The best argument I can make is one from universality. Iff a worldline is encoded by the UWF and that worldline contains particle positions for a brain, by universality the UWF must be equal to or greater in computability than that brain. Brains are Godel/Lobian class, thus we must assign Godel/Lobian machine class to the UWF.
_Synchronistic Mathematics_ will reveal truths to the sincerely curious. G and W have censored my topic of independent research of 23 years. Cassini Death is one of my favorite data sets. Another is the Great Pyramid. In messageboards my comments are mostly ignored, and not one challenge has been willing to use an online scientific calculator to verify my calculations. 😊
Yes, the climate hoaxers wont tell you about the red Saharan sand layers found by Kenny Broad in a Bimini blue hole, split by 12,900 years matching the earth's 120 degree equator flip cycle tied to both the Sirius ion storm cycle and the solar system motion cycle through the galactic axis (which NASA denied btw even though we have super clear evidence of it) @@zorot3876
Exactly, see the mass media telling that Covid spread to the world from a bat-soup in Wuhan and that the mRNA-vaccines would stop the virus from infecting people...
Newton was very devout though heterodox. Considering he's had a bigger impact on mathematics and science than any scientist since him, I don't think religious scientists are a problem. The bigger problem, considering the scandals of the last few years at Harvard's biology department, is falsification of results, herd mentality within the community, inadequate peer review, and money. Lots of money. As in "I will never see that much money in my entire lifetime." Some of these scientists are wearing different hats while boarding their own departments making a serious conflict of interest.
Almost every scientist in Newton's day was a Christian in Europe. That is just a sociological and historical fact. So this only has interest and relevance in a sociological and psychological context. In terms of scientific theories and their justification, it is virtually irrelevant.
Euler had a bigger impact on mathematics. He thought the bible was God's greatest gift to mankind. Newton had a more diverse range of achievements. But Euler was ridiculously prolific mathematically.
"A new scientific truth does not generally triumph by persuading its opponents and getting them to admit their errors, but rather by its opponents gradually dying out and giving way to a new generation that is raised on it." Max Planck (translated)
So true! A great example of the opposite was the Piltdown Man, a hoax knowingly defended by the atheist Establishment for 40 years, until it was "finally discovered" to be one of the biggest lies in the history of science (but now cleverly made "forgotten"). But the damage was done and the new generations had been well indoctrinated into Darwinism.
Every scientist is vulnerable to confirmation bias OR falsification bias. We should be EQUALLY concerned and watchful for scientists who might be motivated to create false data that pushes a religious narrative or falsification narrative for targeted beliefs.
You’re lumping in belief in “god” with the other teachings that can be seen as pseudoscientific or “supernatural” (if interpreted literally) that formulate a religion. “Belief in god” takes on many forms, as does the word “god”. Belief in (a) god or gods, in and of itself, doesn’t imply belief in the pseudoscientific elements attributed to religions. So no, belief in god, alone, does not “deny science.” However, if a scientist informs his science with belief in literal interpretations of religious writings that deal with things we know to be contrary to scientific processes and determinations, then yes, that scientist isn’t much of an expert or advocate of actual science.
@@Mindmartyr Science is just a study of God's creation. And so far, only intelligent boys and girls become scientists. Because whatever that has been created is amazing.
The false historical narrative that religion and science have been opposing forces is called “warfare thesis” and has been well debunked. You can hypothesize a boogeyman to try to scare people into the idea that believing the Bible will somehow harm scientific progress, but data doesn’t support that. Even the historical examples atheists appeal to, like Galileo, mostly fall apart under examination. Galileo believed the Bible, as did Copernicus. The Catholic Church’s geocentricism was pre-Christian and rested in the authority of Ptolemy and Aristotle.
Scientists have been discussing what Eric calls "perception mediated selection" for over 100 years. The general term is "biotic selection" and has been in use since at least 1908. The evolution of lures (as in the clam and the flower Eric mentions) are examples of "aggressive mimicry", a term coined by Edward Poulton in 1892. Mimicry, in general, evolves through a special type of biotic selection that remained unnamed until the 90s, but is now called "sensory exploitation". I imagine Bret would not like that Eric is pretending Bret came up with all these ideas, since they are staples of evolutionary biology almost from its start.
I think you should give it a little bit more cognitive effort in analyzing this. Eric explains that Darwin himself wrote about this - which shows that he gives credit to the contemplation of the conundrum to at least one other author. I am not sure where you are getting the idea that he is pretending or posing to have been the original thinker about this. What Eric has to offer is a bit different, his concept of "perception mediated selection," is a bit different from what you are calling "biotic selection," or "aggressive mimicry," in that he is arguing that it is actually the mistakes made by certain agents which are driving the selection pressure. On one hand perception mediated selection is an explanation how, whereas the latter is simply a description of the behavior. Point is, it's not the same thing. I can't find any scholarly articles referring to what work he is referencing but he uses neurological terms like "bounded intelligence." I haven't seen much of his work but from the first glance it seems as though he may consume relevant scientific articles similar to my interest, neuroscience / mathematics. Relevant authors to look more into understanding what what he is talking about and why it may be interesting are; Marks Solms, Karl Friston There is alot of work being completed in contextualizing the difference between consciousness and intelligence and if what this mechanic describes it is true, it sort of shows that there is a sort of embodied cognition which is actively learning even if disconnected form the neocortex. Concepts that might be appreciated is the intelligence of plants / starfish / hydroencephalic children etc
@@Y3HU Yours is another example of a poetic response. You are not angry or insulting to Mr. @Stated Casually. Instead, you are pointing out the various manners in which the concept has been discussed in the past and continues to be so. I appreciate that you took the time to "converse", "debate", "amplify" Mr. @StatedCasually's points with the result that all of us are "smarter" for that interaction. Thank you very much. PS: Also, if I say that "one of my better ideas" is the studying and understanding of the Specific Gravity as discovered by the great Sicilian scientist Archimedes, I am not saying that I discovered this mind blowing concept. QED
The deeper we get into quantum mechanics, the more it looks like there is a God (or call him/her/it/they, the game engine designer). It’s really fascinating that the deeper we delve into science and understanding the world around us, it does seem…the more it points to intelligent design.
@RealAliens-fw4nq Biologists have discussed and written about each example Eric gave, in detail, as well as the evolutionary dynamics that make mimicry possible. There are hundreds of papers and many books written about this subject, many were published before Bret was born.
Is this what we're doing now? Pretending that when someone says "intelligent design" they aren't talking about a god magically poofing things into existence, but rather, somehow contorting the tricking of a fish to be "intelligent design," rather than literally just being the normal selective pressure of natural selection i.e. the more fit tricky mollusk is able to care for its offspring better. You're just trying to shift the perspective here and claiming the fish is "intelligently" *designing* the mollusk, rather than the more realistic and evident fact of a given mollusk being better fit to propagate, thereby continuing the natural selection process.
Tell me you don't know diddley shit about the subject you're complaining about with out telling me you don't know diddley shit about the subject you're complaining about.
Eric never brought God into the equation of intelligent design in this conversation? There is a difference between the old creationist bullshit of "Intelligent Design" and the intelligent design that Eric is talking about. He is talking about the learned intellect of the organism playing a part in the process. Not God. "You're just trying to shift the perspective here and claiming the fish is "intelligently" designing the mollusk." Sometimes you need to shift your perspective to see better.
@@anthonybrett Hey thank you for that clarification -- I thought I was running into that creationist apologist bullshit from 10 years ago. There have been so many instances where people I followed suddenly shifted to being alt-right or some nonsense, that I thought Eric was doing something similar with the god version of intelligent design that was all the rage, haha. Happy to learn I was mistaken. Merry Christmas dude
I am a Christian who believes in Intelligent Design. I can't see how things could have come to be the way they are without an intelligent designer. Nevertheless, I agree with Eric Weinstein that God/Jesus should not be "smuggled" into every discussion. I believe we have to let the scientists do their work and not hijack the discussion prematurely into religion or apologetics. Faith and the theological discipline that it engenders are separate disciplines and fields of study from science. Being different, however, does not have to mean that they are at enmity with each other. In fact, science blossomed in the context of the university which itself blossomed in Christian culture where the desire was to come to a deeper understanding of God's creation. Everything, therefore, is worthy of study and must be done so with objectivity. That objectivity, however, must go both ways. Science must be allowed to investigate without putting a Christian template on everything, but scientist must not be allowed to foist the template of their own "religion", e.g., Darwinism, onto the field of study.
@@coreydallmeyer67 Yes, you only believe it was done by intelligence because you have the intelligence necessary to notice that it exists in the first place. But your intelligence was not intelligently designed. You just think it was because you are intelligent. Also, intelligence doesn’t mean you are Smart.
Agree. Mules (donkey x horse) happen in the wild naturally as well as being bred domestically. Interestingly, the buck stops there, they cannot reproduce.
1. Mutated mussel creates floppy lip. 2. Bass eats lip killing mussel but inhaling its young. Advantage mussel and Bass as bass gets a meal and young bass get a meal and distribution. 3. Mussel evolves ability to survive its lip being eaten. Advantage mussel & bass. 4. Mussel evolves ability to keep its tissues intact. Bass loses its meal but still provides blood meal for young mussels. advantage mussel only 5. Mussel makes tissues more attractive to bass because lip no longer a food supply for the bass. Advantage mussel only. A similar obvious route doubtless exists for the orchid example. Nice examples but no sign of intelligence needed by any of the organisms involved. Not sure what point Eric was trying to make here.
"Mutated mussel creates..." "Mussel evolves ability..." "Mussel evolves ability..." "Mussel makes..." Document the pathway that random genetic mutations and natural selection took to reach each of these stages.
Mimicry and convergent evolution always throws me for a loop. There's several species of moth that look and fly exactly like a hummingbird, and I'm just like what is the point? What evolutionary pressures led to this??
That fact that Eric says in his argument there’s nothing else it could possibly be shows the shallowness of his thinking. As a f there was some way he could be 100% certain of all the factors and influences.
Yep! Exactly what i was thinking! But people nowadays will fall for anyone who sounds very convincing with a little charisma. Eric is absolutely wrong about everything he said. It shows he really doesn’t understand evolution that well. The people agreeing with him are literally just looking for confirmation bias.
@@Kyle906-Q8 Understand evolution? Understanding what the theory claims is not the problem. The problem is proving that it actually happened. There is no proof, just speculation masquerading as proof. And you apparently don't know the difference.
Try to see it this way: you can look back on evolution through time and notice what appears to be a straight beeline from simple to complex. There's always some organism that evolves and survives. But from any one period you cannot predict which organism will be the one to survive into the future. What looks like a designed evolution, is on the moment, just the strongest, smartest, toughest, best at hiding, etc, winning the fight. Another way of saying it, is there is no standard for complexity. Complexity is relative. So for all you know there is a more efficient better organism that can exist 13.8 billion years after the beginning of our universe, but it couldn’t happen on our planet, because our planet had a specific arrangement of matter that lead to the specific evolutionary tree we observe today in the fossil record. We may not be that complex. Or perhaps we are. But this is a helpful way to understand how natural selection can lead to what we **call** incredibly complex things, with random genetic mutations. There may be other factors at play like genes reexpressing themselves, changing, after birth, apparently affected by environmental factors. This is part of a field called epigenetics. But it requires patience and more study, to understand its limits. For now, it is quite apparent the theory of evolution stands firm. Also remember I am no expert, and you should do your own research. Trust no one simply because they sound smart. Learn everything for yourself. Good luck!
@@KieranLeCam Define "simple", because lifeforms have NEVER been simple, the big LIE Neo-Darwinists have always told us. The first cell was complex from the very beginning, because it was made of TRILLIONS of arranged atoms, another fact that the dogmatics knowingly push under the carpet. Another lie: with the first cell began the tree of life. Nope, because even statistics put the survival odds for this cell (created by pure random chance, so the scientific narrative) to zero. Natural selection by random chance can impossibly lead to "incredibly complex things", a delusion told by charlatans like Dawkins. The existence of extremophiles has already destroyed this nonsense. Random chance only exists at the macroscosmos (animals/humans surviving tsunamis, eruptions, plagues, wars, etc). Life and information contributed to terraforming of the planet, to make it compatible for lifeforms after millions of years. When the conditions were given, the first cells (plural!) formed in several spots of the earth. Many died, but the remaining few began the odyssey called Evolution through intelligent design. Irreducible complexity is a fact and has never been debunked like deluded liars try to tell us. The "more efficient better organism" has always been the bacterium. Yet it evolved anyway to all fauna and flora we see today and in the fossils of the past. Darwinism doesn't work in the microcosmos. Never has.
@@joaquinmisajr.1215 Every human generation thinks they are the first enlightened generation. The opinion you express here is at least primitive and coarse. Complete human extinction is extremely unlikely.
I am confused. Aren't the examples provided about "intelligent design" examples of artificial selection by human breeders? In terms of "perception mediated selection", it still falls under the bigger umbrellas of natural selection and sexual selection of evolutionary biology, whether you are talking about eagle's vision or camouflaged flowers. Its a subset of Darwinian selection, not a supplement or replacement.
Yeah, Weinstein just likes to oppose anything he deems "orthodox", even if it doesn't make sense. If you listen to other interviews with him, he appears very much to be a conspiracy theorist.
Nothing to be confused about, I think it's Eric who's confused. It's a bizarre example for him to pick because it had nothing to do with the subject of intelligent design. Seems to me like Eric is really reaching here.
@@JoshWinibergTalking would be a better description of what he's doing! But nevertheless I enjoy listening to him. Not every day you hear people talking about pseudocopulation!
If it turns out that, for example, in humans, female selection is more important to guiding evolution than random mutations, then this may mean you'll have to turn to psychology rather than science (sorry psychologists) to understand what is really happening in human evolution.
I love these conversations because it gets quite frustrating not being an atheist or religious, yet seeing there is something much more to the universe and its life.
What's hilarious about this proposed question is that modern science came about as a result of the presupposition that our universe is driven by order and law, which is why something like the scientific method works at all.
Of course, science has nothing to do with the CAUSE of everything per se. Science only describes what can be observed and measured. Not even the bigbang theory is about the CAUSE. It just tries to describe what was happening. Among the hypotetic phenomena that CANNOT be observed or measured are GODS, ANGELS; SPIRITS and free-living SOULS.
Indeed ... The most important founders of modern science believed in God or Intellligent Design: Nicolaus Copernicus, Johannes Kepler, Galileo Galilei, Isaac Newton, Robert Boyle, Michael Faraday, Joseph Priestley, James Clerk Maxwell, Gregor Mendel (the founder of genetics and abbot of a monastery), Lord Kelvin and Albert Einstein. Plus, many of the pioneers of quantum physics: Werner Heisenberg, Max Plank, Erwin Schrödinger, James Jeans, Louis de Broglie, Wolfgang Pauli and Arthur Eddington. And scientists like the astrophysicist Paul Davies, Simon Conway Morris (Professor of Evolutionary Paleobiology at Cambridge), Alasdair Coles (Professor of Neuro-immunology at Cambridge), John Polkinghorne (who was Professor of Mathematical Physics at Cambridge), Russell Stannard, Freeman Dyson … and Francis Collins, who led the team of 2,400 international scientists on the Human Genome Project and was an atheist until the age of 27, when he became a Christian. Natural sciences started to decline only after Charles Darwin presented his evolution theory in 1859, without understanding anything of genetics or thermodynamics or information science. Over 60% of all Nobel Laureates in Science believe in God (data1900-1999). It seems that the more ignorant a person is, the more he is inclined towards atheism.
Dalai Lama, " Science is higher than religion because based on fact and can be verify the truth in labolatory. Any Buddhist teaching should confirm to science; if discrepancy different from science, we should change it and accept it."
Well, i guess that explains why modern science doesn't have a Buddhist root but a Christian one. Science has a base of assumptions which are largely based on Christian philosophy.
The main issue here is not creationists smuggling God into the debate about Nature but evolutionists excluding cause-and-effect and statistical probability from that debate. And if causal thinking and statistical probability are not the foundation of science, I don't know what is.
