Is Evolution a Theory? | Reasonable Faith Podcast 

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.

"... he's a young earth creationist." "Ahhh 😔"

God form man from Dust but according to WLC he form them from Monkeys.

Does Dr. Craig believe in Intelligent Design theory?

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.

WLC needs to talk to David Berlinski.

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.

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.

I seem to remember, from a long time ago, that he used to make fun of the idea of evolution. How times have changed!

Mendell was way ahead of Darwin he saw amazing adaptations designs off the chart to me giving god all the glory.

What is biblical creation (Craig asks)?!! Has he not read Genesis Chapter 1?!! ... "And God created them EACH AFTER THEIR OWN KIND" ... which is the very definition of groups of creatures being created that were NOT genetically connected!!!!! He then says that such creation "sounds like magic"!! WHAT?!! Does Craig not believe the God is God? Does Craig not believe that the God who can do a miracle of raising a dead Jesus to life again doesn't have the power to create the world and the universe OUT OF NOTHING?! What is Craig's faith based on? Science only? If so, then he will have to devise a scientific (only) explanation for Christ's resurrection. ALL of evolution's tenants are easily debunked. Craig has MUCH more studying he needs to do on this topic.

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.

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.

Did you know that one of the commercials while watching this video was a mormon come join us! Video.

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.

'Out of thin air '.... Dr Craig is not even trying to be honest at times it seems.... he's loosing his regard for honesty in order to support his theories.... reprobation in progress it seems.....i hope he lays all this pseudoscience aside for few years and check himself

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.

I would love a skull on my bookshefl too :3

Isn't what raised Jesus from the dead technically a theory. We know it, if sticking to the books, Jesus made some claims and it points to God/It as the explanation for how Jesus resurrected and how He was assumed back into the Nature Maker but is that just man trying to describe it all in human terms...like when man thinka he stands outside evolution?

It is a theory, but a stupid one.

What if God didn't just "poof" things into creation but made them out of the surrounding environment?

There is no evidence for one species evolving into another. The intermediary whale was the wrong age to be intermediary. Hugh Ross and Reasons to Believe give a fantastic theory that is both consistent with the Bible and nature (which shows an old earth).

Duuur, "that sounds more like magic than the God of the bible" Yeah, like when he brought water from a rock, or split the sea, or the list goes on. Listen dude, you don't want us to get snarky with you, don't deal it out.

William lane Craig is top three heroes of the faith for me, and has a tremendous impact on how I think. I do have to say though, his arguments for evolution have always felt misguided to me. I may be wrong, but I sense that he has fear of looking like a fool if he were to take seriously the alternative to his beliefs.

I offer my condolences to the family. Dr. Craig is now defending the dumb theory of evolution. Shame.

Stephen c Meyer would destroy this terrible common descent crap

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.

Dr. Craig’s expression at “young earth”. 😂

I am a Christian and evolution is true.

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?

I love this longer stuff. Thank you

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.

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)

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.

Tell me Christian evo’s , you teach mutations are good for mankind. Tell the mothers. We shake our heads.

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.

William Lane Craig. Always making a mockery of Christianity. You should be ashamed.

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.”?

I listened to the podcast already. On youtube it's nice to see the video and read what others think.

One of the best discussion so far on evolution. Thank you Dr. Craig ❤🎉

This was one of the best discussions on this subject I've ever come across on the internet. Thank you!

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

He looks a little like David Lee Roth

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

I think WLC misses the dates for the EES. Its only recently being embraced in the last 15 years not in the 80's.

A guy who chased his dreams of study his entire lifetime. How I wish I could thrive just learning all the time. Really glad Dr. Craig is doing these interviews.

You are making the same mistake that Darwin did. Breeding cattle and livestock depend upon intelligent intervention to produce new strains, this is not natural selection, and this was a relatively minor adaption, they didn't "evolve" into anything other than more cows. We still have no evidence that cows, Bos taurus and Bos indicus, came from anything other than Bos taurus and Bos indicus. Cow have an amazing digestive system. Cattle have one large stomach with four compartments; the rumen, reticulum, omasum, and abomasum. The rumen is the largest compartment and it harbours the most important parts of the microbiome. The reticulum, the smallest compartment, is known as the "honeycomb". The omasum's main function is to absorb water and nutrients from the digestible feed. The abomasum has a similar function to the human stomach. There is absolutely no evolutionary evidence to show where this remarkable digestive system came from, except other cows. However, you are assuming that new genetic material is introduced into these breeds. No, only certain genetic strains are selected, and these have certain biochemical limits. I'm going to waste my time further and present some facts for you, logic. but it will probably prove to be of no avail. . but it will probably prove to be of no avail. No one is contesting adaption and variation within certain limits, or clades, but using the argument that since dogs and wolves and chihuahuas have a common ancestor, then by extrapolation bananas and pine trees and kangaroos also have a common ancestor is similar to the logic that if I begin jogging and in my first month I can jog a mile in 12 minutes, and after jogging for six months I can jog or run a mile in six minutes, then after a year I should be able to run a mile in one minute. There are certain biological limits to change, there are parameters. You may through selective manipulation grow a larger peanut, or a larger grape or apple, but you will never succeed in growing a 200 lb peanut, or a peanut that would have an orange peel on it's surface. All of the major phyla appear suddenly in the Cambrian layer with no transitional ancestors from different species. Darwin in his two books of fables, The Origin of Species and Descent of Man, failed to document the so-called evolution from ape to man. He had no evidence for it. Darwin did not document one single instance in his Origin of Species or his Descent of Man of any evolutionary transition from one species to another. He also provided no fossil evidence for evolution and admitted that also. He did propose that flying fish might have turned into birds. If you want to believe in that type of nonsense suite yourself, but don't call it science, and don't insult the lineage of true scientists such as Helmholtz, Faraday, Pasteur, Newton, Lister, Leonardo da Vinci, Copernicus, Tycho Brahe, Johannes Kepler, John Bainbridge, Bonaventura Cavalieri, Christiaan Huygens, Isaac Newton, Thomas Wright, Johan Maurits Mohr, Pierre-Simon Laplace, John Albery, William Thomson, 1st Baron Kelvin, and so many other real scientists who produced real Laws of science and gave us real workable equations with your Darwin, who was a poor student in school and never came close to obtaining a scientific degree.

