Joe Rogan Confronted With A Logical Case For GOD

all right the clip that we're about to watch includes a conversation between Joe Rogan and Stephen Meyer I'm gonna let him get into it I'm gonna give you some of my thoughts on the back end respect to Joe Rogan for letting him come on and respect to Stephen Meyer for saying yes and laying it out here we go let's go ahead and dive in I later found what I think are very very persuasive arguments both philosophically and scientifically the thing that really convinced me as a university student doing uh studying philosophy was an argument known as the argument from epistemological necessity the fundamental question in modern philosophy that has really just been a stumper and has led to this whole post-modern turn where people don't think there's no objective basis for any reality is the the question of the reliability of the human mind on what basis can we trust the way our minds process all that sensory information this goes back to to Hume and Kant and some of the philosophers and the uh Enlightenment period and from that point forward there was a great doubt maybe we can't trust our minds maybe we can't trust we have all these things we assume about reality in order to make sense about reality that every cause has an effect for example um but we can't prove those things we have to use those assumptions in order to know anything at all and the the I encountered this argument that suggested well if if we try to justify our ability to know the the world around us by um by empirical data by things we observe this was hume's argument you can't do it uh if we we uh he was a radical empiricist and found that in order to make any sense of the of the sense in presence he had he had to presuppose the uniformity of nature but to prove the uniformity of nature he had to make reference to sensory observations and so he was arguing in a circle and so it came down you couldn't justify the reliability of assumptions we the the we make in our minds by observing the world you had to use those assumptions to make sense of the observations but if you presupposed that our minds were made by a benevolent Creator who gave us those assumptions in order to make sense of the world that he also made then there was a principle of Correspondence between the way the Mind worked and the way the world worked in which case we could trust the the basic reliability of the mind and this turns out to be one of the key foundational assumptions that gave rise to modern science it was called the idea of intelligibility Newton Boyle Kepler the great founders of modern science thought that they that nature had secrets to reveal there were patterns there to be revealed that we could understand because our minds had been made in the image of the same rational Creator who had built rationality and design and pattern and lawful order into the world do you believe in evolution I believe in uh well that's a I believe in microevolution I believe that there are real evolutionary processes I'm skeptical about what's called Universal common dissent the idea that all living forms have evolved from one single common ancestor I'm profoundly skeptical a skeptical about chemical Evolution the idea that the non-living chemicals in a Prebiotic Ocean or Prebiotic soup arrange themselves to form the first living cell and I'm also skeptical about the creative power of the mutation selection mechanism which as it happens uh so are many leading evolutionary biologists today I attended a conference in 2016 at the Royal convened by the Royal Society uh in London Royal Society being the oldest and most August scientific body in the world it was convened by a group of evolutionary biologists who were essentially dissatisfied with neo-darwinism the standard textbook theory that we learn in um in all high school and college textbooks and many of them were saying we need a new theory of evolution the first talk at that conference was given by gerd Mueller a prominent Austrian evolutionary biologist and he simply enumerated the five major uh what he called explanatory deficits of neo-darwinism and his basic perspective was the mutation selection mechanism does a good job of of uh optimizing or modifying pre-existing forms um it can generate small-scale variation but it does a very poor job of explaining the origin of those forms think about for example the Darwin's Finch Peaks great job of explaining how variations in weather patterns result in changes in the shape and structure of the finch Peaks but that mechanism turns out not to do a good job of explaining the origin of birds or other major animal groups in the first place so modify education yes innovation no so modification over massive amounts of time don't you think that would eventually lead to new groups before we get the answer to that question I have to say I just I love seeing Joe Rogan kind of sitting here taking it all in and I love what you get when he brings on an actual scientist onto his show who is coming from a theistic perspective because a question like do you believe in evolution is I don't want to call it a leading question but it's a overly simplified question and I love the response that Stephen Meyer gives here which doesn't give a you know a direct answer to that question because the question is literally too broad to be sensical so rather he explains the limiting factors within what most people mean when they mean Evolution which is microevolution meaning