Neither Galileo nor Bruno were punished for things they said or wrote as regards their findings, but rather things they said against the Church - at a time when the State they lived in was under the Church.
Ah, and yet another ill-informed person who believes the lies about Galileo and Bruno. Haven't I seen that before. Galileo wasn't even really punished. He lived his life in luxury and continued his studies. And fun fact - the Jesuits looked through his telescope and were convinced. His colleagues however didn't even bother looking through it because they "knew" he was wrong. And Bruno was handed over to the authorities after being questioned by the inquisition and they asked for his live to be spared but the court killed him anyway. There are so much lies spread about the church it's unbelievable. Many of these lies date back to the French revolution BTW. For an unbiased view I'd suggest the channel "Esoterica" run by Dr Justin Sledge. As a secular jew he's certainly not spreading "pro Christianity" propaganda.
In Galileo's case the Church was following the science. About 99% of scientists who lived at that time (natural philosophers etc) thought Galileo was wrong. He was TOTALLY wrong about the moon and the tides (as the Church correctly pointed out). The pope told Galileo his theory was interesting and to put both sides in dialogue format but Galileo in his arrogance insulted the pope, it got personal and all went pear shaped. Some of Galileo's research was funded by the Church but no one mentions that either.
@@marcokite "but no one mentions that either". Yep, the anti-Christian movements have always been strong, and the (luckily) short lived Inquisition was used to inflame the propaganda invented after the Renaissance to make a blunt separation to the medieval "Dark Ages"; "forgetting" that more blood was spilt in the Modern Age than before (not to mention the hundreds of millions killed by the atheists through Communism, Maoism, Polpotism, US-military-, pharma- and fast food-industry). Also funny is how the atheists use Galileo as the paladin of modern Science while conveniently "forgetting" his deep studies on alchemy.
WTF?! Galileo was placed under house arrest, and not executed because he was under the protection of Lorenzo de Medici, the most powerful patron of Renaissance culture in Italy and de facto ruler of the Florentine Republic. Giordano Bruno fought with the Catholic Church and the Office of the Inquisition for over 7 years. Eventually, Pope Clement VIII ordered him sentenced to death as an impenitent and pertinacious heretic, on February 8, 1600. A few weeks later Giordano Bruno was taken to Campo de’ Fiori, and burned alive. Both men were persecuted because of their scientific research, which was inconsistent with the dogma and political framework of the Church.
"Perception mediated selection" as described here, just seems like a fancy way of saying artificial selection and/or a jumbled mix of proposed articifical selection and natural selection. Brett says there is a group of scientists "who do not believe there is a persuasive case for random mutation as being the major engine of selection" random mutation is not an engine of selection, its a source of variation, sounds like they don't understand the theory correctly. The books were not closed after the neo darwinian synthesis, there has since been the dispelling of the assumed constant steady gradualism in evolving species and has been replaced with punctuated equilibrium in where species tend to stay in the same form in stasis until selection pressures are put upon them by changing enviroment or competition and the population can change quite fast in a relatively short amount of time as a result. There has been the development of the entire field of genetics, and discoveries such as, endogenous retroviruses(ERVs) allowing us to track lines of common decent by germline viral infections and adding a whole new independent confirmation of evolution theory and genetic drift and other things, random mutation and natural selection are not the entirety of evolutionary theory. There are lots of symbiotic relationships that were once seperate and later developed to be dependent upon each other for reproduction and/or survival. With both examples Eric is basically arguing irreducible complexity, which has been refuted with real examples and theoretical ones again and again, Brett is arguing these symbiotic relationships are not developed through natural selection but instead are intelligently designed because the relationship appears irreducibly complex, but it is far from it, Kenneth miller and others defeated these arguments in court in a case called kitsmiller vs dover area school district, over intelligent design in like 2004 or 2005, kenneth miller's videos on it were brilliant and he is a theist and a brilliant scientist. This just seems to be along same lines of the claims of Expelled No Intelligence Allowed by Ben Stein in which they falsely claimed fair science was being shut out due to anti religious views, the reality was stuff like getting their paper removed because they attempted to skip the peer review process and other claims that wildly misrepresented the true events.
There is a difference between ‘Adaptations developing in an environment with perception or perceiving beings’ and what we understand when someone says intelligent design. ‘Intelligent design’ suggests a transcendent being outside the system as whole, or that has no evident presence and adaptations that result from the existence of the minds within that environment. The clam in the example evolved as a result of a stimulus prescient and evident within the system. Bad example if you are giving any credence to a believe in supernatural intelligence.
The problem is: the perceiving beings do not make conscious changes, it is done by a conscious source of pure information within the lifeform itself. Random mutations are, as known, always deadly, and the desperate Darwinists know this but would never acknowledge it openly. The positive ones involve synchronized (!) rearrangements of trillions of atoms and molecules, leading often to irreducible complexity, greatly described by Michael Behe in his evergreen "Darwin's Black Box", still unchallenged by the reactionary dogmatic Darwinists. Only with intelligent design are mimicry, symbiosis, instinct, behavior, altruism, adaptation and evolution (the real one!) explainable.
@@kimanimzalendo367 the very point is ‘outside the system’ meaning is that there is an observable universe and known forces and pressures that can be measured and accounted for. God is not one of them inside the earth level rule set. Any other unseen and undetected force or influence can not be considered and is t necessary to explain material questions and most probably, being unnecessary, likely does not exist.
@@kimanimzalendo367 That is a great question that answers itself.. Evidence inside the system can not point to something outside the system..the evidence itself is the mark made.. luckily there aren’t any evidences like that at all, not the bacterial flagellum not the eyeball.. Those classic examples of irreducible complexity have been demonstrated to have every stage of evolutionary predecessor… You believe a mythical story told as a made up explanation to explain our lives before we had the proper sense making tools to actually observe and report the real answers. I would say put down childish pursuits and actually try to understand what actually happened. It is so wild and interesting it couldn’t be invented.. but it’s explanations are magnificent and gorgeous and far more compelling than just “because god made it from clay with magic.”
It's not just religious scientists who question darwinism, many atheist do as well based on the extreme improbability and other huge problems in darwinism.
I'm not a Christian, but I have great respect for Dr. James Tours work with criticism of the origin of life field. I find him very careful and complete his thoughts, while personally I find his detractors often very dishonest in trying to tarnish him personally, while ignoring the immense gaps in the origins of biological life.
I got your Dr James Tours COVERED. And not with opinion. Just gravity, thermodynamics, chemistry, and physics. Google "Nick Lane: The electrical origins of life" and get ready for an hour of BIG ANSWERS about how life can be automatically created on any wet, rocky planet or moon.
I find his statement at the beginning of the video to be the exact opposite of what happens in the scientific community, that "atheist scientists" are somehow afraid of the religious scientists criticism. Whaaaa????
This feels very much like a completely semantic issue. “Intelligent design“ is a term used to describe a higher intelligence designing each organism that we see before us and it’s miraculous complexity. I don’t see anything in these two examples that Weinstein gives that Is consistent with that kind of intelligent design.
You're the one who needs to understand the intelligent design proposition. It starts with the DNA which is a code, an information system. Start from reading "The signature in the cell"
@@emmanuel8310 The proposition is that life was deliberately designed by a higher power. This talk has been around so long, that when it started, you could use slurs online without getting banned. Smartphones weren't even around at the time.
@@emmanuel8310 "It starts with the DNA which is a code, an information system." It's a collection of chemicals that obey the laws of physics, You choose to call it a "code" because it can store information using that natural process. That doesn't make it a code.
He doesn't ever mention the transition issue where some say too many perfect closed proteins would have to occur all at once in order for a cell to become "levelled up" to the next complexity that would allow it to continue living and replicating.
Both meiosis and mitosis have mechanisms to repair coding errors so that daughter cells don’t have mutations. Genomes prefer stasis because they know that mutations are harmful. The cognitive dissonance required to believe that evolution outsmarts the genome and creates mutations that improves the species, despite the built-in repair mechanisms, is huge, for me.
Genomes don't "prefer" anything. Similarly, evolution can't "outsmart" anything and it doesn't "create" mutations. Mutations are a result of copying errors, which is just another way of saying your purported mechanisms for repairing errors are, like everything else, imperfect. Did you suspect they were? Your ridiculous logic here depends upon it.
@@jasonvance4801 I guess you're just too stupid to get it. If mutations "cause changes" then, obviously, your proposed mechanism (you don't say exactly what you are talking about) for genome "repair" is itself imperfect. Otherwise, there would be no mutations. So, why would it be so hard to "outsmart"? Your misconception gets worse, though. The idea that evolution needs to "outsmart" genomes that "prefer" "stasis" (whatever the hell that is supposed to mean) implies some kind of direction evolution intends to go. It isn't a conscious agent, dummy, and it isn't teleological. And no, mutations do not "cause changes" (if by "cause changes" you mean evolution). Mistakes happen in the genome. Those mistakes are mutations. Those mutations can be selected for or against by the environment, by virtue of the resulting genetically influenced characteristics' aiding or hindering the individual's probability of survival until reproduction. This selection pressure does not come from the mutations (OBVIOUSLY!) but from the environment's action on the phenotype. The variability of allele frequency in the population yielded by this selection process (as well as others) over time is what we call evolution. What you balk at by mistaking it for "improvement" is actually just a changing level of fitness for the environment the population happens to find itself in. For example, the amoeba is just as fit for its environment as the human is; i.e., one is not "more evolved" than the other because evolution is not a teleological process. It isn't going somewhere. It isn't a means to an end. It's just what happens. It's very simple to understand if you aren't a moron.
That's a lot of words to say "selective breeding". And no, atheistic scientists don't deny it - they use it (mainly dogs) to show that evolution is a real phenomenon.
I'm at 5:26 and reeling from this perplexing feedback. First, it's complete and total equivocation on the term "intelligent design". Something like a donkey isn't what any ID proponent means. Zero. Zilch. ID proponents mean magic. God magic-ed things into existence and there's no reason to think further. The end. They mean "irreducible complexity" and "the eye is impossible to have evolved" and so forth. Or they're like James Tour and tell their rabid, uncritical supplicants "science is broken and we should shut it down" while then childishly acknowledging to their peers that they have no actual science based reason for their chest puffing bravado. What happened Eric? Why be an ID apologist? Sheesh.
*"ID proponents mean magic. God magic-ed things into existence and there's no reason to think further. The end."* That is a straw man argument, which is a logical fallacy.
@@firecloud77 it literally is not a straw man. “Magic” is a term theists object to because it makes their perspective sound absurd. Not my problem they’re sensitive.
@@HumblyQuestioning “Magic” is a term theists object to because theists do not believe God creates things through the mechanism of "magic." Therefore the use of the term "magic" is an intentional mischaracterization of the theist's argument which, by definition, is a straw man argument and a logical fallacy.
@@firecloud77 no sir. It is not a mischaracterization. It is the correct term that makes theists uncomfortable. Feeling uncomfortable with your argument doesn’t make it a straw man. You can’t hide from responsibility by proclaiming victimhood. If anyone is fallacious it is usually the theist. Primarily, special pleading and equivocation, the two most common theistic tools for combatting cognitive dissonance. Example: anyone aside from Jesus turned water into wine, or raised a child from the dead, or walked on water, etc, that would be magic.
There are some problems with what he's saying. For example, natural selection is not driven by mutation. The changes wrought by selective pressures are just a selection among existing options. The moths that become darker-colored when the bark of local trees get darker because of pollution are not mutating. The potential for dark and light are both already there. What is happening is that the prevalence of existing genes is being changed by the selective pressure.
@@chrisfonden6431 Well, while we're on the same page philosophically, I don't exactly agree with that specific assertion: Mutations are random breakages of the genetic program for an individual. Therefore they do "add information", by messing up the info that's already there. Selective forces then determine that only the tiny percentage that are accidentally helpful or harmless get passed on much. But that's just a means of weeding those out, not the source of giraffes getting longer necks. The neck change is primarily just the changing of focus of existing genes. And while Darwin was correct about Natural Selection as the shaper of animals, but wrong about it as the origin of species. Genetics hadn't been discovered, yet, so he had no idea of the mechanics of gene transmission, or how insular genetics allow mutations to change the chromosomal structure of a pool of a species, so it drifts away from the physical architecture of the rest of the species, eventually becoming genetically incompatible. And it is, indeed, the genetic compatibility that defines a species, not how it looks. Poodles and chihuahuas are still genetically identical to wolves (to oversimplify, as they're hybrids), not a different species. They just have been selected for different gene focus, giving them separate characteristics in a superficial way.
Yes and no. It's been a long time since I did basic biology but if my memory serves me correctly, it is mutation being the driving force behind EVOLUTION, and evolution is selected upon. So yes your basic variation of genetic traits (immediate selection pressure) doesn't have enough time for mutations to be relevant. However, over a long time period of time the selection pressure of mutations comes into play.
@@KAZVorpal mutations do not add new information to the genome. Just scrambling what is already there. No beneficial mutations have been observed. Poodles and Chihuahuas would not survive in the wild. More devolution than evolution
@@Teo_liveNope. Speciation has nothing to do with how an animal looks, nor the mechanics of its anatomy. Speciation is only chromosomal architecture. The mutations that cause speciation have nothing to do with natural selection, other than that unviable mutations are less likely to be passed on. It's all about mutations in isolated gene pools. Natural selection is not the mechanism.
Even Dawkins would be a theist in Newtons time. We should not judge the efficacy of theist scientists as long as they don't get their religion in the way of their work. Brain can split worlds like that, personally I prefer to stay consequential in the pursue of understanding the world through science and get rid of the unfalsifiable nonsense that I might need to feel comfortable or just was indoctrinated as a child.
How to mangle both natural and artificial selection in under 10 minutes. This is right out of the Jordan Peterson playbook of using word salad to avoid taking a stand on religion.
The grounding faith of most scientist's is materialism, and the dominant methodology is reductionism. This has revealed a wondrously organized world, from the cell to the brain to the atom to the cosmos. Einstein's motivation was explicitly religious, albeit in a pantheistic sense. Maxwell was a devout Christian, Newton acknowledged the existence of God, Mendel was a Catholic priest , as was LeMaitre (originator of the Big Bang model). The Faith vs. Science "debate" is as silly as an Art vs. Science debate woukd be.
Protestantism in its infinite fracturing and "faith alone" sola scriptura dance, artificially removed sanity from theism, the ground of sanity. We've been staggering along ever since. And now we are at the brink of annihilating mankind.
Materialism isn't a sensible idea. Empiricism is. For example, String Theorists constantly told us - X could happen - and wasted a lot our our time in the telling. S.T. is fully compatible with materialism but is incompatible with empiricism. Likewise an empiricist idea can even be anti-materialist! One good example of this is Newton's "instantaneous action at a distance". I'm not sure anyone ever believed in that. But many believed that the world behaved as is IAaaD were so. This search - especially by theoretical physicists to describle the "mind of God" - AKA the "TRUE nature of reality" is wasteful of our time. It hasn't convinced me that either Eric or Brian know more about the "TRUE nature of reality" than I do. The reason I disparage this attitude is because way too many people are overconfident in their beliefs; and this over-confidence seems to feed conceited, censorious attitudes. Most of those people seem to be convinced "materialists".
As a scientist I'm telling you there's a lot of people who do this major, lack emotional intelligence, empathy, creativity, and critical thinking skills, and disdain anyone and everything that possesses or requires these qualities to engage in. The radical zeal they have for their chosen faith, materialism and reductionism, is a reflection of their personal God complexes and inability to comprehend the fact that they too are subject to human limitations as well as the whole scientific method. The people who lead to meaningful breakthroughs are not these people. There is s reason there are so many grossly racist and bigoted people in science. The reductionsim and materialism when applied to anything but pure scientific data allows them to inject their ideology (white supremacy most often) into everything they see while maintaining that they're being the rational ones.
But, but, what’s wrong with the idea that the orchids that didn’t have the extra petal mutation died off in the unfriendly environment? If we keep reminding ourselves that those who weren’t lucky mutants all died off, the natural selection idea holds firm. The design looks that way to us, clever designers. We can’t help ourselves.
