This is quite rare, for me to listen to a Christian philosopher: explain biological evolution in detail, defend evolution, and even teach me a thing or two that I didn't already know about evolution. Not that I expect any less from Dr Craig though.
low bar bill as he's known since his confession that he's so desperate for love even god would fit the bill. if you want to learn about evolution bill is not the place to go.
I'm sure he's aware the theory is garbage in some respects. Iirc he has said before that the solar system would have died before evolution could achieve what we see
Well this poor guy is a philosopher... And he needs to get out more! 🤣🤣 Actual scientists are doing great work, proving him incorrect... For a long time now! 🤣🤣🤣 There's no accounting for willful ignorance!
@@HarryNicNicholasthat’s not what he said at all. He was saying that he thinks that Christianity is pragmatically justified. He was making a statement about pragmatism. You can say that the bar for x being justified in one way (pragmatism) without NECESSARILY saying that that thing also lowers the bar in another way (epistemology). I think he has a response to the whole drama too, even the guy who made the comment has a response to it. You should watch them. I think the questioners name was Kyle (who is/was a Christian, btw). If I’m not mistaken, Craig shortens his questions, and that question had other stuff that made it clear that the questioner was saying that he thinks that because of the huge lifestyle change that’s required for adopting Christianity, we should increase the epistemic standards for Christianity. Craig responds that he actually thinks the opposite because of the incredible value, beauty, and joy that he gets from believing in Christianity. So he was literally saying that if we move the bar for Christianity at all, it should be lowered not raised. It was really a statement about which of the two is better to do.
@@semitopeI’m pretty sure his believe is that evolution is highly unlike given atheism. So yeah, that’s true, but not if we assume theism where there is a god in control of it all.
Quite shocking to hear this massive concession to Darwinian gradualism. I found WLC’s protest against late stage or intermittent creation inconsistent. What would be any more “magical” about creating a pod of dolphins or dinosaurs simultaneously than, say, calling all space time and matter into being out of nothing? Isn’t this the same WLC that defends the creation of new bodies in the resurrection? This was puzzling to me.
The cumulative distribution of fossils found all throughout the world is spectacularly well described by gradualism. For example - human fossils (and fossils of gorillas, bonobos, chimps… even whales, horses, zebras, camels…) are never- not once- found mixed together with dinosaur fossils in the same layer with the same aging characteristics. Or trilobites! Or **worlds** of fauna and flora that exist (as far as we have found so far) only in layers found consistently in specific, gradual orders. Now this may not change one’s beliefs one bit- And that’s fine. But in this case we’re openly maintaining beliefs **in spite** of evidence, and not revising our understanding of the universe as we uncover evidence- Which is what scientists strive to do. Scientists have beliefs…and are able to discard the beliefs when a better explanation is formulated. Religious commitments are not (always) similarly tentative.
My problem with evolution is that it presumes biological complexity to answer questions about complexity. Every time an explanation for biological complexity is sought within the evolutionary framework, it is "resolved" by pushing back the complexity one generation prior. Eg. How did this animal develop this complex solution to this problem? Answer: Beneficial Mutation happened to a prior generation(s) of this species and it underwent natural selection. How did the complexity of that prior generation come to be then? Answer: Beneficial Mutation happened to the prior generation of that generation and it underwent natural selection. And this goes on ad infinitum with the original explanatory deficit regarding complexity simply being continuously pushed back all the way until the origin of the extremely complex first living cell when they can no longer use "mutation and natural selection" because evolution requires life. At that stage the explanatory deficit finally exacts its toll and exposes the fact that evolution cannot explain complexity because it borrows from prior generations of complexity to explain current complexity, and the question regarding complexity cannot be answered at the very first generation. If the question of complexity cannot be answered at the very beginning than the entire chain of explanation falls apart. Using evolution to explain complexity is just like continuously borrowing from different banks to pay off debts to a previous bank.
I think you just need to evaluate biological evolution theory by what it is. It is not a general explanation for complexity so it shouldn't be taken as such. At the same time, I think you are quite incorrect to say that the explanatory deficit is wholly pushed back all the way to the beginning. It is true that evolution requires *some* preexisting complexity, but I think it can hardly be questioned that the evolutionary process *increases* the complexity, immensely. A human body is overwhelmingly more complex than a unicellular organism. Regardless of whether or not the theory is correct, I think it is unquestionable that evolutionary theory explains a plausible mechanism with which massive complexity can result from an initial modicum of complexity.
@@Jasonmoofang "It is not a general explanation for complexity" I would disagree here. the whole premise of evolutionary theory is to figure out how time and chance can result in specified complexity without a need for an intelligent creator. To achieve this it must resolve the issue that is complexity, and even if you would argue that that is not its goal the implications of evolutionary theory is that complexity can result from time and chance alone. "It is true that evolution requires some preexisting complexity, but I think it can hardly be questioned that the evolutionary process increases the complexity, immensely." You have missed the point. I did not deny that mutation and natural selection can result in greater complexity over many generations. What I have said is that the means by which evolutionary theory explains complexity has a lynch pin. That lynch pin is as follows: 1: There is a causally connected chain of generations of organisms, each evolved from the previous generation. 2: Each generation may add to existing complexity, but the explanation for the complexity of each individual generation is not found in itself, it depends on the previous generation to explain its current state of complexity. 3: If at any one point of time there is a generation that is unable to borrow from a prior generation to explain its own complexity, there is a break in this chain of explanations and it explanatory power regarding complexity immediately crumbles. 4: There is a break in this chain at the very beginning because natural selection and random mutation cannot explain the origin of the first living cell. Since the the first living cell is casually connected to anything else that is capable of evolution, it is inaccurate to say that the theory of evolution eliminates the need for an intelligent source behind the complexity of organisms, since all complexity in evolution depends on complexity from the first living cell. IE There never is one point in time where complexity is reduced to simplicity that can be explained using time and chance. Darwin himself thought that the first cells were just simplistic "protoplasm" globs that he used to justify his theory, but we know know that cells are extremely complex organisms, to call it an initial "modicum" of complexity is understating the fact.
@@Azurewroth The formation of the first living cells is abiogenesis. Evolution is the change of life over time. The starting point doesn't matter. You have evolution from any ancestor to any of their descendants. Why do creationists always go back to the origin of life, or even the origin of the universe? It's irrelevant for evolution. Does not knowing how the first generation came to be change the fact that there is change over generations? If not, why do you think that not knowing the formation of the first generation contradicts evolution? "Since the the first living cell is casually connected to anything else that is capable of evolution, it is inaccurate to say that the theory of evolution eliminates the need for an intelligent source behind the complexity of organisms, since all complexity in evolution depends on complexity from the first living cell." -Azure How does adding a creator solve anything? Do you think the creator is simple or complex? Changing the origin of life, does not change the fact that life changes over generations. It's weird that creationists complain about evolution starting with already existing life, while also start with asserting that there is a god. How is starting with a god different than starting with a lifeform? "how time and chance can result in specified complexity without a need for an intelligent creator" -Azure Evolution doesn't result in a specific complexity. It's an ongoing process that basically only has the "goal" of producing creatures that survive long enough to reproduce.
@@Azurewroth Most of what you said is correct. You are also absolutely right that the theory of evolution does not eliminate the need for an explanation for the first living cell. Where you seem to be wrong is you seem to assume that the theory of evolution is meant to also be a theory of the origin of life. That is simply wrong, and if you've heard non-theists attempt to invoke evolution as an origin of life theory - they are wrong, and there is no need for you to follow them in being wrong. Anyone who knows ought about the theory of evolution knows it is not a theory of the origin of life. But it can supplement one - for eg, in Craig's case, his theory of the origin of life (and indeed the universe) is theistic, and evolutionary theory only comes into the picture after life actually began. That's perfectly coherent.
Keep in mind that complexity is not a signature of good design; simplicity is. Life is complex because it is a collection kludges, add-ons, jerry rigs, and make-do's put together over eons of evolution.
Am I interpreting him correctly? Does Dr. Craig believe that God created H. sapien in His image through an exclusively blind mechanism of random chance? That God created a single-celled organism and then expected random gene copying errors and natural selection to write novel code that develops novel hardware that brings to fruition novel concepts like hearing, vision, flight and consciousness -- and then eventually H. sapien? And he really thinks random gene copying errors and natural selection have this incredible inventive and creative capacity, which through blind luck happened to create creatures in God's image?
Yes, and you forgot to mention the battle between life and a planet that had almost no oxygen when this process started, a handful of life-ending natural events (hello Chicxulub), a sun that was 30% cooler, a planet entirely covered in water for 500M years, and land that was as barren as the moon for another 500M years....and ultimately, a guarantee that there will be no life on this planet in 1B years.
No. I don't think he believes it was a blind mechanism. I believe Craig thinks it is a directed process. We get got up on time, but a day might seem like an eternity to a fly, but we struggle to remember them because we live on average 73 years. A billion years or two, or whatever, may seem like a long time to us, but I wonder how long it feels to a being that lives outside of time.
@@alaindesgagne369 we have n0 evidence anything, Iet aI0ne beings can Iive 0utside 0f time 0utside 0f time is an inc0herent c0ncept things need time in which t0 exist but hey y0u`re a "gr0wn up, " we assume, s0 y0u c0uId have figured that 0ut by y0urseIf with a bit 0f thinking ? perhaps ? maybe ? give it a try
Fathers day comment: As a father of many kids & grandkids (but one who never had a father myself), I am filled with joy when Dr. Craig leads by example in his character, brilliance and scientific reasoning, as a Spirit filled believer in Christ. This may surprise you Dr. Craig, but thank you for being my imaginary earthly father! Happy fathers day dads, you rock and are part of an amazing plan to learn to love God, thereby being a good example to our kids. Never give up, you can do it! (Thank you God for being our real, ultimate father, you're amazing and we love who and how you are!)
I might be making a wrong assumption, but understanding that Craig believes a duck or dinosaur "popping" into existence is too fantastic, to what level of complexity of life would he draw the line and say "This form of life popping into existence is perfectly reasonable." And how would he define "complexity" so as to allow that early lifeform to have a low enough complexity to have satisfactorily popped into existence while also having the complexity required to sire every living creature thereafter?
I think Craig's problem with the popping into existence has less to do with the level of complexity of the thing being popped and more to do with the fact that it is *late* creation - that is, that God popped a big and grand universe with all its marvelous laws and properties at the beginning - but then still has to come back later to do additional "little" pops all over the place. I can see why that is unappealing. Especially coming from the "problem of suffering" perspective, it makes sense that God would have designed the universe to be regular and consistent, and by that token would avoid having to constantly remake things - both because that interferes with the lawful consistency of the universe - and also because since God is God, one would expect His initial act of creation to be so good that He wouldn't need to constantly show up and perform "maintenance". Now I think a case can be made that interventions in response to creaturely prayer is different - you could say that His intervention is part of the whole point of those cases. But random intervention in the background functioning of the universe does seem beneath Him.
@@Jasonmoofang don't you wish god would come and explain his mysterious ways. i find it odd that god despite being personal never puts in a personal appearance, he always uses an ignorant stooge to do his dirty work.
There is only complexity in life and the words 'simple', 'basic' , etc, should never be used, even proteins are extremely complex and from a mathematical probability of correct assembly rules out evolutions purposeless random mutational losses of information nonsense.
@@HarryNicNicholas That's the "real" question an atheist asks? Why has Eve and Adam made a really dumb choice?? I observe that kind of choice has been going on ever since.
22:14 - I have problem with analogy, please help. Why you think designer can not replicate "mistake" if he wish. We see that every time, if car engineer make some part in one car, why is not possible to understand he can replicate the same mistake on second etc, exactly on the same spot. Or the problem will be manifested on the same spot over some time. Why only predecessor is only good explanation? And, also, if somebody will tell me why God repeat mistake?, my answer is how we know this is mistake, maybe he knows why, and maybe he didn't do mistake, he maybe create the same prototype which with time comes to same "mutation on the same spot". From my perspective this seems still more like creation argument (I think he confirm that on 25:15 ). Mention "Ford" and "Chevrolet" it more like we have two designers, still for me blur and I cant see it.... Especially because the predecessor was never found (a missing link problem). Maybe I didn't understand something, English is not my language.. 28:15 one more explanation, If i was creator, I will also start with simple organisms and go from there to more complicated one. Thats aligned with Genesis (I will start from this 24 verse, although it is clear that he started first with plants - verse 11, and later he comes to this.) "24 And God said, “Let the earth bring forth living creatures according to their kinds-livestock and creeping things and beasts of the earth according to their kinds.” And it was so. 25 And God made the beasts of the earth according to their kinds and the livestock according to their kinds, and everything that creeps on the ground according to its kind. And God saw that it was good. 26 Then God said, “Let us make man[h] in our image, after our likeness." Like we see, God says, "it was good". Its not perfect, or bad. It is stated just simple "good". And just then it was the "man's turn". You call it evolution, I call it creator step by step process.. hm..
The challenge I have with the theory of evolution is that from a theological standpoint, whose sin did Jesus die in Redemption of? When was man separated from God specifically? If Christ was God and considered the second Adam in 1st Corinthians then what was Paul's view of Adam and Eve?
Well I know that Maximus the Confessor viewed Christ’s death as cosmological in scope: He redeems the entirety of creation, of which we are the pinnacle of creation. Sin then is a separation of the person from his creator or creation from its creator. This is also the reason why I don’t think penal substitutionary atonement is the best understanding of what happened on the cross as it creates absurdities like what you have raised.
jesus din't die for anyone, if indeed he was nailed to the cross that was it, he was dead and stayed dead. ask yourself how does god be god an immortal, become a mortal, then die, then become immortal again, you have been conned, even if god wasn't imaginary, and who was sacrificed cos souls can't die, so what? a bag of blood an bones. religion is a fairy tale you ought to have outgrown by now mate.
@@rockmusicvideoreviewer896 You can prove God exists, but only to yourself. God definitely will honor those who seek Him with assurance, true assurance of His existence, His love and His peace.
I was surprised by your comment... I'm old and I've been taught evolutionary theory my whole life😮(it never made any sense but I was told it was proven science.... Always got straight A's learning the definition of words.... "Theory"... Is not proven science😂)
@@HarryNicNicholasfully grown here, mate 🤣🤣 fifty thousand years and all science has to offer is, "theories" 🤣... Never underestimate the power of propaganda! 🤣 A fine example is you think theories, are actual proven science... As if words had no meaning at all... Unless they're personally approved😂😂😂
I wish we got rid of the 'colloquial' term 'theory'. If we all used the term hypothesis, instead of theory, this would help people understand each other better. "I have a theory that atheism is a government funded program." No, Wrong. you have a hypothesis. We just need to get rid of the colloquial term 'theory'. Language should help us communicate. When people say they don't believe in evolution, they aren't saying: "I don't believe in change over time," but in the most basic meaning of the word, 'change over time' is EVOLUTION.
Look up Dr James Tour of Rice University on origin of life. Look up Dr Stephen Meyer regarding complexity over time. Dr Craig is a brilliant philosopher. But he’s not perfect and he seems to be overlooking things in his argument. Dr Jason Lyle makes some rather bold claims so I’m not against Dr Craig questioning his ideas. Keep digging in the pursuit of truth even if it means questioning the status quo. (I’m not talking flat earth levels but using reasoning)
i think if you want to discuss whether evolution is science or not you're in the wrong place. go to an actual scientist instead of a hack book salesman like craig. you might as well go to a dentist for a fracture.
I’m really surprised to hear Dr. Craig trot out the “pop into existence” argument regarding creation. I find it WAY more probable that God created proto species which were a combination of, or more genetically perfect examples of creatures we find today. Why is it “like magic” for God to form animals, but not “like magic” for God to create the universe in the first place? I’m not sure Dr. Craig can be consistent on this one, if that is his position.
I guess the universe “popping into existence” (which is literally verbatim his preferred linguistic description) is “like magic” too. It does seem awfully inconsistent. Besides, the universe had no primordial ingredients with which to create the universe. The universe was created ex nihilo. So I don’t think his wedding at Cana example holds. So, I think Craig has descended into the vast literature of evolutionary theory inasmuch as he feels compelled to explain the theory (which still has many holes he did not address), rather than use a biblical starting point off of which to assess the validity of theory. That’s not to say disregard the scientific theories outright, but to deeply consider biblical theology, vice versa.
@@eew8060 Yes, James can be quite the pseudo pious character. Looks like that person deleted their comment, I hope they didn’t get too offended by my comment.
@@brando3342 Lol! Yeah I see they deleted it! I wish Dr White and Dr Craig would just debate Calvinism/Molinism already. I saw their discussion on Unbelievable.. White has good info sometimes, other times he's 'meh'.
Hi Dr Craig, Did you ever consider how long Adam and Eve were in the garden of Eden before falling into sin. The earth was created in 6 days. Adam and Eve were in the garden many, many years before Eve ate from the tree of knowledge.
