A Christian Scientific Perspective on Evolution (Stephen Meyer) 

God has spoken with us about time. Being our Creator, God has provided us sufficient reasoning ability to understand what He wishes for us to understand about time. Saying "God has his own interpretation of time" is merely an excuse for rejecting God's clearly presented Word. It is a strawman argument. God's Word is clear. _"For_ *in six days* _the Lᴏʀᴅ made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that is in them ..."_ - Exodus 20.11 "... in six days ..." means "in six days."

@@rubiks6 I think the question of time is more about the metaphysics, not the clarity of a written sentence in a book. Your clarification basically just states 6 equals 6, or x = x, and doesn't lead to any deeper insight for me. Can you expand?

@@goodwincek - _"Expand"?_ Creation took place exactly the way God described it in Genesis. God speaks with perspicuity. An obvious statement like "6 = 6" is often important to construct an argument. God has given us a universe with consistent laws. Therefore we can do science. I can prove to you that 1 = 2 but if you dig deep you'll discover what rule I've broken. There are many who do not believe that "six days" really means six days. ("Perspicuity" is my word for the week. I'm expanding my vocabulary.) ------------------------------- X = Y (Premise) X² = XY (Multiply by a common factor, X) X² - Y² = XY - Y² (Subtract a common term, Y²) (X + Y)(X - Y) = Y(X - Y) (Factor both sides) (X + Y) = Y (Remove common factor from both sides) Y + Y = Y (Substitute Y for X from the premise) 2Y = Y (Simplify) 2 = 1 (Remove common factor, Y)

​@@rubiks6 Exactly ... Stephen Meyer does great work in proving wrong this cornerstone of Darwinian evolution: "All life on Earth stem from a Universal Common Ancestor (UCA)." Modern science proves undisputedly that UCA could not have had the astronomical amount of different genes that would've been needed to generate all biodiversity on our planet. The UCA neither could have created qualitatively new genes through mutations, because the amount of destructive mutations are million times more frequent than useful mutations. ”Because the biggest part of mutations - if they have any effect - are harmful, their overall effect must be harmful.” [Crow, J., The high spontaneous mutation rate: Is it a health risk? Proc Natl Acad Sci 94:8380-8386, 1997.] Ohta, Kimura, Elena and others have estimated, that the proportion of useful mutations is so low that it can’t be statistically measured! [Ohta, T., Molecular evolution and polymorphism. Natl Inst Genet Mishima Japan 76:148-167, 1977.] [Kimura, M., Model of effective neutral mutaitons in which selective constraint is incorporated. PNAS 76:3440-3444, 1979.] [Elena, S.F. et al, Distribution of fitness effects caused by random insertion mutations in E. Coli. Gentetica 102/103:349-358, 1998.] Science doesn't know evolutionary beneficial mutations that transform the body plan of any given organism. All known mutations have been non-structural. New species however can not appear without big structural changes in the anatomy of the existing species. This said, I do not believe in theistic evolution. Namely, if Lord created all through millions of years of death and suffering (evolution), Christ's self-sacrifice would've been unnecessary since sin would not be the cause for suffering and death. Suffering and death would be just "business as usual". That again would refer to atheism or to a cruel god - not to Jesus Christ.

"For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities-his eternal power and divine nature-have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse." - Romans 1:20. You might be ok with your "religion", but God is not, I truly advise you to seek him - and find him - "You will seek me and find me, when you seek me with all your heart. I will be found by you, declares the LORD" - Jeremiah 29:13 -" All those the Father gives me will come to me, and whoever comes to me I will never drive away." John 6:37. Stay blessed.

How does he reconcile every Biblical Hebrew scholar saying the Hebrew in Genesis is communicating six 24 hour days? How much more clear does God have to be, and how many more pains does he have to take after he repeats himself six times saying "and there was evening, and there was morning", thus defining the length of the day for us.

@@scottb4579 seems he doesnt study his bible as much as science. At very least, he doesnt truely understand faith. Faith in the "Word" prevents deception. I know what God meant by 'day", because I have Faith. God is not of confusion, unless you believe man's commentary. Gods Word is clear...do we have faith, or do we believe those who lack faith? Lacking faith, they decieve themselves.

@@dannymccarty344 I think the fear of man also plays a part here. Too many of our degreed and highly educated brothers and sisters want to have respect from the world. They may fear loss of respect for taking a position where they actually believe what God has said. And they would most certainly be the recipients of vicious insults for publicly standing on the truth in God's Word, as well as loss of grant money, jobs, and membership in professional societies.

