Stephen Meyer is one of the first persons to turn my mind from liberal thinking. While I was a Christian during college, I was a biology major and allowed myself to be indoctrinated during college. It was not until after university that I ventured into different theories and different ways of thinking. I wish I could express my graditude to not only Stephen Meyer, but Dr. John Lennox, David Berlinski, and several others
Meyer's essential claim is that the rapid diversity that occurred during the so-called "Cambrian Explosion" cannot be explained by normal evolutionary mechanisms and hence the best explanation is that of intelligent design. Unfortunately, as many reviewers with a scientific background especially in paleontology and biology have indicated, Meyer is highly selective and often leaves out critical information.[1] The Cambrian Explosion Approximately 540 million years ago a rapid expansion of multicellular life occurred when most of the animal phyla appeared in the fossil record. Despite claims by Meyer, diversification began during the Ediacaran through the Early Cambrian period. The Cambrian itself is divided into several parts or stages of which Meyer seems to only discuss the third stage as if its the only one and down playing the others as if they are unimportant. Meyer's view is that the rapid diversification occurred in only a couple of million years (not enough time for evolution to occur) while mainstream science argues that the evidence indicates that it was in the time frame of 20-25 (or more) million years which is plenty of time for evolution.
Derf Head Apache Junction KTM rules, Meyer addresses all the points you make in his book. Nothing is ignored or hidden. Plus he doesn’t assume only a couple million years. He quotes Cambrian experts (who are not ID advocates) on the time period for the Cambrian. The core issue he makes is usually ignored by critics. It is not merely a question of time, but also a lack of any mechanism with the causal capacity for innovative new designs. The scientists of the Third Way of Evolution (again not ID) affirm that neo-Darwinism lacks any such mechanism. They hope to find some 3rd way that doesn’t involve design. If you want to consider what Meyer actually says, get either or both of his books.
@@JH-hx2cl Most absolutely. The points emphasized by these guys made me realize, after I looked into their research and arguments for myself (rather than just reactively believing what they or anyone else had told me), that, at a very basic level, science (and therefore scientists) should "question everything". This only opens the door for more good and true science. Science was never intended to be and is of no use as dogma. But unfortunately, I was taught exactly the opposite at university. So truly, I am so grateful for true pursuers of science like Stephen Meyer.
Meyer is an outspoken Christian. He was alluding to the Bible's statement in the first verses of the Gospel of John which says: 1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 He was in the beginning with God. 3 All things were made through him, and without him was not any thing made that was made.
@@mojo2968 my point is pretty clear. ID as peddled by Meyer and his fundamentalist Christian pressure group has nothing to do with science. It’s simply discredited, in scientific dogma used to push his religion.
This guy is super intelligent and sensible and has converted me 100%. Ben is one of the few people out there that can carry an interview at this level of balanced intellectual debate. Well done both and thanks 🙏
what do ross, meyer, behe, tour and pals hope to find? why are they doing science in fact cos at the bottom of their barrel all you will find is more "nature did it". they must be really crappy christians to not realise that if god were real he doesn't allow evidence of his existence, the whole premise of christianity is you are required - it is demanded of you - that you have faith, not knowledge. are they expecting to find a trade mark? do they think god made a blunder and has some kind of electronic device hidden in all the nature stuff? they are the dumbest people in a bucket of dumb people.
It’s true. If his work was “pseudoscience” it would be picked apart, it has stood for a long time and now we have darwinists such as David gelertner and Jordan Peterson talking about the influence Meyer’s work has had on them.
For someone who talks so much, Ben is an EXCELLENT listener. Guess that's why he's so smart...his listening skills also implies wisdom as well. Go Ben!
Good observation. I appreciate that Ben is incredibly intelligent (and good at answering questions/having debates) but I respect the fact that he invites other very intelligent people and truly listens to them. There is definitely a correlation between critical listening skills and wisdom.
All of the Sunday Special shows are very interesting and entertaining. This discussion with Stephen Meyer is the best one yet. Extraordinary! Thanks for bringing him on the show.
The reason people attack intelligent design cause its based on an assumption with no real evidence pointing to it other then no one knows what became before the universe. Thats when the conversation stops he doesnt know. No one does. He is also ignoring evolution wich has been a cornerstone of biology and hasnt been disproved yet.
@@bumpin0 There isn't a viable scientific alternative to ID. ID is based on our knowledge of cause and effect relationships. And Intelligent Design is NOT anti-evolution. ID claims that organisms were not only intelligently designed but they were so designed with the ability to evolve and adapt.
@@sombodysdad Exactly. Neodarwinianism posits a simple stochastic search process as the first and last cause of all nature and life. The Curse of Dimensionality kills any search processes dead. Meyer gets at this with his comments on computer programming, mathematics, time of life on the earth, etc.
@@bumpin0 No. You just straw manned everything without actually touching what was said. Intelligent design is based on the idea that the for irreducibly complex life and universal structures, purely naturalistic processes are inconcievable. Many scientists and atheists concede the remarkable design of the universe. Not only are there holes in the evolutionary timeline, it fails miserably to explain how life can magically spring from rocks. Intelligent design has evidence in cosmology and biology which you conviently ignore. If you can explain away an entire finite universe exploding itself from nothing, were all ears.
@@oakinw8361 Yes the assumption of ID is that the universe and life is so complex you can't conceive of an explanation of the universe other then it was designed. That just proves the current people that live on earth are too stupid at this time to understand. Just because we dont have an explanation doesnt mean you jump to an conclusion of ID. Its no more stupid then UFO sightings and jumping to the conclusion of aliens. You cant just make up a conclusion you want without evidence. The is a reason scientists laugh at people who believe in ID is because your evidence is the lack of evidence. Where as the other side has a mountain of evidence. The burden of proof is on ID not on the people saying its a crock of shit.
I am amazed how Ben can hold intellectual discussion every week with various intelligent people... I mean he has to read their books, know their backgrounds and views, their counterparts, etc. to ask meaningful questions and have powerful discussions. And Ben exactly does that with every guest. Human minds are amazing. Ben’s mind is amazing. Thank you Ben for all your hard works and providing us wonderful contents and knowledges. Jesus loves you Ben. Have a good day!
Dee , friend, now you can be fully in knowledge about that Supreme Creator. 💠🙏🏻 krishna.org/bhagavad-gita-as-it-is-original-1972-edition-free-pdf-download/ Bhagavad-gita As It Is was spoken on a battlefield and it is relevant now and for future generations. vedabase.io or vedabase.com Please read, make your life perfect, and then share with everyone you meet. 🌻🙏🏻 🦅🌹
@@TheBestMovieAlive Lolol. Why, exactly, do you think natural chemical processes can synthesize, isolate, and preserve even the precursors to life? Or if you'd prefer something more in your league, what exactly do you find wanting in Dr. Meyer's arguments?
have you check out "Exposing the Discovery Institute Part 1: Casey Luskin" and "How Creationism Taught Me Real Science 44 Lucy" on youtube. they shows how ignorant .Casey Luskin and discovery institute are.
This has been my favorite Sunday Special so far. I would love to see these two speak along with Jordan Peterson to present their arguments for intelligent design and objective truth.Also, and it might sound strange, but I would also like to add someone like Phil Robertson to that panel. I think someone like him, someone with a wealth of life experience, who has interpreted his life experiences through the prism of biblical teachings, but who hasn't studied his beliefs in an academic setting, would add a very valuable "grounded" element to the discussion. As the other three delve deeper and deeper into the evidence from studies and literature, Mr. Robertson would be the one to pull their minds back above the weeds to remind them what, exactly, is being argued/interpreted.I would absolutely love to see this happen.
@@tradcon3096 It's not scepticism, it's intellectual cowardice. Berlinski has contributed nothing to any branch of any science at any time....and sits helplessly on the sidelines sneering and lying about his betters. That is not scepticism.
@@bigworldddd9566 yeah, "religion poisons some things but atheism poisons everything." David Berlinski in the affirmative. I enjoyed the debate, but actually felt Berlinski didn't quite hit his point home. I think David Berlinski's strength is not in formal debate settings with only a couple timed 10-15--20 min sections but rather in a more loose ask-and-engage type debate. He is great pointing out self-refuting nature of some of Hitchen's quotes i.e. "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence"...However, I don't think Berlinski adequately dulled "Hitchens razor"..."the one with the claim has burden of proof and opponent need not argue." The reason for this is that Berlinski is really a kind of sceptic/ agnostic(?). Therefore he doesn't make a lot of claims so much as point out faulty reasoning of other claims.
Unbelievable. Breathtaking from start to finish. Elucidation of well researched and thought out stream of consciousness conversation between two minds of equivalent prowess. Certainly one of the very best presentations of logical discourse available on UA-cam. Period. Thank you Ben Shapiro!