Much has been said by historians of Darwin's observations of the finches on the Galapagos islands while sailing on the Beagle, but little is mentioned of another incident Darwin had with some less fortunate birds on a different island during his voyage. We have three accounts of an excursion made by Darwin and the Captain from the Beagle to St. Paul's Rocks between the Cape Verde Islands and the coast of Brazil. First we shall read Darwin's version of the episode: " We found on St. Paul's only two kinds of birds-the booby and the noddy. The former is a species of Gannet, and the latter a tern. Both are of a tame and stupid disposition, and are so unaccustomed to visitors, that I could have killed any number of them with my geologic hammer." The Voyage of Charles Darwin, Charles Darwin, pp.10, The American Museum of Natural History, The Natural History Library, Anchor Books, Doubleday & Co., Inc., Garden City New York, 1962. Browne mentioned the appalling incident in her biography of Darwin: " Uninhabited except for dense flocks of seafowl, and previously unvisited by any scientific recorder, they were an alluring target for a restless naval man and an eager friend . . . Darwin and Fitzroy had a marvelous time of it, whooping and killing birds with abandon". Browne, pp.204. See also the original, Narrative of the Surveying Voyage of H.M.S. Adventure and Beagle, Vol. 2:56. Fitzroy recorded the bloody scene in his personal narrative as well. According to him, one of the seamen asked if he could borrow Darwin's hammer to kill some of the birds with, to which Darwin replied, "No, no, you'll break the handle." Then, apparently struck by the novelty of this idea, Darwin himself picked up his hammer and began killing the peaceful birds in this manner, as Fitzroy related "away went the hammer, with all the force of his own right arm." Narrative of the Voyages of the Adventure and Beagle, by Admiral Fitzroy, 1839. See also Amabel Williams Ellis, "The Voyage of the Beagle, Adapted from the Narratives and letters of Charles Darwin and Captain Fitzroy, pp. 26, J.B. Lippencott Co., Philadelphia and London, 1931.
Let's assume 6 billion years for a moment.... so the first day consists of a half a billion years of light then FOLLOWED by a half billion years of dark.... morning then evening...light then dark....day then night..... doesn't that follow if we regard the text useful at all...please reply Dr Craig
The acceptance of the reality of evolution is incompatible with the bible. Simple as that. If evolution is true, the bible cannot be true, and vice versa. So, if you accept that the genesis myth is just that, a bit of ancient mythology, by what criteria do you accept the equally magical stories of jesus? The "evidence" for the two myths is about the same. A book says so. So, whats your criteria for differentiating between the two myths?
Yeah, theistic evolutionists are very inconsistent. Thank God this is not a matter of salvation. But it is hard for me to see how someone can appreciate what Jesus did for us on the cross, when they discount the premise which it is built upon. And if you think evolution can turn a population of single-celled organisms to a population of multi-celled organisms to all the different populations of complex organisms we see around us today. You would be wrong.
Extended evolutionary synthesis you mentioned was not defined. yet Jason is the issue here? it feels a bit like the no true Scotsman Fallacy, unable to identify if so until the proposition is defined.
@@OSAS27 common sense is not a good thing in general. it refers to intuitive thinking, which does not give reliable answers. in person i can demonstrate the flawed natures of common sense in a few minutes.
I've struggled to understand evolution for years. I accept mutation. I accept adaptation. But neither of those genetic processes explain progressive complexity. From what I know mutation can never result in an increase in genetic complexity. Mutation causes loss of genetic material. And I understand that mutation can cause a favorable trait as much as it can cause something unfavorable. But how do the most simple life forms, even over millions of years, "evolve" into complex life forms? What is that process that adds genetic information? Is there a genetic process that has been proven to add genetic information? And I don't mean one of those "hiccups" where the same genetic material is copied more than once.
Have you ever considered taking a course on genetics? I know Coursera had a very good online course that should answer most of these questions for you. They are real college level classes that you do on your own time and they are FREE.
@@Kruppes_Mule Thanks for the info. I did take a class in genetics a long time ago, but I don't think expertise in genetics is required if common descent is true. Like any sound scientific theory, common descent should have a simple, but not simplistic, explanation that non scientists can understand. Everything I DO know about DNA, mutation and genetic entropy easily negates the possibility of increasing complexity in any genetic profile, even given millions of years.
I accept mutation. I accept adaptation." - evolution is this but more. Eventually, the genetic makeup of the offspring lacks enough homology (see: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chromosomal_crossover) with the ancient ancestor such that no viable offspring could be made if the two mated. In this way, we say that the offspring and the ancient ancestor are different species.
@@OSAS27 Your responses reek of having "learned" evolution from sources whose livelihood depends on them and you not understanding. Again, I recommend if you have taken college level courses that you repeat them as the questions you're asking are things that aren't really in question by anyone other than creationist shills.
The example he gives of wine is a poor one. The passage makes clear that Jesus chose purification jars. That is key. The wedding most likely of a Pharisee or had Pharisees in attendance, and one of the extra-biblical commandments they taught was that no fermentation or vinegar could be put in purification jars. The fact that Jesus used them to do his miracle showed not only his grace to the wedding guests but also his judgment against the commandments of men.
At min 16, Dr Craig says it hard to believe that creatures are popped into existence, but isn't that also true of the universe. It seems just as plausible that God could speak the universe and the creatures in a moment into existence. Love WLC but I think he should be humble to others with this common reading.
no one in science says things popped into a existence (apart from anti particles) there has always been a quantum field, matter / energy cannot be created or destroyed, basic physics, the universe is eternal, it was just "something else" before this iteration, penrose has some great ideas on cyclic cosmology and others propose "the big bounce" whatever the case no one should be listening to craig if they want science, craig is lying for god as always.
CMT1 duplication could be interresting but you didnt quite say enough to convince me. It could be its position or nature that makes it particularly susceptible to transcription error or environmentally caused distortion. If Ford is making a door handle that will break easily in cold weather it doesnt follow that your broken mustang handle evolved from tommys broken ford 500 handle.
There is no reconciliation between evolutionary theory and any biblical account of anything. Evolutionary theory is a grand scientific explanation of life based on many years of dedicated study by thousands of scientists, all of which is published in journals for anyone to read. The bible is a fantasy tale written by clueless people who did not even know where the sun went at night.
This is bizarre. I have learned more about the theory of evolution from one video by Craig than I have from hundreds of videos by Aron Ra. I couldn’t even begin to accept evolution from Ra because he just asserts it condescendingly. Craig actually explained it and it makes sense.
Well, as long as you have all powerfulness, energy and matter, you can turn anything into anything without adding anything new. Might not be the same amount but still
The structure homolog argument is just a *circular reasoning*, and that a philosopher of the statue of Dr Craig commits such an obvious fallacy is mind boggling! "What explains those similarities?" Well, creationism explains it perfectly well: since organism are supposed to interact with each other, live in the same environment, or move across environment, eat from different environment, eat the same things, so they *must* of course have similarities! The similarities between organism prove a common designer just as much as common ancestry. Cars and tractors are also similar, but not because they share a common ancestor but because they have a common designer.
Also if you listen a bit more carefully you'll note that there are genetic ties to these biological similarities that cannot be explained simply by saying "well they have similar functions because they have similar functions within an environment" WLC mentions latent genes as an example
We get an unnerving insight into Darwin's character from an entry he made in his personal ledger during his voyage on the Beagle. While he was journeying through the Argentine pampas in South America there was a bloody slaughter of the indigenous natives taking place, conducted by the rogue General Juan Manuel de Roses, a self proclaimed despot, in 1833. Indian women and children were thrust through with saber and shot down like hunted animals. Darwin traveled through the territory as a guest of the General, and he wrote of the war in his diary: " . . . women who appear over twenty years of age are massacred in cold blood while the children are sold into slavery" however he was also able to write on a lighter note: "This war of extirmination (sic), although carried on with the most shocking barbarity, will certainly produce great benefits, it will at once throw open four or five hundred miles in length of fine country for the produce of cattle." Beagle Diary, by Charles Darwin, edited by R.D. Keynes, 1988, pp.180-181, pp177; and The Correspondence of Charles Darwin, Vol. 1, pp.326, 1821-1861, F.H. Burkhardt and S. Smith ed., Cambridge University Press, University Library, Cambridge, 1983-1984 Practical man that he was, Darwin could definitely see the positive side of this genocide. Perhaps if there had been electric lighting back then Darwin might have also come up with some novel ideas for interior design with the by-products of this slaughter, as some of his followers in the twentieth century did during the holocaust. Desmond and Moore wrote that "Darwin shook a hand soaked in blood" when he struck up his acquaintance with General Rosas, whom he decribed as "a perfect gaucho." Desmond and Moore, Darwin, pp. 141. While Darwin was a guest of the General, who had loaned Darwin some of his horses to go exploring on during his sojourn in Argentina, he received a correspondence from Fitzroy back on the ship, who desired to know how Darwin's "campaign with General Rosas" was going. Desmond and Moore report: "Well armed, with fresh horses and ruthless companions, he had little to fear from the hostiles. Indeed he was beginning to appreciate the 'great benefits' of General Rosas' 'war of extermination ." (Ibid, pp. 141) In Darwin's mind it was all fairly simple: "Less Indians => more cattle => healthier Spaniards: Survival of the fittest!" (Although the term "survival of the fittest" was not coined until the 1850's by another rogue, Herbert Spencer, founder of the modern pseudo-science of sociology and from whose work the communists and national socialists in the twentieth century built their dark machinations with, Darwin clearly had the concept buttoned down in his notes years before) Apparently the slaughter of the Indians didn't weigh too heavily on his conscience, for Darwin boasted when describing his living conditions while riding with Rosas' men: "I . . .drink my Mattee; smoke my cigar, then lie down & sleep as comfortably with the Heavens for a canopy as in a feather bed." Charles Darwin, The Correspondence of Charles Darwin, Vols.. 1-9, (1821-1861), Cambridge University Press, See also Browne, pp. 256-257 and Desmond and Moore, pp.141.
The most common meaning of theory is likely the layman one. Unless there really are that many scientists. The scientific one will only come up in certain discussions
As an atheist, I find this subject interesting but evolution is both a fact and a theory in that it's a scientific hypothesis which is supported by mountains of evidence to the degree predictions can be and are made which demonstrate the validity of it. Although I realize why a Christian worldview might make it tempting to non=t accept it or to seek out arguments against it. I only care about what's true, myself.
This was actually pretty good. I didn't expect that. Interviewer did a good job. Guy responding did a good job, too. Good job, Christians. He says at the end, "Christians will only make themselves look silly if they launch these kinds of attacks." Now, we need to get a Muslim on a Muslim channel to talk the same way to the Muslims, so that they can put in the trash ideas like "Adamic Exceptionalism".
WLC doesn't deny miracles that happen all throughout history, but by calling them "late creation" he seems to think that they would be ridiculous. Honestly, this doesn't seem logical to me. I'm not committed to young earth theory nor am I committed to common descent. But the arguments given here are not too convincing for me.
I’m on the fence about this YEC theistic evolution debate. What I don’t think DR. Craig is being fair on here is that he is happy to have God pop creation into existence but not a duck. I understand his hang up with late creation and I think he has a point but if God can pop a universe into existence by the Word of His mouth why not a duck or even a breeding population of ducks.
well, come off the fence, evolution is true, creation is a fairy tale. stop listening to craig, a PHD in bible study, and start listening to PHD's in science, that would be a start don't you agree? do you take your car to church to be fixed when it breaks down?
Notes commentary from what I’ve read in Darwin’s Doubt by Stehen Meyer and what I see. Darwin could explain the survival of the fittest but not the arrival of the fittest @3:16 comment: I think he means to say ‘the arrival of new body plans.’ I don’t think critics of evolution (like myself) ask where the heritable traits come from. Population genetics cited @3:31. comment: I’m not there yet in the book but I think the critique is on the creative power of random (beneficial) mutuations given population rates. There’s supposed to be a study that shows that it would take more than the age of the universe to build one functional protein fold. Some questions: ‘population genetics explains the rise of hereditable genetic traits through mutations.’ I think this is the ‘monkey typing Shakespeare’ problem. Not only do you need beneficial traits, but they need to be coordinated. And I think I remember now that the term is ‘coordinated mutations.’ Also the gene pool problem. By ‘hederitable genetic traits’ do we mean that the gene pool gained information? Is it diversity or trending to disparity (novel body plans)? @5:30 Evolution is not a monochromatic theory. comment: I understand but we’re talking about abductive reasoning. It’s like having a theory from some detective that has been modified and accomodated to fit his theory. Sounds more like forcing a story than modifying a theory. Of course this is a competition of worldviews. @10:25 similarities in anatomy and their genetic makeup (homolids). This suggest descent from a common ancestor. An example of this would be the pentadactyl limb. Comment: I mean, you could argue common design instead of a common ancestor. Here’s where I’ll mention Darwin’s doubt: the Cambrian explosion. We would have to go by the fossil record ; otherwise we would be proposing our favored worldview. According to what I’ve read, the Cambrian explosion shows a good enough sample on the history of life. If evolution is true, then we would expect to see a record of diversity in the lower strata and disparity in the upper strata. The opposite is true. @12:00 gene similarities are best explained by common ancestry. comment: the problem that I remember for this one (aside from coordinated mutations), is the combinatorial inflation problem. An unguided process is far more likely to degrade the code than to improve it with function. It’s important to say it like this because we’re not just talking about Shannon information, but specified information (also known as complexity vs specified complexity). An unguided process is not the best explanation for specified information (this is what I’ve understood). There are two main challenges: 1. not enough time? 2. Using Charles Lyllel’s principle of reasoning; the best way to explain natural phenomena from the past is to infer by what causes it today. Specified information has invariably come from a mind. Why would it be any different? Could it be because of a worldview? @20:20 the genetic information is the code that tells the cells how to make proteins (near universal code). Everything has a near universal code with small variations. This is strong evidence for common descent. comment: again, or common design. @21:44 sporadic variations and non-functional genes. comment: I don’t know anything about this. I wonder if we should let creationist tell is something about it, not just evolutionists. ok, humans may have a cmt 1 duplicate that’s harmful, if I understand the argument, since this duplicate is found in chimps and its non-functional, then why would the Designer made it like that? This is better explained by common descent. Interesting argument. I don’t know how to respond to this. Keep in mind the problems mentioned above. I’ll keep this in my notes: cmt is a neuromuscular syndrome. I strongly disagree that denying gradualism does not call into question common descent. This ‘saltation’ theory doesn’t solve the top-down pattern problem of taxa in the fossil record. There are no transitional fossils as far as I’m concerned and it totally sounds like a rescue device. And yes I’m awared of tiktalik. I’m sorry if I don’t take men’s word for it. Again, what do creationists have to say about this? Not just evolutionists. @29:00 the progress of life shows evolution. comment: you just mentioned the Cambrian explosion! Not the mention the Vendian mini explosion.
As an atheist, I wish more Christians thought like Craig. He changes his faith in the face of evidence, and ends up with a more nuanced and robust faith
I doubt he has changed his faith. But as a challenge to the existence of God,evolution is an interesting argument. In terms of religion evolution is a successor to the scepticism of the enlightenment.
I’m not sure what you guys think ‘changing your faith’ means, but I mean it in the sense of the Dalai Lama: ‘If science proves some some belief in Buddhism wrong, then Buddhism will have to change.’ A literal, inerrant reading of the Bible is flatly incompatible with the theory of evolution. Call it what you will, ‘augmenting’, accommodating: in the end, you are changing your faith in some way. An education in science - even in biblical scripture - will force you to read much of the Bible metaphorically
@@bigol7169 I would separate the issues of genre (literal/metaphor etc.) with the issues of truth (errancy/inerrancy). Dr. Craig might have changed his mind on the genre of the genesis account, but I highly doubt he's changed his mind on the truth of it.
@@jessethomas3979 please explain more. “For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth”: doesn’t the literal or metaphorical nature of this verse have a direct effect on its truth value?
Also, you find sudden miraculous appearance of ducks as ‘ incredible’ because you have accepted evolution ( 15:20-16:00h ). Its very EASY to believe how a video game programmer could suddenly POP ducks into existence in a video game. So same with life. Why suppose the video game programmer has to evolve ducks? Thats due to preconceived darwinian ideas you have accepted.
Even ducks in a video game change over the course of the development of the game. Those ducks are also based on previous generations of video games. A duck in a modern game looks very different to a duck in an old game. Also, in nature ducks don't just pop into existence as the bible wants you to believe. Why suppose that ducks can just pop into existence?
@@ateriana5116 how can ducks just pop into existence ? The same way Dr. Craig thinks the universe did. A duck being created is childs play compared. And the ducks in ONE particular video game do pop into existence. You guys have been sold on evolution, so you have a hard time accepting what the Bible says at face value. PLUS they don’t have to pop out of nothing. God can make animals from dirt, from ribs, etc. There can be a process. Just not a design-less process.
@@ateriana5116 the point is that a video game programmer can easily create ducks however he wants without a problem. I admit God can evolve animals, but he can also make them from dirt quickly or pop them into existence out of nothing. Craig has a hard time with the creationists view. I can see God doing the evolution process , its just not what the Bible says. Thats all. He can do what he wants. Difficulty seeing God making ANYTHING out of nothing is due to lack of faith in the Christian God.
"Standing for truth" just did a response video to debunk this one and I will be coming out with a few myself. What a sad day in Christianity when people think they have to compromise their faith to make it work. Sad, indeed.
@newcreationinchrist1423 I checked out your channel and it looks interesting. I will be checking out ur videos. I have never been convinced of evolution. I have never seen the proof that progressive genetic complexity happens. Plus, the evolution story contradicts the Genesis creation story, unless you make the whole creation story a metaphor and deny the existence of Adam, Eve, Cain, Abel, etc. And then you have to dismiss the genealogy of Christ, so it's obviously the wrong interpretation. Trust God's word. It's never wrong. We may interpret it wrong, but that's on us.
@@OSAS27amen. Totally agree! I pray what I have posted blesses you. If you have any questions, please feel free to leave comments. I'll be glad to help as best as I can or at the very least lead you to someone who can. God bless 🙏
I feel sorry for religious folk. You can’t ever accept reality or your whole fantasy world would fall apart. Live in a myth, fine, but stop trying to convince others of your delusion because you simply can’t.