Hebrew for day has 4 distinct meanings Dr. Meyer is using one of them correctly. Look: Genesis 2:4 KJV - These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens, "In the day..." Same Hebrew word, 'yom.' Everything was created in one day?!? Context is important to interpretation.

Uranium 238 decaying into Lead is a well understood science. Magic and wizards IS NOT going to refute hard science. 4.6 billion years old. Case closed

Ideas about religion beginning when the first scoundrel met the first fool began when the last indoctrinated philosopher met the last fool.

@@TrevoltIV It takes gullibility to consider sacred the claim that an invisible man gave birth to himself via virgin birth to sacrifice & resurrect himself to forgive a petty fruit eating mishap in order to save you from a hell & give you heavenly eternal life. It takes motivated ignorance & arrogance to believe the burden of disproving the claim is on those who are not gullible.

@@AtamMardes And it doesn’t take gullibility to believe we came from an explosion of nothingness billions of years ago? Right, I’ll stick to intellectual honesty.

@@TrevoltIV You stick to whatever you want, but it's not intellectually honest to consider sacred the claim that an invisible man gave birth to himself via virgin birth to sacrifice & resurrect himself to forgive a petty fruit eating mishap in order to save you from a hell & give you heavenly eternal life.

@@TrevoltIV You stick to whatever you want, but it's not intellectually honest to consider sacred the claims like invisible beings, talking snake / donkey, sin-salvation, demon pigs, 900 yrs old man, virgin birth, walking on water, turning water into wine, resurrection, flying chariots of fire, curses, levitation into clouds, etc.

Nope. Causality is emergent.

@@freddan6fly Not without a precedent trigger factor.

@@freddan6fly Emergent from what? Its cause? Emergent has to be among the silliest terms in current intellectual discourse.

@@Joseph-cu8dk " Not without a precedent trigger factor." - wrong. That is not correct.

@@andrewjohnson8232 Ops, my answer with scientific papers got censored. Emergent from quantum fields. No causality. Experiment suggestion Scully and Druhl 1986 Experiment 1999 by Kim, Kulik, Shin, Scully "Delayed choise quantum eraser" Explanation 1, 2008 "Causality as an emergent macroscopic phenomenon: The Lee-Wick O(N) model"

He’s been laying out the evidence for years. I’m surprised you haven’t seen it.

@@lorendjones I have seen him pretend to have evidence. Give me an example of the evidence he has provided.

@@cygnusustus the coding sequences within DNA are evidence for intelligent design. Have you ever looked a computer program and debated whether it evolved spontaneously or was created by some intelligent source? I'm guessing no. There are a virtually limitless number of similar systems within nature that are equally complex. To assume they appeared spontaneously requires a level of faith I haven't been able to muster.

@@lorendjones " the coding sequences within DNA are evidence for intelligent design" In fact, they are not. They are evidence for evolution. We find nested hierarchies across species DNA. We do not find this in computer code, but it is completely expected under evolution. " Have you ever looked a computer program and debated whether it evolved spontaneously or was created by some intelligent source?" I am an IT professional. I've been writing code for 40 years. " I'm guessing no." Just another example of your ignorance, I guess. "There are a virtually limitless number of similar systems within nature that are equally complex. " Only the ignorant think complexity is a hallmark of design. "To assume they appeared spontaneously requires a level of faith I haven't been able to muster." Child, YOU are the one who assumes they appeared spontaneously. Literally. So...fail. Got anything else?

@@lorendjones I don't assume based on faith. That is your weakness, not mine. I conclude based on evidence.

All of us make metaphysical assumptions all the time, including scientific materialists. The matter assume as a matter of course that their brains are organs of correct apperception of reality, even though that is not provably true. They assume that their brains are adequate organs to interpret the world. But nothing in science can tell us what consciousness is; maybe dreams are real and what we call “wakeful states” are not real. Maybe our brains evolved badly, as per Nathan Lents’ stupid “Human Errors” book. Maybe we are all bugs sitting on leaves but are deceived to believe otherwise.

No. Next stupid question?

@@cygnusustus OK so you must disagree with people who just define evolution as "change". Otherwise, you would just have to be illogical.

@The Reaction What idiots define evolution as "change"? Oh, you mean Christians.

What's a "kind"?