kind turning into different kind and he's saying when he's getting into Darwin finches here that doesn't happen we haven't seen any actual scientific evidence of kind turning into different kind we've seen microevolution think about dogs you know wolves turning into all the different types of dogs but we have literally zero evidence of kind turning into kind and I love that he approaches it the way that he does that being said why am I still talk let's get back to Stephen Meyer because a lot of new groups have they have similar origins or at least Origins from uh one ancestor well time time is yeah time was always the hero of the plot but let me they're cup let me just run a couple of arguments by it and let's see what you think okay and I I developed these in a lot of detail in my book Darwin's doubt um uh if we we uh we now know thanks to the genetic Revolution the the molecular biological Revolution that if you want to build a new form of life you have at least you have to have new code because all all new forms of life depend upon uh new anatomical a fundamentally new type of type of animal for example so you need new anatomical structures from but the new anatomical structures require new cell types new types of if you've got animals that first come online have and they have they have a digestive system they have a gut well you got to have enzymes that can service a gut that can process food so enzymes are types of proteins proteins are built from the informational code and DNA so anytime you want to get a new it's just like in the computer world if you want to give your computer a new function you've got to provide new code so we have these long string these long digital bit strings uh ACS G's and T's not zeros and ones but ACS G's and T's in a in a in a digital string and we call that a gene and if you have a section of DNA for building a protein that's great all works now but if you want to build a fundamentally a new form of life you gotta have you gotta have new proteins to surface the new cell types to build the new anatomical structures um in our computer world we know that if you start randomly changing the zeros and ones in a section of genetic in a section of digital code you're going to degrade the function of that code long before you come up with a new string for making a new program or operating system the the functional sequences are what are they're called they're highly isolated in what's called sequence space you you can change a few things and still retain function but after a very few number of changes you're going to degrade the function and long before you come up with a new function now the darwinian mechanism starts with the idea that there are random changes in those in those digital bit strings those sequences of ACS G's and T's and based on our experience in the computer world we would expect that random changes are going to again degrade those strings long before they're capable of building a new protein what is so interesting about this conversation is that the more that you actually study and learn about the complexity of Life the complexity of the cell the complexity of DNA the more that it becomes apparent that we're nowhere close to for example being able to create life out of non-life and there's actually been literally now thousands of experiments that have been conducted trying to do just that trying to create even the most basic form of life Darwin himself said that if the cell is more complicated than a billiard ball than the theory of macroevolution is not true we now know that the cell is full of literally hundreds of mechanisms within it hundreds of different independent moving parts that each require the other one in order for the whole to be able to function and in fact in fact I was just listening to another person called James tour who I can link in the description description as well and James tour is on The Cutting Edge of nanotechnology and what he is now uh talking about is the fact that the more that we learn about the complexity of the cell the more that the goal post actually shift in terms of us ever being able to create something like that on our own so we learn more we realize we think for example five years ago we thought were maybe I don't know 20 to 30 years away from being able to do this now five years later we realized we're like a hundred years away from being able to do this the more that we learn the more intricacy and complexity that we see the more complexity that we see the more that we realize that there is some type of a intelligence embedded within the very fabric of life itself and that I'm going to go ahead and speculate here I don't think that we're ever going to be able to do it because there is this Divine fingerprint that exists at the heart of creation that is not able to be reproduced by man there is like what he said in the same way that you see a code inside of a computer you see this DNA code inside of inside of genes instead of the genetic pool you see this DNA code where does that code come from that's information where does information come from does it come from matter or is it more likely that it comes from a mind and there we are back to the man upstairs all this being said I hope you guys enjoyed this video like subscribe comment all the things and I'll see you guys in the next one thank you

Channel: Daily Dose Of Wisdom

Views: 946,604

Keywords:

Id: GURTd2_engk

Length: 11min 0sec (660 seconds)

Published: Sat Aug 05 2023