He did quite a lot of research for his debate with evolutionary biologist, Francisco Ayala: ua-cam.com/video/fsR1t_Ee0PY/v-deo.htmlsi=6-0QEImM2DC6iOnD. He also discusses the subject at length in his Defenders class, beginning here: www.reasonablefaith.org/podcasts/defenders-podcast-series-3/excursus-on-creation-of-life-and-biological-diversity/excursus-on-creation-of-life-and-biological-diversity-part-30. - RF Admin
@@ReasonableFaithOrg Thank you. But one question. Dr. Craig is still holding the same things from ten years ago? I say this because that debate was a long time ago and I thought Dr. Craig would have changed some questions regarding evolution. Thanks anyway.
@@imagodeifides His research has focused mainly on the biblical data and, after arriving at a mytho-historical genre classification for Genesis 1-11, on the scientific data regarding the chronological location of the historical Adam. His research projects since that debate have not focused on evolution. - RF Admin
paulogia came up with a good way to explain evolution to the folks who "don't get it" - it's like language, latin is the common ancestor to italian, portugese and spanish, but at no point did a roman give birth to a spanish speaker, romans only begat romans (!) words got added to latin and words became redundant until it evolved into spanish, spanish, italian and portugese are all "cousins" like humans and apes, and "if spanish is evolved from latin, why is there still latin" - why are there still apes, the answer should be obvious, latin did not have to "become extinct" for spanish to evolve.
Hmm..common ancestry with chimps. Wondering if Dr. Craig believes evolution over how God biblically created Adam and Eve in Genesis. Of course, if God used chimps, apes and monkeys as a model for Man, than there would be many similarities between us and them, including those things which works and those things which appears to be broken. If we are to see the Genesis account in a traditional sense, this could very well be unfounded in scientific terms; doesn't mean that the Genesis account when seen in an unconventional sense is not true
"if God used chimps, apes and monkeys as a model for Man" Im am an atheist, but I would call those animals more like a byproduct of our existence. Idk honestly
Have Creationist ever think how we could do research on better corn using their theory? We sit around a bunch of corn in the lab and pray for a spontaenous changes? If they go to visit University of Illinois in Urbana-Champaign they can see the oldest corn experiment using evolution theory: mutation & selection. They even built their main library underground to safe the historic corn field. ILO & IHO.
Poof, a couple of ducks appear, sounds magical and therefore implausible to Craig, but: poof, Jesus turns water into wine and rises from the dead, doesn't sound magical and therefore credible? These arguments are ridiculously religiously biased. Is it about believing what Craig finds credible? I find Craig's Christianity completely unbelievable. And I think I deserve a heart for my comment.
Nobody ever claimed elephants can or did change into alligators. They are on different branches of the evolutionary tree, and their evolutionary paths diverged from a common ancestor a very long time ago.
@@hexo-mobius could you explain what macro evolution is? I don’t think you understand the concept as well as you might think. I genuinely don’t mean that in an insulting way. There’s many things I don’t understand as well.
Still haven’t had the main question answered. If humans “evolved” why have we lost our ability to survive? No other animal has “evolved” out of it own habitat. Its because we are in this world not of this world…
Darwin summed up his viewpoint on natural selection in the final part of the eighth chapter of his Origin of Species, where he wrote: ". . . To my imagination it is far more satisfactory to look at such instincts as the young cuckoo ejecting it's foster brothers (from the nest),-ants making slaves-the larvae of ichneumonide feeding with the live bodies of the caterpillars,-not as especially endowed or created instincts, but as one general law leading to the advancement of all organic beings [mankind included],-namely, multiply, vary, let the strongest live and the weakest die." (Origin, final paragraph of Chapter Eight on Instinct, 6th edition) Darwin said that his "general law leading to the advancement of all organic beings . . . let the strongest live and the weakest die" also applied to the various races of man, and he saw "beneficial" results coming from a race war between the different races, or what he called later on in the same chapter the "sub-species" of man, with one race surviving and one race being exterminated! Darwin elaborates on this theme further on in his Descent, describing this dream of his for mankind's future when the black races of man, as well as the mountain gorilla of Africa, will become extinct, thus enhancing the chances for the evolutionary advancement of the more "civilized" races of man: "At some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilized races of man will almost certainly exterminate, and replace, the savage races throughout the world. At the same time the anthropomorphous apes, as Professor Schaaffhausen has remarked, will no doubt be exterminated. The break between man and his nearest allies will then be wider, for it will intervene between man in a more civilised state, as we may hope, even than the Caucasian, and some ape as low as a baboon, instead of as now between the negro or Australian and the gorilla." (Descent of Man, Chapter Six: On the Affinities and Geneology of Man, On the Birthplace and Antiquity of Man) It may surprise some people to find out the dark truth about Darwin, but the fact remains nevertheless that he did indeed propose in his second major work, The Descent of Man, that certain races of human beings were actually sub-species, that a race war among mankind's different races, with the extermination of one race and the survival of another would bring "beneficial" results in evolutionary terms, and he did explicitly state, as we have just read, that black people were intermediate on the evolutionary ladder between apes and white people. and wrote that it was his hope that in the near future the black races of mankind, the aborigines, and the African gorillas would become extinct, thus enhancing the evolutionary potential of the Caucasian race! Darwin proposed in horrifying and explicit language that black Africans and Australian aborigines occupied a sub-species position between white Europeans and baboons! He not only stated this as his belief, but proposed that in the near future "as we may hope" according to his evolutionary theory, these "sub-races" of man will eventually be exterminated in a struggle for survival, along with the endangered mountain gorilla of Africa! This type of statement makes the term "ethnic cleansing" seem mild by comparison. Certain evolutionists, in attempting to excuse Darwin, have made the claim that Darwin was merely an impartial observer of the natural processes, and that he was only noting the historical fact that extinctions have and are occurring. This type of reasoning completely misses the point. There is a vast difference between observing that there are endangered species, such as the gray whale, the mountain gorilla etc., and encouraging the extinction of those species, which Darwin did! He was anything but impartial. And it should be noted that he made those predictions according to his theory, and said that they would be "beneficial" to evolution, and he applied the "beneficial" results of extinction, as can be clearly seen by anyone with a reasonable degree of intelligence from the above quotes, to the different races of man as well! To blur the line between observation and advocating would be like saying that Hitler was a social scientist who was concerned that the Jews were an endangered ethnic group! For anyone to make the excuse that Darwin was merely reflecting the contemporary attitude of his day completely ignores the fact that Darwin's Descent was published some fifty years after the great Christian, Wilberforce, lobbied successfully to outlaw slavery in England; ten years after Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation; and seven years after the end of the American Civil War. Also, there were some very prominent blacks at that time in England and America who had attained financial prosperity and achieved notable educational success and who would not have appreciated Darwin's designation of their status.
I think there are still questions about common descent. And common mutations don’t rule out common design. Design doesn’t exclude the possibility of broken genes. I think the real weakness of the extended synthesis is gradualism. There are big holes in the theory. There simply isn’t enough time for whale evolution, for instance. Lots of unanswered questions still.
Big holes? You mean the 1000's of evidence against some still unanswered questions? Yeahright, that's a real reason to question the theory, while theistic holy book claims got destroyed one after another. Which one is more plausible, I wonder....
@@dorkception2012 Interesting name for yourself. So firstly, no, biblical claims have not been destroyed one after another. Second, we can gather facts about nature from various disciplines of science, but we make inferences about what we can conclude about those facts. So yes, there are many problems with the standard evolutionary narrative.
@@mc07 "So yes, there are many problems with the standard evolutionary narrative." That's your opinion against the scientific scholars of the whole world. Truly valuable opinion. ;)
@@dorkception2012 ok, world wide flood, we don’t know. It is plausibly interpreted as a regional flood of the ‘known’ world of the author at the time. Firmament - this is ancient language. Personally, I don’t believe it was actually viewed as a solid dome. It’s figurative language. The resurrection - your claim is false. The most plausible conclusion based on the evidence is that the resurrection is true. The alternatives have too many problems. And if you allow for the possibility of the supernatural, without being biased against it, than it makes it an even stronger conclusion. Talking snakes? This can easily be accounted for as being figurative as well. But how would it be debunked? No one alive today was there.
I am open to being wrong on this, but I have a hard time following the logic of some of this. Why wouldn't similar animals have closer genetic code if God originally built the DNA? The idea that this is evidence of universal common descent seems to be assuming the Theory of Evolution is true anyway. I find God popping T-Rexes, Brontosauruses, and ducks into existence fantastical in how Craig puts it, but that has two problems that I can see. Part is an argument from incredulity, and the other is that God would have not popped every single species of animal into existence, but more like the phyla or some form of higher taxonomic category. I do really appreciate debunking some of the, what I call, "annoying" arguments such as "it's just a theory". I'd like to see a discussion between Craig and Stephen C. Meyer on some of this. It seems like the Cambrian explosion and events like that make Universal Common Descent, and especially Natural Selection as the means, pretty incredible. Finally, as far as God "poofing" ducks on a pond, Craig believes that God "poofed" the universe into existence. Why then are ducks so incredible? And certainly God would have poofed cells or DNA or proteins into existence to start evolution even if you believe in the theory of evolution. So why not ducks, or a prior proto-fowl?
I often amazed that when engaging atheists that how few are up to date with the The Extended Evolutionary Synthesis (EES). Most are still arguing from the perspective of the Modern Synthesis. It should be pointed out that the EES has so far failed to identify substantial new creative biological processes that could explain the rise of new species (arrival of the fittest.) So we are still kind of stuck between an old theory and a new one. It should be also acknowledged that to this point we have no working hypothesis about how saltation (rapid evolutionary change) actually occurs. This position was noted long ago by Stephen J. Gould who are argued for punctuated equilibrium which postulated long periods of genetic stability with intermittent periods of rapid evolutionary change. The problem for Gould was that he had no mechanisms to support his hypothesis (which ran against the basic assumptions of the MS.) In the end he essentially abandoned punctuated equilibrium. So we need new mechanisms to support a changing understand around essential features of evolution. So far no luck.
EES was proposed by some bioogists during a conference in 2016. It was not generally accepted because the fields of embryology, endo symbiosis, multilevel selection, niche construction, plasticity and evolvability were (and are) already included (and studied) in the Modern Synthesis. So, we are not "stuck between an old and a new theory", that's just an aspiration of IDiots and creationists. All the fields I mentioned above, do not contradict the Modern Synthesis, in fact they've always been included in it. "we have no working hypothesis about how saltation (rapid evolutionary change) actually occurs" Why do you write "we"? ... as if you're a biologist (at least one that is up to speed with the science). Yes we do have scientific explanations (and evidence) for processes that are saltational. Already in 1966 has saltational speciation been recognized in the genus Clarkia (Lewis, 1966). Examples of saltational evolution include cases of stabilized hybrids that can reproduce without crossing (such as allotetraploids) and cases of symbiogenesis. Both gene duplication and lateral gene transfer have the capacity to bring about relatively large changes that are saltational.Polyploidy (most common in plants but not unknown in animals) is saltational: a significant change (in gene numbers) can result in speciation in a single generation. Evidence of phenotypic saltation has been found in the centipede. Saltational changes have occurred in the buccal cavity of the roundworm Caenorhabditis elegans. Some processes of epigenetic inheritance can also produce changes that are saltational. The mode of evolution of sex pheromones in Bactrocera has occurred by rapid saltational changes associated with speciation followed by gradual divergence thereafter. You: "The problem for Gould ('s punctuated equilibrium) was that he had no mechanisms to support his hypothesis (which ran against the basic assumptions of the MS.)" That is BS. PE is a theory about the scaling of speciation in geological time and is perfectly explained within the Modern Synthesis as a change of rate in the evolutionary process when selection pressure is weaker. If you want to inform yourself of what really concerned Gould and the response from the biological community: extinctblog.org/extinct/2023/12/19/gould-repost extinctblog.org/extinct/2023/6/20/how-to-change-your-life-using-punctuated-equilibria (part 1) extinctblog.org/extinct/2023/7/1/paradox-of-stasis (part 2) extinctblog.org/extinct/2023/12/20/equilibium-disrupted (part 3)
You could say that Darwin's Theory of Natural Selection - was originally just that - a Theory - but the plethora of supporting evidence discovered since his time - most notably the study of genomes - his Theory should now be upgraded to Darwin's Principle of Evolution - alongside other established Principles such as those of Isaac Newton.
Except not really Theories in the scientific sense don't correspond to the common colloquial usage Theories in the scientific Sense aren't just mere plausible explanations Those would be hypotheses But explanations supported by the data Like the theory of relativity The confusion arises because The use of the terms law and theory are inconsistent
@@kiroshakir7935 Exactly. Cell Theory, Germ Theory, Oxygen Theory, Theory of Plate Tectonics, Theory of General Relativity etc. I could go on... People have no issues with any of these until it comes to evolution. Then its "Evolution is JUST a theory and all the others are laws" For some reason its ok to just cherry pick which branches of science work and which don't, its so dishonest and i don't think people realise it.
@@rebanelson607 I'll try to find the video, where he made a joke with which he made the idea of evolution seem absurd, but it was in a video made at least 10 years ago.
@@rebanelson607 I also recall older videos of him being somewhat skeptical of evolution. If we're not mistaken, his views have "evolved." There's nothing wrong with this, and I don't consider it any sort of attack. He's clearly read the literature and finds the arguments plausible. I'm more an ID guy, so I'm curious what their position is on the evidence that WLC mentioned.
he's a nincompoop? why people think he's so great beats me, and why anyone is listening to a PHD in bible studies talk about a science topic is typical of the religious, poking their nose in places they have no business poking, craig has been shown to be wrong on plenty of occasions, but typical religist he just keeps on ignoring the truth until no one sign up to religion anymore cos they are all liars and dishonest, and abusers too these days.
Faith by definition is unreasonable. It is the belief in spite of not having reason. Even if you think you have plenty of reason to believe (I may disagree) then you, by definition, don’t have faith but evidence. Faith (and all religion, but that’s an entirely separate argument) is always unreasonable.
You have confidence, or faith, that the sun will rise tomorrow in the East and set in the West. You have that confidence, or faith, or assurance, based on your experience or evidence. You have not seen tomorrow's sunrise, but it is reasonable to have that confidence. Hebrews 11:1 "Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen." I have faith that God will help me based on my prior experience in situations where He has. My confidence is reasonable.
I think it’s a shame that as Christians we have been made to feel like it’s intellectual suicide to believe in God (by the atheists) and simultaneously like we are heretics if we believe in evolution (by Christians). Feels that way for me atleast. I really appreciate and agree with Dr. Craig here.
@@Mario_Sky_521 What I believe is that the universe is so obviously more than 6000 years old. Structures on earth are obviously more than 6000 years old. Dinosaurs obviously existed millions of years ago. Those are the things that seem so obvious and prevent me from being able to take a literal interpretation of creation in Genesis. It’s like if I were to show you a house that is obviously 50+ years old and try and tell you it was made yesterday you would be very skeptical. That’s not to say that no one BUILT the house…it’s the timeline of events that I fear demanding Christian’s accept this 6000 year old earth claim or be labeled “anti Bible” really creates a point of attack for the atheists to make us look silly.
@@Maravirocbc How so? What's the difference between the credibility of Santa Claus and the story of Cheesus? They both have the same amount of documentation about them, they both known around the world, and they both have the same amount of validity to their stories!
@@dorkception2012 the difference, obviously, is that Santa was never intended to portrayed as someone who truly exists (although the imagination of him is based on a historical figure). Jesus truly existed, claimed he was of God and performed miracles with validate those claims. It’s entirely a false equivalency. Believing a fictitious character to be real would be deviating from the intent of those who imagined and created that story. Believing Jesus is God incarnate is to believe him to be exactly who those who have passed on his story through the years believed him to be. Let’s stop here though it’s silly to have some sort of fallacious debate on social media…you won’t convince me of anything and vice versa.
we evolved from primates, apes aree cousins, here get yer head around this: it's like language, latin is the common ancestor to italian, portugese and spanish, but at no point did a roman give birth to a spanish speaker, romans only begat romans (!) words got added to latin and words became redundant until it evolved into spanish; spanish, italian and portugese are all "cousins" like humans and apes, and "if spanish is evolved from latin, why is there still latin" - why are there still apes, the answer should be obvious, latin did not have to "become extinct" for spanish to evolve.
I appreciate Dr. Craig for researching these topics. He's clearly spending a lot of time researching this and other related topics. I do think it's possible for God to act with those miracles of new species coming from nothing, in the same way He made the universe, and I don't think that theory can be totally tossed aside as Craig seems to think, but either way, great discussion!
@@mbgrafix That's such a silly statement. I know people who accept both. Don't be overly-simplistic. Critical thinking is an important skill to cultivate.
I would so much appreciate for a creationist historian/archaeologist PHD to start publicly supporting these scientists to add to what these guys don't do, and get into public debates with "academic" historians and evolutionists who are against God and The Bible. There is plenty evidence for The Bible from Genesis to the first century AD. I hardly hear anyone of them (Lennox, Craig, these guys, and others) ever talk about it except about Jesus. There is MUCH evidence for The Bible from it's beginning to its end.
It boils my blood when non-scientists make out that they understand a particular scientific topic BETTER than the very scientists that study it!! Read "Why Evolution is True" by Jerry A. Coyne and be quiet.
@@brando3342science isn't a religion. Atheism isn't a religion. Stop calling things "religion" that simply aren't. And why do you even think religion is a bad thing? Or what's the point of calling things you disagree with or don't comprehend, "religion"?