@@Jewonastick You allready know what a kind is if not try a dictionary.

@@mrshankerbillletmein491 the term "kind" is not a scientific classification. That's why I asked you to explain what you think it is.

No he didn't! Dogs were bred by man from wolves. We have many breeds of dogs, from great Dane to toy pom. We see the same in agriculture, all evolved with the guidance of humans. In nature evolution is guided by the changing environment.

@@Jewonastick To bring forth is not a scientific term but we all know what it means its plain english.

There is no "god's word". Your bible is nothing more than fairy tales written by men about a phony god.

I obviously live in a different universe than you. The Code of Life written on dna is proof. Man has been studying it for decades and it is amazing. Naturalism claims it came about by chance. In my mind that is ridiculous. It's like saying the works of Shakespeare came about by natural means.

The scientific consensus in the Garden of Eden was that we should taste the fruit God had forbidden. Were they right? Every human being that existed thought it was a good thing to reject God's Word.

We disagree. And we have the same access to the same data that your experts have access to. It’s a matter of interpretation. The problem is that evolution defined as the change in the genetic makeup of a population time is a biological fact. However. Evolution defined as the phylogenetic tree of life back to single-celled organisms is a myth. If you want to play argumentum ad verecundiam, look up Gunter Bechly PhD videos and articles on the fossil record. Look up Third Way Evolution. Your side is desperate for a new synthesis since natural selection and random mutation can’t get you the phylogenetic tree of life.

Nonsense ... Evolutionists are unable to tell how evolution could even have started. Evolution according to Wikipedia means: 1. Evolutionary processes produce diversity on every level of the biological hierarchy, including the level of species, the level of organisms and the level of molecular evolution. 2. All life on Earth stem from a Universal Common Ancestor (UCA) which lived about 3,5 - 3,8 billion years ago. Point 1 is correct, but only if we speak of limited adaptive variation within the species. That is not evolution in the Darwinian sense where all life stem from UCA. Point 2 is just an assumption, not a scientific fact. UCA is not verified by any known scientific method. Fossil records do not show gradation from one species to other species. Each species has its typical genes and they can usually not successfully mix with genes of another species, let alone with a species belonging to a different taxonomic genus. Each species has its own typical body plan. It hasn’t been scientifically proven to transform into a different body plan like i.e. fish getting genes for living on land. It can’t happen and no time frame can change that fact. According to evolutionists, the UCA is supposed to have been a simple cell. Science however does not know simple cells, they are all complicated. But if we accept that there was UCA, it would've had the impossible task to produce evolution while working against the evolution theory ... According to the theory, evolution needs natural selection. Natural selection needs variations in the organisms, so that the fittest survive and the less fit go extinct. The UCA however could've produced mere clones of itself. No sexual reproduction, no variation, nothing for nature to select - no evolution. An evolutionist theory: "Sometimes DNA will copy itself incorrectly or will copy the same piece of code twice etc... this is what causes new information in DNA." This is exactly as if you tried to prove, that a virus in a computer program causes "new information" to the program. If evolution existed, it would continuously need unforeseen new genes. But there are no such new genes. Mutations as "gene factories" is a wild fantasy evolutionists have invented to save the evolution theory. Evolutionists like to pass Point 2 when they are dealing with seasoned creationists. Why? Because there is no sign that birds, insects, mice, fish etc. would be changing to something else than birds, insects, mice, fish etc. Their genes simply don't allow it and never have allowed it. Surely there is natural selection. Natural selection however can't generate evolution. In fact it generates devolution. Natural selection COULD produce evolution if it COULD deliver to the survivors such qualitatively new genes that are not already found in the population. Natural selection however delivers nothing, it just destroys individuals who have less suitable genes for the environment where they live. The winners must go on with the genes they have. In the long run they can copulate only with other winners (the less fit are dead or become too rare) which means that on population level gene pool gets specialized i.e. impoverished. This is adaptation, not evolution! It is good for a while, but the specialized genomes make a more one-sided gene pool than the gene pool of the original population. When the living conditions change again, the highly specialized population suffers and goes extinct. We can observe that natural selection creates adaptation through gene loss, through devolution not evolution. That's why millions of species have already gone extinct and this process continues incessantly. All ”evolutionary” processes are in fact devolution processes, as each new subspecies has less genetic variety than its stem species (like in dealing a deck of cards). This fact makes impossible for any subspecies to create the path that would lead to new taxonomic genera or new taxonomic families i.e. to evolution. Mutations bringing new genetic information is an absurd theory, not proved by any scientific method. “Because no scientist can show how Darwin’s mechanism can produce the complexity of life, every scientist should be skeptical,” said biologist Douglas Axe, director of Biologic Institute.“ evolutionnews.org/2019/02/skepticism-about-darwinian-evolution-grows-as-1000-scientists-share-their-doubts/ Evolutionary theory is all but dead as discussed at the Royal Society's conference "New Trends in Evolutionary Biology" in London in November 2016. Austrian evolutionary theorist Gerd Müller said there, “the neo-Darwinian paradigm still represents the central explanatory framework of evolution, as represented by recent textbooks. [However] It has no theory of the generative.” In other words, the neo-Darwinian mechanism of mutation and natural selection lacks the creative power to generate the novel anatomical traits and forms (new body plans) of life that have arisen during the history of life. Yet, as Müller noted, neo-Darwinian theory continues to be presented to the public via textbooks as the canonical understanding of how new living forms arose. Source - evolutionnews.org/2016/12/why_the_royal_s/