ManiacallyYours Quite a bit of salt for your breakfast, huh? I’ll concede that Darwin didn’t have access to future the understanding of DNA so indeed, that might have changed HIS interpretation. But apparently OTHERS who ARE “initiated” agree with Meyers work. 😘
@@walkergarya for everyone that lies you wish death, so think about what you would do about your self or you think that you do not lie? If Mayer’s lies, then prove him wrong and stop giving dearth wishes around
@@cleytonbentes3133 Barbara Forrest's expert witness report for the Dover trial: "Conclusions about the intelligent design creationist movement. My area of expertise is the nature and strategy of the intelligent design (ID) creationist movement. Based on the research I have done, I have concluded that its program is a fundamentally religious one. This conclusion is based primarily on ID leaders’ and their supporters’ views of it as stated in their own words. It is also based upon their total rejection of naturalism. Anti-naturalism is an integral part of ID. Its proponents reject not only philosophical naturalism (the metaphysical view that nothing exists beyond the natural world) but also the naturalistic methodology of science (the scientific procedural protocol of seeking only natural explanations of natural phenomena). ID’s rejection of naturalism in any form logically entails its appeal to the only alternative, supernaturalism, as a putatively scientific explanation for natural phenomena. This makes ID a religious belief. In addition, my research reveals that ID is not science, but the newest variant of traditional American creationism. With only a few exceptions, it continues the usual complaints of creationists against the theory of evolution and comprises virtually all the elements of traditional creationism."
Stephen C. Meyer has a very impressive education. - Physics Major - Geology Major - Cambridge Ph.D, Philosophy of Science (Biology / Origins of life) - Chemistry - Molecular Biology - Information Theory - Thermo Dynamics
And yet the so-called "science community" labelled his works pseudo-science. I guess being a scientist and a truth seeker is not necessary the same thing any more.
@@duydatyds His "work" is religious bafflegab dressed up as science. He'd run a mile from any actual scientific scrutiny- his one appearance in the peer reviewed literature involved sneaking a paper into a biology journal by cheating the review process! The above list of his educational history is beyond dubious. He has a degree in physics from a small private Christian school and did a phd in the philosophy of science. the rest is nonsense- he has never studied chemistry, molecular biology or infomation theory and makes a fool of himself when he tries to feign authority. He is also not a geophysicist and hasn't been for 35 years. Why do creationists lie so much?
@@ds525252 The club being what? Professional scientists? Sure- occasionally a breakthrough will come from an amateur. The point however is that in order for it to be recongised as a breakthrough it has to be rigorously examined by peer review.....not announced on the Ben Shapiro Show or in a childish animation for Denise Prager's pretend "university". One significant instance in mathematics was the the solution by Kurt Heegner of the the class number problem. establishing the valdity of this took years and involved no appearences on Jesus TV.....just the kind of rigorous verification Meyer notoriously cheated.
This is capitalism...if you don't like it don't listen...or pay for his podcasts and you don't have to hear it. Only the MSM gets to put smaltz out for a reduced price...the rest of us have to pay. I get what you're saying. I grew bored with it and bought a subscription to Blaze, so I don't hear that anymore.
Maybe the first time I’ve wanted to pay to be a member. This kind of intellectualism let’s us see the best of Shapiro as well as entertaining the highest part of my mind- thanks!
Discovery Institute have an article written saying that this may be the best interview Stephen C Meyer has ever done mainly due to the fact that Ben has obviously read his work and has a good understanding of it.
Ben doesn't know the difference between biotic and organic. He's a rightwing ignoramus interviewing a rightwing ignoramus. Why not listen to actual scientists discuss this rather than these pretentious clowns?
I love this show, it really let's people let loose and pour their hearts out. The questions are always solid and the answers are always great and interesting. Admittedly it's a little hard for me to keep up with Stephen Meyers because the dude is ridiculously smart, but I always learn so much from him in the end. :3
You can take Stephen's verbal responses, transcribe them, and end up with publishable essays. The man has a remarkable ability to frame and describe with incredible order off the top of his head.
Odd then that when he tried to get one of his essays published in a peer reviewed journal it was dropped instantly as the review process was cheated in order to sneak it in. He can do this "off the top of his head" because he's been preaching the same discredited schtick for years on end.
@@mcmanustony, Nah, there was nothing about cheating at all. The "controversy" was political. In fact the Wikipedia article you read was pretty biased in what should be a hard news story on a plain vanilla topic. However, evolutionists are political and consider Meyer a threat, as do some physicists. Strange that they can't live with competing theories but neither can Democrats and Republicans as the Sternberg controversy article, which exposes the relevant political connections, reveals.
@@mcmanustonyThe fact that this rattles your cage may point to a smothered recognition that maybe there is more truth to his theories than you wish to acknowledge. A closed and defensive mind doesn’t help to make any point. There really is a God and we are not in charge.
@@humboldtharry1289 I don't have a cage. Meyer is a lying crook. I notice, among the pathetic armchair psychology, not even an attempt to deal with the facts of his dishonesty. What he and his crony Sternberg committed was gross academic misconduct. The peer review system was CHEATED. TO SNEAK A RESEARCH FREE ESSAY INTO A JOURNAL OF RESEARCH. Meyer was at the time just a mouthpiece for a right wing Christian pressure group, Sternberg had conveniently resigned and the pathetic essay appeared in his final edition. Had it not been his final edition he would have been fired. Why are creationists to utterly and hopelessly dishonest?
@@humboldtharry1289 I don't have a cage to rattle. There is no theory of intelligent design. Meyer is a lying hack at a right wing religious pressure group. That is all.
Great discussion, thank you for having this guest on. Ton of good knowledge provided in a very small time frame. Will be buying his books to check out!
Yeah, this was an amazing sunday special. Ben did his homework and asked the right questions to invoke some of the most brain stimulating responses from his guest. An hour wasn't enough. My mind craves more! Awesome interview!
@@KenJackson_US Yeah, either you understood it or you didnt, they wasted no time in building blocks or basic theory explanations. So the target audience this stuff appeals to are the only ones who will appreciate how much content and how much they covered in the allotted time. It's a great host and guest match-up. Had the interview been conducted by anyone else, say Joe Rogan, even though I'm a fan. I'm sure at least 30 minutes would've been lost to rhetoric bullshit conversation. With our boy Ben, we're on topic the whole interview.
Ben has not ceased to amaze me. His questions demonstrate that his intellect is in a higher stratum than most political pundits, bar none. Not only is incisive in the political and philosophical, but he can also keep up and even sharply engage in such a heady, scientific discussion.
What a blast! I always enjoy "magic man from the desert"-people talking about evolution, information, molecules and Shannon entropy, my favourite brand of comedy.
Outstanding interview. Was not familiar with Stephen C. Meyer prior. Chock-full of info. Going to have to listen again to think through some of it fully.
Only if you accept his sophistry as factual which it's not. Scientists in the fields he misrepresents do not respect his pseudoscientific nonsense. Try reading a criticism of his claims some day. Don't take extraordinary claims on the word of propagandists.
@@sealevelbear : I'm no expert but neither is Meyers ncse.com/library-resource/critique-exploring-explore-evolution "Beneath all its distortions, all its misrepresentations of modern evolutionary science, Explore Evolution uses familiar and long-refuted creationist anti-evolution arguments. " "Stephen Meyer’s first demonstration of these biases was his atrociously incompetent book Signature in the Cell (2009, HarperOne), which was universally lambasted by molecular biologists as an amateurish effort by someone with no firsthand training or research experience in molecular biology." www.skepticblog.org/2013/08/28/stephen-meyers-fumbling-bumbling-amateur-cambrian-follies/
@@michaelwill7811 I assume you haven't read the article I linked. He is not trained in the field about which he writes and is considered both amateurish and wrong by people who are.
Everyone should hear Dr. Meyer's arguments, they probably seem outlandish to many people but they are extremely sound arguments. I have just recently discovered him and his books and I can't stop thinking about the questions that he's addressing. Fascinating.
"Everyone should hear Dr. Meyer's arguments,"- why? They are rubbish. "I can't stop thinking about the questions that he's addressing."- have you considered reading some actual scientists who work in these fields rather than a lying zealot who abuses them for religious reasons.
@@carolarnold9916 I will because I understand what a nucleotide is and Stephen doesn't. The guy is a charlatan, but feel free to be conned if that makes your view of what's real feel safer.
@@skoducks6071 please exlain your understanding of a nucleotide, and please tell me what the flaw in,Stephen Meyers research, indicates he doesnt. Thankyou Mr.Sko Ducks.
@@carolarnold9916 A glaring example is when he answers the question that starts at 3:30. He claims DNA stores information in what he calls a digital code (four digits referring to A, G, C, and T the four types of nucleotides). He is wrong, humans simply created this digital code to represent the chemical structures of the different nucleotides in order to more readily work with the data. Google types of nucleotides and you will see an image of the different chemical structures. He then asserts that information always arises from an intelligent source (which is false) and confuses information with code (the expression of information) claiming that because DNA uses this code there could be an intelligent source. Under this argument no chemical reactions could occur naturally, which is asinine .
Dr Meyer is amazing! His two books are masterpieces and I can't wait for his newest effort. There is only one known cause of specified and complex information in our uniform experience: intelligence! I have read tons of stuff from discovery institue fellows. Almost all of it was fantastic. Great interview Ben as always!
Meyer's main issue is he doesn't understand molecular evolution well enough, which is fine given it isn't his field, but he then asserts his own personal incredulity based on his own ignorance as evidence for his position, in opposition to an entire field of experts. Whilst also setting up a false dichotomy to make his conclusions.... not looking good straight off the bat
@@lyricalmike7162 you are wrong. His cambridge degree is in philosophy prior to which he got a basic degree in physics from a small private Christian fundamentalist college. His training in biology is precisely nil.
20:42 "We know from our experience with software code... the last thing you want in a section of functional software code is a series random changes to those zeros and ones. If that happens you're going to degrade the information that's in that code long before you'll ever generate a software program or operating system." This whole line of reasoning and the rest that follows is very interesting. Great content Ben!
This is a bad argument purely because DNA does not work the same as a computer code. there are redundancies and useless or unneeded parts, whereas a computer code is made with each section having a. Purpose.