Grow up and understand the insidious damage that all you history-, science- and reality-deniers do. You'll be brainlessly spouting that the Earth's flat next!
Love you Bill, but you know better than to think “I just find that incredible” is a qualitative argument against special creation. If God can say let there be a universe and out of nothing all matter and energy come into being at the Big Bang (which you believe), what’s the problem with him saying, “let there be a flock of ducks.”?
Darwin was brilliant in his time, but you don't go to him for the latest on evolution. Just like you don't go to Galileo for the latest on gravity. Many disciplines since Darwin (Genetics, Geology, Biochemistry, Developmental Biology, etc.) have confirmed evolution's factuality.
I am surprised and impressed that he basically accepts the theory (fact) of evolution. Most Christians don't. And he's right the ones that don't look silly. I just disagree with him that god did it as I see no evidence of any god.
I agree evolution is not a theory, but I disagree with the explanation by Craig. There's for instance the germ theory. But it doesn't mean a germ is a theory. Germs are entities. Even if didn't exist or we didn't know they existed, they still wouldn't be theories. The germ theory is a scientific explanation for some diseases, saying they are caused by germs. Evolution is a kind of change. The theory of evolution is a scientific explanation for evolution, namely natural selection and common ancestry. If someone says "evolution" is a theory, as far as I know, often it means there's a scientific theory for evolution or (often by creationists) it means evolution (or some aspects of the theory) aren't known. Some creationists say the theory of evolution is not a theory because it would imply scientific credibility.
Great show. Question, Naturally occurring wine has common decent with water . The wine Jesus made was not naturally occurring it was miraculous intervention. By having the servants fill the jars with water which has the same genetic code that 99% of wine has. So Jesus added that 1% of genetic code to the water and made wine that is not naturally occurring, but genetically, it looks and tastes like it is.
Yes, I guess the question is; Couldn't God have intervened anytime He wanted too to change the genetic code to make any new creature up until He created man which then He rested from His works. For the genetic code to change naturally or unguided there hasn't been enough time even though the evidence for the universe is 14 billion years and the earth 4 billion years old. What came first, the chicken or the egg? The chicken, with the ability to make seeds after its own kind. What do you think?@@Average-Lizard
I would agree that God could intervene in a way that is not obviously supernatural. I believe there is a supernatural intervention somewhere along the line to make man in the image of God - although as of now I'm comfortable admitting ignorance as to the details of how that happened.@@markconway8835 I'm not sure that there is any genetic code in water or wine, maybe you are referring to chemical make up and how it has some analogous aspects to genetic code in organisms as they can form naturally, or be modified by God?
@@markconway8835 the bigger question is, couldn't god reveal himself to atheist so that they would have real evidence to believe he exists, instead making them burn in hell for all eternity? I mean, if god really did love everyone
Trying to reason with an evolutionist is not like talking to a brick wall. It's like talking to a brick wall with graffiti on it and then expecting to get an intelligent reply back. You are using the apriori presumption of evolution as proof for evolution, which is a philosophical error. A priori 1: Involving deductive reasoning from a general principle to a necessary effect; not supported by fact: "an a priori judgment" A priori 2: Based on hypothesis or theory rather than experiment. Darwin did not document one single fact in his Origin of Speciess or his Descent of Man of a genuine evolutionary transition taking place. That actually sums up the entirety of Darwin's Origin of Species and his Descent of Man as well as most arguments of evolutionists. Evolutionists have hijacked science in the name of atheism because of their initial rejection of Revelation. Darwin's Origin and his Descent are mere philosophic diatribes against God's role in the creation of the universe and against His providential rule and ordering of events both in the physical realm of non living systems and in the macro-molecular biological realm of living species; it is not on a par with genuine scientific treatises such as Newton's Principia Mathematica , Boyle's empirical gas law that describes the relationship between pressure and volume of a confined gas, Faraday's laws of electrolysis, Pasteur "renowned for his discoveries of the principles of vaccination, microbial fermentation, and pasteurization, the last of which was named after him. His research in chemistry led to remarkable breakthroughs in the understanding of the causes and preventions of diseases, which laid down the foundations of hygiene, public health and much of modern medicine" (Wikipedia), Kepler's laws of planetary motion, and Erik Acharius (1757-1819), Swedish botanist[1] who studied lichens Gary Ackers (1939-2011), American biophysicist who worked on thermodynamics of macromolecules. Gilbert Smithson Adair (1896-1979), British protein chemist who identified cooperative binding of oxygen binding haemoglobin. Arthur Adams (1820-1878), English physician and naturalist[2] who classified crustaceans and molluscs Michel Adanson (1727-1806), French naturalist[3] who studied the plants and animals of Senegal Julius Adler (born 1930), American biochemist and geneticist known for work on chemotaxis. Monique Adolphe (1932-2022), French cell biologist, pioneer of cell culture Edgar Douglas Adrian (1st Baron Adrian) (1889-1977), British electrophysiologist, Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine (1932) for research on neurons. When you compare Darwin's ramblings in his Origin to the works of these other, genuine scientists it's almost ludicrous that he has been lifted to the status of a philosopher-sage by his slack jawed, gullible band of followers. Your belief in evolution is motivated more by a prejudice against the sovereignty of God, and a rebellion against His Lordship in your life, as it is written in Psalm Two, 1"Why do the nations conspire[a] and the peoples plot in vain? 2 The kings of the earth rise up and the rulers band together against the Lord and against his anointed, saying, 3 “Let us break their chains and throw off their shackles.” Jesus is Lord over Darwin.
Similarities in structure and DNA does not imply common assertory it implies similar origins of design. there are similarities in Microsoft word and Microsoft excel , we don't conclude that copying errors over time can result in the other, infract that can be simulated. Organisms have genetic blockers for reproduction thus similarities cannot be due to ancestry, if all animals could reproduce with each other I would be inclined to agree. we then have the problem of genetic capacity....where the genetic capacity of the original organism would have eclipse that of any further down the its replicants.
William Lane Craig is a good Christian apologist, but there are 3 things I disagree with him about. He believes in theistic evolution, molinism, and that Christians can lose their salvation. I think he is wrong about these 3 things.
Macro evolution has a number of observed defeaters: even with millions of years, not enough time. The mutation mechanism for natural selection is neither precise enough nor powerful enough to account for new forms(read NEW information), irreducible complexity poses a large problem, and of course, the largest defeater is the origin of life(and information) itself has no rational explanation naturalistically.
So what do you call a gene duplication or frame shifts if not new information? Irreducible complexity has been shown over and over and over to be no issue to evolution. Behe was made to look foolish more than a decade ago and yet he continues to use the same tired mousetrap argument. The origin of life has zero to do with evolution. Evolution is the explanation for the diversity of life. How life got here is irrelevant to what facilitates changes to that life. No offense but it's like you learned everything you "know" about evolution from the Discovery Institute rather than the primary literature.
"As Michael Egnor said in response to PZ Myers: “[G]ene duplication is, presumably, not to be taken too seriously. If you count copies as new information, you must have a hard time with plagiarism in your classes. All that the miscreant students would have to say is ‘It’s just like gene duplication. Plagiarism is new information- you said so on your blog!'”" Further, just saying Behe is wrong does not mean anything. You have countless examples of highly complex system that require multiple parts to be fully functional to work at all. If it was one, you might explain it by a simpler form to a more complex one, but not in the quantities we are talking. And I haven't even mention information(let alone a language) literally every single time it is observed it is the product of a mind...every single time. Sorry, you comment is well intentioned but feels like one who is desperate to cling to naturalism.@@Kruppes_Mule
@@mattm7798 I love when people so desperate that they spew their opinions against solid facts on a UA-cam comment section, but they have nothing more than "Nah-ah!". Come back when you have disproven Allele gene frequencies, intermediate fossils, virus and bacteria variants! I will wait! ;)
I do not believe the analogy of the water into wine is a good representation here since that has more of a theological nature to it. Jesus's miracles parallels God's plagues, with the water into wine a blessing, and the water into blood a curse, so Jesus was following the same order as God up to the final plague of offering the first born son to Jesus as the offering of the firstborn Son, however I do see evolution in a new light after this talk! No matter how we look at it though I think ultimately it comes down to Life is a miracle no matter how it came about! Keep up the good work.
Evolution is not a theory, it is best described as a model: collection of theories and other things wrapped into a larger framework, driven somewhat on axioms that are naturalistic (in the sense they spoke of in this talk). I am less dogmatic on the topic, but highly skeptical on what we think we know on the 'evolutionary' model and the moves to higher complexity in it. Evolution is to me best described as an artist's rendering of our observations which are too far from a firm model. Having been in school with science students, I had confirmed the financial, political, and other motivations the scientific community faces (not that they should stop studying their topics, but just be careful when you hear 'the science is settled' or 'we know enough now about this area of historical science'). Take the comments about pakicetus: 1) predictions are the scientific method and we weigh too much on some findings that appear as predictive truth confirmations and 2) transitional creature is a large leap to me even with prediction and the cranial findings (it could be that both 'related' species and non-related- as we would assume- animals have similar traits because there is a common code all life is drawing from.)
it ABSOLUTELY is.. But Atheists LOVE it!! "The most devastating thing though that biology did to Christianity was the discovery of biological evolution. Now that we know that Adam and Eve never were real people the central myth of Christianity is destroyed. If there never was an Adam and Eve there never was an original sin. If there never was an original sin there is no need of salvation. If there is no need of salvation there is no need of a Savior. And I submit that puts Jesus, historical or otherwise, into the ranks of the unemployed. I think that evolution is absolutely the death knell of Christianity." Frank Zindler
If the Universe in it's vast expanse with all the inexhaustible mass and matter in it, all came from an infinitesimal point(Out of nothing). If that's not majic. Tell me what is. If we can believe that, I can also believe a bird popping into existence out of nothing. Otherwise great video. I learnt a lot.
you clearly know nothing at all about science, this: no one says the universe A) came from nothing (apart from religists, they say god pulled it out of his nose) B) the universe came from a point, penrose, a nobel physicist, and hawking a nobel physicist proposed the singularity but then dropped it as the maths didn't work. please, if you want to be critical of ANY subject you have to at least have the basics. and birds do pop into existence from nothing, some assembly is required though, you're a nincompoop and you just told the whole world you are.
I agree. WLC didn't really make that point to me either. Especially since he agreed that God has done miracles throughout history. He tried to characterize it as "late creation" and then make it sound absurd.
Huge respect for WLC but he's plain wrong on YEC... plenty of evidence supporting it. Fossil records is basically Noah's Flood, if he can grasp that, it will be a game changer.
creationism and intelligent design were both proven FALSE in court in the dover trials, prosecuted by a catholic biologist, kenneth r miller, you just won't accept that you are ignorant - and why? BILLIONS of religist are fine with evolution - evolution is true, just stop being daft ffs
Couldn't agree more. Liquefaction explains the fossilization and layers that we see. We have plenty of fossil specimens that still have soft tissue and bone osteocites. Not to mention nearly all the planets we see still have geothermal activity(including the moon) while other planets still have atmospheres. I think it's Saturn that doesn't have the methane to ethane rate for billions of years. Viewing evidence with confirmation bias is dangerous if your trying to view data objectively
You should look up "the heat problem" for YEC. Fossils appear to be less complex the further you go down. In a world flood model species and complexity should be mixed. There should be many modern animals fossils mixed in with extinct fossils if they all lived together. YEC puts forth hydrologic sorting but that model doesn't work. I'm a former YEC.
Liquefaction goes by density of the pre-fossil specimen but even without that there are plenty of other reasonings for YEC (Polystraight fossils going through multiple layers of strata), the mountain chains look like they we're melted like an accordian (as if they we're completely soft when they rose to the elevation they are now(Brian Nickel has great videos on this if you are into material mechanics) And last but not least there is plenty of evidence in space dictating a young universe (planets assumed to be old cold and dead are very much so geothermally active including our moon, no accounting for the sheer amount of material jupiter requires to be as massive as it is in the location that it is). If anything it is well worth looking into with an open mind @@brandonsawyer7493
Best not putting all your religious faith in YEC, just my advice I would love to believe it so there’s no bias from me but honestly I would recommend finding a middle ground because if YEC is true then 99% of science would have to be a full blown conspiracy but if you pin all your hopes on a young earth and no common ancestry then you could lose your faith altogether because in all honesty the likes of Ken Ham and Ray Comfort etc are not following the evidence, might be worth reading John Lennox’s book seven days that divide the world at least that take Genesis seriously but finds some common ground with the scientific facts
@@OSAS27 Early writers fabricated the resurrection hoax by making up fake testimonials that the disciples & others have witnessed an empty tomb & a risen Jesus.
This is quite rare, for me to listen to a Christian philosopher: explain biological evolution in detail, defend evolution, and even teach me a thing or two that I didn't already know about evolution. Not that I expect any less from Dr Craig though.
low bar bill as he's known since his confession that he's so desperate for love even god would fit the bill. if you want to learn about evolution bill is not the place to go.
I'm sure he's aware the theory is garbage in some respects. Iirc he has said before that the solar system would have died before evolution could achieve what we see
Well this poor guy is a philosopher... And he needs to get out more! 🤣🤣 Actual scientists are doing great work, proving him incorrect... For a long time now! 🤣🤣🤣 There's no accounting for willful ignorance!
@@HarryNicNicholasthat’s not what he said at all. He was saying that he thinks that Christianity is pragmatically justified. He was making a statement about pragmatism. You can say that the bar for x being justified in one way (pragmatism) without NECESSARILY saying that that thing also lowers the bar in another way (epistemology). I think he has a response to the whole drama too, even the guy who made the comment has a response to it. You should watch them. I think the questioners name was Kyle (who is/was a Christian, btw).
If I’m not mistaken, Craig shortens his questions, and that question had other stuff that made it clear that the questioner was saying that he thinks that because of the huge lifestyle change that’s required for adopting Christianity, we should increase the epistemic standards for Christianity. Craig responds that he actually thinks the opposite because of the incredible value, beauty, and joy that he gets from believing in Christianity. So he was literally saying that if we move the bar for Christianity at all, it should be lowered not raised. It was really a statement about which of the two is better to do.
@@semitopeI’m pretty sure his believe is that evolution is highly unlike given atheism. So yeah, that’s true, but not if we assume theism where there is a god in control of it all.
Quite shocking to hear this massive concession to Darwinian gradualism. I found WLC’s protest against late stage or intermittent creation inconsistent. What would be any more “magical” about creating a pod of dolphins or dinosaurs simultaneously than, say, calling all space time and matter into being out of nothing? Isn’t this the same WLC that defends the creation of new bodies in the resurrection? This was puzzling to me.
The cumulative distribution of fossils found all throughout the world is spectacularly well described by gradualism.
For example - human fossils (and fossils of gorillas, bonobos, chimps… even whales, horses, zebras, camels…) are never- not once- found mixed together with dinosaur fossils in the same layer with the same aging characteristics.
Or trilobites!
Or **worlds** of fauna and flora that exist (as far as we have found so far) only in layers found consistently in specific, gradual orders.
Now this may not change one’s beliefs one bit-
And that’s fine.
But in this case we’re openly maintaining beliefs **in spite** of evidence, and not revising our understanding of the universe as we uncover evidence-
Which is what scientists strive to do. Scientists have beliefs…and are able to discard the beliefs when a better explanation is formulated.
Religious commitments are not (always) similarly tentative.
He actually said that the saltation view (as embraced by Denton, Gould, etc) is more in line with the evidence, not gradualism.
Next time you post, first pay attention to the video.😉
@ i did. What about my criticism doesn’t reflect something Dr Craig affirmed or denied in the video.
My problem with evolution is that it presumes biological complexity to answer questions about complexity. Every time an explanation for biological complexity is sought within the evolutionary framework, it is "resolved" by pushing back the complexity one generation prior. Eg. How did this animal develop this complex solution to this problem? Answer: Beneficial Mutation happened to a prior generation(s) of this species and it underwent natural selection. How did the complexity of that prior generation come to be then? Answer: Beneficial Mutation happened to the prior generation of that generation and it underwent natural selection.
And this goes on ad infinitum with the original explanatory deficit regarding complexity simply being continuously pushed back all the way until the origin of the extremely complex first living cell when they can no longer use "mutation and natural selection" because evolution requires life. At that stage the explanatory deficit finally exacts its toll and exposes the fact that evolution cannot explain complexity because it borrows from prior generations of complexity to explain current complexity, and the question regarding complexity cannot be answered at the very first generation. If the question of complexity cannot be answered at the very beginning than the entire chain of explanation falls apart.
Using evolution to explain complexity is just like continuously borrowing from different banks to pay off debts to a previous bank.
I think you just need to evaluate biological evolution theory by what it is. It is not a general explanation for complexity so it shouldn't be taken as such. At the same time, I think you are quite incorrect to say that the explanatory deficit is wholly pushed back all the way to the beginning. It is true that evolution requires *some* preexisting complexity, but I think it can hardly be questioned that the evolutionary process *increases* the complexity, immensely. A human body is overwhelmingly more complex than a unicellular organism. Regardless of whether or not the theory is correct, I think it is unquestionable that evolutionary theory explains a plausible mechanism with which massive complexity can result from an initial modicum of complexity.
@@Jasonmoofang "It is not a general explanation for complexity" I would disagree here. the whole premise of evolutionary theory is to figure out how time and chance can result in specified complexity without a need for an intelligent creator. To achieve this it must resolve the issue that is complexity, and even if you would argue that that is not its goal the implications of evolutionary theory is that complexity can result from time and chance alone.