Different examples of possible intelligent design: how did the flagellum mechanism gradually evolve into what it is used by bacteria as Natural Selection postulates? From what I understand, we do not have explanation for how the various parts could naturally / randomly evolve into the mechanism in use now. All parts are required to make it work so just two or three elements that happen to fall together would not result in something useful. It APPARENTLY had to have all of the elements (and there are several) come together to simultaneously form a complex mechanism that is highly useful. I believe that the evolution of the eye is a similar mystery. I know science is not giving up on natural selection to explain this but the odds are very great that there has to be another explanation. It takes views from many different angles to figure out the most difficult questions. Religious scientists do have insights to offer. No matter the scientist however, we SHOULD always rigorously question any insight.
I don’t see any design in Erick’s examples. Co-evolution seems infinitely more likely an explanation. Design would imply intention. A clam or a flower can’t choose its genetics, or choose the mutations in the genetics of its offspring.
You clearly haven't researched this enough or don't wish to. With the modern available knowledge, Intelligent design is statistically infinitely stronger than the evolution hypothesis.
@@daw60-gx3fo yeah nah, I think I know the arguments… Usually something along the lines of: “the statistical improbability of life evolving is just so vast that it can only be explained by a divine creator!”. Yes, well that is unconvincing, as everything we know and continue to discover is always explained by an unfathomably vast and old universe, and the anthropic principle.
Terence McKenna said: “Modern science is based on the principle: ‘Give us one free miracle and we’ll explain the rest.’' The one free miracle is the appearance of all the mass and energy in the universe and all the laws that govern it in a single instant from nothing.
You can believe whatever you want, the Scientific method always points the way to fact. In my world you can pick which ever one you want. you will end up responsible for the outcome.
I mean, that depends on what they were trying to do... If they were focused on creating man as some sort of perfect being, then you're probably correct... However, that may not have been the intention... Or their perception of perfect may be very different to ours... I personally think intelligent design is a weak theory... I highly doubt the Bible in various ways... This said, our scope of awareness is arguably potentially quite small.... Who knows?
Scientists research and try to understand material and existing elements but cannot figure out the how they were made, or why. Scientist can view how all galaxies and solar systems rotate on flat planes, in an organized matter, but don’t know why. They can observe gravity but do not understand what causes it. The more scientists observe and research, the more they admit, someone purposefully designed all things.
You don’t really have a good grasp of the subject, it’s not your fault, the educators themselves don’t realize the Cambrian explosion itself disproves evolution as far as they understand it.
@@maxamos7not really, I'm not the hardcore atheist I once was, but intelligent design and selection are different things. To conflate the two is ridiculous.
@@JoshWiniberg I think he's clearly laying out the case for intelligent design instead of natural selection for these creatures. But yes, you can believe in intelligent design and also believe we've evolved from base materials (and thus believe natural selection led to all creatures we have today). WLC I believe holds this view.
Extended Phenotype - The next scientific revolution will be when Richard Dawkins converts Isaac Asimov's 3 Volumes of Understanding Physics into Solid State Metaphysics. I had the 3 volume collection years ago in the early 90's. But in my late twenties I became obsessed with Creation Science and gave them away. It was my early 30's I grew into a Theistic Evolutionary view. I found them recently online again. When Led Zeppelin comes together they will establish their Finest Album - Metaphysical Graffiti. May Sir John Henry Bonham's name be sung in Heaven Forever Ever After. ❤ I think a magnanimous approach to G.K. Chesterton's 'Distributism' straddles agape 'compassionate justice' aligned along economic channels that naturally feed each other. Distributism is an economic theory asserting that the world's productive assets should be widely owned rather than concentrated. In short, no one is considered superior to another, especially NOT for cosmetic reasons such as physical beauty. James 1:27 says, "Pure and genuine religion in the sight of God the Father means caring for orphans and widows in their distress and refusing to let the world corrupt you." G. K. Chesterton considered one's home and family the centrepiece of society. He recognized the family unit and home as centrepieces of living and believed that every man should have their property and home to enable him to raise and support his family. Distributists recognize that strengthening and protecting the family requires that society be nurturing. I really do love her Sacred Heart til death do us part. We lost a good man with Gram Parsons back in 1973. I told her I would ride her Wild Horses straight through The Apocalypse Sowing the Seeds of Love just like Tears for Fears -- when you are moved by the Spirit you manifest love, joy, peace, forbearance, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control. These are the weapons we use in battle. Against such things there is no law.. I was born on August 20th, 1969, days after Woodstock for this exact reason. The Apostle Paul said Question all things. Hold onto that which is Sacred. The Sacred Heart of the Virgin Mary Loves All Life to the Fullest.❤ To the Africans, the Sacred Heart of the Virgin Mary appears African. To the American Indians, the Sacred Heart of the Virgin Mary appears American Indian. To the Asians, the Sacred Heart of the Virgin Mary appears Asian. To the Australians, the Sacred Heart of the Virgin Mary appears Australian. To the Europeans, the Sacred Heart of the Virgin Mary appears European. To the Indians, the Sacred Heart of the Virgin Mary appears Indian. To the Melanesians, the Sacred Heart of the Virgin Mary appears Melanesian. To the Micronesians, the Sacred Heart of the Virgin Mary appears Micronesian. To the Polynesians, the Sacred Heart of the Virgin Mary appears Polynesian. From now on all generations will call me blessed, for the Mighty One has done great things for me- holy is His name. His mercy extends to those who fear Him, from generation to generation. - Luke 1:48-50 ❤
For me, it's mainly 2 things: 1) DNA. It's information. No where else in the universe does information exist where there wasn't an author of that information. 2) Reproduction. How could even the FIRST cell know to reproduce? If there isn't a point to life, why would organisms care if they reproduced or not, and where does the point of life come from? Moral codes. Not biological ones.
I'm not religious... I'm much closer to Dawkins in thinking. However, Eric makes a very very good point that (in this day and age when atheism is the establishment) the religious intellectual may be able to ask questions that the establishment won't. Yes, I'm suspicious of how far that can go back to Jesus, but i prefer that over trying to shut down certain scientists.
Science is all about asking the questions no1 thought off to ask before. People from different backgrounds and worldviews are key to this process. Group-think is the antithesis of curiosity.
@@aidanya1336 it is certainly good to have an open mind; I would just be careful about what you are saying. Good science is not about diversity and worldviews. Those things are human centric....just like religion is human centric.
@@warrenny ofc it is not about diversity. Diversity has no role in the work itself. But different people think in different ways. Where some get stuck on a problem, someone else might view it from a different angle and see a solution the other never considered.
Surely "intelligent design" when referenced by Athiests in this context, refers to "God" as the intelligent desinger?As for the bass, this could have just evolved with successful mutations over generations without "intelligent" input by the Bass. (edit) This is nonsense to call these examples "intelligent design" what is he talking about? Dawkins would debunk these claims without breaking a sweat.
Dawkins can believe what he likes, as anyone, and other than stating his beliefs, or write about them, he does nothing that could cause harm, he's more of a philosopher, and I think if he was presented with proper formulated arguments and proof from a person with his debating skills, he might reconsider. I don't see ill intent in his arguments, yet there are people who will purposely either avoid considering higher beings for the purpose of either feeling better with themselves when carrying out their ill intents. This is evident from people, especially nowadays with AI and such, those people are so keen on accepting the possibility of an infinitely capable AI, like a God, yet they absolutely dismiss the idea of a God in terms of the Bible or something similar. Why do you think this is? And if you think about it, the idea of a God as creator, does inherently give God infinite power, I mean if He created a universe, then... on the other hand, a created program in a lab that somehow in a sudden moment becomes more powerful than the universe itself, sounds a bit like a joke tbh. So yeah, I don't know, yet there are people who are willing to believe this is possible, but a God(s) as creator(s) is just out of the question. That's kinda suspect. Either these people are actually stupid, or they just prefer their beliefs as in their mind they could use this to carry out their ill intent, no consequences whatsoever. It makes them feel safer and gives them unchecked powers over others. In my opinion such an AI, the idea of it is silly, just as I find silly all those searching for theories of everything. Theories of everything might be silly, but believing an infinitely powerful human created AI is possible, but a creator(s) is not, is just suspect, has no logic behind it, other than human limitations, make-belief etc. And really, just because you wanna believe you'll escape consequences because you believe in no creator, does not necessarily make it so. An ostrich hiding her head in the sand still does not escape. It just don't wanna see it. As for Bible alternate theories I have heard, extra-planar aliens and the like, well, something extra-planar is out of this world. In another plane. Might have created this world as well. You may as well call it God, does it matter? So why would this theory be more acceptable than the Bible God? Cause ethics and ill intent. Again. In someone's limited understanding, an extra-planar alien could excuse him, while the Bible God seems kinda strict on this. And if an extra-planar alien/being whatever does not excuse them? Then what? An AI is obviously the best case scenario to escape, they might send a team of hackers to hack it. It's mechanical, got no ethics or morals against anything, they might control it and become Gods. Well, all the best. PS: People are stupid.
Designs: 1) Humans have 60,000 miles of blood vessels. 2) Human lungs have 15.000 miles of blood vessels. 3) Humans make 3 million red blood cells per second. 4) Humans have 100 billion miles of DNA enough to reach the sun and back 1000 times.
It's crazy how many people will blindly follow a narrative portrayed by people who are seemingly in a position of authority. Don't think critically folks, just follow the science.
Yes but unfortunately a lot of science is driven by existing theories and consensus. New compelling data doesnt very often overturn science. This is particularly true when funding and careers are on the line. Theres a great book by Kuhn called The Structure of Scientific Revolutions where he explains how it takes years of overwhelming evidence to change scientific opinion. Science is still the best tool we have for human development. Its neither pure nor perfect though.
Yes I run into situations not understanding the perspective (More like a Senior NCO) watching the people "Marching" to a "Comm link" (Thought amplifier) with a story. Synchronized to within +- 10 seconds of what I was doing. All the way back to 1989.
Interesting that Eric would choose mediated selection as his evidence of intelligence. Not everything coming from nothing or life coming from non-life. It goes with that thought that says, “give me one miracle and I can explain the rest”. In other words, ignore the miracle that preceded your explanation.
Can someone please help me understand the bass and clam thing. Eric says that Smart Bass (that don’t get fooled by the trick) would survive over time and therefore there would be no more such clams. But couldn’t one make the argument that the aggressive, hungrier bass (even if dumber) would survive over time, therefore leading to the positive evolution of the clam? Perhaps I am missing something.
The whole example makes no sense. The clam isn't intelligently designing anything because the lip is the product of ordinary natural selection. The bass isn't intelligently designing anything (it is stupidly being manipulated). But Eric says that "the system" is intelligently designed, by which he means the interaction between the clam and the bass that apparently benefits both. OK, so who or what is the "designer" of "the system"? There isn't any, because the "system" wasn't intelligently designed.
It seems like a forced example. The mussel/clam needs fish to reproduce itself because fish are how its larva get spread around. The mussel itself is as dumb as a rock, the fish is a lot cleverer than the mussel because the fish has a brain. In a sense, it's the intelligence/perception of the fish that drives that mussel's lip to gradually resemble a prey fish more & more. The term "perception-driven selection" rather than "intelligent design" seems more accurate. The smarter the fish are, the stronger the selection pressure for the mussel's lip to improve its appearance. But remember the mussel doesn't have to fool every fish, just one of them. The dumber of the two species is driven by the intelligence/perceptual ability of the smarter one. It doesn't have to be a purely parasitic arrangement. I think there is a fig which has an arrangement with an insect where they both benefit. Although, every living thing tries to a get a free ride wherever it can! It may have started with a random stripe or dot pattern which meant slightly more predator fish gave it a nibble. You only need a tiny advantage to get natural selection moving. Over the generations the striped/spotted lip mussels reproduce more successfully and the more that lip evolves to look like a prey fish in tiny increments, the more successful those mussels become & they come to dominate the population.
He is doing the either one or the other fallacy; in nature two things can both help or hinder different parts of a population. I could use his form of argument that getting a good night's sleep is critical for good health; thus difficulty in sleeping is counterproductive and will have been weeded out by evolution. There are insomniacs and poor night sleepers; so evolution must be wrong. Or in a dangerous world we need people who can stay awake at night and can contribute to the overall survival; even if they are less healthy and die sooner.
Your insomnia analogy would be good except I don't think that is normally heritable. People have insomnia for non-genetic reasons. If there was a gene that caused one to sleep five hours a day, though needing eight, that might be selected against due to a higher percentage of fatality from a lack of sleep or the accidental deaths that would result. @@craigbritton1089
@@dontvoteforanybody3715 "the lip is the product of ordinary natural selection". For a lip to develop into "something" resembling a fish living just by coincidence in those waters, is believing in something beyond magic and miracles. Yet, Darwinists do exactly that, and with amazing fervor. The designer of the system is a combination of information (the basic essence of the universe) and subconsciouness. Else, mimicry, altruism, symbiosis wouldn't exist at all, nor the archerfish that catches insects (outside the water) spitting at them with perfect aim, as if "knowing" the laws of light refraction.
As intelligent as Eric is, I'm surprised that he is making this statement. If you use a phrase that is charged such as this one is. You can expect people to hear you saying something other than what you are intending. You must clarify your definitions, before you criticize someone for misunderstanding you, when it is you, using a highly charged phrase instead of just clearly illustrating the concept you are attempting to express.
I agree with your questions about logic and appearances. This seems to be in deep left field. I hope other readers do not make the same mistake of calling this Science. BTW: As of about 2017, it is against the law to teach "Intelligent Design" as Science. However, I think this is following the same path of ignoring the law as the Scopes in the 1920;s. Creationism is alive and well and Science is on life-support.
How, when and why should science "close the books" on any significant question? As long as we live in time and have a future, there can always be new evidence that will call settled conclusions into question.
I'm sorry but I read some of Dawkin's books, he talks about the orchids specifically in great length and would consider both these cases to be examples of the extended phenotype - i.e. a bass' genes for getting fooled and biting a mussel's lip actually result in the phenotype of the mussel to include that lip. He also mentions that Darwin extrapolated natural selection of all species from the observation of artificial selection (intelligent design) of human domesticated species. While it's a refreshing rhetorical twist, hearing intelligent design describing a real thing in nature, I don't think he would dispute it and say "This is out of the question.", he might just say that the phrase has been so profaned that it's better to avoid it and find a better phrase. Just as "flat earth" could mean a really smooth desert with no dunes, cracks or plants, and this is surely possible, but the phrase itself colloquially means other things. I agree with your factual points here, I'm just highly skeptical that anyone would refuse to debate you on these factual points, and would require some more evidence of this (rather than handwaving "scared atheist academics").
9:53 How would you hope to explain on evolutionary terms the origin of the human language? Ape has phoneme = morpheme = phrase. Human has phonem + phoneme ... = morpheme; morpheme + morpheme ... = phrase. Ape has pragmatic messages. "How are you?" "Want some food?" "Flee into the trees from the lion!!!" "I'm sad" "I'm happy" ... Human has all of that + notional messages, extending into not immediately relevant past, future, at a distance, negatives, conditionals ... How would you explain the transition? Tomasello, on Dukes, refused to answer that question.
@@FromThe3021 "I don’t know enough to say your heart is filled with the lord but there’s a mutual grasp between your mind and God." How did you measure this exactly?
@@frosted1030 - How I signed off really says it all. But here’s the gist of the gist, a really poor explanation that I hope helps. _Them not seeing a connection between the two indicates they have a grasp of God, an understanding, in their mind. Taking that very concept as God itself, it isn’t possible unless God has a grasp of their mind and ultimately it does not make them a Godly or religious person, that is gauged by the heart._
@@FromThe3021 "Taking that very concept as God itself, it isn’t possible unless God has a grasp of their mind and ultimately it does not make them a Godly or religious person, that is gauged by the heart." So.. this imaginary friend of yours is as real as anything else as long as we can grasp it? Do you think Star Wars really happened? What about fairies? These things have much greater specific definitions than your silly imaginary friend. We can grasp them, even children can grasp these concepts. Is that the low low bar you use to determine something? Describe your methodology for determining the truth and how you apply that methodology without hypocrisy to every situation.