This was a spectacular interview! Very detailed and full of information. I have been following Stephen Meyer for years here and there and I still learned a lot from this. My brain craves this stuff!
@@lrvogt1257 //// Are you a "real scientist"? Do what you advise, and you will find where the real 1/2 truth, obfuscation disinformation and false conclusions lie.
@@lrvogt1257 //// I already know their side of the story. Peer review = politically correct. Darwin is good for micro-evolution. Beyond that, he is lost.
How so? If that where the case, this “creative mind” most definitely understands science better than we do, so who is the (meta) creative mind behind the creative mind you are talking about?
@@LomuHabana Your response indicates you believe God was created. Jews, Christians and Moslems don't believe in a created God -- God is eternal - the universe was created.
@@pcm7315 I don’t believe god was created, in fact I don’t believe in a god at all. All I did was following his logic, if intelligence requires a creator, than your “god” requires a creator, because god/ our creator is necessarily more intelligent than we are, and according to Jake, we have to have a creator. So the our more intelligent creator does too.
@@LomuHabana There is the abstract called “eternity”. Eternity is sometimes misleadingly interpreted as “infinitely long time”. However “eternity” equals with “no time at all”. In eternity there is no time. You can not measure eternity. Eternity has no start no end. The Intelligent Designer had to be eternal, someone who was not depending on the laws of nature which he made for the Universe. One doesn't need to name that someone. I call him God when I write in English. According to Bible the eternal God created both time and space. It would be against formal logic to ask “when” or ”how” God came into being. Words like before, now, after, when, how etc. are bound to time, but there is no time in eternity. An eternal entity can not be created. A creation would need a moment but there are no moments in eternity.
I have a very practical reason to believe in creationism because abiogenesis and evolution have both been scientifically proven impossible, at least as long as we believe that the laws of physics and the genetic realities have always been as they are. After years of observing the battle between the evolution theory and the intelligent design, I have come to the conclusion that here we have the battle between atheism and science. This is revealing: “Darwin made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist.” (Dawkins) So atheism per se has nothing to do with intellect or science. Atheists are just happy if they feel like getting some support from science. Here we talk of a worldview, not of a scientific approach. DNA contains information in a written code. That kind of information can only come from an intelligent source. I don’t want to insult anyone, but to claim that abiotic matter started thinking, planning and building itself refers to inability for rational thinking.
@@jounisuninen lOl evolution has never been scientifically disproven, quite the opposite, it has been IMPROVED. But the principle of natural selection and adaptation is still valid. I believe you have been misinformed. And btw, our currently existing understanding of physics and the universe strongly suggest an eternal block universe, where notions as past, present and future are nothing more than subjective illusions.
No, no it shouldn't. I might actually have to write something on this. Reading this commen section hurts me....like it's kinda painful. I'm open to new ideas and was really looking forward to this but was massively disappointed. It brought nothing new and brought up both poor logical and scientific arguments. I haven't actually looked at the mathematical formulations, but I'm assuming based on date and lack of acceptance that they aren't right with current understanding.
@@jamiefinn4438 So you have actually nothing intelligent to say other than your own random uneducated opinion? Lovely, matches your Worldview quite accurately.
Lol, smh Jaime Jaime Jaime.. Have you seen Meyers list of majors? I'll take his calculations over yours any day. "I'll have to check myself blah blah" who do you think you are lol you're so far up your own ass you refuse to take on what's being said out of pure arrogance. Get your face out from Dawkins lap and wipe your chin while you at it.
Unfortunately their ideas are without scientific merit. Meyer is not respected in the scientific fields his books so badly represent. Look it up. Only fundamentalists like him for obscuring science to promote religion.
I can appreciate two intellectual minds coming together and having a conversation, but I found this Sunday special as exciting as watching a brick wall continuously for 8 hours.
Excellent interview! I've listened to Stephen on the Michael Medved show a few times in the past and he's a wealth of information about "inconvenient truths" skipped over by many subscribers by what is really the religion of atheism.
@@crusher1980 Science is the process of accumulating, organizing, and applying information about the natural material universe to discover new and unknown things about it. My Atheism in particular stems from the complete lack of material evidence of the existence of anything supernatural such as spirits, ghosts, gods, or demons. Thus my atheism is scientific in origin.
@@Babylauncher3000 " My Atheism in particular stems from the complete lack of material evidence of the existence of anything supernatural ... There is material evidence which, it appears, you have chosen to disregard. The beginning of the universe is now part of the Standard Model accepted by all practitioners, save the few who pursue the golden fleece of the multiverse/quantum cosmology/strirg. Moreover there are the non Darwinian biologists, rude questioning types, (how dare they?) who have made so bold as to advance certain unsettled issues to the origin, nature and particularity of life , never mind mind. Dr Meyer ably explains in this video, and more thoroughly and rigorously in his books, why there is scientific evidence for supernatural intervention in the initiation and development of our universe. The advances in science have brought it's practitioners face to face with the metaphysical - atheism no longer serves. So there is a choice for materialists- do I continue to do science - or do I stick to my religion?
Again with the controversial guests...love it. Been following Stephen Meyer ever since my own thought experiments saw the many flaws in Darwinian evolution.
Are you kidding me? Did he help you keep Surah 9:0005, which tells you to “... slay the idolators, wherever you find them...” ? Why haven’t you followed Allah and slayed/ murdered any idolators today? You’re disobeying Allah!
@@michaelmakinney20 ignorance and wrong interpretation of other Faiths and there scripture is your problem not mine. Myers try to provide the proof for existence of a God. Same God.
@@SurgeonSuhailAnwar Wrong- Jesus Christ IS the only begotten Son of God, Who rose from the dead as living proof of all He said and did. Mohammed’s bones are in Mecca. He murdered a lot of people, wiping out whole villages that refused to call him their “Prophet.” After the battle of Badr, he spent 3 days butchering prisoners of war. The Quran itself is a joke. At first, it sets the number of wives one can have at 4. But, lo, because Mohammed loved sex and women, in surah 33, the “prophet” is given a “peculiar privilege” to have up to 12 wives. How convenient. Then, when Mohammed saw the wife of his adopted son, Zaid, which, by adoption, was viewed by Arabs as a blood relation and saw how beautiful Zaid’s wife was, guess what? Zaidbknew he had better give her to Mohammed so he dutifully divorced her. The problem was that upright Arabs would have viewed her as flesh and blood. So what happened? You guessed it: out pops another “revelation” from the angel that reads as follows: “And when Zaid had fulfilled her divorce, we joined with her in marriage, that there might hereafter be no offense to believers in marrying the wives of adopted sons after they have divorced them.” Read it for yourself in sura 33. You can believe whatever you want to believe, Sugail, but if you’re actually interested in the truth about the living God, lookin at the evidence for Jesus Christ. Begin with a book called “More Than a Carpenter,” and ask God to lead you into the truth. If you have a good and honest heart ♥️, He will, because God is good. My commitment to the truth about the falsehoods of Islam is in no way intended to demean you, sir. You’ve been taught ISLAM was the truth ever since you were a boy. But if you want to know the truth, begin asking God to lead you there. Ask every day, and He will. God bless you and your family ✝️ “
@J B I'd have been lost if that was the case lol. Definitely info that challenged my understanding comparing to coding but overall presented very compelling assertions from a macroevolution perspective.
It’s a book full of disinformation about evolution and paleontology along with the history of both. Want to know something about evolution? Read a HS biology textbook
Unhinged Truth Yeah! Actually I have and even sent him personally a list of all the quote mines he used in his book with a letter asking him a single question: ‘Why?’
The very fact you both admitted this yet watched it any way makes you both much smarter then you think , imho. Watch it a few times , try on 0.75 x speed Ben will sound drunk but it slows the guest down almost perfect , I like the fast talk but hope that may help you guys
This was great! Would you consider Dr. Frank Turek as a guest? He would be phenomenal in bridging the logic from intelligent design to the personal God of Scripture.
How can anyone look at this universe - from the universe as a whole, to the planets, to our natural & animal world, to a newborn baby, to the human brain, to the complexity of cells - and believe that it all came about through random chance & a lot of time? We don't look at even something as simple as a child's sand castle and think, "Look what the wind and water and sand created!" We don't pick up a book and think, "Time and chance created both the content and the physical object." It's ridiculous. We all know God exists. The mental gymnastics people do to deny the obvious is ridiculous.
"How can anyone look at this universe - from the universe as a whole, to the planets, to our natural & animal world, to a newborn baby, to the human brain, to the complexity of cells - and believe that it all came about through random chance & a lot of time?" Easily. There is no better explanation than natural causes. "We don't look at even something as simple as a child's sand castle and think, "Look what the wind and water and sand created!" We don't pick up a book and think, "Time and chance created both the content and the physical object."" Because we KNOW those things are created by human intelligence. There are harmful parasites that live off other organisms. So which is it? A benevolent god that creates everything in perfect harmony that also happens to create destructive and painful parasites? Or natural adaptation of organisms that are blind and amoral? "We all know God exists." Yeah? He did a bang up job with those Tsunamis over the last 20 years or so. Or perhaps it just has to do with plate tectonics and the Almighty is neither all nor mighty. You call not believing in god mental gymnastics, but what do you call god sacrificing himself to himself, to exploit a loophole in a rule that he wrote, because the humans whom he created were incapable of following his law?