"It is true that evolution requires some preexisting complexity, but I think it can hardly be questioned that the evolutionary process increases the complexity, immensely."
You have missed the point. I did not deny that mutation and natural selection can result in greater complexity over many generations. What I have said is that the means by which evolutionary theory explains complexity has a lynch pin. That lynch pin is as follows:
1: There is a causally connected chain of generations of organisms, each evolved from the previous generation.
2: Each generation may add to existing complexity, but the explanation for the complexity of each individual generation is not found in itself, it depends on the previous generation to explain its current state of complexity.
3: If at any one point of time there is a generation that is unable to borrow from a prior generation to explain its own complexity, there is a break in this chain of explanations and it explanatory power regarding complexity immediately crumbles.
4: There is a break in this chain at the very beginning because natural selection and random mutation cannot explain the origin of the first living cell.
Since the the first living cell is casually connected to anything else that is capable of evolution, it is inaccurate to say that the theory of evolution eliminates the need for an intelligent source behind the complexity of organisms, since all complexity in evolution depends on complexity from the first living cell.
IE There never is one point in time where complexity is reduced to simplicity that can be explained using time and chance. Darwin himself thought that the first cells were just simplistic "protoplasm" globs that he used to justify his theory, but we know know that cells are extremely complex organisms, to call it an initial "modicum" of complexity is understating the fact.
@@Azurewroth
The formation of the first living cells is abiogenesis. Evolution is the change of life over time. The starting point doesn't matter. You have evolution from any ancestor to any of their descendants. Why do creationists always go back to the origin of life, or even the origin of the universe? It's irrelevant for evolution. Does not knowing how the first generation came to be change the fact that there is change over generations? If not, why do you think that not knowing the formation of the first generation contradicts evolution?
"Since the the first living cell is casually connected to anything else that is capable of evolution, it is inaccurate to say that the theory of evolution eliminates the need for an intelligent source behind the complexity of organisms, since all complexity in evolution depends on complexity from the first living cell." -Azure
How does adding a creator solve anything? Do you think the creator is simple or complex? Changing the origin of life, does not change the fact that life changes over generations. It's weird that creationists complain about evolution starting with already existing life, while also start with asserting that there is a god. How is starting with a god different than starting with a lifeform?
"how time and chance can result in specified complexity without a need for an intelligent creator" -Azure
Evolution doesn't result in a specific complexity. It's an ongoing process that basically only has the "goal" of producing creatures that survive long enough to reproduce.
@@Azurewroth Most of what you said is correct. You are also absolutely right that the theory of evolution does not eliminate the need for an explanation for the first living cell. Where you seem to be wrong is you seem to assume that the theory of evolution is meant to also be a theory of the origin of life. That is simply wrong, and if you've heard non-theists attempt to invoke evolution as an origin of life theory - they are wrong, and there is no need for you to follow them in being wrong.
Anyone who knows ought about the theory of evolution knows it is not a theory of the origin of life. But it can supplement one - for eg, in Craig's case, his theory of the origin of life (and indeed the universe) is theistic, and evolutionary theory only comes into the picture after life actually began. That's perfectly coherent.
Keep in mind that complexity is not a signature of good design; simplicity is. Life is complex because it is a collection kludges, add-ons, jerry rigs, and make-do's put together over eons of evolution.
I love this longer stuff. Thank you
Am I interpreting him correctly? Does Dr. Craig believe that God created H. sapien in His image through an exclusively blind mechanism of random chance? That God created a single-celled organism and then expected random gene copying errors and natural selection to write novel code that develops novel hardware that brings to fruition novel concepts like hearing, vision, flight and consciousness -- and then eventually H. sapien? And he really thinks random gene copying errors and natural selection have this incredible inventive and creative capacity, which through blind luck happened to create creatures in God's image?
He basically deteriorated god into a gene defect. LOL
Yes, and you forgot to mention the battle between life and a planet that had almost no oxygen when this process started, a handful of life-ending natural events (hello Chicxulub), a sun that was 30% cooler, a planet entirely covered in water for 500M years, and land that was as barren as the moon for another 500M years....and ultimately, a guarantee that there will be no life on this planet in 1B years.
No. I don't think he believes it was a blind mechanism. I believe Craig thinks it is a directed process.
We get got up on time, but a day might seem like an eternity to a fly, but we struggle to remember them because we live on average 73 years. A billion years or two, or whatever, may seem like a long time to us, but I wonder how long it feels to a being that lives outside of time.
@@alaindesgagne369
we have n0 evidence anything, Iet aI0ne beings can Iive 0utside 0f time
0utside 0f time is an inc0herent c0ncept
things need time in which t0 exist
but hey y0u`re a "gr0wn up, " we assume, s0 y0u c0uId have figured that 0ut by y0urseIf with a bit 0f thinking ? perhaps ? maybe ?
give it a try
@@ob2249absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
Fathers day comment:
As a father of many kids & grandkids (but one who never had a father myself), I am filled with joy when Dr. Craig leads by example in his character, brilliance and scientific reasoning, as a Spirit filled believer in Christ. This may surprise you Dr. Craig, but thank you for being my imaginary earthly father!
Happy fathers day dads, you rock and are part of an amazing plan to learn to love God, thereby being a good example to our kids.
Never give up, you can do it!
(Thank you God for being our real, ultimate father, you're amazing and we love who and how you are!)
This was one of the best discussions on this subject I've ever come across on the internet. Thank you!
lol
yes i always go to a church when my car breaks down, get a pastor to cast out the evil demons possessing it.
@@HarryNicNicholas Or pray that god replaces my broken 1972 Yugo with a 2023 BMW.
It's interesting how your comment really seemed to trigger the gaslighting bots, LOL!
In other words, it was quite a good video, on the subject.
@@hxhdfjifzirstc894No it wasn't. Any discussion where everyone thinks god exits is a bad video.
I might be making a wrong assumption, but understanding that Craig believes a duck or dinosaur "popping" into existence is too fantastic, to what level of complexity of life would he draw the line and say "This form of life popping into existence is perfectly reasonable." And how would he define "complexity" so as to allow that early lifeform to have a low enough complexity to have satisfactorily popped into existence while also having the complexity required to sire every living creature thereafter?
I think Craig's problem with the popping into existence has less to do with the level of complexity of the thing being popped and more to do with the fact that it is *late* creation - that is, that God popped a big and grand universe with all its marvelous laws and properties at the beginning - but then still has to come back later to do additional "little" pops all over the place.
I can see why that is unappealing. Especially coming from the "problem of suffering" perspective, it makes sense that God would have designed the universe to be regular and consistent, and by that token would avoid having to constantly remake things - both because that interferes with the lawful consistency of the universe - and also because since God is God, one would expect His initial act of creation to be so good that He wouldn't need to constantly show up and perform "maintenance".
Now I think a case can be made that interventions in response to creaturely prayer is different - you could say that His intervention is part of the whole point of those cases. But random intervention in the background functioning of the universe does seem beneath Him.
@@Jasonmoofang don't you wish god would come and explain his mysterious ways. i find it odd that god despite being personal never puts in a personal appearance, he always uses an ignorant stooge to do his dirty work.
why did god design eve to be just a little dumber than a snake? that's the real question. or is the snake a metaphor for AI ? hmmm, mysteries.
There is only complexity in life and the words 'simple', 'basic' , etc, should never be used, even proteins are extremely complex and from a mathematical probability of correct assembly rules out evolutions purposeless random mutational losses of information nonsense.
@@HarryNicNicholas That's the "real" question an atheist asks? Why has Eve and Adam made a really dumb choice??
I observe that kind of choice has been going on ever since.
22:14 - I have problem with analogy, please help.
Why you think designer can not replicate "mistake" if he wish. We see that every time, if car engineer make some part in one car, why is not possible to understand he can replicate the same mistake on second etc, exactly on the same spot. Or the problem will be manifested on the same spot over some time. Why only predecessor is only good explanation? And, also, if somebody will tell me why God repeat mistake?, my answer is how we know this is mistake, maybe he knows why, and maybe he didn't do mistake, he maybe create the same prototype which with time comes to same "mutation on the same spot". From my perspective this seems still more like creation argument (I think he confirm that on 25:15 ). Mention "Ford" and "Chevrolet" it more like we have two designers, still for me blur and I cant see it.... Especially because the predecessor was never found (a missing link problem). Maybe I didn't understand something, English is not my language..
28:15 one more explanation, If i was creator, I will also start with simple organisms and go from there to more complicated one.
Thats aligned with Genesis (I will start from this 24 verse, although it is clear that he started first with plants - verse 11, and later he comes to this.) "24 And God said, “Let the earth bring forth living creatures according to their kinds-livestock and creeping things and beasts of the earth according to their kinds.” And it was so. 25 And God made the beasts of the earth according to their kinds and the livestock according to their kinds, and everything that creeps on the ground according to its kind. And God saw that it was good. 26 Then God said, “Let us make man[h] in our image, after our likeness."
Like we see, God says, "it was good". Its not perfect, or bad. It is stated just simple "good". And just then it was the "man's turn". You call it evolution, I call it creator step by step process.. hm..
"... he's a young earth creationist."
"Ahhh 😔"
Lisles is but WLC is old earth
The challenge I have with the theory of evolution is that from a theological standpoint, whose sin did Jesus die in Redemption of? When was man separated from God specifically? If Christ was God and considered the second Adam in 1st Corinthians then what was Paul's view of Adam and Eve?
Well I know that Maximus the Confessor viewed Christ’s death as cosmological in scope: He redeems the entirety of creation, of which we are the pinnacle of creation. Sin then is a separation of the person from his creator or creation from its creator. This is also the reason why I don’t think penal substitutionary atonement is the best understanding of what happened on the cross as it creates absurdities like what you have raised.
Or maybe Genesis is a mix of allegory and mythology.
why even ask any of those questions when it cannot even be proven that god exists. just a waste of time
jesus din't die for anyone, if indeed he was nailed to the cross that was it, he was dead and stayed dead.
ask yourself how does god be god an immortal, become a mortal, then die, then become immortal again, you have been conned, even if god wasn't imaginary, and who was sacrificed cos souls can't die, so what? a bag of blood an bones.
religion is a fairy tale you ought to have outgrown by now mate.
@@rockmusicvideoreviewer896 You can prove God exists, but only to yourself. God definitely will honor those who seek Him with assurance, true assurance of His existence, His love and His peace.
I'm no expert of evolution theory, and its ramifications so I'm open minded. I do know God created but am ignorant of the process.
That's the right attitude to have. It allows one to fully consider all evidence.
god didn't create anything, there is no god. 50,000 years of religions and no one has ever demonstrated any god mate, grow up.
@HarryNicholas I found Jesus, just like millions have. Of course, you're not seeking so you'll never know.
I was surprised by your comment... I'm old and I've been taught evolutionary theory my whole life😮(it never made any sense but I was told it was proven science.... Always got straight A's learning the definition of words.... "Theory"... Is not proven science😂)
@@HarryNicNicholasfully grown here, mate 🤣🤣 fifty thousand years and all science has to offer is, "theories" 🤣... Never underestimate the power of propaganda! 🤣 A fine example is you think theories, are actual proven science... As if words had no meaning at all... Unless they're personally approved😂😂😂
Dr. Craig’s expression at “young earth”. 😂
😂
Time stamp?
@@glennjohn39190.40
@@glennjohn3919push play it's in the first paragraph of dialog .
@@hindsight2022 thanks. I listen rather than watch so I had no idea. Not really a strong reaction imo.
One of the best discussion so far on evolution. Thank you Dr. Craig ❤🎉
I wish we got rid of the 'colloquial' term 'theory'. If we all used the term hypothesis, instead of theory, this would help people understand each other better.
"I have a theory that atheism is a government funded program." No, Wrong. you have a hypothesis. We just need to get rid of the colloquial term 'theory'. Language should help us communicate.
When people say they don't believe in evolution, they aren't saying: "I don't believe in change over time," but in the most basic meaning of the word, 'change over time' is EVOLUTION.
Look up Dr James Tour of Rice University on origin of life.
Look up Dr Stephen Meyer regarding complexity over time.
Dr Craig is a brilliant philosopher. But he’s not perfect and he seems to be overlooking things in his argument. Dr Jason Lyle makes some rather bold claims so I’m not against Dr Craig questioning his ideas.
Keep digging in the pursuit of truth even if it means questioning the status quo. (I’m not talking flat earth levels but using reasoning)
Tour and Meyer both have the same approach. It is too complicated for me to understand so God must have done it. How dumb is that?
I listened to the podcast already. On youtube it's nice to see the video and read what others think.
i think if you want to discuss whether evolution is science or not you're in the wrong place. go to an actual scientist instead of a hack book salesman like craig. you might as well go to a dentist for a fracture.
I’m really surprised to hear Dr. Craig trot out the “pop into existence” argument regarding creation.
I find it WAY more probable that God created proto species which were a combination of, or more genetically perfect examples of creatures we find today.
Why is it “like magic” for God to form animals, but not “like magic” for God to create the universe in the first place?
I’m not sure Dr. Craig can be consistent on this one, if that is his position.
I guess the universe “popping into existence” (which is literally verbatim his preferred linguistic description) is “like magic” too. It does seem awfully inconsistent.
Besides, the universe had no primordial ingredients with which to create the universe. The universe was created ex nihilo. So I don’t think his wedding at Cana example holds.
So, I think Craig has descended into the vast literature of evolutionary theory inasmuch as he feels compelled to explain the theory (which still has many holes he did not address), rather than use a biblical starting point off of which to assess the validity of theory. That’s not to say disregard the scientific theories outright, but to deeply consider biblical theology, vice versa.
@@chrispark2698 Sorry, but that is a silly remark. Theology is inherently built upon philosophy. It quite literally cannot go the other way.
@@brando3342
I agree! James White accused Craig of that years ago separating Philosophy from theology
@@eew8060 Yes, James can be quite the pseudo pious character.
Looks like that person deleted their comment, I hope they didn’t get too offended by my comment.
@@brando3342
Lol! Yeah I see they deleted it!
I wish Dr White and Dr Craig would just debate Calvinism/Molinism already. I saw their discussion on Unbelievable..
White has good info sometimes, other times he's 'meh'.
Hi Dr Craig,
Did you ever consider how long Adam and Eve were in the garden of Eden before falling into sin.
The earth was created in 6 days.
Adam and Eve were in the garden many, many years before Eve ate from the tree of knowledge.
I don't think it was that long, seeing as they didn't have children before the fall.
Much has been said by historians of Darwin's observations of the finches on the Galapagos islands while sailing on the Beagle, but little is mentioned of another incident Darwin had with some less fortunate birds on a different island during his voyage. We have three accounts of an excursion made by Darwin and the Captain from the Beagle to St. Paul's Rocks between the Cape Verde Islands and the coast of Brazil.
First we shall read Darwin's version of the episode: " We found on St. Paul's only two kinds of birds-the booby and the noddy. The former is a species of Gannet, and the latter a tern. Both are of a tame and stupid disposition, and are so unaccustomed to visitors, that I could have killed any number of them with my geologic hammer." The Voyage of Charles Darwin, Charles Darwin, pp.10, The American Museum of Natural History, The Natural History Library, Anchor Books, Doubleday & Co., Inc., Garden City New York, 1962.
Browne mentioned the appalling incident in her biography of Darwin: " Uninhabited except for dense flocks of seafowl, and previously unvisited by any scientific recorder, they were an alluring target for a restless naval man and an eager friend . . . Darwin and Fitzroy had a marvelous time of it, whooping and killing birds with abandon". Browne, pp.204. See also the original, Narrative of the Surveying Voyage of H.M.S. Adventure and Beagle, Vol. 2:56.
Fitzroy recorded the bloody scene in his personal narrative as well. According to him, one of the seamen asked if he could borrow Darwin's hammer to kill some of the birds with, to which Darwin replied, "No, no, you'll break the handle." Then, apparently struck by the novelty of this idea, Darwin himself picked up his hammer and began killing the peaceful birds in this manner, as Fitzroy related "away went the hammer, with all the force of his own right arm." Narrative of the Voyages of the Adventure and Beagle, by Admiral Fitzroy, 1839. See also Amabel Williams Ellis, "The Voyage of the Beagle, Adapted from the Narratives and letters of Charles Darwin and Captain Fitzroy, pp. 26, J.B. Lippencott Co., Philadelphia and London, 1931.
Let's assume 6 billion years for a moment.... so the first day consists of a half a billion years of light then FOLLOWED by a half billion years of dark.... morning then evening...light then dark....day then night..... doesn't that follow if we regard the text useful at all...please reply Dr Craig
the entire bible story is a weird thing that only an indoctrinated person would believe
The acceptance of the reality of evolution is incompatible with the bible. Simple as that.
If evolution is true, the bible cannot be true, and vice versa.
So, if you accept that the genesis myth is just that, a bit of ancient mythology, by what criteria do you accept the equally magical stories of jesus?
The "evidence" for the two myths is about the same. A book says so.
So, whats your criteria for differentiating between the two myths?
Yeah, theistic evolutionists are very inconsistent.
Thank God this is not a matter of salvation. But it is hard for me to see how someone can appreciate what Jesus did for us on the cross, when they discount the premise which it is built upon.
And if you think evolution can turn a population of single-celled organisms to a population of multi-celled organisms to all the different populations of complex organisms we see around us today. You would be wrong.
Extended evolutionary synthesis you mentioned was not defined.
yet Jason is the issue here? it feels a bit like the no true Scotsman Fallacy, unable to identify if so until the proposition is defined.