@@frosted1030 - I can’t explain it, you have to find your own enlightening. I’m not even exactly sure what you’re getting at with your analogy’s but if you genuinely are looking to understand, scrap any assumption of what you may think I’m claiming to know to be real. Such assumptions are based on your other assumptions of what someone you define as religious believes. I’m assuming. Maybe clarify your definition of God and ask very specific questions if you wish to continue the chat. It’s not really my domain, it’s more of a tacit understanding shared but I have no problem helping guide you because it wasn’t that long ago, I was you. Maybe not as polite to the crazies. FYI - The crazies are still the crazies. They are the ones who haven’t found what OP has.
"Many of these (brave religious) people who do not believe there is a persuasive case for random mutation being the major driver of selection" I took evolutionary biology and genetics courses in college, late 1980's, and it was not doctrine even back then that random mutation is the major driver of evolution. So, the first statement used as example to support whatever point Eric Weinstein is making is a false premise. My understanding has been that although random mutation often provides some new genetic material, most selection acts on traits and genes already present in the genome.
95% of religious adults, including people in the sciences and medical community, were simply raised that way. It's not so easy to reject the family and community from which you were raised.
If you and Eric Weinstein and a billion other podcasts had ANY integrity they would give EQUAL TIME to Communists, Marxists, Socialists, Antinatalists like me and Amanda Sukenick and Lawrence Anton, Greens like me and Dr Jill Stein and Ralph Nader and Howie Hawkins, Antinatalist Animal Rights Vegans (AARVs) like me, Anarchists, Sovereign Citizens, biocultured meat advocates like Isha Datar and New Harvest, longevity escape velocity (LEV) advocates like the Foresight Institute and Aubrey de Grey, Sovereign Citizens, Auditors, Libertarians, Separatists like Brexiters and anyone seeking to separate themselves or their town or county or province or state from a larger region such as a country, and PRISONERS (since ALL prisoners are prisoners of war) and ask for all THESE people's ideas and theories about cosmology as you and big media have given UNJUSTLY and STUPIDLY and FOR NO REASON AT ALL EXCLUSIVELY to christurds, religionists/cultists, religious extremists, religious fanatics, subhumans. ANTINATALIST FACT: EVERYBODY WAS FORCED INTO THE WORLD WITHOUT THEIR CONSENT. THEREFORE THE OPINION OF EVERY SINGLE Communist, prison etc is JUST as important as the opinion of ANYONE ELSE, and certainly INFINITELY MORE important than the opinion of the subhuman rightwing religiontard, about the origin of the universe, etc.
Correct! Saying evolution means "it's all random" is like saying every female on this planet randomly chooses mates, including humans. We all know how much of their intelligence our females invest on that decision. They might sometimes make unwise decisions, but it's definitely not random. Just ask short guys!
Random mutation is plausible, but not probable. De Vries was a patch for Darwin. Consider cosmic rays bombarding DNA. It's like firing a machine gun at an automobile and expecting a better car. Not in a million iterations.
Biology is not auto mechanic; and analogies/ parables do not prove anything; they can only illustrates a true or false point. And since DNA has mutations that seldom destroy the organism instantly ( cancer takes time); your analogy would be more accurate if you said that something not understanding the physics of aerodynamics kept randomly changing the shape of cars that needed an advantage to get somewhere sooner; and those cars could reproduce themselves. Have you heard of DNA? Cars are built in a factory; organisms reproduce themselves.
What is Brett talking about? Scientists who are brave? If there were no bias, which is every single scientist preferred position as the default position, there’s nothing to be brave about. There’s no hurdle to jump.
The search for God leads you to a man with an imagination and a pen and paper. To consider anything else seems like trying to find the real being Bugs Bunny was modelled after. There isn't a real being behind an imaginary being invented by man. So legitimizing imaginary beings seems insane to me. Can I have 3 million to find the Bones of Bugs Bunny? Um... he has no bones... Bugs isn't real... he was created as an imaginary being by the mind of man. Just like every god ever. There is nothing intriguing about finding imaginary beings. That is delusion, not science.
None of these "books" AKA theories, should be closed until they can be definitely proven false. Lack of observable evidence is not the same as proving incorrect. That is a fundamental concept of science!
You want ABSOLUTE TRUTH? LAW OF CONTRADICTION A is B, illogical impossible contradiction. This is an ABSOLUTE FACT. Let's plug data into formula and critically evaluate the absolute fact. A non conscious non intelligent non being caused the illogical impossible effect of B your conscious intelligent being in the universe Dude this is A is B illogical impossible contradiction never witnessed in nature or labs.
I don't really understand the "mechanism" of "closing a book" to a scientific theory (probably because I'm not a scientist). Who is and how are they "closing" these theories? How can an entire field whose foundation it is to constantly try to disprove established theories have theories that are no longer allowed to be worked on? It seems pretty reductive for an ever-evolving field.
@vagrantknights it stands behind consensus. However, concensus is supposed to change when provided new information. Closed books have a way to reopen regardless of whether people wish them to or not. Exampes: The big bang... was considered a closed book and is now being seriously looked at again. The age of the universe is also being revisited due to new galaxies being discovered that "weren't supposed to be" And all of this is due to the JWT
The impetus to explore nature came from the idea that God is rational and man was given a mind to explore the world God made. Science evolved from the observation of nature made mostly by clerics and monastics.
Erik's genius lies in his ability to recall all the details and nuances related to the profoundly deep and intrinsically mesmerizing topic at hand that he has spoken about for the sole purpose of remaining on track or in the very least not loop back on itself, long, long after the rest of us can remember what it is we're discussing.
@@user-sk7jt3pf1c . He's been one steaming pile of resentment since the legit physics community debunked his pet theory, and "No one quite lies the way the morally indignant do!" (Nietzsche)...
Selection is adaptation based on a variation of an existing genetic construct. The question is how the genetic construct got here in the first place and the evidence for it being from ordinary selection is lacking.
To say that Dawkins is afraid is ridiculous and his books literally speak to intelligent design. The Blind Watchmaker is written entirely to challenge this notion.
Yeah..."If only I could look just like that thing that keeps coming to fiddle with my faddle, I could trick it into faddling me without having to be fiddled with!"
Bingo. With respect to the clam example, he doesn't conclude that the clam has 20/20 vision; he concludes that "the system" is intelligently designed. What does he mean by "the system"? I guess the interaction of clam and bass. But who or what designed that? Nothing! He brings nothing to the critical point. He's just redefining 'intelligent design' to fit a standard evolutionary process, and pretending that is profound. Dawkins would make mince meat of this amateurish argument, IMO.
If I remember correctly, this expression did appear in one of the Peterson-Harris debates, but it was introduced not by any of them, but by the moderator in the occasion, Douglas Murray.
It is obvious that precluding answers, regardless of what the evidence may be showing, shows religious fervor on both sides of the divide. Often the naturalistic side show more fervor and dogmatism. Why it is illegal or wrong to "smuggle Jesus in" when the whole question of origins is wide open? The energy and information quandary, as well as conspicuous finetuning, practically invite the divine in for free thinking people
Glad you enjoyed it. Thanks so much! *What was your favorite takeaway from this conversation?* _Please join my mailing list to get _*_FREE_*_ notes & resources from this show! Click_ 👉 briankeating.com/list
For me, the fundamental argument for design springs not so much from some specific feature of the world, but from science itself. Science is based on the assumption that the universe is rational and comprehensible, and this assumption is justified at every end and turn. The universe works according to mathematically codifiable laws, so that the application of reason to evidence has given us a wonderful (though still partial) understanding of what the universe is and how it works. As Einstein put it: "the one incomprehensible thing about the universe is that it is comprehensible". The thought that this is because the universe is the work, or offspring, of a supreme, transcendent, creative intelligence, is clearly very compelling. It is hardly surprising that many scientists, past and present, have themselves come to this conclusion.
Omg Eric has totally lost it. First he got sucked into the alien dribble now he falls for the god nonsense. It must be just a quick clickbait way to get attention. Because come on really is this what he Believes . Saying Dawkins tries to evade the argument is stupid. That is literally what he has done for years. He seeks out religious nonsense and challenges the person spewing it. He is too trusting or too gullible. Or just trying to get views.
I am ABSOLUTELY NOT RELIGIOUS to put it politely. But Mr. Weinstein's arguments make a lot of sense and I even was able FOR THE FIRST TIME IN MY RATHER LONG LIFE to sympathize with religious people, at least the types of scientists that he described. It is so nice to deal with intelligent people!!!
I remember the many discussions that Krishnamurti had with physicist David Bohm. Radical atheists dismiss all of it, even those who do not hold a religious belief, but are exploring if there is something beyond what ordinary thought can know or perceive.
Random selection will very likely be proven incorrect or inadequate, not because of god but because it’s almost certainly not random, but a function of epigenetics that is driven by experience
Like always, just conspiracy from Eric, I have been around research scientist for a decade now and I have yet to witness what he is talking about. Books are never closed on any topic in science, people in academia are just not interested! in essence, he is asking for people to be allowed to look for unicorns. It clearly shows that he has not internalized what it means to practice the scientific method. The scientific method is a philosophy which is not compatible with religious philosophy. Science builds up from observation to come to facts, religious thinking begins with assumptions and builds up towards confirmation.
Are you familiar with the story of (now) Nobel winner Dan Schectmann and the saga of his shunning by his peers when he shared his material which exhibited five fold crystalline symmetry? (now referred to as quasicrystals). For all its benefits, the peer review process has been used at times as a gatekeeping device. There are currently pre-prints by highly qualified research teams which may never be reviewed, possibly because the topic (covid/ covid vaccines) is verboten politically- not scientifically.
Well simply by the mere conjecture “scientific philosophy is incompatible with religious philosophy” is a point of evidence that confirms the thing you’re claiming is not in evidence. So you’ve sort of defeated your own point here. Edit: Also very ironic seeing as the scientific philosophy was invented by devout Christians
@@fencserx9423 I don't think we are using the word philosophy the same way here buddy. A philosophy is a way of thinking (though the word conveys more than that), we could almost interchange words in the statement "scientific philosophy is incompatible with religious philosophy", for "scientific way of thinking is incompatible with religious way of thinking." Not all philosophies carry woo! woo !. And whether you are right or not, do you think any "scientific philosophers" could be other than christian back in the day? I don't think this is the burn that you think it is.
I find that modern scientists love to edit history and forget to mention that pretty much every great mind they quote, and look up to, and cite from the history of science, including Charles Darwin for example, was religious.
My answer to the clam would be there were many mutations of clam and only the successful mutation that allowed it to most resemble a fish carried its genes onwards.
Many people accept intelligent design without knowing it. Just look at how seriously some people take the idea that we are living in a computer simulation.
Is the universe a product of Intelligent Design?
100% The Signature can be seen everywhere. And felt if one is willing to open their heart.
The best argument I can make is one from universality. Iff a worldline is encoded by the UWF and that worldline contains particle positions for a brain, by universality the UWF must be equal to or greater in computability than that brain. Brains are Godel/Lobian class, thus we must assign Godel/Lobian machine class to the UWF.
The mature answer to this question is we just don’t know
No.
_Synchronistic Mathematics_ will reveal truths to the sincerely curious.
G and W have censored my topic of independent research of 23 years.
Cassini Death is one of my favorite data sets. Another is the Great Pyramid.
In messageboards my comments are mostly ignored, and not one challenge has been willing to use an online scientific calculator to verify my calculations. 😊
There is also funding bias! When you pay people to find something, they will find what they are paid to find.
Spot on hence the climate hoax.
Yes, the climate hoaxers wont tell you about the red Saharan sand layers found by Kenny Broad in a Bimini blue hole, split by 12,900 years matching the earth's 120 degree equator flip cycle tied to both the Sirius ion storm cycle and the solar system motion cycle through the galactic axis (which NASA denied btw even though we have super clear evidence of it) @@zorot3876
And if they don’t, then you hire new ones
Exactly, see the mass media telling that Covid spread to the world from a bat-soup in Wuhan and that the mRNA-vaccines would stop the virus from infecting people...
and bury every study that disproves what you want to prove.
Newton was very devout though heterodox. Considering he's had a bigger impact on mathematics and science than any scientist since him, I don't think religious scientists are a problem. The bigger problem, considering the scandals of the last few years at Harvard's biology department, is falsification of results, herd mentality within the community, inadequate peer review, and money. Lots of money. As in "I will never see that much money in my entire lifetime." Some of these scientists are wearing different hats while boarding their own departments making a serious conflict of interest.
Thinking peer review is some kind of method of determining truth is exactly the kind of stupidity needed to belong to this ridiculous sect.
Almost every scientist in Newton's day was a Christian in Europe. That is just a sociological and historical fact. So this only has interest and relevance in a sociological and psychological context. In terms of scientific theories and their justification, it is virtually irrelevant.
@@AquaFyrre What is your evidence for this, and so what?
Euler had a bigger impact on mathematics. He thought the bible was God's greatest gift to mankind. Newton had a more diverse range of achievements. But Euler was ridiculously prolific mathematically.
Euler also wrote about the aether. In Hebrew the word for heaven is literally 300-water. 300Mm/s is approximately the speed of light on earth.
"A new scientific truth does not generally triumph by persuading its opponents and getting them to admit their errors, but rather by its opponents gradually dying out and giving way to a new generation that is raised on it."
Max Planck (translated)
" Science advances funeral by funeral"
Sometimes the new generation is raised on errors and scientific truth dies out.
@@johntim3491 also true. Like when physicians did away with handwashing for a while, disregarding germ theory.
Science can go dark when it has something it doesn't want seen out in the open sxx bravo Juliett j9f experimentation of the time 1960 s
So true! A great example of the opposite was the Piltdown Man, a hoax knowingly defended by the atheist Establishment for 40 years, until it was "finally discovered" to be one of the biggest lies in the history of science (but now cleverly made "forgotten"). But the damage was done and the new generations had been well indoctrinated into Darwinism.
Every scientist is vulnerable to confirmation bias OR falsification bias. We should be EQUALLY concerned and watchful for scientists who might be motivated to create false data that pushes a religious narrative or falsification narrative for targeted beliefs.
Agreed.
The false pursuit of atheism has taken science down many false dead end roads…
Absolutely!
Yup, no exception for religious scientists because it makes them feel persecuted.
As a Christ follower I completely agree!
I'm a Scientologist which is the best of both worlds 🌎! Plus we have Tom Cruise!
I think the implication believing in God means you have to deny science is one of the most pernicious lies our generation has been fed.
You’re lumping in belief in “god” with the other teachings that can be seen as pseudoscientific or “supernatural” (if interpreted literally) that formulate a religion. “Belief in god” takes on many forms, as does the word “god”. Belief in (a) god or gods, in and of itself, doesn’t imply belief in the pseudoscientific elements attributed to religions. So no, belief in god, alone, does not “deny science.” However, if a scientist informs his science with belief in literal interpretations of religious writings that deal with things we know to be contrary to scientific processes and determinations, then yes, that scientist isn’t much of an expert or advocate of actual science.
@@Mindmartyr Science is just a study of God's creation. And so far, only intelligent boys and girls become scientists. Because whatever that has been created is amazing.
The false historical narrative that religion and science have been opposing forces is called “warfare thesis” and has been well debunked. You can hypothesize a boogeyman to try to scare people into the idea that believing the Bible will somehow harm scientific progress, but data doesn’t support that. Even the historical examples atheists appeal to, like Galileo, mostly fall apart under examination. Galileo believed the Bible, as did Copernicus. The Catholic Church’s geocentricism was pre-Christian and rested in the authority of Ptolemy and Aristotle.
Indeed, great quantities of each...