Dr. Craig, I don't think God will be impressed with you calling him a liar, good luck when you are stood before him.

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.

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.

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.

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.

I think perhaps both of these guys might be missing at least one nut! 😭... And his modern definition of the word theory what's destiny what's definitely installed by those who wish the rest of us to give credibility to theories... "Tested and proved"... Assumed to "fit together".... To prove a broader phenomena? 🥴🥴 " Let me see if I can cobble enough BS together to get people to buy my snake oil! "🤣👍

you can not have a historical Adam and Eve with evolution. And these guys just showed their ignorance.

Mmm. The arguments presented here in favor of evolution are un-convincing.

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 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'll demonstrate the common ancestor as a genetically superior creature in my video 'Begining of understanding ' My claim is transmutation by electrical process My channel is dedicated to giving examples of this

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.)

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..

18:04 literally just assertion without evidence and argument from authority. This guy is supposed to be a scholar???

HGT makes common ancestry difficult

Jesus changed water into wine without using grapes, so the wine did “ pop up” into existence.

15:36 Dr. Craig isn’t that what God did with man? Or are you saying that mankind evolved?

Micro evolution seems true but not Macro.

It was a religious apologist which gives him less credibility than a scientist or a biblical scholar. I don't care what the opinion of a young earth creationist is on the scientific theory of evolution. I like how these non scientific religious apologists. Try to educate scientists on what scientific theories are and are not.

Moore Michelle Johnson Ronald Brown Larry

Yes mutation rate for perfect adaptation to the environment again Mendel pondered. E=MC2

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?

19:17 God created all animals at the start of creation. He didn’t make dinosaurs later in time 😂

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?

How can people still believe in this religious nonsense ????

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.

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".

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.

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.

Would Not " THOSE EVIDENCES & SIMILARITIES" ALSO Be ANSWERED BY THE POINTING TO THAT THEY HAVE JUST 1(ONE) COMMON (the SAME) CREATOR ( GOD) !!! Ya THINK .REATEDFrom A COMMON CREATOR!!! INCREDIBLE KNOWLEDGE &

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

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.

There’s thousands of transitional species

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.

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

Asking Craig if evolution is a theory is as reasonable as asking an evolutionary biologist if Jesus was God. Not their area of expertise.

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.

17:03 Did it take Jesus millions of years to convert the water to wine, or a few days or was it instant?

I want one of these shirts :(

To say the earth is millions or billions of years old is scientifically indefensible.

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!)

where did Bill get his PhD in evolutionary biology?

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.

Extremely disappointing to hear Dr. Craig's faith in evolution. You simply cannot express belief in the Bible and also disregard what it teaches about the beginnings of man. The idea of shared ancestry is at odds with the Biblical record of man's creation: Genesis 2:7 KJV And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul. Genesis 2:21-22 KJV And the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, and he slept: and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof; [22] And the rib, which the LORD God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man. You can certainly point to genetic similarities and come up with the idea that God used a "template" approach to creation, rather than evolution. And in case you're wondering - I am NOT a young Earth creationist. The Bible teaches separate ages of the Earth preceding, and without distorting, the 7 day account in Gen. 1.

This is where Dr Craig flies off the deep end, I'm shocked he argues that "similarity, therefore descendance." Because 2 things are similar says nothing about whether one "descended" from the other, this is as fallacious as claiming correlation therefore causation. I could argue that because I have 100% particle similarity with a Chlorine gas (we both have protons, neutrons and electrons), therefore I came from Chlorine gas. It is absurd. Commonalities in DNA, and even the building blocks of our universe, point to a common creator, and say nothing bout us "coming" from it. If Dr. Craig wants to think a jellyfish is his great grandad, go for it, but I'll put my faith in the BIble.

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.

So who is right, Darwin or Jesus?

Am I the only one who looks at their bookshelves for nuggets?! 😅

I find it quite sad that WLC has abandoned the God revealed truth of creation from the Holy Scriptures. Equally sad is his illogical belief that Biblical special creation does not adequately describe all seven of his claims that “evolution is true.” Common features, for example, are satisfied by recognition of a common Designer, who expertly “reused” workable physical designs in multiple creatures. “Evolution” is nothing more than a godless religious belief based on speculation and conjecture… a system of “everything happened just so” stories with no basis in actual objective, observable science.