I just have to really admire your optimism and idealistic view of things.

@radix133 sadly, nothing optimistic about science force-feeding facts and truth into our brains, and nothing idealistic about staring reality in the face.

Do you read Hebrew? "Let there be light." is not a creation act but a command for light (already existing) to appear. If it's from God's perspective (Holy Spirit) it could be the light breaking through to the earth allowing life. Check out Hugh Ross on this.

@eswn1816 No, i don't read Hebrew but "let there be light" is consistent with The Creator, Who is light. Then you make a surmise: "it could be the light breaking through..." So? Are you saying "therefore billions of years were needed"? I don't put any faith in Hugh Ross. My faith is in God's Word and even though i don't read Hebrew (do you?) there are many tools available today to help out. Plus a few brave souls like you around who point us in the right direction. ♡♡♡ But, God doesn't need one day, let alone billions of years, to make anything He wants. It seems He did it over seven days to make a point: "I AM"...

@@chrisneeds6125 Literal 7 days... But light is the Creator??? You're not too big on consistentcy. Nice chatting... 🙏

@eswn1816 I enjoyed it too; may you have an awesome life shining His light into this dark world 😁😀😊☺

Okay, why not expose the lies and make your claim? A response like this is empty without your citations and refutations.

@@thedynamicsolo4232 Your obvious failure of the education system is enough..please elaborate on how personal opinions from ignorance are going to refute a Scientific Theory firmly rooted in the Scientific Method and fully supported by the other fields of science. Evolution is also considered a fact due to the popondreance of evidence

@@thedynamicsolo4232 Evolution IS also considered Admissible Evidence and creation is NOT, In a court of law

@@thedynamicsolo4232 Also you can cite historical accuracy for your Moses character before claiming that he wrote, witnessed, heard, did ,said, etc anything.

@@thedynamicsolo4232 So you've crawled back into your hole of ignorance it appears

Atheistic science?

@@Jewonastick The lies of a big bang and evolution theory, with only one purpose : to deny God

@@Jewonastick "Atheistic science?" - All science. Stephen Meyer is paid by Discovery Institute to #LieForJesus

If you knew your Bible, you wouldn't believe it.

@@cygnusustus I know my bible very well, what's your problem ?

And how would one do that? Use the bible for evaluating data in light of its scientific hypothesis? If A + reagent B = C (hypothesis) Test result ... C Therefore, we state, the result C confirms the hypothesis. Let's try the bible as tool, eh? Test result ... C. Therefore, goddidit. Yep that's really helpfull, that really explains it.

@@lizadowning4389 - Will your chemistry book tell us when and how the Earth was formed? Can your chemistry book tell me how to train my puppy to stay? Can your chemistry book tell us why men are evil and how that will be dealt with? Your chemistry book fails. You seem to have made some category errors. What the Bible speaks about, it speaks about truly. If the Bible tells us there was a worldwide flood, there was a worldwide flood. Interpret the evidence based on that narrative. If the Bible tells us all creatures were created within a two day period, all the creatures were created within a two day period. Interpret the evidence based on that narrative. Was that helpful?

