Evolution & Creationism | Ron - Chicago, IL | Atheist Experience 20.25

we've got run in Chicago thanks for waiting hey what's going on we're doing a TV show what's going on with you I'd like to talk about intelligent design and evolution specifically a claim that you've made in the past about evolution being a fact in the context of common design well what I said was that evolution is a fact that there have been observed changes now common descent I happen to think is well supported by the evidence but the common descent is not the same thing a so a theory explains a fact so you have a fact which is the diversity of life on Earth that is just a fact and we also know that it's a fact that things change over time evolution by natural selection is the theory that explains that and when it comes to an issue of common descent things like chromosome 2 and every of the and all the other elements that go together to show that the best explanation is common ancestry but what did you want to ask and and also why are you calling us this I was I was curious as to why when you posed the question I was reading off of the screen the call screeners notes why you would call this show specifically for that question regarding evolution rather than approaching someone that perhaps studies in that field things of that sort oh I speak to molecular biologist and biochemist on regular basis are flying off like on line and so on but I'm specifically calling this show because I've heard that on a regular basis talking about evolution as it is bad and in the concept of change happening I would agree with that chain tap ok so we agree that it's a fact that so we agree that it's about evolution but that's not what you said in the context of the discussion well I can't I don't know what I saw I don't know I don't know what I've said in the past computer I don't I have the clips and on the computer so final words ok then Ron email me the clip or I mean could you at least have the conversation now based on what I'm actually saying I'm not gonna I'm not gonna say okay go ahead right now so in the context of what you're saying right now I would agree with that 100 to change happened even though is that even to the extent of causing something that might be perceived to be new for example the ability to digest nylonase or mutations that might cause right here or mutations that might allow us to digest nope so so since we're since we're entering Iran since we're in agreement anti-god since we're in agreement what's the issue no we're not we're not I don't know what you just said you agreed with what I just said and no in numerous discussions in the past we were talking about evolution when you're describing evolution in the context of the argument you're talking about small incremental changes leading on to new complexities to millions of years it's that specific claim of that mechanisms creative power that I'm calling it's a question right now okay and my question to you is do you have something where I said that this is a fact yes I've got about 13 different clips from different videos where you need that statement that's amazing at home that's amazing because I'm one of the people who who's probably most cautious with their words especially when it comes to issues like this so by all means put together an email point me to those clips I'll be happy to look through them and if you're correct I'll retract stuff well I'm absolutely willing to do so but just for the sake of argument are you willing to talk about what evolution can do here in this essentially I'm not a biologist what I can do is talk about my understand my understanding of evolution theory but I'm also wondering why it's particularly relevant because you understand that there are religious people who accept the this science behind evolution as well right oh yeah I understand that for well okay I think that it's relevant because even though it's relevant in the same way that intelligent design is relevant because even though it doesn't necessarily intend to prove any specific belief in God the implications if it happens to be well as is friendly in the same way with evolution people that end up being converted or lose they are losing their faith if they don't end up agreeing with any information suggesting that common descent is true no no no no no no no Ron you just acknowledged that there are plenty of Christians they're who accept common descent right okay there are plenty of if as long as this isn't a religious issue about whether or not you accept common descent then it's an issue about whether or not you accept the evidence for common descent I happen to accept the evidence for common descent I would not and do not think that I have claimed that common descent is a fact what I've claimed is that this that the evidence points to this is the most reasonable conclusion based on the available evidence and that it's incredibly strong and an intelligent design on the other hand isn't science and doesn't offer us anything well right but we both understand that whether you're a theist a pantheist or an atheist there are different subsets descriptions in that position so not all atheists have the same perception of information correct not all feeis on the same perception so even though it doesn't necessarily lead somebody to atheism or it's or to Christianity whether we talk about intelligent design or evolution the implications of this information does tend to lead a certain individual either toward atheism away from it which has absolutely no bearing on whether or not it's correct and true and when intelligent design offers the other that it did and and I never said it did okay then I don't understand what your point is because basically what you've said is hey there's this theory and some people accept it and some people don't and while it's not necessarily tied to religion in some cases there are people who accept it and this leads them away from their religion so what that's just my facts of life well right I came in here for the