@@kev3d "Easily. There is no better explanation than natural causes." Nonsense. Natural causes can't create, convey, manage, implement information in the way needed for such complex creations. Do you look at your phone or computer and think natural causes created it? Of course not.
"Natural causes can't create, convey, manage, implement information in the way needed for such complex creations." Why not? Hydrogen and oxygen, both simple gases can explode and combine to create water, which is more complex than either gas alone. Those water molecules when frozen can create extremely elaborate, complex, unique patterns. And when liquid, water can be a solvent, a binder, a medium for movement. All sorts of complicated things can come from simpler things. "Do you look at your phone or computer and think natural causes created it? Of course not." Why should I? I KNOW those things are created by humans. They are not natural. Complexity in and of itself does not suggest intelligence. But non-natural, intentional construction does.
Kev3d it's nice to see someone answer calmly and not aggressive . Question for you ? Of you had never seen a cell phone before and have not determined it to be a human creation since you have never seen or heard about a cellphone before . would you consider it to be nature? Or human? Since you can confirm it's made by humans would you consider the possibilities that oxygen and hydrogen formed this object over many years? Or would you have no doubt in your mind it was human made ? My point is there's nothing you would except as "it just happened from a chemical process" except for the most complicated things in the world including the world and your body . Did you body decide to reproduce to protect the society from becoming extinct? Is that an adaption? Why would a female body decide to adpat it's body and harm itself to give away nutrients etc to create a baby that really takes a toll on the body ? Reproduction is only a design when a designer sees a problem with the global population becoming extinct. A body would not adapt to anything that's harms itself and has no reason to even consider the need to reproduce ? It only adapts to benifit to protect itself anyway thats how I see and understand it thanks for argument while being respectful
Stephen Meyer is a gift from God. Will any school district take his suggestion about teaching right up front the weaknesses and gaps of the darwin theory?
Evolution is one of the best supported scientific facts. I'm not surprised you don't understand science when you listen to Meyer, he has no credibility in the scientific community for his work with pseudoscience (intelligent design)
Big fan of Stephen Meyer and his work with ID. Darwin’s Doubt is a great read. His writing is eloquent, detailed, and broken down in terms that a non-science person can understand. He’s really turned my mind in terms of considering a theistic view to the origin of life. ID is a vey interesting science based argument.
Stephen Meyer is one of the first persons to turn my mind from liberal thinking. While I was a Christian during college, I was a biology major and allowed myself to be indoctrinated during college. It was not until after university that I ventured into different theories and different ways of thinking. I wish I could express my graditude to not only Stephen Meyer, but Dr. John Lennox, David Berlinski, and several others
Meyer's essential claim is that the rapid diversity that occurred during the so-called "Cambrian Explosion" cannot be explained by normal evolutionary mechanisms and hence the best explanation is that of intelligent design. Unfortunately, as many reviewers with a scientific background especially in paleontology and biology have indicated, Meyer is highly selective and often leaves out critical information.[1]
The Cambrian Explosion
Approximately 540 million years ago a rapid expansion of multicellular life occurred when most of the animal phyla appeared in the fossil record. Despite claims by Meyer, diversification began during the Ediacaran through the Early Cambrian period. The Cambrian itself is divided into several parts or stages of which Meyer seems to only discuss the third stage as if its the only one and down playing the others as if they are unimportant.
Meyer's view is that the rapid diversification occurred in only a couple of million years (not enough time for evolution to occur) while mainstream science argues that the evidence indicates that it was in the time frame of 20-25 (or more) million years which is plenty of time for evolution.
Derf Head Apache Junction KTM rules you only prove leftists are brainwashed by materialism
Great testimony dude.
Did it make you appreciate science more after that?
Derf Head Apache Junction KTM rules, Meyer addresses all the points you make in his book. Nothing is ignored or hidden. Plus he doesn’t assume only a couple million years. He quotes Cambrian experts (who are not ID advocates) on the time period for the Cambrian.
The core issue he makes is usually ignored by critics. It is not merely a question of time, but also a lack of any mechanism with the causal capacity for innovative new designs. The scientists of the Third Way of Evolution (again not ID) affirm that neo-Darwinism lacks any such mechanism. They hope to find some 3rd way that doesn’t involve design.
If you want to consider what Meyer actually says, get either or both of his books.
@@JH-hx2cl Most absolutely. The points emphasized by these guys made me realize, after I looked into their research and arguments for myself (rather than just reactively believing what they or anyone else had told me), that, at a very basic level, science (and therefore scientists) should "question everything". This only opens the door for more good and true science. Science was never intended to be and is of no use as dogma. But unfortunately, I was taught exactly the opposite at university. So truly, I am so grateful for true pursuers of science like Stephen Meyer.
58:30 "In the beginning was the Word..." I have a feeling Meyer's own studies will ultimately lead to that inevitable conclusion. Fantastic interview.
@alexramos3745 The Word is defined as the person of Jesus. John 1:1
Meyer is an outspoken Christian. He was alluding to the Bible's statement in the first verses of the Gospel of John which says:
1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
2 He was in the beginning with God.
3 All things were made through him, and without him was not any thing made that was made.
lead?
There aren't many guests that have Ben sitting in absolute silence. This is one of those great guests!
@@PsychoBible Listening to someone you don't agree with can be an opportunity to learn. :-)
AGREED Cas! I've been a HUGE fan of Stephen Meyer since his 2009 MASTERPIECE 'Signature In The Cell.'
lol Ben looks like he's neck is going soft and he's about to doze off in 23:40
@@LoveYourNeighbour. did you read any of the multiple refutations of it written by actual scientists?
Cas Sim 😂
Excellent interview. This guy is so brilliant at explaining big ideas and concepts.
he has been peddling the same speeches for decades
@@mcmanustony so what's your point
@@mojo2968 my point is pretty clear. ID as peddled by Meyer and his fundamentalist Christian pressure group has nothing to do with science. It’s simply discredited, in scientific dogma used to push his religion.
Stephen is amazing. Really able to simplify things for laypeople. I really enjoy his work
@@esq8 Stephen is a lying hack who abuses the scholarship of others to peddle his religion.
Have you tried reading actual scientists?
This guy is 60 years old.. We need another sunday special of how he kept his youth
Who's 60 here? I see two guys in their mid-thirties!
He discovered the fountain of youth. Or perhaps he invented a non-aging drug.
I couldn't believe it when I read his bio. He was born in 1958!
61 y old
God is keeping his DNA fresh.
This guy is super intelligent and sensible and has converted me 100%. Ben is one of the few people out there that can carry an interview at this level of balanced intellectual debate. Well done both and thanks 🙏
😂😂😂😂😂He's a BIGOT.
what do ross, meyer, behe, tour and pals hope to find? why are they doing science in fact cos
at the bottom of their barrel all you will find is more "nature did it". they must be really
crappy christians to not realise that if god were real he doesn't allow evidence of his
existence, the whole premise of christianity is you are required - it is demanded of you - that
you have faith, not knowledge. are they expecting to find a trade mark? do they think god made
a blunder and has some kind of electronic device hidden in all the nature stuff? they are the
dumbest people in a bucket of dumb people.
I am as much impressed by Shapiro's knowledgeable and intelligent questions as Meyer's mastery of subject and clarity of answers.
"Shapiro's knowledgeable and intelligent questions"- he doesn't understand the difference between organic and inorganic.
Stephen Meyers and his well developed stance are far more obscure than they deserve to be. I was very happy to see this
He’s awesome 😎
have you seen aronra's video "Prager U supports Intelligent Deception"?
have you seen the logicked's video "Hello, My Name is Kent Hovind 4: The Texas-Sized Pig and the Hammer-Proof Cockroach" on youtube
It’s true. If his work was “pseudoscience” it would be picked apart, it has stood for a long time and now we have darwinists such as David gelertner and Jordan Peterson talking about the influence Meyer’s work has had on them.
@@Bibleguy89-uu3nr pseudoscience is a term idiots use when the illusion of authority breaks down for a second.
For someone who talks so much, Ben is an EXCELLENT listener.
Guess that's why he's so smart...his listening skills also implies wisdom as well. Go Ben!
Good observation.
I appreciate that Ben is incredibly intelligent (and good at answering questions/having debates) but I respect the fact that he invites other very intelligent people and truly listens to them. There is definitely a correlation between critical listening skills and wisdom.
I wish my relatives and coworkers were this attentive at listening. LOL
lol, he has you suckered.
All of the Sunday Special shows are very interesting and entertaining. This discussion with Stephen Meyer is the best one yet. Extraordinary! Thanks for bringing him on the show.
have you seen the logicked's video "Hello, My Name is Kent Hovind 4: The Texas-Sized Pig and the Hammer-Proof Cockroach" on youtube
ua-cam.com/video/HRxq1Vrf_Js/v-deo.html
One of the best Sunday Special’s so far
ua-cam.com/video/EE76nwimuT0/v-deo.html
Just found Meyer's lectures and interviews. Wow, blew my mind! Very articulate and factual approach to intelligent design.
@@beardedroofer actually if you understood the relevant science you’d see he’s full of shit
The reason people attack Intelligent Design is not that it violates science, but because it allows a place for God.
The reason people attack intelligent design cause its based on an assumption with no real evidence pointing to it other then no one knows what became before the universe. Thats when the conversation stops he doesnt know. No one does. He is also ignoring evolution wich has been a cornerstone of biology and hasnt been disproved yet.