@@rubiks6 You: "Will your chemistry book tell us when and how the Earth was formed?" Yep, chemosynthesis, or in physics, thermonuclear fusion inside stars lead to the formation of heavier elements. When those stars die, they catapult all that debri into space which then gradually cloths together under gravity. That's how planets are formed and trapped in an orbit around stars, just like our earth and the sun. You: "If the Bible tells us there was a worldwide flood, there was a worldwide flood. Interpret the evidence based on that narrative." Yet no evidence in support of a world wide flood has been found. So how would one evaluate when there's nothing to evaluate? This is nothing but presuppositionalism. Regardless of what your biblical narratives state, the evidence should be there if the narrative is factual. Since the evidence is nowhere found, the narrative is not factual but fictional. You: "If the Bible tells us all creatures were created within a two day period, all the creatures were created within a two day period. Interpret the evidence based on that narrative." Where is the evidence that all creatures were created within 2 days? You really think that a written account of ignorant bronze age men is sufficient? Let's just all believe for truth whatever has been written over time. Why bother looking for verifiable evidence if you have an ancient manuscript written by unknown men, eh.

Nope. The bible should be tossed out because it is bullshit from cover to cover. Science works from evidence, not from your mythology.

Why?

The relationship between Christianity and modern science is historically indisputable. But don't let that put you off (your kind never let facts do so, why start now?) and give us a real laugh: Give us one achievement of atheism. Just one will do. Here, I'll help: We owe to atheism... Or perhaps you could start: If not for atheism we would not... Continue. Go ahead. Let's have a proper laugh.

@@andrewjohnson8232 we owe nothing to Christianity in the first place. We do owe a lot to science though, including knowledge on how to make the device you were typing your message on. The whole point is that science is willing to review it's assumptions when evidence points to the need to do so. For instance, we changed our views on the place of the earth in the universe multiple times, based on evidence. Even the nature of space and time itself is under scrutiny. That takes us further, not sticking to the words in an old book, written by humans who had no access to current insights and evidence. That is why I laughed at christian science, it is a contradiction in terms.

@@WoutervanJoolingen You haven't engaged my question, simply repeated a bunch of mantras. When you begin with a statement as disingenuous or impossibly uninformed as we owe nothing to Christianity, how can anything you say be taken seriously? I said the historical relationship between Christianity and modern science is indisputable. You went on to appeal to examples of that very relationship. The scientific method you describe was defined and initiated by devout Christians such as Roger Bacon and Francis Bacon. The mathematical modelling of heliocentrism was achieved and refined by devout Christians, Copernicus, Kepler, Galilei. All of whom made contributions to Christian theology. How much do these devices we now use owe to Newton, Liebniz, Orsted, Faraday? Care to look it up and their writings on Christian theology while you're at it? Want to know the key to modern science? The Christian assumption that the world is an intelligent and therefore intelligible creation. And there is a darker side to the unique success of modern science in the West. The violent expurgation of paganism and pantheism denounced as witchcraft, left empiricism with its uncontested and historically unprecedented authority within Western academic thought. Your comment on the Bible is again simply mantra.Anything written in any book finds its value only when tested against the world, and against personal experience, nothing written could have any meaning otherwise. "Let there be light.." "male and female created he them... and called their name Adam (of the earth)" "...the living know they shall die, but the dead know not anything" "He stretcheth the north over the empty place, and hangeth the Earth upon nothing". "Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends". "And though I have the gift of prophecy, and understand all mysteries and all knowledge, and though I have all faith so that I could remove mountains, but have not love, I am nothing". The Bible does OK when tested against the world, well enough to be the single most influential cultural artefact in all world history.

So blissful ignorance is a basis for a worldview? Interesting. 🤔

@@lorendjones "So blissful ignorance is a basis for a worldview? " Where did I say that, child?

@@cygnusustus yes, it is childlike to not contemplate that question.

@@lorendjones Where did I say not to contemplate that question? Sorry, but at this point I have to dismisses you as being incapable of honest conversation. Let me know when you are ready to defend your beliefs, child.

Then they’re not much of a scientist since skepticism is the true hallmark of scientific inquiry.

The problem is that randomness is not observed. Logic and all observations dictates a causal chain. That doesn’t posit a creator, but it does deny randomness as cause. Rhymes with "there is no free will"

@Loren Jones You don't understand what skepticism is, child. It is not the denial of evidence.

@@alankwellsmsmba Randomness is observed, but evolution does not depend on randomness. So your reply was truly uninformed.

@@cygnusustus obviously it is in your case, child.

Well said!