Mr. Craig is by far one of the brightest minds of our era regarding science & Christianity
Not really… he’s fallen for the lie of “evolution”… which is nothing but a false religious belief.
that is very sad for christianity.
@@louiscyfer6944 It's probably not great for science either 🤣. It just shows that higher learning doesn't always offer Common Sense 101.
@@OSAS27 common sense is not a good thing in general. it refers to intuitive thinking, which does not give reliable answers. in person i can demonstrate the flawed natures of common sense in a few minutes.
@@louiscyfer6944 Common Sense: the ability to think and behave in a reasonable way and to make good decisions.
I've struggled to understand evolution for years. I accept mutation. I accept adaptation. But neither of those genetic processes explain progressive complexity. From what I know mutation can never result in an increase in genetic complexity. Mutation causes loss of genetic material. And I understand that mutation can cause a favorable trait as much as it can cause something unfavorable. But how do the most simple life forms, even over millions of years, "evolve" into complex life forms? What is that process that adds genetic information? Is there a genetic process that has been proven to add genetic information? And I don't mean one of those "hiccups" where the same genetic material is copied more than once.
Have you ever considered taking a course on genetics? I know Coursera had a very good online course that should answer most of these questions for you. They are real college level classes that you do on your own time and they are FREE.
@@Kruppes_Mule Thanks for the info. I did take a class in genetics a long time ago, but I don't think expertise in genetics is required if common descent is true. Like any sound scientific theory, common descent should have a simple, but not simplistic, explanation that non scientists can understand. Everything I DO know about DNA, mutation and genetic entropy easily negates the possibility of increasing complexity in any genetic profile, even given millions of years.
I accept mutation. I accept adaptation." - evolution is this but more. Eventually, the genetic makeup of the offspring lacks enough homology (see: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chromosomal_crossover) with the ancient ancestor such that no viable offspring could be made if the two mated. In this way, we say that the offspring and the ancient ancestor are different species.
@@OSAS27 Your responses reek of having "learned" evolution from sources whose livelihood depends on them and you not understanding. Again, I recommend if you have taken college level courses that you repeat them as the questions you're asking are things that aren't really in question by anyone other than creationist shills.
@@Kruppes_Mule that's a very simplistic and useless answer.
The example he gives of wine is a poor one. The passage makes clear that Jesus chose purification jars. That is key. The wedding most likely of a Pharisee or had Pharisees in attendance, and one of the extra-biblical commandments they taught was that no fermentation or vinegar could be put in purification jars. The fact that Jesus used them to do his miracle showed not only his grace to the wedding guests but also his judgment against the commandments of men.
it's what we grown ups call "a story" religion is nothing but stories, anecdotes, tales, yarns. stop taking it as true, it is not.
@@HarryNicNicholas what part of the life, death and resurrection of Christ do you think is a fictional tale? Just wondering.
@@mattb7069
Lol I think it's safe to assume the "resurection" is a fictional tale dear
@@mattb7069The resurrection.
@@HarryNicNicholas ua-cam.com/video/4qhQRMhUK1o/v-deo.htmlsi=hgU5Ehw3qLV5dkpu
At min 16, Dr Craig says it hard to believe that creatures are popped into existence, but isn't that also true of the universe.
It seems just as plausible that God could speak the universe and the creatures in a moment into existence.
Love WLC but I think he should be humble to others with this common reading.
no one in science says things popped into a existence (apart from anti particles) there has always been a quantum field, matter / energy cannot be created or destroyed, basic physics, the universe is eternal, it was just "something else" before this iteration, penrose has some great ideas on cyclic cosmology and others propose "the big bounce" whatever the case no one should be listening to craig if they want science, craig is lying for god as always.
Didn’t the Bible say he Formed human from clay as well?
CMT1 duplication could be interresting but you didnt quite say enough to convince me.
It could be its position or nature that makes it particularly susceptible to transcription error or environmentally caused distortion. If Ford is making a door handle that will break easily in cold weather it doesnt follow that your broken mustang handle evolved from tommys broken ford 500 handle.
Hey WLC, what is your approach then, concerning common ancestry, how do you reconcile this with the biblical account?
There is no reconciliation between evolutionary theory and any biblical account of anything. Evolutionary theory is a grand scientific explanation of life based on many years of dedicated study by thousands of scientists, all of which is published in journals for anyone to read. The bible is a fantasy tale written by clueless people who did not even know where the sun went at night.
That "fits and starts" bit is fairly significant.
This is bizarre. I have learned more about the theory of evolution from one video by Craig than I have from hundreds of videos by Aron Ra.
I couldn’t even begin to accept evolution from Ra because he just asserts it condescendingly. Craig actually explained it and it makes sense.
Dr. Craig, I don't think God will be impressed with you calling him a liar, good luck when you are stood before him.
Where did Dr. Craig call God a liar? - RF Admin
The Hebrew word for “day” and the context in which it appears in Genesis leads to the conclusion that “day” means a literal, 24-hour period of time.
@@tonbearsexcept for in Genesis 2:4, where the Hebrew word "yam" does not mean "day" as in a literal 24 hour period
I don't say God is a liar. I call all people claiming he exist to be liars - every last one of them.
Jesus changed water into wine without using grapes, so the wine did “ pop up” into existence.
Well, as long as you have all powerfulness, energy and matter, you can turn anything into anything without adding anything new. Might not be the same amount but still
The structure homolog argument is just a *circular reasoning*, and that a philosopher of the statue of Dr Craig commits such an obvious fallacy is mind boggling! "What explains those similarities?" Well, creationism explains it perfectly well: since organism are supposed to interact with each other, live in the same environment, or move across environment, eat from different environment, eat the same things, so they *must* of course have similarities! The similarities between organism prove a common designer just as much as common ancestry. Cars and tractors are also similar, but not because they share a common ancestor but because they have a common designer.
🤣 I'm glad you cleared that up with the last statement! 👍🙏...
I watched some more of the video... I got you... All them brains an education he has.... And the consistency of a crack wh@&e..
Cars and tractors don't reproduce
Also if you listen a bit more carefully you'll note that there are genetic ties to these biological similarities that cannot be explained simply by saying "well they have similar functions because they have similar functions within an environment" WLC mentions latent genes as an example
@@jonathanw1106
One thing is very clear when listening to WLC... He is not a biologist 😎
I think WLC misses the dates for the EES. Its only recently being embraced in the last 15 years not in the 80's.
We get an unnerving insight into Darwin's character from an entry he made in his personal ledger during his voyage on the Beagle. While he was journeying through the Argentine pampas in South America there was a bloody slaughter of the indigenous natives taking place, conducted by the rogue General Juan Manuel de Roses, a self proclaimed despot, in 1833. Indian women and children were thrust through with saber and shot down like hunted animals.
Darwin traveled through the territory as a guest of the General, and he wrote of the war in his diary:
" . . . women who appear over twenty years of age are massacred in cold blood while the children are sold into slavery" however he was also able to write on a lighter note: "This war of extirmination (sic), although carried on with the most shocking barbarity, will certainly produce great benefits, it will at once throw open four or five hundred miles in length of fine country for the produce of cattle." Beagle Diary, by Charles Darwin, edited by R.D. Keynes, 1988, pp.180-181, pp177; and The Correspondence of Charles Darwin, Vol. 1, pp.326, 1821-1861, F.H. Burkhardt and S. Smith ed., Cambridge University Press, University Library, Cambridge, 1983-1984
Practical man that he was, Darwin could definitely see the positive side of this genocide. Perhaps if there had been electric lighting back then Darwin might have also come up with some novel ideas for interior design with the by-products of this slaughter, as some of his followers in the twentieth century did during the holocaust.
Desmond and Moore wrote that "Darwin shook a hand soaked in blood" when he struck up his acquaintance with General Rosas, whom he decribed as "a perfect gaucho." Desmond and Moore, Darwin, pp. 141.
While Darwin was a guest of the General, who had loaned Darwin some of his horses to go exploring on during his sojourn in Argentina, he received a correspondence from Fitzroy back on the ship, who desired to know how Darwin's "campaign with General Rosas" was going.
Desmond and Moore report: "Well armed, with fresh horses and ruthless companions, he had little to fear from the hostiles. Indeed he was beginning to appreciate the 'great benefits' of General Rosas' 'war of extermination ." (Ibid, pp. 141)
In Darwin's mind it was all fairly simple: "Less Indians => more cattle => healthier Spaniards: Survival of the fittest!" (Although the term "survival of the fittest" was not coined until the 1850's by another rogue, Herbert Spencer, founder of the modern pseudo-science of sociology and from whose work the communists and national socialists in the twentieth century built their dark machinations with, Darwin clearly had the concept buttoned down in his notes years before)
Apparently the slaughter of the Indians didn't weigh too heavily on his conscience, for Darwin boasted when describing his living conditions while riding with Rosas' men: "I . . .drink my Mattee; smoke my cigar, then lie down & sleep as comfortably with the Heavens for a canopy as in a feather bed." Charles Darwin, The Correspondence of Charles Darwin, Vols.. 1-9, (1821-1861), Cambridge University Press, See also Browne, pp. 256-257 and Desmond and Moore, pp.141.
The most common meaning of theory is likely the layman one. Unless there really are that many scientists. The scientific one will only come up in certain discussions
17:03 Did it take Jesus millions of years to convert the water to wine, or a few days or was it instant?
He never did anything of the sort. It is a pure legend, an invention of the human mind.
15:36 Dr. Craig isn’t that what God did with man? Or are you saying that mankind evolved?
As an atheist, I find this subject interesting but evolution is both a fact and a theory in that it's a scientific hypothesis which is supported by mountains of evidence to the degree predictions can be and are made which demonstrate the validity of it. Although I realize why a Christian worldview might make it tempting to non=t accept it or to seek out arguments against it. I only care about what's true, myself.
This was actually pretty good. I didn't expect that. Interviewer did a good job. Guy responding did a good job, too. Good job, Christians. He says at the end, "Christians will only make themselves look silly if they launch these kinds of attacks." Now, we need to get a Muslim on a Muslim channel to talk the same way to the Muslims, so that they can put in the trash ideas like "Adamic Exceptionalism".
WLC doesn't deny miracles that happen all throughout history, but by calling them "late creation" he seems to think that they would be ridiculous. Honestly, this doesn't seem logical to me. I'm not committed to young earth theory nor am I committed to common descent. But the arguments given here are not too convincing for me.
where did Bill get his PhD in evolutionary biology?
I don't pretend that I have one!
@@raywingfield Neither does WLC, so take your adolescent angst elsewhere.😉
Theres also gravity theory (i.e., general relativity) and germ theory. We call it s theory even though we understand it with great precision.
You think you understand it 😆
@@gregorylatta8159 in science, what we call a guess, you call a fact, that's the difference in standards between religion and science.
I’m on the fence about this YEC theistic evolution debate. What I don’t think DR. Craig is being fair on here is that he is happy to have God pop creation into existence but not a duck. I understand his hang up with late creation and I think he has a point but if God can pop a universe into existence by the Word of His mouth why not a duck or even a breeding population of ducks.
well, come off the fence, evolution is true, creation is a fairy tale. stop listening to craig, a PHD in bible study, and start listening to PHD's in science, that would be a start don't you agree? do you take your car to church to be fixed when it breaks down?
Notes
commentary from what I’ve read in Darwin’s Doubt by Stehen Meyer and what I see.
Darwin could explain the survival of the fittest but not the arrival of the fittest @3:16
comment: I think he means to say ‘the arrival of new body plans.’ I don’t think critics of evolution (like myself) ask where the heritable traits come from.
Population genetics cited @3:31.
comment: I’m not there yet in the book but I think the critique is on the creative power of random (beneficial) mutuations given population rates. There’s supposed to be a study that shows that it would take more than the age of the universe to build one functional protein fold.
Some questions: ‘population genetics explains the rise of hereditable genetic traits through mutations.’ I think this is the ‘monkey typing Shakespeare’ problem. Not only do you need beneficial traits, but they need to be coordinated. And I think I remember now that the term is ‘coordinated mutations.’ Also the gene pool problem. By ‘hederitable genetic traits’ do we mean that the gene pool gained information? Is it diversity or trending to disparity (novel body plans)?
@5:30 Evolution is not a monochromatic theory.
comment: I understand but we’re talking about abductive reasoning. It’s like having a theory from some detective that has been modified and accomodated to fit his theory. Sounds more like forcing a story than modifying a theory. Of course this is a competition of worldviews.
@10:25 similarities in anatomy and their genetic makeup (homolids). This suggest descent from a common ancestor. An example of this would be the pentadactyl limb.
Comment: I mean, you could argue common design instead of a common ancestor. Here’s where I’ll mention Darwin’s doubt: the Cambrian explosion. We would have to go by the fossil record ; otherwise we would be proposing our favored worldview.
According to what I’ve read, the Cambrian explosion shows a good enough sample on the history of life. If evolution is true, then we would expect to see a record of diversity in the lower strata and disparity in the upper strata. The opposite is true.
@12:00 gene similarities are best explained by common ancestry.
comment: the problem that I remember for this one (aside from coordinated mutations), is the combinatorial inflation problem. An unguided process is far more likely to degrade the code than to improve it with function. It’s important to say it like this because we’re not just talking about Shannon information, but specified information (also known as complexity vs specified complexity). An unguided process is not the best explanation for specified information (this is what I’ve understood). There are two main challenges:
1. not enough time?
2. Using Charles Lyllel’s principle of reasoning; the best way to explain natural phenomena from the past is to infer by what causes it today. Specified information has invariably come from a mind. Why would it be any different? Could it be because of a worldview?
@20:20 the genetic information is the code that tells the cells how to make proteins (near universal code). Everything has a near universal code with small variations. This is strong evidence for common descent.
comment: again, or common design.
@21:44 sporadic variations and non-functional genes.
comment: I don’t know anything about this. I wonder if we should let creationist tell is something about it, not just evolutionists. ok, humans may have a cmt 1 duplicate that’s harmful, if I understand the argument, since this duplicate is found in chimps and its non-functional, then why would the Designer made it like that? This is better explained by common descent.
Interesting argument. I don’t know how to respond to this. Keep in mind the problems mentioned above. I’ll keep this in my notes: cmt is a neuromuscular syndrome.
I strongly disagree that denying gradualism does not call into question common descent. This ‘saltation’ theory doesn’t solve the top-down pattern problem of taxa in the fossil record. There are no transitional fossils as far as I’m concerned and it totally sounds like a rescue device. And yes I’m awared of tiktalik. I’m sorry if I don’t take men’s word for it. Again, what do creationists have to say about this? Not just evolutionists.
@29:00 the progress of life shows evolution.
comment: you just mentioned the Cambrian explosion! Not the mention the Vendian mini explosion.
too long, you might be right but no one will ever know, save your thesis for university mate
As an atheist, I wish more Christians thought like Craig. He changes his faith in the face of evidence, and ends up with a more nuanced and robust faith
I don't know if it's "changing his faith,? But maybe augmenting it?
I doubt he has changed his faith. But as a challenge to the existence of God,evolution is an interesting argument. In terms of religion evolution is a successor to the scepticism of the enlightenment.
I’m not sure what you guys think ‘changing your faith’ means, but I mean it in the sense of the Dalai Lama:
‘If science proves some some belief in Buddhism wrong, then Buddhism will have to change.’
A literal, inerrant reading of the Bible is flatly incompatible with the theory of evolution.
Call it what you will, ‘augmenting’, accommodating: in the end, you are changing your faith in some way.
An education in science - even in biblical scripture - will force you to read much of the Bible metaphorically
@@bigol7169 I would separate the issues of genre (literal/metaphor etc.) with the issues of truth (errancy/inerrancy).
Dr. Craig might have changed his mind on the genre of the genesis account, but I highly doubt he's changed his mind on the truth of it.
@@jessethomas3979 please explain more.
“For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth”: doesn’t the literal or metaphorical nature of this verse have a direct effect on its truth value?
God form man from Dust but according to WLC he form them from Monkeys.
Not correct. God actually did nothing, because God doesn't exist at all!
Also, you find sudden miraculous appearance of ducks as ‘ incredible’ because you have accepted evolution ( 15:20-16:00h ). Its very EASY to believe how a video game programmer could suddenly POP ducks into existence in a video game. So same with life. Why suppose the video game programmer has to evolve ducks? Thats due to preconceived darwinian ideas you have accepted.
Even ducks in a video game change over the course of the development of the game. Those ducks are also based on previous generations of video games. A duck in a modern game looks very different to a duck in an old game.
Also, in nature ducks don't just pop into existence as the bible wants you to believe. Why suppose that ducks can just pop into existence?
@@ateriana5116 how can ducks just pop into existence ? The same way Dr. Craig thinks the universe did. A duck being created is childs play compared. And the ducks in ONE particular video game do pop into existence. You guys have been sold on evolution, so you have a hard time accepting what the Bible says at face value. PLUS they don’t have to pop out of nothing. God can make animals from dirt, from ribs, etc. There can be a process. Just not a design-less process.
@@ateriana5116 the point is that a video game programmer can easily create ducks however he wants without a problem. I admit God can evolve animals, but he can also make them from dirt quickly or pop them into existence out of nothing. Craig has a hard time with the creationists view. I can see God doing the evolution process , its just not what the Bible says. Thats all. He can do what he wants. Difficulty seeing God making ANYTHING out of nothing is due to lack of faith in the Christian God.
@@ateriana5116 and Ducks can pop into existence because GOD can do that. Very easy answer. I’m telling you. Lack of faith.