@@bumpin0 There isn't a viable scientific alternative to ID. ID is based on our knowledge of cause and effect relationships. And Intelligent Design is NOT anti-evolution. ID claims that organisms were not only intelligently designed but they were so designed with the ability to evolve and adapt.
@@sombodysdad Exactly. Neodarwinianism posits a simple stochastic search process as the first and last cause of all nature and life. The Curse of Dimensionality kills any search processes dead. Meyer gets at this with his comments on computer programming, mathematics, time of life on the earth, etc.
@@bumpin0 No. You just straw manned everything without actually touching what was said. Intelligent design is based on the idea that the for irreducibly complex life and universal structures, purely naturalistic processes are inconcievable. Many scientists and atheists concede the remarkable design of the universe. Not only are there holes in the evolutionary timeline, it fails miserably to explain how life can magically spring from rocks. Intelligent design has evidence in cosmology and biology which you conviently ignore. If you can explain away an entire finite universe exploding itself from nothing, were all ears.
@@oakinw8361 Yes the assumption of ID is that the universe and life is so complex you can't conceive of an explanation of the universe other then it was designed. That just proves the current people that live on earth are too stupid at this time to understand. Just because we dont have an explanation doesnt mean you jump to an conclusion of ID. Its no more stupid then UFO sightings and jumping to the conclusion of aliens. You cant just make up a conclusion you want without evidence. The is a reason scientists laugh at people who believe in ID is because your evidence is the lack of evidence. Where as the other side has a mountain of evidence. The burden of proof is on ID not on the people saying its a crock of shit.
The fear of the LORD is the beginning of wisdom: and the knowledge of the holy is understanding. Proverbs 9:10
sorry but god doesn't exist, if he does he's failed at everything he's tried so he' about as scary as pinnochio. your god can't even protect apples.
I am amazed how Ben can hold intellectual discussion every week with various intelligent people... I mean he has to read their books, know their backgrounds and views, their counterparts, etc. to ask meaningful questions and have powerful discussions. And Ben exactly does that with every guest. Human minds are amazing. Ben’s mind is amazing. Thank you Ben for all your hard works and providing us wonderful contents and knowledges.
Jesus loves you Ben. Have a good day!
STEPHEN MEYER converted me from an ATHEIST who BELIEVED EVOLUTION into a THEIST who knows now there is a CREATOR.
Dee , friend, now you can be fully in knowledge about that Supreme Creator.
💠🙏🏻
krishna.org/bhagavad-gita-as-it-is-original-1972-edition-free-pdf-download/
Bhagavad-gita As It Is was spoken on a battlefield and it is relevant now and for future generations.
vedabase.io
or vedabase.com
Please read, make your life perfect, and then share with everyone you meet. 🌻🙏🏻
🦅🌹
@@tulayamalavenapi4028 Supreme Creator must be holy.
And now my friend Jesus is calling you home
bruh dont say "you know" theres a creator when there still is no evidence... being agnostic is better.
@@kuma6508 later on, you'll find that ignorance is not bliss, but labor.
Need to have John Lennox on your show next Ben!
Totally agree. I have sent two e-mails already to them suggesting him, but no response.
YES
why? are you interested in infinite soluble groups?
@@mcmanustony Sorry I don't understand the wording of your question?
@@lloyd4445 Lennox's area of expertise, the subject of his doctorate and of his published research is infinite soluble groups. He is a mathematician.
Excellent guest today! Glad to see you sitting down with Dr. Meyer, Ben. He is a brilliant man, who has been unduly belittled and demonized.
Because he advocates pseudoscience.
@@TheBestMovieAlive So is evolution pseudoscience as well?
@@TheBestMovieAlive Lolol. Why, exactly, do you think natural chemical processes can synthesize, isolate, and preserve even the precursors to life? Or if you'd prefer something more in your league, what exactly do you find wanting in Dr. Meyer's arguments?
@@glennward2525 Evolution is fact. Intelligent design is religious nonsense.
@@TheBestMovieAlive Do you know what the difference between science and religion is?
Outstanding selection of guest, Ben. Wow!
Peace O I agree!! Excellent topic!
have you seen the logicked's video "Hello, My Name is Kent Hovind 4: The Texas-Sized Pig and the Hammer-Proof Cockroach" on youtube
have you check out "Exposing the Discovery Institute Part 1: Casey Luskin" and "How Creationism Taught Me Real Science 44 Lucy" on youtube. they shows how ignorant .Casey Luskin and discovery institute are.
ua-cam.com/video/HRxq1Vrf_Js/v-deo.html
@@jamesginty6684 stop repeating this nonsense stupid bot
Absolutely brilliant conversation. SCM is one of the most articulate voices within the discussion realm.
This has been my favorite Sunday Special so far. I would love to see these two speak along with Jordan Peterson to present their arguments for intelligent design and objective truth.Also, and it might sound strange, but I would also like to add someone like Phil Robertson to that panel. I think someone like him, someone with a wealth of life experience, who has interpreted his life experiences through the prism of biblical teachings, but who hasn't studied his beliefs in an academic setting, would add a very valuable "grounded" element to the discussion. As the other three delve deeper and deeper into the evidence from studies and literature, Mr. Robertson would be the one to pull their minds back above the weeds to remind them what, exactly, is being argued/interpreted.I would absolutely love to see this happen.
Aaron C i want to see that !
Ben, please have David Berlinski on a Sunday special. The man meets every question with uncertainty...but he certainly does it entertainingly!
Agreed, he is the only public speaker on these subject that I think of as a true skeptic.
I agree with this, if you don’t know berlisnki you should... he’s a pleasure to listen to, very good speaker and easy to follow.
You're going to be joyed if you see this somehow because Berlinski is going to be a guest in the coming weeks on this show!
@@tradcon3096 It's not scepticism, it's intellectual cowardice. Berlinski has contributed nothing to any branch of any science at any time....and sits helplessly on the sidelines sneering and lying about his betters. That is not scepticism.
@@mcmanustony according to who? you? that seems to be what everyone says about people they dont agree with.
Any David Berlinski fans out there? Love to see him on here as well.
I have been asking for him in the Sunday special comments too. I thoroughly enjoyed his book "The Devil's Delusion."
Agreed. His debates are pretty solid too.
If I'm not mistaken, I believe one of Hitchens' last debates was with David Berlinski at the Fixed Point Foundation.
@@bigworldddd9566 yeah, "religion poisons some things but atheism poisons everything." David Berlinski in the affirmative. I enjoyed the debate, but actually felt Berlinski didn't quite hit his point home. I think David Berlinski's strength is not in formal debate settings with only a couple timed 10-15--20 min sections but rather in a more loose ask-and-engage type debate. He is great pointing out self-refuting nature of some of Hitchen's quotes i.e. "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence"...However, I don't think Berlinski adequately dulled "Hitchens razor"..."the one with the claim has burden of proof and opponent need not argue." The reason for this is that Berlinski is really a kind of sceptic/ agnostic(?). Therefore he doesn't make a lot of claims so much as point out faulty reasoning of other claims.
Yes Berlinski needs to be on here and Rogan and the Rubin report
Unbelievable. Breathtaking from start to finish. Elucidation of well researched and thought out stream of consciousness conversation between two minds of equivalent prowess. Certainly one of the very best presentations of logical discourse available on UA-cam. Period. Thank you Ben Shapiro!
Dr. Meyer uses Darwin's own methodology to refute Darwin's theory. Genius!
* uno reverse/ draw 4 card *
agreed
Jackal19x Lol! 😂👍🏻
William Whalen It Is genius! 👍🏻
ManiacallyYours Quite a bit of salt for your breakfast, huh? I’ll concede that Darwin didn’t have access to future the understanding of DNA so indeed, that might have changed HIS interpretation. But apparently OTHERS who ARE “initiated” agree with Meyers work. 😘
I actually got excited when he said, "I'm working on another book..."
Intelligent Designer, I'm such a nerd.
For a 60 years old man, he looks pretty good.
@walkergarya why would you say that that is just wrong
@@Tyl3r_B He is a liar.
@@walkergarya prove him wrong then!
@@walkergarya for everyone that lies you wish death, so think about what you would do about your self or you think that you do not lie? If Mayer’s lies, then prove him wrong and stop giving dearth wishes around
@@cleytonbentes3133 Barbara Forrest's expert witness report for the Dover trial: "Conclusions about the intelligent design creationist movement. My area of expertise is the nature and strategy of the intelligent design (ID) creationist movement. Based on the research I have done, I have concluded that its program is a fundamentally religious one. This conclusion is based primarily on ID leaders’ and their supporters’ views of it as stated in their own words. It is also based upon their total rejection of naturalism. Anti-naturalism is an integral part of ID. Its proponents reject not only philosophical naturalism (the metaphysical view that nothing exists beyond the natural world) but also the naturalistic methodology of science (the scientific procedural protocol of seeking only natural explanations of natural phenomena). ID’s rejection of naturalism in any form logically entails its appeal to the only alternative, supernaturalism, as a putatively scientific explanation for natural phenomena. This makes ID a religious belief. In addition, my research reveals that ID is not science, but the newest variant of traditional American creationism. With only a few exceptions, it continues the usual complaints of creationists against the theory of evolution and comprises virtually all the elements of traditional creationism."
Stephen C. Meyer has a very impressive education.
- Physics Major
- Geology Major
- Cambridge Ph.D, Philosophy of Science (Biology / Origins of life)
- Chemistry
- Molecular Biology
- Information Theory
- Thermo Dynamics
And yet the so-called "science community" labelled his works pseudo-science. I guess being a scientist and a truth seeker is not necessary the same thing any more.