Scientists have been discussing what Eric calls "perception mediated selection" for over 100 years. The general term is "biotic selection" and has been in use since at least 1908. The evolution of lures (as in the clam and the flower Eric mentions) are examples of "aggressive mimicry", a term coined by Edward Poulton in 1892. Mimicry, in general, evolves through a special type of biotic selection that remained unnamed until the 90s, but is now called "sensory exploitation".
I imagine Bret would not like that Eric is pretending Bret came up with all these ideas, since they are staples of evolutionary biology almost from its start.
I think you should give it a little bit more cognitive effort in analyzing this.
Eric explains that Darwin himself wrote about this - which shows that he gives credit to the contemplation of the conundrum to at least one other author. I am not sure where you are getting the idea that he is pretending or posing to have been the original thinker about this.
What Eric has to offer is a bit different, his concept of "perception mediated selection," is a bit different from what you are calling "biotic selection," or "aggressive mimicry," in that he is arguing that it is actually the mistakes made by certain agents which are driving the selection pressure.
On one hand perception mediated selection is an explanation how, whereas the latter is simply a description of the behavior. Point is, it's not the same thing.
I can't find any scholarly articles referring to what work he is referencing but he uses neurological terms like "bounded intelligence." I haven't seen much of his work but from the first glance it seems as though he may consume relevant scientific articles similar to my interest, neuroscience / mathematics.
Relevant authors to look more into understanding what what he is talking about and why it may be interesting are;
Marks Solms,
Karl Friston
There is alot of work being completed in contextualizing the difference between consciousness and intelligence and if what this mechanic describes it is true, it sort of shows that there is a sort of embodied cognition which is actively learning even if disconnected form the neocortex.
Concepts that might be appreciated is the intelligence of plants / starfish / hydroencephalic children etc
@@Y3HU Yours is another example of a poetic response. You are not angry or insulting to Mr. @Stated Casually. Instead, you are pointing out the various manners in which the concept has been discussed in the past and continues to be so. I appreciate that you took the time to "converse", "debate", "amplify" Mr. @StatedCasually's points with the result that all of us are "smarter" for that interaction. Thank you very much.
PS: Also, if I say that "one of my better ideas" is the studying and understanding of the Specific Gravity as discovered by the great Sicilian scientist Archimedes, I am not saying that I discovered this mind blowing concept. QED
I prefer Bret over Eric who is more logical and knowledgeable than his brother also makes more sense than he does.
The deeper we get into quantum mechanics, the more it looks like there is a God (or call him/her/it/they, the game engine designer). It’s really fascinating that the deeper we delve into science and understanding the world around us, it does seem…the more it points to intelligent design.
@RealAliens-fw4nq Biologists have discussed and written about each example Eric gave, in detail, as well as the evolutionary dynamics that make mimicry possible. There are hundreds of papers and many books written about this subject, many were published before Bret was born.
Pseudo-copulation; that pretty much sums up a good chunk of my adolescence.
Come again?
Low-hanging fruit, really
Japanese robot manufacturer says, “Please, give us a few years gentlemen.”
Like dry humping?
Still funny.
Is this what we're doing now? Pretending that when someone says "intelligent design" they aren't talking about a god magically poofing things into existence, but rather, somehow contorting the tricking of a fish to be "intelligent design," rather than literally just being the normal selective pressure of natural selection i.e. the more fit tricky mollusk is able to care for its offspring better.
You're just trying to shift the perspective here and claiming the fish is "intelligently" *designing* the mollusk, rather than the more realistic and evident fact of a given mollusk being better fit to propagate, thereby continuing the natural selection process.
Tell me you don't know diddley shit about the subject you're complaining about with out telling me you don't know diddley shit about the subject you're complaining about.
@@aliengreeter
Nice projection.
@@zedek_ It's an assessment, not a projection stupid.
Eric never brought God into the equation of intelligent design in this conversation? There is a difference between the old creationist bullshit of "Intelligent Design" and the intelligent design that Eric is talking about. He is talking about the learned intellect of the organism playing a part in the process. Not God.
"You're just trying to shift the perspective here and claiming the fish is "intelligently" designing the mollusk."
Sometimes you need to shift your perspective to see better.
@@anthonybrett
Hey thank you for that clarification -- I thought I was running into that creationist apologist bullshit from 10 years ago.
There have been so many instances where people I followed suddenly shifted to being alt-right or some nonsense, that I thought Eric was doing something similar with the god version of intelligent design that was all the rage, haha. Happy to learn I was mistaken.
Merry Christmas dude
I am a Christian who believes in Intelligent Design. I can't see how things could have come to be the way they are without an intelligent designer. Nevertheless, I agree with Eric Weinstein that God/Jesus should not be "smuggled" into every discussion. I believe we have to let the scientists do their work and not hijack the discussion prematurely into religion or apologetics. Faith and the theological discipline that it engenders are separate disciplines and fields of study from science. Being different, however, does not have to mean that they are at enmity with each other. In fact, science blossomed in the context of the university which itself blossomed in Christian culture where the desire was to come to a deeper understanding of God's creation. Everything, therefore, is worthy of study and must be done so with objectivity. That objectivity, however, must go both ways. Science must be allowed to investigate without putting a Christian template on everything, but scientist must not be allowed to foist the template of their own "religion", e.g., Darwinism, onto the field of study.
Design automatically smuggles in God, because design is de facto evidence of a Creator.
There is nothing intelligent about the design tho ✌️
@@TheAtticusFinch seriously? Nothing intelligent about the design?!
@@coreydallmeyer67 Yes, you only believe it was done by intelligence because you have the intelligence necessary to notice that it exists in the first place. But your intelligence was not intelligently designed. You just think it was because you are intelligent.
Also, intelligence doesn’t mean you are Smart.
Eric disagrees with you several times during this video@TheAtticusFinch
Why use the term "intelligent design" in this way? Just to confuse people? Because you could come up with (or use existing) terms very easily instead.
Selective breeding/artificial selection comes to mind
What's the difference?
Agree. Mules (donkey x horse) happen in the wild naturally as well as being bred domestically. Interestingly, the buck stops there, they cannot reproduce.
1. Mutated mussel creates floppy lip.
2. Bass eats lip killing mussel but inhaling its young. Advantage mussel and Bass as bass gets a meal and young bass get a meal and distribution.
3. Mussel evolves ability to survive its lip being eaten. Advantage mussel & bass.
4. Mussel evolves ability to keep its tissues intact. Bass loses its meal but still provides blood meal for young mussels. advantage mussel only
5. Mussel makes tissues more attractive to bass because lip no longer a food supply for the bass. Advantage mussel only.
A similar obvious route doubtless exists for the orchid example. Nice examples but no sign of intelligence needed by any of the organisms involved. Not sure what point Eric was trying to make here.
"Mutated mussel creates..."
"Mussel evolves ability..."
"Mussel evolves ability..."
"Mussel makes..."
Document the pathway that random genetic mutations and natural selection took to reach each of these stages.
Mimicry and convergent evolution always throws me for a loop. There's several species of moth that look and fly exactly like a hummingbird, and I'm just like what is the point? What evolutionary pressures led to this??
That fact that Eric says in his argument there’s nothing else it could possibly be shows the shallowness of his thinking. As a f there was some way he could be 100% certain of all the factors and influences.
Yep! Exactly what i was thinking! But people nowadays will fall for anyone who sounds very convincing with a little charisma.
Eric is absolutely wrong about everything he said. It shows he really doesn’t understand evolution that well. The people agreeing with him are literally just looking for confirmation bias.
@@Kyle906-Q8
Understand evolution?
Understanding what the theory claims is not the problem. The problem is proving that it actually happened. There is no proof, just speculation masquerading as proof. And you apparently don't know the difference.
I've always wondered how statistically possible it was to evolve complicated life - it just can't be totally random
It requires a lot of time, which we had.
Natural selection is not random
Try to see it this way: you can look back on evolution through time and notice what appears to be a straight beeline from simple to complex. There's always some organism that evolves and survives. But from any one period you cannot predict which organism will be the one to survive into the future. What looks like a designed evolution, is on the moment, just the strongest, smartest, toughest, best at hiding, etc, winning the fight. Another way of saying it, is there is no standard for complexity. Complexity is relative. So for all you know there is a more efficient better organism that can exist 13.8 billion years after the beginning of our universe, but it couldn’t happen on our planet, because our planet had a specific arrangement of matter that lead to the specific evolutionary tree we observe today in the fossil record. We may not be that complex. Or perhaps we are. But this is a helpful way to understand how natural selection can lead to what we **call** incredibly complex things, with random genetic mutations. There may be other factors at play like genes reexpressing themselves, changing, after birth, apparently affected by environmental factors. This is part of a field called epigenetics. But it requires patience and more study, to understand its limits. For now, it is quite apparent the theory of evolution stands firm. Also remember I am no expert, and you should do your own research. Trust no one simply because they sound smart. Learn everything for yourself. Good luck!
@@KieranLeCam Define "simple", because lifeforms have NEVER been simple, the big LIE Neo-Darwinists have always told us. The first cell was complex from the very beginning, because it was made of TRILLIONS of arranged atoms, another fact that the dogmatics knowingly push under the carpet. Another lie: with the first cell began the tree of life. Nope, because even statistics put the survival odds for this cell (created by pure random chance, so the scientific narrative) to zero. Natural selection by random chance can impossibly lead to "incredibly complex things", a delusion told by charlatans like Dawkins. The existence of extremophiles has already destroyed this nonsense. Random chance only exists at the macroscosmos (animals/humans surviving tsunamis, eruptions, plagues, wars, etc). Life and information contributed to terraforming of the planet, to make it compatible for lifeforms after millions of years. When the conditions were given, the first cells (plural!) formed in several spots of the earth. Many died, but the remaining few began the odyssey called Evolution through intelligent design. Irreducible complexity is a fact and has never been debunked like deluded liars try to tell us.
The "more efficient better organism" has always been the bacterium. Yet it evolved anyway to all fauna and flora we see today and in the fossils of the past. Darwinism doesn't work in the microcosmos. Never has.
Simple. Nobody claim's it's random except creationists and Iiars.
One thing is for sure. History will look back upon us and our understanding of reality as being primitive, coarse, and mostly incorrect.
Who do you think will bother about history after the impending 6th mass extinction?!
@@joaquinmisajr.1215 Well, obviously, extinction is the last word, but if that doesn’t happen then .
@@joaquinmisajr.1215 Every human generation thinks they are the first enlightened generation.
The opinion you express here is at least primitive and coarse. Complete human extinction is extremely unlikely.
Hold my beer.@@stevenverrall4527
@@joaquinmisajr.1215 You seem excited by the prospect.
I am confused. Aren't the examples provided about "intelligent design" examples of artificial selection by human breeders? In terms of "perception mediated selection", it still falls under the bigger umbrellas of natural selection and sexual selection of evolutionary biology, whether you are talking about eagle's vision or camouflaged flowers. Its a subset of Darwinian selection, not a supplement or replacement.
Yeah, Weinstein just likes to oppose anything he deems "orthodox", even if it doesn't make sense. If you listen to other interviews with him, he appears very much to be a conspiracy theorist.
Nothing to be confused about, I think it's Eric who's confused. It's a bizarre example for him to pick because it had nothing to do with the subject of intelligent design. Seems to me like Eric is really reaching here.
@@JoshWinibergTalking would be a better description of what he's doing! But nevertheless I enjoy listening to him. Not every day you hear people talking about pseudocopulation!
If it turns out that, for example, in humans, female selection is more important to guiding evolution than random mutations, then this may mean you'll have to turn to psychology rather than science (sorry psychologists) to understand what is really happening in human evolution.
It does & we also know who the breeder is, why certain breeds were selected & Eric is as thick as pig shit.
I love these conversations because it gets quite frustrating not being an atheist or religious, yet seeing there is something much more to the universe and its life.
I like to think that the insect knows and doesn't care. "Dang that is one sexy flower" [quickly checks his six as he unzips his trousers]
What are people afraid of, everything should be questioned anytime at all. This what the Galileo case proves, no book should ever be closed.
Agreed, the fear must be of being wrong, which the standard model of physics is because it is not complete.
@@FrankBurnham It can be right even if unfinished. We can still explain a lot while using it.
True, it may even lead to some A.I. that could finish it. @@jurcik250
Agreed, but Eric is misrepresenting the facts here.
Except Facebook
What's hilarious about this proposed question is that modern science came about as a result of the presupposition that our universe is driven by order and law, which is why something like the scientific method works at all.
Of course, science has nothing to do with the CAUSE of everything per se. Science only describes what can be observed and measured. Not even the bigbang theory is about the CAUSE. It just tries to describe what was happening. Among the hypotetic phenomena that CANNOT be observed or measured are GODS, ANGELS; SPIRITS and free-living SOULS.
It's driven by opportunism, from physics to biology. But at a macro scale, that looks like order and laws.
Indeed ... The most important founders of modern science believed in God or Intellligent Design: Nicolaus Copernicus, Johannes Kepler, Galileo Galilei, Isaac Newton, Robert Boyle, Michael Faraday, Joseph Priestley, James Clerk Maxwell, Gregor Mendel (the founder of genetics and abbot of a monastery), Lord Kelvin and Albert Einstein.
Plus, many of the pioneers of quantum physics: Werner Heisenberg, Max Plank, Erwin Schrödinger, James Jeans, Louis de Broglie, Wolfgang Pauli and Arthur Eddington.
And scientists like the astrophysicist Paul Davies, Simon Conway Morris (Professor of Evolutionary Paleobiology at Cambridge), Alasdair Coles (Professor of Neuro-immunology at Cambridge), John Polkinghorne (who was Professor of Mathematical Physics at Cambridge), Russell Stannard, Freeman Dyson … and Francis Collins, who led the team of 2,400 international scientists on the Human Genome Project and was an atheist until the age of 27, when he became a Christian.
Natural sciences started to decline only after Charles Darwin presented his evolution theory in 1859, without understanding anything of genetics or thermodynamics or information science.
Over 60% of all Nobel Laureates in Science believe in God (data1900-1999). It seems that the more ignorant a person is, the more he is inclined towards atheism.
It's a very nice presupposition. Try operating without it! 🤣
@herrbonk3635
I don't understand your point at all.
What opportunitism?
How is science driven by opportunism?
Dalai Lama, " Science is higher than religion because based on fact and can be verify the truth in labolatory. Any Buddhist teaching should confirm to science; if discrepancy different from science, we should change it and accept it."
Well, i guess that explains why modern science doesn't have a Buddhist root but a Christian one.
Science has a base of assumptions which are largely based on Christian philosophy.
Hint anyone? I cant see why the examples given need the rubrik of Intelligent design. Seems to fall squarely within evolutionary theory.
Then your evolutionary theory is highly intelligent.
....which has been debunked
The main issue here is not creationists smuggling God into the debate about Nature but evolutionists excluding cause-and-effect and statistical probability from that debate. And if causal thinking and statistical probability are not the foundation of science, I don't know what is.
Neither Galileo nor Bruno were punished for things they said or wrote as regards their findings, but rather things they said against the Church - at a time when the State they lived in was under the Church.
Galileo Galilei had a personal issue with Pope. Both were shrews but Pope had the bigger stick.
Ah, and yet another ill-informed person who believes the lies about Galileo and Bruno. Haven't I seen that before.
Galileo wasn't even really punished. He lived his life in luxury and continued his studies. And fun fact - the Jesuits looked through his telescope and were convinced. His colleagues however didn't even bother looking through it because they "knew" he was wrong.
And Bruno was handed over to the authorities after being questioned by the inquisition and they asked for his live to be spared but the court killed him anyway. There are so much lies spread about the church it's unbelievable. Many of these lies date back to the French revolution BTW.
For an unbiased view I'd suggest the channel "Esoterica" run by Dr Justin Sledge. As a secular jew he's certainly not spreading "pro Christianity" propaganda.
In Galileo's case the Church was following the science. About 99% of scientists who lived at that time (natural philosophers etc) thought Galileo was wrong. He was TOTALLY wrong about the moon and the tides (as the Church correctly pointed out). The pope told Galileo his theory was interesting and to put both sides in dialogue format but Galileo in his arrogance insulted the pope, it got personal and all went pear shaped. Some of Galileo's research was funded by the Church but no one mentions that either.
