (Craig asks)?!! Has he not read Genesis Chapter 1?!! ... "And God created them EACH AFTER THEIR OWN KIND" ... which is the very definition of groups of creatures being created that were NOT genetically connected!!!!! He then says that such creation "sounds like magic"!! WHAT?!! Does Craig not believe the God is God? Does Craig not believe that the God who can do a miracle of raising a dead Jesus to life again doesn't have the power to create the world and the universe OUT OF NOTHING?! What is Craig's faith based on? Science only? If so, then he will have to devise a scientific (only) explanation for Christ's resurrection. ALL of evolution's tenants are easily debunked. Craig has MUCH more studying he needs to do on this topic.
William Lane Craig. Always making a mockery of Christianity. You should be ashamed.
If the Universe in it's vast expanse with all the inexhaustible mass and matter in it, all came from an infinitesimal point(Out of nothing). If that's not majic. Tell me what is. If we can believe that, I can also believe a bird popping into existence out of nothing. Otherwise great video. I learnt a lot.
you clearly know nothing at all about science, this: no one says the universe A) came from nothing (apart from religists, they say god pulled it out of his nose) B) the universe came from a point, penrose, a nobel physicist, and hawking a nobel physicist proposed the singularity but then dropped it as the maths didn't work.
please, if you want to be critical of ANY subject you have to at least have the basics.
and birds do pop into existence from nothing, some assembly is required though, you're a nincompoop and you just told the whole world you are.
I agree. WLC didn't really make that point to me either. Especially since he agreed that God has done miracles throughout history. He tried to characterize it as "late creation" and then make it sound absurd.
"infinitesimal point(Out of nothing)" - The infinitesimal point thing does not mean out of nothing.
What?
Isn't what raised Jesus from the dead technically a theory. We know it, if sticking to the books, Jesus made some claims and it points to God/It as the explanation for how Jesus resurrected and how He was assumed back into the Nature Maker but is that just man trying to describe it all in human terms...like when man thinka he stands outside evolution?
no it is not a theory, jesus died and stayed dead, it is a story. scientific theories are as good as fact, theories in science are based on facts that have been established, theories are REPEATABLE, like i can save thousands of lives with a vaccine, while god can MAYBE save one cancer patient, YOU can repeat and confirm science theories, and you do every day, boiling a kettle is a science experiment, it's called theory cos it can be updated or superseded, einstein's theories were proved wrong when he said the universe wasn't expanding, we can still use his maths and equations though.
creation and intelligent design are invented to get god in places where god doesn't exist, evolution is true beyond doubt.
stop listening to idiots like craig, listen to scientists.
I absolutely love WL but this theistic Eco thing is a heresy
it ABSOLUTELY is.. But Atheists LOVE it!!
"The most devastating thing though that biology did to Christianity was the discovery of biological evolution. Now that we know that Adam and Eve never were real people the central myth of Christianity is destroyed. If there never was an Adam and Eve there never was an original sin. If there never was an original sin there is no need of salvation. If there is no need of salvation there is no need of a Savior. And I submit that puts Jesus, historical or otherwise, into the ranks of the unemployed. I think that evolution is absolutely the death knell of Christianity." Frank Zindler
Is there a paper or writing where we can see in more detail and depth Dr. Craig's research on evolution?
He did quite a lot of research for his debate with evolutionary biologist, Francisco Ayala: ruclips.net/video/fsR1t_Ee0PY/видео.htmlsi=6-0QEImM2DC6iOnD.
He also discusses the subject at length in his Defenders class, beginning here: www.reasonablefaith.org/podcasts/defenders-podcast-series-3/excursus-on-creation-of-life-and-biological-diversity/excursus-on-creation-of-life-and-biological-diversity-part-30.
- RF Admin
@@ReasonableFaithOrg Thank you. But one question. Dr. Craig is still holding the same things from ten years ago? I say this because that debate was a long time ago and I thought Dr. Craig would have changed some questions regarding evolution. Thanks anyway.
@@imagodeifides His research has focused mainly on the biblical data and, after arriving at a mytho-historical genre classification for Genesis 1-11, on the scientific data regarding the chronological location of the historical Adam. His research projects since that debate have not focused on evolution. - RF Admin
He has book that talks about the historical Adan.
@@AbrahamBarberi Yeah, I know. I was asking about the theory of evolution per se