@@duydatyds His "work" is religious bafflegab dressed up as science. He'd run a mile from any actual scientific scrutiny- his one appearance in the peer reviewed literature involved sneaking a paper into a biology journal by cheating the review process!
The above list of his educational history is beyond dubious. He has a degree in physics from a small private Christian school and did a phd in the philosophy of science. the rest is nonsense- he has never studied chemistry, molecular biology or infomation theory and makes a fool of himself when he tries to feign authority.
He is also not a geophysicist and hasn't been for 35 years.
Why do creationists lie so much?
Don't know where you're getting the idea that he's trained in any of the fields below the phd in your comment.
Dat Pham many breakthroughs come from people not in “the club” you know that, look back on history Sir. ☮️ we are in agreement 🤝
@@ds525252 The club being what? Professional scientists? Sure- occasionally a breakthrough will come from an amateur. The point however is that in order for it to be recongised as a breakthrough it has to be rigorously examined by peer review.....not announced on the Ben Shapiro Show or in a childish animation for Denise Prager's pretend "university".
One significant instance in mathematics was the the solution by Kurt Heegner of the the class number problem. establishing the valdity of this took years and involved no appearences on Jesus TV.....just the kind of rigorous verification Meyer notoriously cheated.
Wow. What a guest are you kidding me?
Ben running for president: But first let's talk about your bed sheet
😂
An Vu Lol yea it does come off as kind of odd and slightly annoying.
This is capitalism...if you don't like it don't listen...or pay for his podcasts and you don't have to hear it. Only the MSM gets to put smaltz out for a reduced price...the rest of us have to pay. I get what you're saying. I grew bored with it and bought a subscription to Blaze, so I don't hear that anymore.
I actually love that Ben Shapiro does his own ads that way. It fits very well with his openness.
Ben talks about bed sheets
the left talks about Ben being in the KKK
Maybe the first time I’ve wanted to pay to be a member. This kind of intellectualism let’s us see the best of Shapiro as well as entertaining the highest part of my mind- thanks!
Discovery Institute have an article written saying that this may be the best interview Stephen C Meyer has ever done mainly due to the fact that Ben has obviously read his work and has a good understanding of it.
You mean the organisation that Stephen himself co-founded wrote a good review of his performance? Shocking.
Shapiro doesn't understand the distinction between organic and inorganic matter.
God is the creator of all matter!
Ben doesn't know the difference between biotic and organic. He's a rightwing ignoramus interviewing a rightwing ignoramus.
Why not listen to actual scientists discuss this rather than these pretentious clowns?
@Jesus Christ Glorified
Nope
Creationists LIE because that's all they have, LIES!!!!
Lots and lots of LIES!!!
This is awesome!! Thank you Ben. Best Sunday special ever!
This is amazing, blew my mind
I would like to agree but Steven Meyer already blew my mind a few years ago and I am still trying to put the pieces back together.
Mike Betts lol, nice
This is one of the best Stephen C. Meyer interviews available. It is clear that Shapiro did his homework. Highly recommended!!!
I love this show, it really let's people let loose and pour their hearts out. The questions are always solid and the answers are always great and interesting. Admittedly it's a little hard for me to keep up with Stephen Meyers because the dude is ridiculously smart, but I always learn so much from him in the end. :3
God was the first computer programmer.
Lots of bugs in the software.
True but we know the cause. @@kev3d
He was a pretty shitty one considering there is a ton of duplicate code and most of it is commented out.
Maybe that explains the long hair and beard.
@@Cobra0798 "Junk" DNA was considered junk due to not yet discovered functions. www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2018/04/180411131659.htm
Ben seems to be able to ask just the right question just the right time as seen by Stephen's reaction. Truly an outstanding interview.
I wonder how come he thinks all Palestinians deserve to die? Sounds like ethnocentric supremacy to me, and genocide.
You can take Stephen's verbal responses, transcribe them, and end up with publishable essays. The man has a remarkable ability to frame and describe with incredible order off the top of his head.
Odd then that when he tried to get one of his essays published in a peer reviewed journal it was dropped instantly as the review process was cheated in order to sneak it in.
He can do this "off the top of his head" because he's been preaching the same discredited schtick for years on end.
@@mcmanustony, Nah, there was nothing about cheating at all. The "controversy" was political. In fact the Wikipedia article you read was pretty biased in what should be a hard news story on a plain vanilla topic. However, evolutionists are political and consider Meyer a threat, as do some physicists. Strange that they can't live with competing theories but neither can Democrats and Republicans as the Sternberg controversy article, which exposes the relevant political connections, reveals.
@@mcmanustonyThe fact that this rattles your cage may point to a smothered recognition that maybe there is more truth to his theories than you wish to acknowledge. A closed and defensive mind doesn’t help to make any point. There really is a God and we are not in charge.
@@humboldtharry1289 I don't have a cage.
Meyer is a lying crook. I notice, among the pathetic armchair psychology, not even an attempt to deal with the facts of his dishonesty. What he and his crony Sternberg committed was gross academic misconduct. The peer review system was CHEATED. TO SNEAK A RESEARCH FREE ESSAY INTO A JOURNAL OF RESEARCH.
Meyer was at the time just a mouthpiece for a right wing Christian pressure group, Sternberg had conveniently resigned and the pathetic essay appeared in his final edition. Had it not been his final edition he would have been fired.
Why are creationists to utterly and hopelessly dishonest?
@@humboldtharry1289 I don't have a cage to rattle.
There is no theory of intelligent design.
Meyer is a lying hack at a right wing religious pressure group.
That is all.
Great discussion, thank you for having this guest on. Ton of good knowledge provided in a very small time frame. Will be buying his books to check out!
Ben, I lift my hat off to you bruh for having this guy on. ✊🏾✊🏾
Agreed. Totally unpopular topic, but an absolutely legit one to be investigated.
Yeah, this was an amazing sunday special. Ben did his homework and asked the right questions to invoke some of the most brain stimulating responses from his guest. An hour wasn't enough. My mind craves more! Awesome interview!
You're right. But I was amazed how much they packed in. Both are very fast talkers and they didn't waste their talk on fluff.
@@KenJackson_US Yeah, either you understood it or you didnt, they wasted no time in building blocks or basic theory explanations. So the target audience this stuff appeals to are the only ones who will appreciate how much content and how much they covered in the allotted time. It's a great host and guest match-up. Had the interview been conducted by anyone else, say Joe Rogan, even though I'm a fan. I'm sure at least 30 minutes would've been lost to rhetoric bullshit conversation. With our boy Ben, we're on topic the whole interview.
Get John Lennox on the show!!
@Total Water What's wrong with Creationism when most of the planet are creationist so yeah.
Total Water who cares what some judge has to say?
Get Annie Lennox on the show
Yes. Please.
What about john lennon?
I read his book: "Signature in a Cell"
He needs to go on The JRE!
Having him on JRE would change the world.
@@tulayamalavenapi4028 wtf is this?
@@austin3789 correct it would chanted the world
He needs to debate Dawkins......
amp come to Jesus Christ he is the only way
Two of my favorite intellectuals in one room, I’m looking forward to this.
Ben has not ceased to amaze me. His questions demonstrate that his intellect is in a higher stratum than most political pundits, bar none. Not only is incisive in the political and philosophical, but he can also keep up and even sharply engage in such a heady, scientific discussion.
What a blast! I always enjoy "magic man from the desert"-people talking about evolution, information, molecules and Shannon entropy, my favourite brand of comedy.
Thanks for having on the folks that folks with big platforms should be talking to. Refreshing. This is becoming the best around.
Awesome interview I felt so much peace listening Stephen Meyer intelligent design theory.
Outstanding interview. Was not familiar with Stephen C. Meyer prior. Chock-full of info. Going to have to listen again to think through some of it fully.
Wonderful guest, and brilliant episode. One of the very, very best!
Only if you accept his sophistry as factual which it's not. Scientists in the fields he misrepresents do not respect his pseudoscientific nonsense. Try reading a criticism of his claims some day. Don't take extraordinary claims on the word of propagandists.
LR Vogt Well let’s put it this way, I take his claims a whole lot more seriously than I take yours.
@@sealevelbear : I'm no expert but neither is Meyers
ncse.com/library-resource/critique-exploring-explore-evolution
"Beneath all its distortions, all its misrepresentations of modern evolutionary science, Explore Evolution uses familiar and long-refuted creationist anti-evolution arguments. "
"Stephen Meyer’s first demonstration of these biases was his atrociously incompetent book Signature in the Cell (2009, HarperOne), which was universally lambasted by molecular biologists as an amateurish effort by someone with no firsthand training or research experience in molecular biology."
www.skepticblog.org/2013/08/28/stephen-meyers-fumbling-bumbling-amateur-cambrian-follies/
@@lrvogt1257 "Neither is Meyers" That's rich.
@@michaelwill7811 I assume you haven't read the article I linked. He is not trained in the field about which he writes and is considered both amateurish and wrong by people who are.
Everyone should hear Dr. Meyer's arguments, they probably seem outlandish to many people but they are extremely sound arguments.
I have just recently discovered him and his books and I can't stop thinking about the questions that he's addressing.
Fascinating.
"Everyone should hear Dr. Meyer's arguments,"- why? They are rubbish.
"I can't stop thinking about the questions that he's addressing."- have you considered reading some actual scientists who work in these fields rather than a lying zealot who abuses them for religious reasons.