@@marcokite "but no one mentions that either". Yep, the anti-Christian movements have always been strong, and the (luckily) short lived Inquisition was used to inflame the propaganda invented after the Renaissance to make a blunt separation to the medieval "Dark Ages"; "forgetting" that more blood was spilt in the Modern Age than before (not to mention the hundreds of millions killed by the atheists through Communism, Maoism, Polpotism, US-military-, pharma- and fast food-industry). Also funny is how the atheists use Galileo as the paladin of modern Science while conveniently "forgetting" his deep studies on alchemy.
WTF?! Galileo was placed under house arrest, and not executed because he was under the protection of Lorenzo de Medici, the most powerful patron of Renaissance culture in Italy and de facto ruler of the Florentine Republic. Giordano Bruno fought with the Catholic Church and the Office of the Inquisition for over 7 years. Eventually, Pope Clement VIII ordered him sentenced to death as an impenitent and pertinacious heretic, on February 8, 1600. A few weeks later Giordano Bruno was taken to Campo de’ Fiori, and burned alive. Both men were persecuted because of their scientific research, which was inconsistent with the dogma and political framework of the Church.
"Perception mediated selection" as described here, just seems like a fancy way of saying artificial selection and/or a jumbled mix of proposed articifical selection and natural selection. Brett says there is a group of scientists "who do not believe there is a persuasive case for random mutation as being the major engine of selection" random mutation is not an engine of selection, its a source of variation, sounds like they don't understand the theory correctly. The books were not closed after the neo darwinian synthesis, there has since been the dispelling of the assumed constant steady gradualism in evolving species and has been replaced with punctuated equilibrium in where species tend to stay in the same form in stasis until selection pressures are put upon them by changing enviroment or competition and the population can change quite fast in a relatively short amount of time as a result. There has been the development of the entire field of genetics, and discoveries such as, endogenous retroviruses(ERVs) allowing us to track lines of common decent by germline viral infections and adding a whole new independent confirmation of evolution theory and genetic drift and other things, random mutation and natural selection are not the entirety of evolutionary theory.
There are lots of symbiotic relationships that were once seperate and later developed to be dependent upon each other for reproduction and/or survival. With both examples Eric is basically arguing irreducible complexity, which has been refuted with real examples and theoretical ones again and again, Brett is arguing these symbiotic relationships are not developed through natural selection but instead are intelligently designed because the relationship appears irreducibly complex, but it is far from it, Kenneth miller and others defeated these arguments in court in a case called kitsmiller vs dover area school district, over intelligent design in like 2004 or 2005, kenneth miller's videos on it were brilliant and he is a theist and a brilliant scientist.
This just seems to be along same lines of the claims of Expelled No Intelligence Allowed by Ben Stein in which they falsely claimed fair science was being shut out due to anti religious views, the reality was stuff like getting their paper removed because they attempted to skip the peer review process and other claims that wildly misrepresented the true events.
Shocking that Scientists would censor dissenting ideas.
There is a difference between
‘Adaptations developing in an environment with perception or perceiving beings’ and what we understand when someone says intelligent design.
‘Intelligent design’ suggests a transcendent being outside the system as whole, or that has no evident presence and adaptations that result from the existence of the minds within that environment. The clam in the example evolved as a result of a stimulus prescient and evident within the system. Bad example if you are giving any credence to a believe in supernatural intelligence.
The problem is: the perceiving beings do not make conscious changes, it is done by a conscious source of pure information within the lifeform itself. Random mutations are, as known, always deadly, and the desperate Darwinists know this but would never acknowledge it openly. The positive ones involve synchronized (!) rearrangements of trillions of atoms and molecules, leading often to irreducible complexity, greatly described by Michael Behe in his evergreen "Darwin's Black Box", still unchallenged by the reactionary dogmatic Darwinists. Only with intelligent design are mimicry, symbiosis, instinct, behavior, altruism, adaptation and evolution (the real one!) explainable.
Why is the idea of "a transcendent being outside the system" so offensive? What if that is what the evidence points at?
@@kimanimzalendo367 the very point is ‘outside the system’ meaning is that there is an observable universe and known forces and pressures that can be measured and accounted for. God is not one of them inside the earth level rule set. Any other unseen and undetected force or influence can not be considered and is t necessary to explain material questions and most probably, being unnecessary, likely does not exist.
@@kimanimzalendo367 That is a great question that answers itself..
Evidence inside the system can not point to something outside the system..the evidence itself is the mark made.. luckily there aren’t any evidences like that at all, not the bacterial flagellum not the eyeball..
Those classic examples of irreducible complexity have been demonstrated to have every stage of evolutionary predecessor…
You believe a mythical story told as a made up explanation to explain our lives before we had the proper sense making tools to actually observe and report the real answers. I would say put down childish pursuits and actually try to understand what actually happened.
It is so wild and interesting it couldn’t be invented.. but it’s explanations are magnificent and gorgeous and far more compelling than just “because god made it from clay with magic.”
It's not just religious scientists who question darwinism, many atheist do as well based on the extreme improbability and other huge problems in darwinism.
Just because someone rejects evolution theory doesn’t necessarily mean they believe in the “creation” according to the Bible.
I'm not a Christian, but I have great respect for Dr. James Tours work with criticism of the origin of life field. I find him very careful and complete his thoughts, while personally I find his detractors often very dishonest in trying to tarnish him personally, while ignoring the immense gaps in the origins of biological life.
I got your Dr James Tours COVERED. And not with opinion. Just gravity, thermodynamics, chemistry, and physics.
Google "Nick Lane: The electrical origins of life" and get ready for an hour of BIG ANSWERS about how life can be automatically created on any wet, rocky planet or moon.
I find his statement at the beginning of the video to be the exact opposite of what happens in the scientific community, that "atheist scientists" are somehow afraid of the religious scientists criticism. Whaaaa????
I would say the same about Richard Carrier.
As an Organic Chemist I find his criticisms of Origin of Life Chemistry unassailable and unarguable.
what does that mean?@@romanpolanski4928
This feels very much like a completely semantic issue. “Intelligent design“ is a term used to describe a higher intelligence designing each organism that we see before us and it’s miraculous complexity. I don’t see anything in these two examples that Weinstein gives that Is consistent with that kind of intelligent design.
I have no idea what this guy was smoking when he did this .
You're the one who needs to understand the intelligent design proposition.
It starts with the DNA which is a code, an information system.
Start from reading "The signature in the cell"
@@emmanuel8310 The proposition is that life was deliberately designed by a higher power. This talk has been around so long, that when it started, you could use slurs online without getting banned.
Smartphones weren't even around at the time.
The reality is, neither does he. But he's going with faith because it pays the bills.
@@emmanuel8310 "It starts with the DNA which is a code, an information system." It's a collection of chemicals that obey the laws of physics, You choose to call it a "code" because it can store information using that natural process. That doesn't make it a code.
He doesn't ever mention the transition issue where some say too many perfect closed proteins would have to occur all at once in order for a cell to become "levelled up" to the next complexity that would allow it to continue living and replicating.
Sciences biggest hindrance is the way it's funded... They get money for a specific goal not to see if the science is actually there or not
Nice opinion. Clearly, you are not a scientist.
"Safe & effective" lmao.
@dculican7513 No, I'm just informed...
@@friendlyadvice2792 clearly not
Follow the silence.
Both meiosis and mitosis have mechanisms to repair coding errors so that daughter cells don’t have mutations. Genomes prefer stasis because they know that mutations are harmful. The cognitive dissonance required to believe that evolution outsmarts the genome and creates mutations that improves the species, despite the built-in repair mechanisms, is huge, for me.
Genomes don't "prefer" anything. Similarly, evolution can't "outsmart" anything and it doesn't "create" mutations. Mutations are a result of copying errors, which is just another way of saying your purported mechanisms for repairing errors are, like everything else, imperfect. Did you suspect they were? Your ridiculous logic here depends upon it.
@@SolusVir Apparently they do prefer stasis as that’s what happens when the genomes repair mutations. Mutations cause changes. 🤷♂️
@@jasonvance4801 I guess you're just too stupid to get it. If mutations "cause changes" then, obviously, your proposed mechanism (you don't say exactly what you are talking about) for genome "repair" is itself imperfect. Otherwise, there would be no mutations. So, why would it be so hard to "outsmart"? Your misconception gets worse, though. The idea that evolution needs to "outsmart" genomes that "prefer" "stasis" (whatever the hell that is supposed to mean) implies some kind of direction evolution intends to go. It isn't a conscious agent, dummy, and it isn't teleological. And no, mutations do not "cause changes" (if by "cause changes" you mean evolution). Mistakes happen in the genome. Those mistakes are mutations. Those mutations can be selected for or against by the environment, by virtue of the resulting genetically influenced characteristics' aiding or hindering the individual's probability of survival until reproduction. This selection pressure does not come from the mutations (OBVIOUSLY!) but from the environment's action on the phenotype. The variability of allele frequency in the population yielded by this selection process (as well as others) over time is what we call evolution. What you balk at by mistaking it for "improvement" is actually just a changing level of fitness for the environment the population happens to find itself in. For example, the amoeba is just as fit for its environment as the human is; i.e., one is not "more evolved" than the other because evolution is not a teleological process. It isn't going somewhere. It isn't a means to an end. It's just what happens. It's very simple to understand if you aren't a moron.
That's a lot of words to say "selective breeding".
And no, atheistic scientists don't deny it - they use it (mainly dogs) to show that evolution is a real phenomenon.
I'm at 5:26 and reeling from this perplexing feedback. First, it's complete and total equivocation on the term "intelligent design". Something like a donkey isn't what any ID proponent means. Zero. Zilch. ID proponents mean magic. God magic-ed things into existence and there's no reason to think further. The end. They mean "irreducible complexity" and "the eye is impossible to have evolved" and so forth. Or they're like James Tour and tell their rabid, uncritical supplicants "science is broken and we should shut it down" while then childishly acknowledging to their peers that they have no actual science based reason for their chest puffing bravado.
What happened Eric? Why be an ID apologist? Sheesh.
You are reeling over things which were never said. Why not tell people that you also disagree with flat-Earthers? Lol.
*"ID proponents mean magic. God magic-ed things into existence and there's no reason to think further. The end."*
That is a straw man argument, which is a logical fallacy.
@@firecloud77 it literally is not a straw man. “Magic” is a term theists object to because it makes their perspective sound absurd. Not my problem they’re sensitive.
@@HumblyQuestioning
“Magic” is a term theists object to because theists do not believe God creates things through the mechanism of "magic." Therefore the use of the term "magic" is an intentional mischaracterization of the theist's argument which, by definition, is a straw man argument and a logical fallacy.
@@firecloud77 no sir. It is not a mischaracterization. It is the correct term that makes theists uncomfortable. Feeling uncomfortable with your argument doesn’t make it a straw man. You can’t hide from responsibility by proclaiming victimhood. If anyone is fallacious it is usually the theist. Primarily, special pleading and equivocation, the two most common theistic tools for combatting cognitive dissonance. Example: anyone aside from Jesus turned water into wine, or raised a child from the dead, or walked on water, etc, that would be magic.
There are some problems with what he's saying.
For example, natural selection is not driven by mutation.
The changes wrought by selective pressures are just a selection among existing options.
The moths that become darker-colored when the bark of local trees get darker because of pollution are not mutating. The potential for dark and light are both already there.
What is happening is that the prevalence of existing genes is being changed by the selective pressure.
Yup! Mutations do not add information.
@@chrisfonden6431 Well, while we're on the same page philosophically, I don't exactly agree with that specific assertion:
Mutations are random breakages of the genetic program for an individual. Therefore they do "add information", by messing up the info that's already there.
Selective forces then determine that only the tiny percentage that are accidentally helpful or harmless get passed on much.
But that's just a means of weeding those out, not the source of giraffes getting longer necks. The neck change is primarily just the changing of focus of existing genes.
And while Darwin was correct about Natural Selection as the shaper of animals, but wrong about it as the origin of species. Genetics hadn't been discovered, yet, so he had no idea of the mechanics of gene transmission, or how insular genetics allow mutations to change the chromosomal structure of a pool of a species, so it drifts away from the physical architecture of the rest of the species, eventually becoming genetically incompatible.
And it is, indeed, the genetic compatibility that defines a species, not how it looks. Poodles and chihuahuas are still genetically identical to wolves (to oversimplify, as they're hybrids), not a different species. They just have been selected for different gene focus, giving them separate characteristics in a superficial way.
Yes and no. It's been a long time since I did basic biology but if my memory serves me correctly, it is mutation being the driving force behind EVOLUTION, and evolution is selected upon.
So yes your basic variation of genetic traits (immediate selection pressure) doesn't have enough time for mutations to be relevant. However, over a long time period of time the selection pressure of mutations comes into play.
@@KAZVorpal mutations do not add new information to the genome. Just scrambling what is already there. No beneficial mutations have been observed. Poodles and Chihuahuas would not survive in the wild. More devolution than evolution
@@Teo_liveNope.
Speciation has nothing to do with how an animal looks, nor the mechanics of its anatomy.
Speciation is only chromosomal architecture.
The mutations that cause speciation have nothing to do with natural selection, other than that unviable mutations are less likely to be passed on.
It's all about mutations in isolated gene pools. Natural selection is not the mechanism.
Isaac Newton was a devout Christian as were many others. Practically all of the advancements we enjoy today we owe to religious scientists.
True, and there are scientists today who hold religious beliefs. But doing science requires objectivity.
@@yvonnem.langlois5197 and time and again scientists have demonstrated that it is possible to maintain objectivity while being part of a religion
Even Dawkins would be a theist in Newtons time.
We should not judge the efficacy of theist scientists as long as they don't get their religion in the way of their work. Brain can split worlds like that, personally I prefer to stay consequential in the pursue of understanding the world through science and get rid of the unfalsifiable nonsense that I might need to feel comfortable or just was indoctrinated as a child.
How to mangle both natural and artificial selection in under 10 minutes. This is right out of the Jordan Peterson playbook of using word salad to avoid taking a stand on religion.
The grounding faith of most scientist's is materialism, and the dominant methodology is reductionism. This has revealed a wondrously organized world, from the cell to the brain to the atom to the cosmos.
Einstein's motivation was explicitly religious, albeit in a pantheistic sense. Maxwell was a devout Christian, Newton acknowledged the existence of God, Mendel was a Catholic priest , as was LeMaitre (originator of the Big Bang model).
The Faith vs. Science "debate" is as silly as an Art vs. Science debate woukd be.
Protestantism in its infinite fracturing and "faith alone" sola scriptura dance, artificially removed sanity from theism, the ground of sanity. We've been staggering along ever since. And now we are at the brink of annihilating mankind.
Materialism isn't a sensible idea. Empiricism is. For example, String Theorists constantly told us - X could happen - and wasted a lot our our time in the telling. S.T. is fully compatible with materialism but is incompatible with empiricism. Likewise an empiricist idea can even be anti-materialist! One good example of this is Newton's "instantaneous action at a distance". I'm not sure anyone ever believed in that. But many believed that the world behaved as is IAaaD were so. This search - especially by theoretical physicists to describle the "mind of God" - AKA the "TRUE nature of reality" is wasteful of our time. It hasn't convinced me that either Eric or Brian know more about the "TRUE nature of reality" than I do. The reason I disparage this attitude is because way too many people are overconfident in their beliefs; and this over-confidence seems to feed conceited, censorious attitudes. Most of those people seem to be convinced "materialists".
As a scientist I'm telling you there's a lot of people who do this major, lack emotional intelligence, empathy, creativity, and critical thinking skills, and disdain anyone and everything that possesses or requires these qualities to engage in. The radical zeal they have for their chosen faith, materialism and reductionism, is a reflection of their personal God complexes and inability to comprehend the fact that they too are subject to human limitations as well as the whole scientific method. The people who lead to meaningful breakthroughs are not these people.