direct purpose to get into that evidence for what is true well then you need like two scientists because that's not my job nor is it anything that I'm particularly interested in doing well I think you're being a bit unfair here Matt because I'm not a philosopher as well but you talk about philosophy on a regular basis how do you know I'm not a philosopher because I listen to you speak and you don't have a degree in philosophy oh so you have to have a degree in philosophy to be a philosopher no no where did the first philosophers get their degrees the point of the matter is Matt is that you speak with a lot of authority on I suppose I speak about oh no I don't speak with much authority on biology as a matter of fact I am consistently pointing out when people call in the show that the issue of evolution is not one that's relevant to whether or not a God exists that I'm not an expert on it but then they want to argue with me anyway so I tell them what I do understand and what my views are about it that's completely separate because if they're of these two fields biological sciences and philosophy there is one in which I am pretty strongly versed and another that I'm not okay well that's what the problem is Matt I mean you seem to like when you're talking to some people that seems like I'm not trying to say this to be disrespectful to you but it seems like when you're talking to some people that don't know about the topic you'll make statements like okay evolutions fat no talking about common sense okay but I'm in here I'm trying to be respectful just have a discussion with you with it I feel like you're just you're trying to avoid having the discussion with me okay what is the discussion you want to have because if you want to have a discussion that I'm not interested in we're not having it okay so all right so you alright I think this is ridiculous but how about we keep the heat on meat and about intelligent design would that be better I don't I don't need to put any heat on intelligent design it hasn't met its burden of proof and is pointless for me to sit around talking about something that hasn't actually offered anything well it has you know what the argument of the telogen design is right there's an argument for intelligent design intelligent design is an abductive army base I understand that based on ok so I mean why are you trying to say proving and all the sub stuff what are you trying to get at when you're saying that intelligent design hasn't proven something because it because it hasn't so when we're talking about for example the biological sciences there are actual scientists who go out and find in evidence who assess and evaluate that evidence who submitted up for peer review and who construct a scientific model that serves as the best current explanation of that information science as I've repeatedly said for well over a decade now doesn't make proclamations of truth which is why I don't believe you when I say when you claim that you have all these examples of me stating that this is just a fact what you probably have or examples of me saying that evolution is a fact and that the theory of evolution by natural selection is the theory that attempts to explain that fact because that is pretty much my standard answer on that but when you talk about intelligent design you don't have anybody who is doing any evidence so you have you have the wedge document you have the the Institute for Creation Research and other organizations that are similar to this who are instead of providing evidence for their position merely trying to poke holes in the current model and failing to do so yeah that's what you thought that's what I always found interesting about the intelligent design argument because it was mostly seems to be a lot of it most of most of what are words yeah it mostly seems to be centered around poking holes like you said in evolution not necessarily coming up with evidence to substantiate debt hypothesis in and of itself and so it just it was interesting to me that poking holes in evolution that will do nothing to actually further the substantiation of the claim that the theory of the shot say the hypothesis of intelligent design is correct well I would say I mean you guys set a lock there I'm gonna try to respond to each point that you made that's best I can but the first thing that you said about peer review there is a database and the intelligent design website we want to go look at their different articles what they publish against evolution and attempting to make an argument for intelligent design but I would say that because this is gonna call a causal argument we do not need a peer-reviewed article to tell us whether or not the implications of the data that intelligent design is calling it the question is true because one of the purposes for the peer review process is to help to increase scientific knowledge intelligent design is a causal argument calling it's a question previous knowledge in the past that's what is it something to do so so the very fact that it is calming on previous knowledge in the past it's it would be making calls on argument based on knowledge appealing to you know just basic information that oh mankind that is exposed to modern xiety knows and understands I will give $20 to anybody who takes that last clip from him and produces anything that makes sense or a substantive about it that was as tap-dancing as I've ever heard because to me is okay Mike my point was that intelligent design isn't actually doing so the intelligent diamond community is an actually doing scientific research that would support their claim and your argument is that doesn't matter to that boy yet oh I'm sorry I don't know what brought you we're not responding to that I was responding to you made a lot of statements and I was trying to respond to each one of them you mentioned peer-reviewed and I did these my response to peer review but I haven't gotten to that point yeah and I don't understand I don't understand how your argument in any way removes the