I want more of Ben and Stephen Meyers. 😗💆👏✌❤
So two guys who are uneducated in biology can discuss biology?
@@skoducks6071 I would not call Stephen Meyers uneducated in biology...you can, if that makes your view of whats real,feel safer. ✌❤👯
@@carolarnold9916 I will because I understand what a nucleotide is and Stephen doesn't. The guy is a charlatan, but feel free to be conned if that makes your view of what's real feel safer.
@@skoducks6071 please exlain your understanding of a nucleotide, and please tell me what the flaw in,Stephen Meyers research, indicates he doesnt.
Thankyou Mr.Sko Ducks.
@@carolarnold9916 A glaring example is when he answers the question that starts at 3:30. He claims DNA stores information in what he calls a digital code (four digits referring to A, G, C, and T the four types of nucleotides). He is wrong, humans simply created this digital code to represent the chemical structures of the different nucleotides in order to more readily work with the data. Google types of nucleotides and you will see an image of the different chemical structures.
He then asserts that information always arises from an intelligent source (which is false) and confuses information with code (the expression of information) claiming that because DNA uses this code there could be an intelligent source. Under this argument no chemical reactions could occur naturally, which is asinine
.
Dr Meyer is amazing! His two books are masterpieces and I can't wait for his newest effort. There is only one known cause of specified and complex information in our uniform experience: intelligence! I have read tons of stuff from discovery institue fellows. Almost all of it was fantastic. Great interview Ben as always!
Jeff, have you heard of the work on the genetic changes behind dogs descending from wolves?
Meyer's main issue is he doesn't understand molecular evolution well enough, which is fine given it isn't his field, but he then asserts his own personal incredulity based on his own ignorance as evidence for his position, in opposition to an entire field of experts. Whilst also setting up a false dichotomy to make his conclusions.... not looking good straight off the bat
Some real top level Molecular Biologists lend credence to Dr Meyer’s investigative research....interesting, Top interview Ben!
@@cdesignproponentsist7427 This is untrue, that’s literally his speciality.
@@lyricalmike7162 you are wrong. His cambridge degree is in philosophy prior to which he got a basic degree in physics from a small private Christian fundamentalist college. His training in biology is precisely nil.
Someone that speaks/thinks as fast as Ben. . . A sight to behold:)
Throw Frank Turek into the mix and watch the speech rate increase
20:42 "We know from our experience with software code... the last thing you want in a section of functional software code is a series random changes to those zeros and ones. If that happens you're going to degrade the information that's in that code long before you'll ever generate a software program or operating system."
This whole line of reasoning and the rest that follows is very interesting. Great content Ben!
This is a bad argument purely because DNA does not work the same as a computer code. there are redundancies and useless or unneeded parts, whereas a computer code is made with each section having a. Purpose.
This was a spectacular interview! Very detailed and full of information. I have been following Stephen Meyer for years here and there and I still learned a lot from this. My brain craves this stuff!
Full of half-truths, obfuscation, disinformation and false conclusions. Read what real scientists say about his work outside the ID propaganda world.
LR Vogt Could you please give me one of the real scientists you are speaking of so I can check them out.
Thank you
@@lrvogt1257 //// Are you a "real scientist"? Do what you advise, and you will find where the real 1/2 truth, obfuscation disinformation and false conclusions lie.
@@k0smon : I suggest you get information from sources beyond those associated with Discovery Institute. Maybe Universities and peer reviewed journals.
@@lrvogt1257 //// I already know their side of the story. Peer review = politically correct. Darwin is good for micro-evolution. Beyond that, he is lost.
This is THE BEST interview so far. Wow.
This was one of the best Sunday Specials! I wish it was longer!
The very fact we as humans can reason and can even understand science, in itself points towards a creative mind.
How so?
If that where the case, this “creative mind” most definitely understands science better than we do, so who is the (meta) creative mind behind the creative mind you are talking about?
@@LomuHabana Your response indicates you believe God was created. Jews, Christians and Moslems don't believe in a created God -- God is eternal - the universe was created.
@@pcm7315 I don’t believe god was created, in fact I don’t believe in a god at all.
All I did was following his logic, if intelligence requires a creator, than your “god” requires a creator, because god/ our creator is necessarily more intelligent than we are, and according to Jake, we have to have a creator. So the our more intelligent creator does too.
@@LomuHabana There is the abstract called “eternity”. Eternity is sometimes misleadingly interpreted as “infinitely long time”. However “eternity” equals with “no time at all”. In eternity there is no time. You can not measure eternity. Eternity has no start no end. The Intelligent Designer had to be eternal, someone who was not depending on the laws of nature which he made for the Universe. One doesn't need to name that someone. I call him God when I write in English.
According to Bible the eternal God created both time and space. It would be against formal logic to ask “when” or ”how” God came into being. Words like before, now, after, when, how etc. are bound to time, but there is no time in eternity. An eternal entity can not be created. A creation would need a moment but there are no moments in eternity.
I have a very practical reason to believe in creationism because abiogenesis and evolution have both been scientifically proven impossible, at least as long as we believe that the laws of physics and the genetic realities have always been as they are.
After years of observing the battle between the evolution theory and the intelligent design, I have come to the conclusion that here we have the battle between atheism and science. This is revealing: “Darwin made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist.” (Dawkins) So atheism per se has nothing to do with intellect or science. Atheists are just happy if they feel like getting some support from science. Here we talk of a worldview, not of a scientific approach.
DNA contains information in a written code. That kind of information can only come from an intelligent source. I don’t want to insult anyone, but to claim that abiotic matter started thinking, planning and building itself refers to inability for rational thinking.
@@jounisuninen lOl evolution has never been scientifically disproven, quite the opposite, it has been IMPROVED. But the principle of natural selection and adaptation is still valid. I believe you have been misinformed.
And btw, our currently existing understanding of physics and the universe strongly suggest an eternal block universe, where notions as past, present and future are nothing more than subjective illusions.
My dream came true! Stephen Myer & Been Spapiro!
Been Shapiro?
Two of my favorite humans !
This man is like an angel.
Two of the brightest people on earth. Ive read both of Dr.Meyer's books and they are great.
This show should be required watching in every science class in public school!
No, no it shouldn't. I might actually have to write something on this. Reading this commen section hurts me....like it's kinda painful. I'm open to new ideas and was really looking forward to this but was massively disappointed. It brought nothing new and brought up both poor logical and scientific arguments. I haven't actually looked at the mathematical formulations, but I'm assuming based on date and lack of acceptance that they aren't right with current understanding.
@@jamiefinn4438 sooo, im guessing that you're a raging atheist.
@@jamiefinn4438 So you have actually nothing intelligent to say other than your own random uneducated opinion? Lovely, matches your Worldview quite accurately.
Lol, smh Jaime Jaime Jaime.. Have you seen Meyers list of majors? I'll take his calculations over yours any day. "I'll have to check myself blah blah" who do you think you are lol you're so far up your own ass you refuse to take on what's being said out of pure arrogance. Get your face out from Dawkins lap and wipe your chin while you at it.
Agreed!!!
Meyer does a great job in explaining complex systems in a short time.
I loved this episode! Thank you Ben and team for producing another awesome interview!
Stephen Meyer answered many of my questions! This is so cool!
One of the best interviews I've ever watched. Loved every second. Thank you Ben. Thank you Stephen.
This was awesome! Great conversation between two incredibly great minds!
Unfortunately their ideas are without scientific merit. Meyer is not respected in the scientific fields his books so badly represent. Look it up. Only fundamentalists like him for obscuring science to promote religion.
I can appreciate two intellectual minds coming together and having a conversation, but I found this Sunday special as exciting as watching a brick wall continuously for 8 hours.
Would love to see Stephen C. Meyer continue these long format interviews, maybe even on PowerfulJRE?
Joe would have steam coming out of his ears and drool falling in his ash tray.
Great
WOW, This should be on TV as a weekly series. Truth Wisdom Science in Design.
Excellent interview! I've listened to Stephen on the Michael Medved show a few times in the past and he's a wealth of information about "inconvenient truths" skipped over by many subscribers by what is really the religion of atheism.
Atheism is a religion about as much as not painting is a hobby.
@@Babylauncher3000 Atheism is a belief/religion and not science because you cant proof it and everything from what we know actually is impossible.
@@crusher1980 Science is the process of accumulating, organizing, and applying information about the natural material universe to discover new and unknown things about it. My Atheism in particular stems from the complete lack of material evidence of the existence of anything supernatural such as spirits, ghosts, gods, or demons. Thus my atheism is scientific in origin.
@@Babylauncher3000 " My Atheism in particular stems from the complete lack of material evidence of the existence of anything supernatural ...
There is material evidence which, it appears, you have chosen to disregard. The beginning of the universe is now part of the Standard Model accepted by all practitioners, save the few who pursue the golden fleece of the multiverse/quantum cosmology/strirg. Moreover there are the non Darwinian biologists, rude questioning types, (how dare they?) who have made so bold as to advance certain unsettled issues to the origin, nature and particularity of life , never mind mind. Dr Meyer ably explains in this video, and more thoroughly and rigorously in his books, why there is scientific evidence for supernatural intervention in the initiation and development of our universe. The advances in science have brought it's practitioners face to face with the metaphysical - atheism no longer serves. So there is a choice for materialists- do I continue to do science - or do I stick to my religion?
Again with the controversial guests...love it. Been following Stephen Meyer ever since my own thought experiments saw the many flaws in Darwinian evolution.