@@drbkjv lack of evidence of god
"Standing for truth" just did a response video to debunk this one and I will be coming out with a few myself. What a sad day in Christianity when people think they have to compromise their faith to make it work. Sad, indeed.
@newcreationinchrist1423 I checked out your channel and it looks interesting. I will be checking out ur videos. I have never been convinced of evolution. I have never seen the proof that progressive genetic complexity happens. Plus, the evolution story contradicts the Genesis creation story, unless you make the whole creation story a metaphor and deny the existence of Adam, Eve, Cain, Abel, etc. And then you have to dismiss the genealogy of Christ, so it's obviously the wrong interpretation. Trust God's word. It's never wrong. We may interpret it wrong, but that's on us.
@@OSAS27amen. Totally agree! I pray what I have posted blesses you. If you have any questions, please feel free to leave comments. I'll be glad to help as best as I can or at the very least lead you to someone who can. God bless 🙏
Well said..
@@OSAS27 you are just uneducated.
I feel sorry for religious folk. You can’t ever accept reality or your whole fantasy world would fall apart. Live in a myth, fine, but stop trying to convince others of your delusion because you simply can’t.
Is there a paper or writing where we can see in more detail and depth Dr. Craig's research on evolution?
He did quite a lot of research for his debate with evolutionary biologist, Francisco Ayala: ua-cam.com/video/fsR1t_Ee0PY/v-deo.htmlsi=6-0QEImM2DC6iOnD.
He also discusses the subject at length in his Defenders class, beginning here: www.reasonablefaith.org/podcasts/defenders-podcast-series-3/excursus-on-creation-of-life-and-biological-diversity/excursus-on-creation-of-life-and-biological-diversity-part-30.
- RF Admin
@@ReasonableFaithOrg Thank you. But one question. Dr. Craig is still holding the same things from ten years ago? I say this because that debate was a long time ago and I thought Dr. Craig would have changed some questions regarding evolution. Thanks anyway.
@@imagodeifides His research has focused mainly on the biblical data and, after arriving at a mytho-historical genre classification for Genesis 1-11, on the scientific data regarding the chronological location of the historical Adam. His research projects since that debate have not focused on evolution. - RF Admin
He has book that talks about the historical Adan.
@@AbrahamBarberi Yeah, I know. I was asking about the theory of evolution per se
Does Dr. Craig believe in Intelligent Design theory?
paulogia came up with a good way to explain evolution to the folks who "don't get it" - it's like language,
latin is the common ancestor to italian, portugese and spanish, but at no point did a roman give
birth to a spanish speaker, romans only begat romans (!) words got added to latin and words became redundant
until it evolved into spanish, spanish, italian and portugese are all "cousins" like humans and apes,
and "if spanish is evolved from latin, why is there still latin" - why are there still apes, the answer should
be obvious, latin did not have to "become extinct" for spanish to evolve.
Hmm..common ancestry with chimps. Wondering if Dr. Craig believes evolution over how God biblically created Adam and Eve in Genesis. Of course, if God used chimps, apes and monkeys as a model for Man, than there would be many similarities between us and them, including those things which works and those things which appears to be broken. If we are to see the Genesis account in a traditional sense, this could very well be unfounded in scientific terms; doesn't mean that the Genesis account when seen in an unconventional sense is not true
"if God used chimps, apes and monkeys as a model for Man"
Im am an atheist, but I would call those animals more like a byproduct of our existence. Idk honestly
Have Creationist ever think how we could do research on better corn using their theory?
We sit around a bunch of corn in the lab and pray for a spontaenous changes?
If they go to visit University of Illinois in Urbana-Champaign they can see the oldest corn experiment using evolution theory: mutation & selection. They even built their main library underground to safe the historic corn field. ILO & IHO.
Poof, a couple of ducks appear, sounds magical and therefore implausible to Craig, but: poof, Jesus turns water into wine and rises from the dead, doesn't sound magical and therefore credible? These arguments are ridiculously religiously biased. Is it about believing what Craig finds credible? I find Craig's Christianity completely unbelievable. And I think I deserve a heart for my comment.
25:41 variations are not evolution. The elephant example you provided didn’t turn into a brand new species, for example an elephant to an alligator
Evolution is not the creation of new species.
Nobody ever claimed elephants can or did change into alligators. They are on different branches of the evolutionary tree, and their evolutionary paths diverged from a common ancestor a very long time ago.
@@Andre_XX it’s literally the basis for macro evolution
@@hexo-mobius could you explain what macro evolution is?
I don’t think you understand the concept as well as you might think. I genuinely don’t mean that in an insulting way. There’s many things I don’t understand as well.
@@hexo-mobius Well you are obviously in serious need of some very basic education on the topic.
Still haven’t had the main question answered. If humans “evolved” why have we lost our ability to survive? No other animal has “evolved” out of it own habitat. Its because we are in this world not of this world…
So who is right, Darwin or Jesus?
Darwin.
Darwin summed up his viewpoint on natural selection in the final part of the eighth chapter of his Origin of Species, where he wrote: ". . . To my imagination it is far more satisfactory to look at such instincts as the young cuckoo ejecting it's foster brothers (from the nest),-ants making slaves-the larvae of ichneumonide feeding with the live bodies of the caterpillars,-not as especially endowed or created instincts, but as one general law leading to the advancement of all organic beings [mankind included],-namely, multiply, vary, let the strongest live and the weakest die." (Origin, final paragraph of Chapter Eight on Instinct, 6th edition)
Darwin said that his "general law leading to the advancement of all organic beings . . . let the strongest live and the weakest die" also applied to the various races of man, and he saw "beneficial" results coming from a race war between the different races, or what he called later on in the same chapter the "sub-species" of man, with one race surviving and one race being exterminated!
Darwin elaborates on this theme further on in his Descent, describing this dream of his for mankind's future when the black races of man, as well as the mountain gorilla of Africa, will become extinct, thus enhancing the chances for the evolutionary advancement of the more "civilized" races of man:
"At some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilized races of man will almost certainly exterminate, and replace, the savage races throughout the world. At the same time the anthropomorphous apes, as Professor Schaaffhausen has remarked, will no doubt be exterminated. The break between man and his nearest allies will then be wider, for it will intervene between man in a more civilised state, as we may hope, even than the Caucasian, and some ape as low as a baboon, instead of as now between the negro or Australian and the gorilla." (Descent of Man, Chapter Six: On the Affinities and Geneology of Man, On the Birthplace and Antiquity of Man)
It may surprise some people to find out the dark truth about Darwin, but the fact remains nevertheless that he did indeed propose in his second major work, The Descent of Man, that certain races of human beings were actually sub-species, that a race war among mankind's different races, with the extermination of one race and the survival of another would bring "beneficial" results in evolutionary terms, and he did explicitly state, as we have just read, that black people were intermediate on the evolutionary ladder between apes and white people. and wrote that it was his hope that in the near future the black races of mankind, the aborigines, and the African gorillas would become extinct, thus enhancing the evolutionary potential of the Caucasian race!
Darwin proposed in horrifying and explicit language that black Africans and Australian aborigines occupied a sub-species position between white Europeans and baboons! He not only stated this as his belief, but proposed that in the near future "as we may hope" according to his evolutionary theory, these "sub-races" of man will eventually be exterminated in a struggle for survival, along with the endangered mountain gorilla of Africa!
This type of statement makes the term "ethnic cleansing" seem mild by comparison.
Certain evolutionists, in attempting to excuse Darwin, have made the claim that Darwin was merely an impartial observer of the natural processes, and that he was only noting the historical fact that extinctions have and are occurring. This type of reasoning completely misses the point.
There is a vast difference between observing that there are endangered species, such as the gray whale, the mountain gorilla etc., and encouraging the extinction of those species, which Darwin did! He was anything but impartial. And it should be noted that he made those predictions according to his theory, and said that they would be "beneficial" to evolution, and he applied the "beneficial" results of extinction, as can be clearly seen by anyone with a reasonable degree of intelligence from the above quotes, to the different races of man as well! To blur the line between observation and advocating would be like saying that Hitler was a social scientist who was concerned that the Jews were an endangered ethnic group!
For anyone to make the excuse that Darwin was merely reflecting the contemporary attitude of his day completely ignores the fact that Darwin's Descent was published some fifty years after the great Christian, Wilberforce, lobbied successfully to outlaw slavery in England; ten years after Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation; and seven years after the end of the American Civil War. Also, there were some very prominent blacks at that time in England and America who had attained financial prosperity and achieved notable educational success and who would not have appreciated Darwin's designation of their status.
I think there are still questions about common descent. And common mutations don’t rule out common design. Design doesn’t exclude the possibility of broken genes. I think the real weakness of the extended synthesis is gradualism. There are big holes in the theory. There simply isn’t enough time for whale evolution, for instance. Lots of unanswered questions still.
Big holes? You mean the 1000's of evidence against some still unanswered questions?
Yeahright, that's a real reason to question the theory, while theistic holy book claims got destroyed one after another.
Which one is more plausible, I wonder....
@@dorkception2012 Interesting name for yourself. So firstly, no, biblical claims have not been destroyed one after another. Second, we can gather facts about nature from various disciplines of science, but we make inferences about what we can conclude about those facts. So yes, there are many problems with the standard evolutionary narrative.
@@mc07 Really? World wide flood, debunked. Firmament, debunked. Resurrection, debunked. Talking snakes, debunked. Should I continue?
@@mc07 "So yes, there are many problems with the standard evolutionary narrative."
That's your opinion against the scientific scholars of the whole world. Truly valuable opinion. ;)
@@dorkception2012 ok, world wide flood, we don’t know. It is plausibly interpreted as a regional flood of the ‘known’ world of the author at the time. Firmament - this is ancient language. Personally, I don’t believe it was actually viewed as a solid dome. It’s figurative language. The resurrection - your claim is false. The most plausible conclusion based on the evidence is that the resurrection is true. The alternatives have too many problems. And if you allow for the possibility of the supernatural, without being biased against it, than it makes it an even stronger conclusion. Talking snakes? This can easily be accounted for as being figurative as well. But how would it be debunked? No one alive today was there.
I am open to being wrong on this, but I have a hard time following the logic of some of this. Why wouldn't similar animals have closer genetic code if God originally built the DNA? The idea that this is evidence of universal common descent seems to be assuming the Theory of Evolution is true anyway. I find God popping T-Rexes, Brontosauruses, and ducks into existence fantastical in how Craig puts it, but that has two problems that I can see. Part is an argument from incredulity, and the other is that God would have not popped every single species of animal into existence, but more like the phyla or some form of higher taxonomic category.
I do really appreciate debunking some of the, what I call, "annoying" arguments such as "it's just a theory". I'd like to see a discussion between Craig and Stephen C. Meyer on some of this. It seems like the Cambrian explosion and events like that make Universal Common Descent, and especially Natural Selection as the means, pretty incredible.
Finally, as far as God "poofing" ducks on a pond, Craig believes that God "poofed" the universe into existence. Why then are ducks so incredible? And certainly God would have poofed cells or DNA or proteins into existence to start evolution even if you believe in the theory of evolution. So why not ducks, or a prior proto-fowl?
I often amazed that when engaging atheists that how few are up to date with the The Extended Evolutionary Synthesis (EES). Most are still arguing from the perspective of the Modern Synthesis. It should be pointed out that the EES has so far failed to identify substantial new creative biological processes that could explain the rise of new species (arrival of the fittest.) So we are still kind of stuck between an old theory and a new one. It should be also acknowledged that to this point we have no working hypothesis about how saltation (rapid evolutionary change) actually occurs. This position was noted long ago by Stephen J. Gould who are argued for punctuated equilibrium which postulated long periods of genetic stability with intermittent periods of rapid evolutionary change. The problem for Gould was that he had no mechanisms to support his hypothesis (which ran against the basic assumptions of the MS.) In the end he essentially abandoned punctuated equilibrium. So we need new mechanisms to support a changing understand around essential features of evolution. So far no luck.
EES was proposed by some bioogists during a conference in 2016. It was not generally accepted because the fields of embryology, endo symbiosis, multilevel selection, niche construction, plasticity and evolvability were (and are) already included (and studied) in the Modern Synthesis.
So, we are not "stuck between an old and a new theory", that's just an aspiration of IDiots and creationists. All the fields I mentioned above, do not contradict the Modern Synthesis, in fact they've always been included in it.
"we have no working hypothesis about how saltation (rapid evolutionary change) actually occurs"
Why do you write "we"? ... as if you're a biologist (at least one that is up to speed with the science).
Yes we do have scientific explanations (and evidence) for processes that are saltational.
Already in 1966 has saltational speciation been recognized in the genus Clarkia (Lewis, 1966).
Examples of saltational evolution include cases of stabilized hybrids that can reproduce without crossing (such as allotetraploids) and cases of symbiogenesis. Both gene duplication and lateral gene transfer have the capacity to bring about relatively large changes that are saltational.Polyploidy (most common in plants but not unknown in animals) is saltational: a significant change (in gene numbers) can result in speciation in a single generation.
Evidence of phenotypic saltation has been found in the centipede. Saltational changes have occurred in the buccal cavity of the roundworm Caenorhabditis elegans. Some processes of epigenetic inheritance can also produce changes that are saltational. The mode of evolution of sex pheromones in Bactrocera has occurred by rapid saltational changes associated with speciation followed by gradual divergence thereafter.
You: "The problem for Gould ('s punctuated equilibrium) was that he had no mechanisms to support his hypothesis (which ran against the basic assumptions of the MS.)"
That is BS. PE is a theory about the scaling of speciation in geological time and is perfectly explained within the Modern Synthesis as a change of rate in the evolutionary process when selection pressure is weaker. If you want to inform yourself of what really concerned Gould and the response from the biological community: extinctblog.org/extinct/2023/12/19/gould-repost
extinctblog.org/extinct/2023/6/20/how-to-change-your-life-using-punctuated-equilibria (part 1)
extinctblog.org/extinct/2023/7/1/paradox-of-stasis (part 2)
extinctblog.org/extinct/2023/12/20/equilibium-disrupted (part 3)
You could say that Darwin's Theory of Natural Selection - was originally just that - a Theory - but the plethora of supporting evidence discovered since his time - most notably the study of genomes - his Theory should now be upgraded to Darwin's Principle of Evolution - alongside other established Principles such as those of Isaac Newton.
Except not really
Theories in the scientific sense don't correspond to the common colloquial usage
Theories in the scientific Sense aren't just mere plausible explanations
Those would be hypotheses
But explanations supported by the data
Like the theory of relativity
The confusion arises because
The use of the terms law and theory are inconsistent
@@kiroshakir7935 Exactly.
Cell Theory, Germ Theory, Oxygen Theory, Theory of Plate Tectonics, Theory of General Relativity etc. I could go on...
People have no issues with any of these until it comes to evolution. Then its "Evolution is JUST a theory and all the others are laws"
For some reason its ok to just cherry pick which branches of science work and which don't, its so dishonest and i don't think people realise it.
I seem to remember, from a long time ago, that he used to make fun of the idea of evolution. How times have changed!
You sure that was Craig? As far as I remember, he was always skeptical of the explanatory scope but he still took it seriously.
Unless you can site a specific document/video then your statement can't be taken seriously.
@@rebanelson607 I'll try to find the video, where he made a joke with which he made the idea of evolution seem absurd, but it was in a video made at least 10 years ago.
@@rebanelson607 I also recall older videos of him being somewhat skeptical of evolution. If we're not mistaken, his views have "evolved." There's nothing wrong with this, and I don't consider it any sort of attack. He's clearly read the literature and finds the arguments plausible. I'm more an ID guy, so I'm curious what their position is on the evidence that WLC mentioned.
he's a nincompoop? why people think he's so great beats me, and why anyone is listening to a PHD in bible studies talk about a science topic is typical of the religious, poking their nose in places they have no business poking, craig has been shown to be wrong on plenty of occasions, but typical religist he just keeps on ignoring the truth until no one sign up to religion anymore cos they are all liars and dishonest, and abusers too these days.
This discussion shows very nicely how Christianity, like every religion, is internally divided, because every religion divides human reason.
Yeah except its divided in layers from least to most delusional. Flat earthers are at the extreme
18:04 literally just assertion without evidence and argument from authority. This guy is supposed to be a scholar???
Faith by definition is unreasonable. It is the belief in spite of not having reason. Even if you think you have plenty of reason to believe (I may disagree) then you, by definition, don’t have faith but evidence. Faith (and all religion, but that’s an entirely separate argument) is always unreasonable.
You have confidence, or faith, that the sun will rise tomorrow in the East and set in the West. You have that confidence, or faith, or assurance, based on your experience or evidence. You have not seen tomorrow's sunrise, but it is reasonable to have that confidence.
Hebrews 11:1 "Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen."
I have faith that God will help me based on my prior experience in situations where He has. My confidence is reasonable.
I think it’s a shame that as Christians we have been made to feel like it’s intellectual suicide to believe in God (by the atheists) and simultaneously like we are heretics if we believe in evolution (by Christians). Feels that way for me atleast. I really appreciate and agree with Dr. Craig here.
@@Mario_Sky_521 What I believe is that the universe is so obviously more than 6000 years old. Structures on earth are obviously more than 6000 years old. Dinosaurs obviously existed millions of years ago. Those are the things that seem so obvious and prevent me from being able to take a literal interpretation of creation in Genesis. It’s like if I were to show you a house that is obviously 50+ years old and try and tell you it was made yesterday you would be very skeptical. That’s not to say that no one BUILT the house…it’s the timeline of events that I fear demanding Christian’s accept this 6000 year old earth claim or be labeled “anti Bible” really creates a point of attack for the atheists to make us look silly.