There is s reason there are so many grossly racist and bigoted people in science. The reductionsim and materialism when applied to anything but pure scientific data allows them to inject their ideology (white supremacy most often) into everything they see while maintaining that they're being the rational ones.
But, but, what’s wrong with the idea that the orchids that didn’t have the extra petal mutation died off in the unfriendly environment?
If we keep reminding ourselves that those who weren’t lucky mutants all died off, the natural selection idea holds firm. The design looks that way to us, clever designers. We can’t help ourselves.
Different examples of possible intelligent design: how did the flagellum mechanism gradually evolve into what it is used by bacteria as Natural Selection postulates? From what I understand, we do not have explanation for how the various parts could naturally / randomly evolve into the mechanism in use now. All parts are required to make it work so just two or three elements that happen to fall together would not result in something useful. It APPARENTLY had to have all of the elements (and there are several) come together to simultaneously form a complex mechanism that is highly useful. I believe that the evolution of the eye is a similar mystery.
I know science is not giving up on natural selection to explain this but the odds are very great that there has to be another explanation. It takes views from many different angles to figure out the most difficult questions. Religious scientists do have insights to offer. No matter the scientist however, we SHOULD always rigorously question any insight.
I don’t see any design in Erick’s examples. Co-evolution seems infinitely more likely an explanation. Design would imply intention. A clam or a flower can’t choose its genetics, or choose the mutations in the genetics of its offspring.
Mr Weinstein seems to be just arguing about words.
The Wikipedia article on adaptive mutation is a good starting point on the topic.
You clearly haven't researched this enough or don't wish to. With the modern available knowledge, Intelligent design is statistically infinitely stronger than the evolution hypothesis.
@@daw60-gx3fo yeah nah, I think I know the arguments… Usually something along the lines of: “the statistical improbability of life evolving is just so vast that it can only be explained by a divine creator!”. Yes, well that is unconvincing, as everything we know and continue to discover is always explained by an unfathomably vast and old universe, and the anthropic principle.
Terence McKenna said:
“Modern science is based on the principle: ‘Give us one free miracle and we’ll explain the rest.’'
The one free miracle is the appearance of all the mass and energy in the universe and all the laws that govern it in a single instant from nothing.
You can believe whatever you want, the Scientific method always points the way to fact. In my world you can pick which ever one you want. you will end up responsible for the outcome.
There is a difference between “science” and “scientists” driven my theory own bias.
If there was a creator then they were, at best, horribly incompetent.
I mean, that depends on what they were trying to do... If they were focused on creating man as some sort of perfect being, then you're probably correct... However, that may not have been the intention... Or their perception of perfect may be very different to ours...
I personally think intelligent design is a weak theory... I highly doubt the Bible in various ways... This said, our scope of awareness is arguably potentially quite small.... Who knows?
Repent...
Scientists research and try to understand material and existing elements but cannot figure out the how they were made, or why. Scientist can view how all galaxies and solar systems rotate on flat planes, in an organized matter, but don’t know why. They can observe gravity but do not understand what causes it. The more scientists observe and research, the more they admit, someone purposefully designed all things.
Eric conflating natural selection and intelligent design in one of the most bizarre takes I've ever heard on the subject.
You don’t really have a good grasp of the subject, it’s not your fault, the educators themselves don’t realize the Cambrian explosion itself disproves evolution as far as they understand it.
Sounds like you have a clear bias.
@@maxamos7not really, I'm not the hardcore atheist I once was, but intelligent design and selection are different things. To conflate the two is ridiculous.
@@JoshWiniberg I think he's clearly laying out the case for intelligent design instead of natural selection for these creatures.
But yes, you can believe in intelligent design and also believe we've evolved from base materials (and thus believe natural selection led to all creatures we have today). WLC I believe holds this view.
That's Weinstein, bloviating faux profundity. It's all supposed to sound ultra sophisticated.
5:41 - Mediated Selection - Lamp Bacillus Mussel 7:07 Clade of Orchids
Extended Phenotype - The next scientific revolution will be when Richard Dawkins converts Isaac Asimov's 3 Volumes of Understanding Physics into Solid State Metaphysics. I had the 3 volume collection years ago in the early 90's. But in my late twenties I became obsessed with Creation Science and gave them away. It was my early 30's I grew into a Theistic Evolutionary view. I found them recently online again. When Led Zeppelin comes together they will establish their Finest Album - Metaphysical Graffiti. May Sir John Henry Bonham's name be sung in Heaven Forever Ever After. ❤
I think a magnanimous approach to G.K. Chesterton's 'Distributism' straddles agape 'compassionate justice' aligned along economic channels that naturally feed each other. Distributism is an economic theory asserting that the world's productive assets should be widely owned rather than concentrated. In short, no one is considered superior to another, especially NOT for cosmetic reasons such as physical beauty.
James 1:27 says, "Pure and genuine religion in the sight of God the Father means caring for orphans and widows in their distress and refusing to let the world corrupt you."
G. K. Chesterton considered one's home and family the centrepiece of society. He recognized the family unit and home as centrepieces of living and believed that every man should have their property and home to enable him to raise and support his family. Distributists recognize that strengthening and protecting the family requires that society be nurturing.
I really do love her Sacred Heart til death do us part. We lost a good man with Gram Parsons back in 1973. I told her I would ride her Wild Horses straight through The Apocalypse Sowing the Seeds of Love just like Tears for Fears -- when you are moved by the Spirit you manifest love, joy, peace, forbearance, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control. These are the weapons we use in battle. Against such things there is no law.. I was born on August 20th, 1969, days after Woodstock for this exact reason. The Apostle Paul said Question all things. Hold onto that which is Sacred. The Sacred Heart of the Virgin Mary Loves All Life to the Fullest.❤
To the Africans, the Sacred Heart of the Virgin Mary appears African.
To the American Indians, the Sacred Heart of the Virgin Mary appears American Indian.
To the Asians, the Sacred Heart of the Virgin Mary appears Asian.
To the Australians, the Sacred Heart of the Virgin Mary appears Australian.
To the Europeans, the Sacred Heart of the Virgin Mary appears European.
To the Indians, the Sacred Heart of the Virgin Mary appears Indian.
To the Melanesians, the Sacred Heart of the Virgin Mary appears Melanesian.
To the Micronesians, the Sacred Heart of the Virgin Mary appears Micronesian.
To the Polynesians, the Sacred Heart of the Virgin Mary appears Polynesian.
From now on all generations will call me blessed, for the Mighty One has done great things for me- holy is His name. His mercy extends to those who fear Him, from generation to generation. - Luke 1:48-50 ❤
For me, it's mainly 2 things: 1) DNA. It's information. No where else in the universe does information exist where there wasn't an author of that information. 2) Reproduction. How could even the FIRST cell know to reproduce? If there isn't a point to life, why would organisms care if they reproduced or not, and where does the point of life come from? Moral codes. Not biological ones.
I'm not religious... I'm much closer to Dawkins in thinking.
However, Eric makes a very very good point that (in this day and age when atheism is the establishment) the religious intellectual may be able to ask questions that the establishment won't.
Yes, I'm suspicious of how far that can go back to Jesus, but i prefer that over trying to shut down certain scientists.
Science is all about asking the questions no1 thought off to ask before.
People from different backgrounds and worldviews are key to this process.
Group-think is the antithesis of curiosity.
@@aidanya1336 it is certainly good to have an open mind; I would just be careful about what you are saying.
Good science is not about diversity and worldviews. Those things are human centric....just like religion is human centric.
@@warrenny ofc it is not about diversity. Diversity has no role in the work itself. But different people think in different ways. Where some get stuck on a problem, someone else might view it from a different angle and see a solution the other never considered.
@@warrenny”good“ science starts with novel hypotheses. Obviously diverse worldviews might help with that.
@@alexmack956 your comment is a non sequitur, but nice try
I would love to see a conversation between Eric and John Lennox..
Nobody has committed an act evil enough to be punished by a debate with John Lennox.
I think atheist should worry about themselves, and stop worrying about other people and their beliefs
Surely "intelligent design" when referenced by Athiests in this context, refers to "God" as the intelligent desinger?As for the bass, this could have just evolved with successful mutations over generations without "intelligent" input by the Bass. (edit) This is nonsense to call these examples "intelligent design" what is he talking about? Dawkins would debunk these claims without breaking a sweat.
You're quite insistent on missing the point.
@@Singularity606 What point would that be?
@@lukesball1 That nature does not randomly produce fake fish and intelligence plays an active role in evolution.
Well it produced real fish, with organs, eyes and motion detectors, so a fake fish shaped growth isn't exactly a stretch.
Dawkins can believe what he likes, as anyone, and other than stating his beliefs, or write about them, he does nothing that could cause harm, he's more of a philosopher, and I think if he was presented with proper formulated arguments and proof from a person with his debating skills, he might reconsider. I don't see ill intent in his arguments, yet there are people who will purposely either avoid considering higher beings for the purpose of either feeling better with themselves when carrying out their ill intents. This is evident from people, especially nowadays with AI and such, those people are so keen on accepting the possibility of an infinitely capable AI, like a God, yet they absolutely dismiss the idea of a God in terms of the Bible or something similar. Why do you think this is? And if you think about it, the idea of a God as creator, does inherently give God infinite power, I mean if He created a universe, then... on the other hand, a created program in a lab that somehow in a sudden moment becomes more powerful than the universe itself, sounds a bit like a joke tbh. So yeah, I don't know, yet there are people who are willing to believe this is possible, but a God(s) as creator(s) is just out of the question. That's kinda suspect. Either these people are actually stupid, or they just prefer their beliefs as in their mind they could use this to carry out their ill intent, no consequences whatsoever. It makes them feel safer and gives them unchecked powers over others. In my opinion such an AI, the idea of it is silly, just as I find silly all those searching for theories of everything. Theories of everything might be silly, but believing an infinitely powerful human created AI is possible, but a creator(s) is not, is just suspect, has no logic behind it, other than human limitations, make-belief etc. And really, just because you wanna believe you'll escape consequences because you believe in no creator, does not necessarily make it so. An ostrich hiding her head in the sand still does not escape. It just don't wanna see it. As for Bible alternate theories I have heard, extra-planar aliens and the like, well, something extra-planar is out of this world. In another plane. Might have created this world as well. You may as well call it God, does it matter? So why would this theory be more acceptable than the Bible God? Cause ethics and ill intent. Again. In someone's limited understanding, an extra-planar alien could excuse him, while the Bible God seems kinda strict on this. And if an extra-planar alien/being whatever does not excuse them? Then what? An AI is obviously the best case scenario to escape, they might send a team of hackers to hack it. It's mechanical, got no ethics or morals against anything, they might control it and become Gods. Well, all the best.
PS: People are stupid.
I studied religion and science side by side, and that has been incredibly enlightening. Created earthling.
Designs:
1) Humans have 60,000 miles of blood vessels.
2) Human lungs have 15.000 miles of blood vessels.
3) Humans make 3 million red blood cells per second.
4) Humans have 100 billion miles of DNA enough to reach the sun and back 1000 times.
It's crazy how many people will blindly follow a narrative portrayed by people who are seemingly in a position of authority. Don't think critically folks, just follow the science.
I'm back for a rewatch and I feel I need to suggest that Brian facilitate a conversation between Eric, Brett, and Stephen Wolfram.
A balanced and objective POV from Eric. I'm not religious, still attempt to remain agnostic about the topic.
True science doesn't forbid asking questions
Yes but unfortunately a lot of science is driven by existing theories and consensus. New compelling data doesnt very often overturn science. This is particularly true when funding and careers are on the line. Theres a great book by Kuhn called The Structure of Scientific Revolutions where he explains how it takes years of overwhelming evidence to change scientific opinion. Science is still the best tool we have for human development. Its neither pure nor perfect though.
@@mrfish4572 Yes I love science.But some people discard God for it.
Yes I run into situations not understanding the perspective (More like a Senior NCO) watching the people "Marching" to a "Comm link" (Thought amplifier) with a story. Synchronized to within +- 10 seconds of what I was doing. All the way back to 1989.
Interesting that Eric would choose mediated selection as his evidence of intelligence. Not everything coming from nothing or life coming from non-life. It goes with that thought that says, “give me one miracle and I can explain the rest”. In other words, ignore the miracle that preceded your explanation.
Can someone please help me understand the bass and clam thing. Eric says that Smart Bass (that don’t get fooled by the trick) would survive over time and therefore there would be no more such clams. But couldn’t one make the argument that the aggressive, hungrier bass (even if dumber) would survive over time, therefore leading to the positive evolution of the clam? Perhaps I am missing something.
The whole example makes no sense. The clam isn't intelligently designing anything because the lip is the product of ordinary natural selection. The bass isn't intelligently designing anything (it is stupidly being manipulated). But Eric says that "the system" is intelligently designed, by which he means the interaction between the clam and the bass that apparently benefits both. OK, so who or what is the "designer" of "the system"? There isn't any, because the "system" wasn't intelligently designed.
It seems like a forced example. The mussel/clam needs fish to reproduce itself because fish are how its larva get spread around. The mussel itself is as dumb as a rock, the fish is a lot cleverer than the mussel because the fish has a brain. In a sense, it's the intelligence/perception of the fish that drives that mussel's lip to gradually resemble a prey fish more & more. The term "perception-driven selection" rather than "intelligent design" seems more accurate. The smarter the fish are, the stronger the selection pressure for the mussel's lip to improve its appearance. But remember the mussel doesn't have to fool every fish, just one of them.
The dumber of the two species is driven by the intelligence/perceptual ability of the smarter one. It doesn't have to be a purely parasitic arrangement. I think there is a fig which has an arrangement with an insect where they both benefit. Although, every living thing tries to a get a free ride wherever it can!
It may have started with a random stripe or dot pattern which meant slightly more predator fish gave it a nibble. You only need a tiny advantage to get natural selection moving. Over the generations the striped/spotted lip mussels reproduce more successfully and the more that lip evolves to look like a prey fish in tiny increments, the more successful those mussels become & they come to dominate the population.
He is doing the either one or the other fallacy; in nature two things can both help or hinder different parts of a population.
I could use his form of argument that getting a good night's sleep is critical for good health; thus difficulty in sleeping is counterproductive and will have been weeded out by evolution.
There are insomniacs and poor night sleepers; so evolution must be wrong.
Or in a dangerous world we need people who can stay awake at night and can contribute to the overall survival; even if they are less healthy and die sooner.
Your insomnia analogy would be good except I don't think that is normally heritable. People have insomnia for non-genetic reasons. If there was a gene that caused one to sleep five hours a day, though needing eight, that might be selected against due to a higher percentage of fatality from a lack of sleep or the accidental deaths that would result. @@craigbritton1089
@@dontvoteforanybody3715 "the lip is the product of ordinary natural selection". For a lip to develop into "something" resembling a fish living just by coincidence in those waters, is believing in something beyond magic and miracles. Yet, Darwinists do exactly that, and with amazing fervor.
The designer of the system is a combination of information (the basic essence of the universe) and subconsciouness. Else, mimicry, altruism, symbiosis wouldn't exist at all, nor the archerfish that catches insects (outside the water) spitting at them with perfect aim, as if "knowing" the laws of light refraction.
As intelligent as Eric is, I'm surprised that he is making this statement. If you use a phrase that is charged such as this one is. You can expect people to hear you saying something other than what you are intending.
You must clarify your definitions, before you criticize someone for misunderstanding you, when it is you, using a highly charged phrase instead of just clearly illustrating the concept you are attempting to express.
I agree with your questions about logic and appearances. This seems to be in deep left field. I hope other readers do not make the same mistake of calling this Science. BTW: As of about 2017, it is against the law to teach "Intelligent Design" as Science. However, I think this is following the same path of ignoring the law as the Scopes in the 1920;s. Creationism is alive and well and Science is on life-support.
Stephen C Meyer makes good points about intelligent design concerning the chemical makeup of the digestive system.
How, when and why should science "close the books" on any significant question? As long as we live in time and have a future, there can always be new evidence that will call settled conclusions into question.