Love Stephen Myers - he has helped me keep my faith in Allah. A modern day saint
Are you kidding me? Did he help you keep Surah 9:0005, which tells you to “... slay the idolators, wherever you find them...” ?
Why haven’t you followed Allah and slayed/ murdered any idolators today? You’re disobeying Allah!
@@michaelmakinney20 ignorance and wrong interpretation of other Faiths and there scripture is your problem not mine. Myers try to provide the proof for existence of a God. Same God.
@@SurgeonSuhailAnwar Wrong- Jesus Christ IS the only begotten Son of God, Who rose from the dead as living proof of all He said and did. Mohammed’s bones are in Mecca. He murdered a lot of people, wiping out whole villages that refused to call him their “Prophet.” After the battle of Badr, he spent 3 days butchering prisoners of war.
The Quran itself is a joke. At first, it sets the number of wives one can have at 4. But, lo, because Mohammed loved sex and women, in surah 33, the “prophet” is given a “peculiar privilege” to have up to 12 wives. How convenient.
Then, when Mohammed saw the wife of his adopted son, Zaid, which, by adoption, was viewed by Arabs as a blood relation and saw how beautiful Zaid’s wife was, guess what? Zaidbknew he had better give her to Mohammed so he dutifully divorced her.
The problem was that upright Arabs would have viewed her as flesh and blood. So what happened? You guessed it: out pops another “revelation” from the angel that reads as follows:
“And when Zaid had fulfilled her divorce, we joined with her in marriage, that there might hereafter be no offense to believers in marrying the wives of adopted sons after they have divorced them.” Read it for yourself in sura 33.
You can believe whatever you want to believe, Sugail, but if you’re actually interested in the truth about the living God, lookin at the evidence for Jesus Christ. Begin with a book called “More Than a Carpenter,” and ask God to lead you into the truth. If you have a good and honest heart ♥️, He will, because God is good.
My commitment to the truth about the falsehoods of Islam is in no way intended to demean you, sir. You’ve been taught ISLAM was the truth ever since you were a boy. But if you want to know the truth, begin asking God to lead you there. Ask every day, and He will.
God bless you and your family ✝️
“
@@SurgeonSuhailAnwar Except that Allah did not create anything. Jesus Christ did.
This was a fantastic talk. So much I had never heard before. Thank you so much for producing this content!
I bought 2 of Stephen's books on Amazon ( Kindle ) after seeing a few of his videos here on UA-cam.
I love these conversations and I love that a few people actually want to watch them.
The movie with Ben Stein is another excellent watch. Stephen C. Meyer has an appearance in this astonishing video.
We need about 4 hours of this.
I highly recommend *Darwin's Doubt* bc it's really well researched and an interesting read; I love this book. Stephen C. Meyer is a great writer.
@J B I'd have been lost if that was the case lol. Definitely info that challenged my understanding comparing to coding but overall presented very compelling assertions from a macroevolution perspective.
It’s a book full of disinformation about evolution and paleontology along with the history of both. Want to know something about evolution? Read a HS biology textbook
@@davidbutler1857 LOL 🤣😂 u clearly haven't read Darwin's Doubt.
@@davidbutler1857 The HS Bio Textbooks taught by Marxist teachers who assert gender is non binary? *Hard pass*
Unhinged Truth Yeah! Actually I have and even sent him personally a list of all the quote mines he used in his book with a letter asking him a single question: ‘Why?’
Best Sunday Special I've ever seen.
Thank you for your questions, and for giving Meyers the time and space to give a long-form answer.
I guess we shall need to wait for some sort of accuracy now. Long form BS vs short form BS. It's still BS.
Quite sophisticated. Needed to pause several times to google up something. Keep'em coming #Ben. Great intelligence #Meyer.
This is sort of beyond my level of intelligence but I enjoyed it a lot
Thomas Family Thomas
Same here man, I always keep the pause ready and google up so I can search words I don’t know.
The very fact you both admitted this yet watched it any way makes you both much smarter then you think , imho. Watch it a few times , try on 0.75 x speed Ben will sound drunk but it slows the guest down almost perfect , I like the fast talk but hope that may help you guys
Same here! I love intelligence.
@@lifewasgiventous1614 I do same.
I wish I could do more than give it a thumbs up.... fantastic talk, gents!
A beautiful adventure chauffeured by Ben Shapiro. Thank you!
This was great! Would you consider Dr. Frank Turek as a guest? He would be phenomenal in bridging the logic from intelligent design to the personal God of Scripture.
Whitworth University, Intro to Philosophy circa 2003. His lectures were life changing. Thank you Stephen.
How can anyone look at this universe - from the universe as a whole, to the planets, to our natural & animal world, to a newborn baby, to the human brain, to the complexity of cells - and believe that it all came about through random chance & a lot of time?
We don't look at even something as simple as a child's sand castle and think, "Look what the wind and water and sand created!" We don't pick up a book and think, "Time and chance created both the content and the physical object."
It's ridiculous. We all know God exists. The mental gymnastics people do to deny the obvious is ridiculous.
"How can anyone look at this universe - from the universe as a whole, to the planets, to our natural & animal world, to a newborn baby, to the human brain, to the complexity of cells - and believe that it all came about through random chance & a lot of time?"
Easily. There is no better explanation than natural causes.
"We don't look at even something as simple as a child's sand castle and think, "Look what the wind and water and sand created!" We don't pick up a book and think, "Time and chance created both the content and the physical object.""
Because we KNOW those things are created by human intelligence. There are harmful parasites that live off other organisms. So which is it? A benevolent god that creates everything in perfect harmony that also happens to create destructive and painful parasites? Or natural adaptation of organisms that are blind and amoral?
"We all know God exists." Yeah? He did a bang up job with those Tsunamis over the last 20 years or so. Or perhaps it just has to do with plate tectonics and the Almighty is neither all nor mighty.
You call not believing in god mental gymnastics, but what do you call god sacrificing himself to himself, to exploit a loophole in a rule that he wrote, because the humans whom he created were incapable of following his law?
@@kev3d
"Easily. There is no better explanation than natural causes."
Nonsense. Natural causes can't create, convey, manage, implement information in the way needed for such complex creations.
Do you look at your phone or computer and think natural causes created it? Of course not.
"Natural causes can't create, convey, manage, implement information in the way needed for such complex creations."
Why not? Hydrogen and oxygen, both simple gases can explode and combine to create water, which is more complex than either gas alone. Those water molecules when frozen can create extremely elaborate, complex, unique patterns. And when liquid, water can be a solvent, a binder, a medium for movement. All sorts of complicated things can come from simpler things.
"Do you look at your phone or computer and think natural causes created it? Of course not."
Why should I? I KNOW those things are created by humans. They are not natural. Complexity in and of itself does not suggest intelligence. But non-natural, intentional construction does.
Kev3d it's nice to see someone answer calmly and not aggressive . Question for you ? Of you had never seen a cell phone before and have not determined it to be a human creation since you have never seen or heard about a cellphone before . would you consider it to be nature? Or human? Since you can confirm it's made by humans would you consider the possibilities that oxygen and hydrogen formed this object over many years? Or would you have no doubt in your mind it was human made ? My point is there's nothing you would except as "it just happened from a chemical process" except for the most complicated things in the world including the world and your body . Did you body decide to reproduce to protect the society from becoming extinct? Is that an adaption? Why would a female body decide to adpat it's body and harm itself to give away nutrients etc to create a baby that really takes a toll on the body ? Reproduction is only a design when a designer sees a problem with the global population becoming extinct. A body would not adapt to anything that's harms itself and has no reason to even consider the need to reproduce ? It only adapts to benifit to protect itself anyway thats how I see and understand it thanks for argument while being respectful
@@keeto1234 Well explained
Stephen Meyer is a gift from God. Will any school district take his suggestion about teaching right up front the weaknesses and gaps of the darwin theory?
no. it's not science. it is fiction and does not belong in science.
Evolution is one of the best supported scientific facts.
I'm not surprised you don't understand science when you listen to Meyer, he has no credibility in the scientific community for his work with pseudoscience (intelligent design)
Please get Dr. William Lane Craig
Maybe the full crew. Ravi Zacharius, John Lennox and Frank Turek
Dr Gary Habermas or someone with an overall NDE presentation like his here... ua-cam.com/video/ac9pF32gRxU/v-deo.html
This Sunday William Lane Craig will be on the show.
@@whiskeredtuna I know! That's great, huh?
He was on the show at one point
Kept having to check if I accidentally set it to 2x speed.
This was a fantastic interview. Meyer is a powerhouse. Please invite Dr. Michael Brown for a future episode!
He doesn't want brown if he wants to stay jewish
telltheworldtheword You’re saying that Ben doesn’t have a mind of his own and can easily be persuaded to convert ?
Mr. Shapiro. Thank you very much for giving Dr. Meyer a platform to discuss intelligent design.
It would be great to have more of this. Thanks Stephen!
A MUCH BETTER AND INFORMATIVE DISCUSSION than: ALL THE CONTANT DAILY POLITICAL BANTER!
THANKS AGAIN, FOR ANOTHER GREAT SHOW :)!
Yes Sunday is the best day always
Big fan of Stephen Meyer and his work with ID. Darwin’s Doubt is a great read. His writing is eloquent, detailed, and broken down in terms that a non-science person can understand. He’s really turned my mind in terms of considering a theistic view to the origin of life. ID is a vey interesting science based argument.
I know this one is old but man is this one of my favorite Sunday specials, I would really love for him to have James tour on.