@@Maravirocbc
Do you believe in Santa Claus?
@@dorkception2012 apples and oranges my friend.
@@Maravirocbc How so? What's the difference between the credibility of Santa Claus and the story of Cheesus? They both have the same amount of documentation about them, they both known around the world, and they both have the same amount of validity to their stories!
@@dorkception2012 the difference, obviously, is that Santa was never intended to portrayed as someone who truly exists (although the imagination of him is based on a historical figure). Jesus truly existed, claimed he was of God and performed miracles with validate those claims. It’s entirely a false equivalency. Believing a fictitious character to be real would be deviating from the intent of those who imagined and created that story. Believing Jesus is God incarnate is to believe him to be exactly who those who have passed on his story through the years believed him to be. Let’s stop here though it’s silly to have some sort of fallacious debate on social media…you won’t convince me of anything and vice versa.
So did WLC say that humans did evolve from monkeys?
we evolved from primates, apes aree cousins, here get yer head around this:
it's like language,
latin is the common ancestor to italian, portugese and spanish, but at no point did a roman give
birth to a spanish speaker, romans only begat romans (!) words got added to latin and words became redundant
until it evolved into spanish; spanish, italian and portugese are all "cousins" like humans and apes,
and "if spanish is evolved from latin, why is there still latin" - why are there still apes, the answer should
be obvious, latin did not have to "become extinct" for spanish to evolve.
We are still monkeys, look up the definition.
*regardless of whether or not we are specially created beings
WLC needs to talk to David Berlinski.
He needs to talk to Kent Hovind, who has already destroyed evolution.
I appreciate Dr. Craig for researching these topics. He's clearly spending a lot of time researching this and other related topics.
I do think it's possible for God to act with those miracles of new species coming from nothing, in the same way He made the universe, and I don't think that theory can be totally tossed aside as Craig seems to think, but either way, great discussion!
If you believe in evolution then you deny the authority of scripture.
That is everyone's choice of course, but nevertheless, that is the fact!
@@mbgrafix That's such a silly statement.
I know people who accept both.
Don't be overly-simplistic. Critical thinking is an important skill to cultivate.
@@mbgrafix Utterly false. You're just repeating Ken Ham. There's a diversity of perspectives among actual Christians.
@@natebozeman4510
Oh really? Tell me then your answer to Luke 3:23-38?
Which is true? Bible or Darwinism?
@@mbgrafixsuch a false dichotomy!
I would so much appreciate for a creationist historian/archaeologist PHD to start publicly supporting these scientists to add to what these guys don't do, and get into public debates with "academic" historians and evolutionists who are against God and The Bible. There is plenty evidence for The Bible from Genesis to the first century AD. I hardly hear anyone of them (Lennox, Craig, these guys, and others) ever talk about it except about Jesus. There is MUCH evidence for The Bible from it's beginning to its end.
Stephen Meyer does this.
It boils my blood when non-scientists make out that they understand a particular scientific topic BETTER than the very scientists that study it!!
Read "Why Evolution is True" by Jerry A. Coyne and be quiet.
Lol are we hurting your feelings by attacking your religion? 😭
@@brando3342science isn't a religion. Atheism isn't a religion. Stop calling things "religion" that simply aren't. And why do you even think religion is a bad thing? Or what's the point of calling things you disagree with or don't comprehend, "religion"?
@@MrSeedi76 🥱
Grow up and understand the insidious damage that all you history-, science- and reality-deniers do. You'll be brainlessly spouting that the Earth's flat next!
@MrSeedi76
I already told you...
Evolution is not science, but rather it is scientism.
Love you Bill, but you know better than to think “I just find that incredible” is a qualitative argument against special creation. If God can say let there be a universe and out of nothing all matter and energy come into being at the Big Bang (which you believe), what’s the problem with him saying, “let there be a flock of ducks.”?
Darwin was brilliant in his time, but you don't go to him for the latest on evolution. Just like you don't go to Galileo for the latest on gravity. Many disciplines since Darwin (Genetics, Geology, Biochemistry, Developmental Biology, etc.) have confirmed evolution's factuality.
(gravity was newton, just saying) but i agree - craig is a hack, no one should listen to his science cos is not science his version is voodoo.
I am surprised and impressed that he basically accepts the theory (fact) of evolution. Most Christians don't. And he's right the ones that don't look silly. I just disagree with him that god did it as I see no evidence of any god.
Did you know that one of the commercials while watching this video was a mormon come join us! Video.
Yikes. 😬
I agree evolution is not a theory, but I disagree with the explanation by Craig.
There's for instance the germ theory. But it doesn't mean a germ is a theory. Germs are entities. Even if didn't exist or we didn't know they existed, they still wouldn't be theories. The germ theory is a scientific explanation for some diseases, saying they are caused by germs.
Evolution is a kind of change. The theory of evolution is a scientific explanation for evolution, namely natural selection and common ancestry. If someone says "evolution" is a theory, as far as I know, often it means there's a scientific theory for evolution or (often by creationists) it means evolution (or some aspects of the theory) aren't known.
Some creationists say the theory of evolution is not a theory because it would imply scientific credibility.
Great show. Question, Naturally occurring wine has common decent with water . The wine Jesus made was not naturally occurring it was miraculous intervention. By having the servants fill the jars with water which has the same genetic code that 99% of wine has. So Jesus added that 1% of genetic code to the water and made wine that is not naturally occurring, but genetically, it looks and tastes like it is.
Was this a question?
Yes, I guess the question is; Couldn't God have intervened anytime He wanted too to change the genetic code to make any new creature up until He created man which then He rested from His works. For the genetic code to change naturally or unguided there hasn't been enough time even though the evidence for the universe is 14 billion years and the earth 4 billion years old. What came first, the chicken or the egg? The chicken, with the ability to make seeds after its own kind. What do you think?@@Average-Lizard
I would agree that God could intervene in a way that is not obviously supernatural. I believe there is a supernatural intervention somewhere along the line to make man in the image of God - although as of now I'm comfortable admitting ignorance as to the details of how that happened.@@markconway8835
I'm not sure that there is any genetic code in water or wine, maybe you are referring to chemical make up and how it has some analogous aspects to genetic code in organisms as they can form naturally, or be modified by God?
@@markconway8835 the bigger question is, couldn't god reveal himself to atheist so that they would have real evidence to believe he exists, instead making them burn in hell for all eternity? I mean, if god really did love everyone
you talk drivel mate, get a hobby you understand, you don't seem to understand religion even.
A good example is during the end of the ice age bronze age villages especially near the black Sea flooded once fresh water know salt water.
Trying to reason with an evolutionist is not like talking to a brick wall. It's like talking to a brick wall with graffiti on it and then expecting to get an intelligent reply back.
You are using the apriori presumption of evolution as proof for evolution, which is a philosophical error.
A priori 1: Involving deductive reasoning from a general principle to a necessary effect; not supported by fact: "an a priori judgment"
A priori 2: Based on hypothesis or theory rather than experiment.
Darwin did not document one single fact in his Origin of Speciess or his Descent of Man of a genuine evolutionary transition taking place. That actually sums up the entirety of Darwin's Origin of Species and his Descent of Man as well as most arguments of evolutionists. Evolutionists have hijacked science in the name of atheism because of their initial rejection of Revelation. Darwin's Origin and his Descent are mere philosophic diatribes against God's role in the creation of the universe and against His providential rule and ordering of events both in the physical realm of non living systems and in the macro-molecular biological realm of living species; it is not on a par with genuine scientific treatises such as Newton's Principia Mathematica , Boyle's empirical gas law that describes the relationship between pressure and volume of a confined gas, Faraday's laws of electrolysis, Pasteur "renowned for his discoveries of the principles of vaccination, microbial fermentation, and pasteurization, the last of which was named after him. His research in chemistry led to remarkable breakthroughs in the understanding of the causes and preventions of diseases, which laid down the foundations of hygiene, public health and much of modern medicine" (Wikipedia), Kepler's laws of planetary motion, and
Erik Acharius (1757-1819), Swedish botanist[1] who studied lichens
Gary Ackers (1939-2011), American biophysicist who worked on thermodynamics of macromolecules.
Gilbert Smithson Adair (1896-1979), British protein chemist who identified cooperative binding of oxygen binding haemoglobin.
Arthur Adams (1820-1878), English physician and naturalist[2] who classified crustaceans and molluscs
Michel Adanson (1727-1806), French naturalist[3] who studied the plants and animals of Senegal
Julius Adler (born 1930), American biochemist and geneticist known for work on chemotaxis.
Monique Adolphe (1932-2022), French cell biologist, pioneer of cell culture
Edgar Douglas Adrian (1st Baron Adrian) (1889-1977), British electrophysiologist, Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine (1932) for research on neurons.
When you compare Darwin's ramblings in his Origin to the works of these other, genuine scientists it's almost ludicrous that he has been lifted to the status of a philosopher-sage by his slack jawed, gullible band of followers.
Your belief in evolution is motivated more by a prejudice against the sovereignty of God, and a rebellion against His Lordship in your life, as it is written in Psalm Two,
1"Why do the nations conspire[a]
and the peoples plot in vain?
2 The kings of the earth rise up
and the rulers band together
against the Lord and against his anointed, saying,
3 “Let us break their chains
and throw off their shackles.”
Jesus is Lord over Darwin.
Similarities in structure and DNA does not imply common assertory it implies similar origins of design.
there are similarities in Microsoft word and Microsoft excel , we don't conclude that copying errors over time can result in the other, infract that can be simulated.
Organisms have genetic blockers for reproduction thus similarities cannot be due to ancestry, if all animals could reproduce with each other I would be inclined to agree.
we then have the problem of genetic capacity....where the genetic capacity of the original organism would have eclipse that of any further down the its replicants.
William Lane Craig is a good Christian apologist, but there are 3 things I disagree with him about. He believes in theistic evolution, molinism, and that Christians can lose their salvation. I think he is wrong about these 3 things.
HGT makes common ancestry difficult
Macro evolution has a number of observed defeaters: even with millions of years, not enough time. The mutation mechanism for natural selection is neither precise enough nor powerful enough to account for new forms(read NEW information), irreducible complexity poses a large problem, and of course, the largest defeater is the origin of life(and information) itself has no rational explanation naturalistically.
So what do you call a gene duplication or frame shifts if not new information? Irreducible complexity has been shown over and over and over to be no issue to evolution. Behe was made to look foolish more than a decade ago and yet he continues to use the same tired mousetrap argument. The origin of life has zero to do with evolution. Evolution is the explanation for the diversity of life. How life got here is irrelevant to what facilitates changes to that life. No offense but it's like you learned everything you "know" about evolution from the Discovery Institute rather than the primary literature.
"As Michael Egnor said in response to PZ Myers: “[G]ene duplication is, presumably, not to be taken too seriously. If you count copies as new information, you must have a hard time with plagiarism in your classes. All that the miscreant students would have to say is ‘It’s just like gene duplication. Plagiarism is new information- you said so on your blog!'”"
Further, just saying Behe is wrong does not mean anything. You have countless examples of highly complex system that require multiple parts to be fully functional to work at all. If it was one, you might explain it by a simpler form to a more complex one, but not in the quantities we are talking.
And I haven't even mention information(let alone a language) literally every single time it is observed it is the product of a mind...every single time.
Sorry, you comment is well intentioned but feels like one who is desperate to cling to naturalism.@@Kruppes_Mule
@@mattm7798 I love when people so desperate that they spew their opinions against solid facts on a UA-cam comment section, but they have nothing more than "Nah-ah!".
Come back when you have disproven Allele gene frequencies, intermediate fossils, virus and bacteria variants!
I will wait! ;)
Mendell was way ahead of Darwin he saw amazing adaptations designs off the chart to me giving god all the glory.
I do not believe the analogy of the water into wine is a good representation here since that has more of a theological nature to it. Jesus's miracles parallels God's plagues, with the water into wine a blessing, and the water into blood a curse, so Jesus was following the same order as God up to the final plague of offering the first born son to Jesus as the offering of the firstborn Son, however I do see evolution in a new light after this talk! No matter how we look at it though I think ultimately it comes down to Life is a miracle no matter how it came about! Keep up the good work.
Evolution is not a theory, it is best described as a model: collection of theories and other things wrapped into a larger framework, driven somewhat on axioms that are naturalistic (in the sense they spoke of in this talk). I am less dogmatic on the topic, but highly skeptical on what we think we know on the 'evolutionary' model and the moves to higher complexity in it. Evolution is to me best described as an artist's rendering of our observations which are too far from a firm model. Having been in school with science students, I had confirmed the financial, political, and other motivations the scientific community faces (not that they should stop studying their topics, but just be careful when you hear 'the science is settled' or 'we know enough now about this area of historical science').
Take the comments about pakicetus: 1) predictions are the scientific method and we weigh too much on some findings that appear as predictive truth confirmations and 2) transitional creature is a large leap to me even with prediction and the cranial findings (it could be that both 'related' species and non-related- as we would assume- animals have similar traits because there is a common code all life is drawing from.)
I absolutely love WL but this theistic Eco thing is a heresy
it ABSOLUTELY is.. But Atheists LOVE it!!
"The most devastating thing though that biology did to Christianity was the discovery of biological evolution. Now that we know that Adam and Eve never were real people the central myth of Christianity is destroyed. If there never was an Adam and Eve there never was an original sin. If there never was an original sin there is no need of salvation. If there is no need of salvation there is no need of a Savior. And I submit that puts Jesus, historical or otherwise, into the ranks of the unemployed. I think that evolution is absolutely the death knell of Christianity." Frank Zindler
Am I the only one who looks at their bookshelves for nuggets?! 😅
Craig has a better camera than the other guy lol
If the Universe in it's vast expanse with all the inexhaustible mass and matter in it, all came from an infinitesimal point(Out of nothing). If that's not majic. Tell me what is. If we can believe that, I can also believe a bird popping into existence out of nothing. Otherwise great video. I learnt a lot.
you clearly know nothing at all about science, this: no one says the universe A) came from nothing (apart from religists, they say god pulled it out of his nose) B) the universe came from a point, penrose, a nobel physicist, and hawking a nobel physicist proposed the singularity but then dropped it as the maths didn't work.
please, if you want to be critical of ANY subject you have to at least have the basics.
and birds do pop into existence from nothing, some assembly is required though, you're a nincompoop and you just told the whole world you are.
I agree. WLC didn't really make that point to me either. Especially since he agreed that God has done miracles throughout history. He tried to characterize it as "late creation" and then make it sound absurd.
"infinitesimal point(Out of nothing)" - The infinitesimal point thing does not mean out of nothing.
What?
He looks a little like David Lee Roth
Huge respect for WLC but he's plain wrong on YEC... plenty of evidence supporting it. Fossil records is basically Noah's Flood, if he can grasp that, it will be a game changer.
creationism and intelligent design were both proven FALSE in court in the dover trials, prosecuted by a catholic biologist, kenneth r miller, you just won't accept that you are ignorant - and why? BILLIONS of religist are fine with evolution - evolution is true, just stop being daft ffs
Couldn't agree more. Liquefaction explains the fossilization and layers that we see. We have plenty of fossil specimens that still have soft tissue and bone osteocites. Not to mention nearly all the planets we see still have geothermal activity(including the moon) while other planets still have atmospheres. I think it's Saturn that doesn't have the methane to ethane rate for billions of years. Viewing evidence with confirmation bias is dangerous if your trying to view data objectively
You should look up "the heat problem" for YEC. Fossils appear to be less complex the further you go down. In a world flood model species and complexity should be mixed. There should be many modern animals fossils mixed in with extinct fossils if they all lived together. YEC puts forth hydrologic sorting but that model doesn't work. I'm a former YEC.
Liquefaction goes by density of the pre-fossil specimen but even without that there are plenty of other reasonings for YEC (Polystraight fossils going through multiple layers of strata), the mountain chains look like they we're melted like an accordian (as if they we're completely soft when they rose to the elevation they are now(Brian Nickel has great videos on this if you are into material mechanics) And last but not least there is plenty of evidence in space dictating a young universe (planets assumed to be old cold and dead are very much so geothermally active including our moon, no accounting for the sheer amount of material jupiter requires to be as massive as it is in the location that it is). If anything it is well worth looking into with an open mind @@brandonsawyer7493
Best not putting all your religious faith in YEC, just my advice I would love to believe it so there’s no bias from me but honestly I would recommend finding a middle ground because if YEC is true then 99% of science would have to be a full blown conspiracy but if you pin all your hopes on a young earth and no common ancestry then you could lose your faith altogether because in all honesty the likes of Ken Ham and Ray Comfort etc are not following the evidence, might be worth reading John Lennox’s book seven days that divide the world at least that take Genesis seriously but finds some common ground with the scientific facts
"The best cure for Christianity is reading the Bible." *Mark Twain*
Is that how you were cured? :-D
@@OSAS27
Early writers fabricated the resurrection hoax by making up fake testimonials that the disciples & others have witnessed an empty tomb & a risen Jesus.
@@AtamMardes haha it seems you dont know that you are talking about❤️
@@davidloewen3878
You believe in religious fairy tales and myth. 🤣
@AtamMardes uh oh now that you have said that all my faith is gone :((( boohoo.
Tell me Christian evo’s , you teach mutations are good for mankind. Tell the mothers. We shake our heads.
I hope Dr. Craig isn't advocating for a kind of "front loaded" view of theistic evolution.
Mmm. The arguments presented here in favor of evolution are un-convincing.
I think if you take the bible at it’s word then you have to accept Gods creation (not necessarily the earth) is quite recent