value of peer review we're not saying that peer review is the end-all be-all there are mistakes made in everything including in journals but what I'm saying is the peer review process where people set out to replicate and confirm results I mean we know that these things go are horrible but they're the best that we've got and you're basically saying that you don't have any need for them no no we have need for the peer review process then why are you why is the intelligent design community gone out and created its own journals in order to claim that they have peer review they've created their own journals because they're not getting peer reviewed in actual respectable journals that have been around well I'll get to that right now in a second but you made another point that you just responded to me with okay so we're Han so I'd like to respond to that if I can I do not agree that well I guess it would be both abiogenesis and evolution because you have to have an established system before any of these things that intelligent design is talking about to you know end up Africa so why are you rolling abiogenesis evolution it's but what I'm saying it run why are you rolling abiogenesis into this it's not under discussion okay well if you don't want to talk about abiogenesis what I'm about to say is the relevance of evolution I do not agree with the fact that they are trying to investigate to see any of these components can actually happen through an evolutionary process I think that what a lot of the things what they're doing is they're trying to manufacture results or more so just comparing homology and declaring that one so you think the bulk of science do you think the bulk of science that has been done on evolutionary theory is just scientists intentionally manufacturing evidence to support the model now what I'm saying is that there's absolutely no evidence at all there's been no no texting no experimentation shown any amount of incremental steps and changes can build the specific structures that intelligent design calls into question like turbines motors and codes that are found inside of the cell are using the mechanisms can accumulate to those changes are you making a distinction between macro evolution and micro evolution such that you would accept a macro evolution but not mic revolution well some scientists I talk to they don't like it what I try to muddy the waters to talk about the differences between matter and light because they say that there's no distinction but I'm what I'm saying is that I I'm asking you I'm asking me run it was a simple question I'm asking you if you see a distinction and are you willing to accept one and not the other do I see a distinction of changes happening yes I see a distinction of changes happening but I see absolutely no evidence that these small changes or alterations like in proteins or whatever can accumulate over to the to the specific structures that intelligent design is calling its question there's nothing indicating that that can actually happen okay well I I don't know what to tell you then because it seems to me that you're just saying this can't happen when the bulk of scientists who actually spend their life studying this disagree with you so why don't you talk to them and not me okay well saying that a bunch of scientists agree with you is not really evidence that's exactly the connection yeah you're correct but you know what else isn't evidence saying I don't accept the bulk of what scientists have to say about this if there are two people sit in the room and one of them says here's my thing and I guess I'm going against the massive overwhelming majority of scientific experts in this field and the other person is sitting there saying here's my model and I'm going with the overwhelming majority which one do you put your money on you to want the money under when we've got the evidence I agree I agree you put the money on the one with the evidence and so which one of those two is more likely to have the evidence in any given scenario the one where the majority of scientific experts in the field are in agreement or the one that is outcast and and separate from all that majority what's going n again the one who has the evidence you cannot sit over on I ask the question the majority say someone run I asked a question in almost every situation if there's a if there's a two people standing here one of which is siding or one of the of which is a group that consists of the majority the overwhelming majority of experts in a field and the other one is an outlier most of the time which one does the evidence side with the one who got the evidence because in the past done many people it's okay if you can't answer the question honestly you don't get to claim on time dodging your conversation because I think you're aware as is everybody else that most of the time the reason the majority of scientists are amusing reason majority of experts in this field hold a position is because that is where the evidence has led the other the other possibility is that the majority of experts in a field have disregarded the evidence in favor of some bias and that we would have to demonstrate but when you try to avoid the question of most likely where does the evidence rest I'm not making assertions about absolute certainty or truth or any of that I'm just talking about a scientific model

Channel: The Atheist Experience

Views: 94,200

Rating: 4.837091 out of 5

Keywords: atheist experience, the atheist experience, theatheistexperience, atheist, atheism, atheist vs christian, atheist debate, religion debate, atheism debate, Matt Dillahunty (Broadcast Artist), belief, faith, reason, rational, proof, evidence, logic, fallacy, religion, religious, science, secular, Skepticism, skeptic, questioning god, doubt, is god real, agnostic, agnosticism, evidence for god, Christianity, Islam, morality, evidence for jesus, Jesus, Jesus Christ, debate, Bible, Bible contradictions

Id: 07V16mGP_X8

Length: 17min 15sec (1035 seconds)

Published: Mon Sep 18 2017