I'm sorry but I read some of Dawkin's books, he talks about the orchids specifically in great length and would consider both these cases to be examples of the extended phenotype - i.e. a bass' genes for getting fooled and biting a mussel's lip actually result in the phenotype of the mussel to include that lip.
He also mentions that Darwin extrapolated natural selection of all species from the observation of artificial selection (intelligent design) of human domesticated species.
While it's a refreshing rhetorical twist, hearing intelligent design describing a real thing in nature, I don't think he would dispute it and say "This is out of the question.", he might just say that the phrase has been so profaned that it's better to avoid it and find a better phrase. Just as "flat earth" could mean a really smooth desert with no dunes, cracks or plants, and this is surely possible, but the phrase itself colloquially means other things.
I agree with your factual points here, I'm just highly skeptical that anyone would refuse to debate you on these factual points, and would require some more evidence of this (rather than handwaving "scared atheist academics").
Which shows how little Dawkins knows....poor guy
9:53 How would you hope to explain on evolutionary terms the origin of the human language?
Ape has phoneme = morpheme = phrase.
Human has phonem + phoneme ... = morpheme; morpheme + morpheme ... = phrase.
Ape has pragmatic messages. "How are you?" "Want some food?" "Flee into the trees from the lion!!!" "I'm sad" "I'm happy" ...
Human has all of that + notional messages, extending into not immediately relevant past, future, at a distance, negatives, conditionals ...
How would you explain the transition?
Tomasello, on Dukes, refused to answer that question.
I don't see any connection between the two.
I don’t know enough to say your heart is filled with the lord but there’s a mutual grasp between your mind and God. IYKYK
@@FromThe3021 "I don’t know enough to say your heart is filled with the lord but there’s a mutual grasp between your mind and God." How did you measure this exactly?
@@frosted1030 - How I signed off really says it all.
But here’s the gist of the gist, a really poor explanation that I hope helps.
_Them not seeing a connection between the two indicates they have a grasp of God, an understanding, in their mind. Taking that very concept as God itself, it isn’t possible unless God has a grasp of their mind and ultimately it does not make them a Godly or religious person, that is gauged by the heart._
@@FromThe3021 "Taking that very concept as God itself, it isn’t possible unless God has a grasp of their mind and ultimately it does not make them a Godly or religious person, that is gauged by the heart." So.. this imaginary friend of yours is as real as anything else as long as we can grasp it? Do you think Star Wars really happened? What about fairies? These things have much greater specific definitions than your silly imaginary friend. We can grasp them, even children can grasp these concepts. Is that the low low bar you use to determine something? Describe your methodology for determining the truth and how you apply that methodology without hypocrisy to every situation.
@@frosted1030 - I can’t explain it, you have to find your own enlightening. I’m not even exactly sure what you’re getting at with your analogy’s but if you genuinely are looking to understand, scrap any assumption of what you may think I’m claiming to know to be real. Such assumptions are based on your other assumptions of what someone you define as religious believes. I’m assuming.
Maybe clarify your definition of God and ask very specific questions if you wish to continue the chat. It’s not really my domain, it’s more of a tacit understanding shared but I have no problem helping guide you because it wasn’t that long ago, I was you. Maybe not as polite to the crazies. FYI - The crazies are still the crazies. They are the ones who haven’t found what OP has.
"Many of these (brave religious) people who do not believe there is a persuasive case for random mutation being the major driver of selection"
I took evolutionary biology and genetics courses in college, late 1980's, and it was not doctrine even back then that random mutation is the major driver of evolution.
So, the first statement used as example to support whatever point Eric Weinstein is making is a false premise.
My understanding has been that although random mutation often provides some new genetic material, most selection acts on traits and genes already present in the genome.
Acting on traits already in the genome expresses variation in the next generation. Variation is not evolution.
@@jasonvance4801Variation is a factor involved in evolution.
Give me an example, please. Tall people, short people, more melanin, less melanin, are variations, and have nothing to do with evolution.
@@jasonvance4801Tall people, short people, more melanin, less melanin, are variations, and have everything to do with evolution.
@@andywomack3414 Variation isn’t evolution. Nothing new is added to genomes when genomes express existing characteristics in succeeding generations.
Human intervention in evolution is a just as “normal” intervention as any evolutionary intervention or change over time.
I find weinstein to be an insufferably arrogant bloviator in love with the sound of his own voice
Wow, then you and the dunderheads who upvoted your crass obtuseness are tone deaf, and lacking in curiosity.
what happens with his eye mowement at @1:18?
Eric has a wandering eye.
it's the... "intelligent design"
95% of religious adults, including people in the sciences and medical community, were simply raised that way. It's not so easy to reject the family and community from which you were raised.
I think Lee Cronin’s theory explain Eric’s examples.
People prepared to risk heresy but do not seek martyrdom are always the most important voices to listen to.
If you and Eric Weinstein and a billion other podcasts had ANY integrity they would give EQUAL TIME to Communists, Marxists, Socialists, Antinatalists like me and Amanda Sukenick and Lawrence Anton, Greens like me and Dr Jill Stein and Ralph Nader and Howie Hawkins, Antinatalist Animal Rights Vegans (AARVs) like me, Anarchists, Sovereign Citizens, biocultured meat advocates like Isha Datar and New Harvest, longevity escape velocity (LEV) advocates like the Foresight Institute and Aubrey de Grey,
Sovereign Citizens, Auditors, Libertarians, Separatists like Brexiters and anyone seeking to separate themselves or their town or county or province or state from a larger region such as a country, and PRISONERS (since ALL prisoners are prisoners of war)
and ask for all THESE people's ideas and theories about cosmology
as you and big media have given UNJUSTLY and STUPIDLY and FOR NO REASON AT ALL EXCLUSIVELY to christurds, religionists/cultists, religious extremists, religious fanatics, subhumans. ANTINATALIST FACT: EVERYBODY WAS FORCED INTO THE WORLD WITHOUT THEIR CONSENT. THEREFORE THE OPINION OF EVERY SINGLE Communist, prison etc is JUST as important as the opinion of ANYONE ELSE, and certainly INFINITELY MORE important than the opinion of the subhuman rightwing religiontard,
about the origin of the universe, etc.
Agree
Correct! Saying evolution means "it's all random" is like saying every female on this planet randomly chooses mates, including humans. We all know how much of their intelligence our females invest on that decision. They might sometimes make unwise decisions, but it's definitely not random. Just ask short guys!
Random mutation is plausible, but not probable. De Vries was a patch for Darwin.
Consider cosmic rays bombarding DNA. It's like firing a machine gun at an automobile and expecting a better car. Not in a million iterations.
Biology is not auto mechanic; and analogies/ parables do not prove anything; they can only illustrates a true or false point.
And since DNA has mutations that seldom destroy the organism instantly ( cancer takes time); your analogy would be more accurate if you said that something not understanding the physics of aerodynamics kept randomly changing the shape of cars that needed an advantage to get somewhere sooner; and those cars could reproduce themselves.
Have you heard of DNA? Cars are built in a factory; organisms reproduce themselves.
5:21 Obviously a nod to "St. Galileo" and "St. Giordano Bruno" is basically "de rigueur" among the science community ...
What is Brett talking about?
Scientists who are brave?
If there were no bias, which is every single scientist preferred position as the default position, there’s nothing to be brave about. There’s no hurdle to jump.
The search for God leads you to a man with an imagination and a pen and paper. To consider anything else seems like trying to find the real being Bugs Bunny was modelled after. There isn't a real being behind an imaginary being invented by man. So legitimizing imaginary beings seems insane to me. Can I have 3 million to find the Bones of Bugs Bunny? Um... he has no bones... Bugs isn't real... he was created as an imaginary being by the mind of man. Just like every god ever. There is nothing intriguing about finding imaginary beings. That is delusion, not science.
None of these "books" AKA theories, should be closed until they can be definitely proven false. Lack of observable evidence is not the same as proving incorrect. That is a fundamental concept of science!
As it also doesn't prove something exists.
You want ABSOLUTE TRUTH?
LAW OF CONTRADICTION
A is B, illogical impossible contradiction. This is an ABSOLUTE FACT. Let's plug data into formula and critically evaluate the absolute fact.
A non conscious non intelligent non being caused the illogical impossible effect of
B your conscious intelligent being in the universe
Dude this is A is B illogical impossible contradiction never witnessed in nature or labs.
@@mooferoo
Correct. Therefore, neither stance should be bashed when conducting proper science or speaking with people in general.
I don't really understand the "mechanism" of "closing a book" to a scientific theory (probably because I'm not a scientist). Who is and how are they "closing" these theories? How can an entire field whose foundation it is to constantly try to disprove established theories have theories that are no longer allowed to be worked on? It seems pretty reductive for an ever-evolving field.
@vagrantknights it stands behind consensus. However, concensus is supposed to change when provided new information. Closed books have a way to reopen regardless of whether people wish them to or not.
Exampes:
The big bang... was considered a closed book and is now being seriously looked at again.
The age of the universe is also being revisited due to new galaxies being discovered that "weren't supposed to be"
And all of this is due to the JWT
The impetus to explore nature came from the idea that God is rational and man was given a mind to explore the world God made. Science evolved from the observation of nature made mostly by clerics and monastics.
Erik's genius lies in his ability to recall all the details and nuances related to the profoundly deep and intrinsically mesmerizing topic at hand that he has spoken about for the sole purpose of remaining on track or in the very least not loop back on itself, long, long after the rest of us can remember what it is we're discussing.
A rhetorical gift typical of b.s. monologists! 😂😂😂😂
"Genius"? No.
Erik’s genius lies. Full stop. Shame to see such genius devoted to lies.
@@user-sk7jt3pf1c . He's been one steaming pile of resentment since the legit physics community debunked his pet theory, and "No one quite lies the way the morally indignant do!" (Nietzsche)...
😂 Right On
You all getting nasty 😂
But it’s 2024! It’s a leap year. We must not be A-hats in 2024. Only in odd years.
Selection is adaptation based on a variation of an existing genetic construct. The question is how the genetic construct got here in the first place and the evidence for it being from ordinary selection is lacking.
Bravo!
To say that Dawkins is afraid is ridiculous and his books literally speak to intelligent design. The Blind Watchmaker is written entirely to challenge this notion.
Those orchids with their 20/20 vision, never cease to amaze.
Yeah..."If only I could look just like that thing that keeps coming to fiddle with my faddle, I could trick it into faddling me without having to be fiddled with!"
Bingo. With respect to the clam example, he doesn't conclude that the clam has 20/20 vision; he concludes that "the system" is intelligently designed. What does he mean by "the system"? I guess the interaction of clam and bass. But who or what designed that? Nothing! He brings nothing to the critical point. He's just redefining 'intelligent design' to fit a standard evolutionary process, and pretending that is profound. Dawkins would make mince meat of this amateurish argument, IMO.
I think I heard Sam Harris talk about Jesus smuggling, for example in his debate with JP. But maybe Eric said it first who knows
If I remember correctly, this expression did appear in one of the Peterson-Harris debates, but it was introduced not by any of them, but by the moderator in the occasion, Douglas Murray.
It is obvious that precluding answers, regardless of what the evidence may be showing, shows religious fervor on both sides of the divide. Often the naturalistic side show more fervor and dogmatism. Why it is illegal or wrong to "smuggle Jesus in" when the whole question of origins is wide open? The energy and information quandary, as well as conspicuous finetuning, practically invite the divine in for free thinking people
Conventional religion is not a robust threat to science, a much larger threat is the corrupting influence of government funding
Excellent video enjoy listening to the brilliant Eric W.
Glad you enjoyed it. Thanks so much! *What was your favorite takeaway from this conversation?* _Please join my mailing list to get _*_FREE_*_ notes & resources from this show! Click_ 👉 briankeating.com/list
No wonder Dawkins had refused to debate anyone anymore and Harris ran from Twitter and is still running!
For me, the fundamental argument for design springs not so much from some specific feature of the world, but from science itself. Science is based on the assumption that the universe is rational and comprehensible, and this assumption is justified at every end and turn. The universe works according to mathematically codifiable laws, so that the application of reason to evidence has given us a wonderful (though still partial) understanding of what the universe is and how it works. As Einstein put it: "the one incomprehensible thing about the universe is that it is comprehensible". The thought that this is because the universe is the work, or offspring, of a supreme, transcendent, creative intelligence, is clearly very compelling. It is hardly surprising that many scientists, past and present, have themselves come to this conclusion.
Omg Eric has totally lost it. First he got sucked into the alien dribble now he falls for the god nonsense. It must be just a quick clickbait way to get attention. Because come on really is this what he Believes . Saying Dawkins tries to evade the argument is stupid. That is literally what he has done for years. He seeks out religious nonsense and challenges the person spewing it. He is too trusting or too gullible. Or just trying to get views.
Eric likes money. And there's lots to be made with this grift.
I am ABSOLUTELY NOT RELIGIOUS to put it politely. But Mr. Weinstein's arguments make a lot of sense and I even was able FOR THE FIRST TIME IN MY RATHER LONG LIFE to sympathize with religious people, at least the types of scientists that he described. It is so nice to deal with intelligent people!!!
These arguments make perfect sense if you don’t understand evolution.
this reaction makes perfect sense if a person is dumb enough not to understand what I was implying@@poopandfartjokes
@@poopandfartjokes "The strange thing about evolution is everyone thinks they understand it" Pete Medawar
@@marktyler3381 it’s a pretty simple concept. It’s not rocket science.
@@poopandfartjokes And there you have it, bravo!
I remember the many discussions that Krishnamurti had with physicist David Bohm. Radical atheists dismiss all of it, even those who do not hold a religious belief, but are exploring if there is something beyond what ordinary thought can know or perceive.
Random selection will very likely be proven incorrect or inadequate, not because of god but because it’s almost certainly not random, but a function of epigenetics that is driven by experience
There is no such thing as "Random selection" and nobody says there is.
@@Ainzdabestpretty sure he meant “random mutation”
Like always, just conspiracy from Eric, I have been around research scientist for a decade now and I have yet to witness what he is talking about. Books are never closed on any topic in science, people in academia are just not interested! in essence, he is asking for people to be allowed to look for unicorns. It clearly shows that he has not internalized what it means to practice the scientific method. The scientific method is a philosophy which is not compatible with religious philosophy. Science builds up from observation to come to facts, religious thinking begins with assumptions and builds up towards confirmation.
Are you familiar with the story of (now) Nobel winner Dan Schectmann and the saga of his shunning by his peers when he shared his material which exhibited five fold crystalline symmetry? (now referred to as quasicrystals).
For all its benefits, the peer review process has been used at times as a gatekeeping device. There are currently pre-prints by highly qualified research teams which may never be reviewed, possibly because the topic (covid/ covid vaccines) is verboten politically- not scientifically.
Well simply by the mere conjecture “scientific philosophy is incompatible with religious philosophy” is a point of evidence that confirms the thing you’re claiming is not in evidence. So you’ve sort of defeated your own point here.
Edit: Also very ironic seeing as the scientific philosophy was invented by devout Christians
@@fencserx9423 I don't think we are using the word philosophy the same way here buddy. A philosophy is a way of thinking (though the word conveys more than that), we could almost interchange words in the statement "scientific philosophy is incompatible with religious philosophy", for "scientific way of thinking is incompatible with religious way of thinking." Not all philosophies carry woo! woo !. And whether you are right or not, do you think any "scientific philosophers" could be other than christian back in the day? I don't think this is the burn that you think it is.
I find that modern scientists love to edit history and forget to mention that pretty much every great mind they quote, and look up to, and cite from the history of science, including Charles Darwin for example, was religious.
My answer to the clam would be there were many mutations of clam and only the successful mutation that allowed it to most resemble a fish carried its genes onwards.
Since Eric is a physicist I would like to hear his opinion on the Finely Tuned Universe Theory.
Eric Weinstein is not a Physicist, he is a Mathematician/ Arithmatic Surgeon.
Many people accept intelligent design without knowing it. Just look at how seriously some people take the idea that we are living in a computer simulation.