Home Biblical Worldview Biblical Worldview The Return of the God Hypothesis: Interview with Stephen Meyer
Biblical Worldview

The Return of the God Hypothesis: Interview with Stephen Meyer

43
45
0



Is God dead? Where does the scientific evidence point? Despite proclamations to the contrary, evidence is emerging that firmly points to the existence of a cosmic Designer. I interview Dr. Stephen Meyer, author of The Return of the God Hypothesis. Join us and ask live questions!

READ: The Return of the God Hypothesis (http://www.arn.org/docs/meyer/sm_returnofgod.pdf)

SUBSCRIBE TO THE CHANNEL:
https://www.youtube.com/user/Seanmcdo…

*Get a MASTERS IN APOLOGETICS or SCIENCE AND RELIGION at BIOLA (https://bit.ly/3LdNqKf)

*USE Discount Code [SMDCERTDISC] for $100 off the BIOLA APOLOGETICS CERTIFICATE program (https://bit.ly/3AzfPFM)

*See our fully online UNDERGRAD DEGREE in Bible, Theology, and Apologetics: (https://bit.ly/448STKK)

FOLLOW ME ON SOCIAL MEDIA:
Twitter: https://twitter.com/Sean_McDowell
TikTok: @sean_mcdowell
Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/seanmcdowell/

source

Click to rate this post!
[Total: 0 Average: 0]
Post Views: 45
Tags bookdiscoveryDNAevidenceevolutionHistoryinformationinterviewproofsciencestephen meyers
Previous Post
1704826230_maxresdefault.jpg

Reopening Virginia: Gov. Allen on What’s Next

Next Post
1715785301_maxresdefault.jpg

CHALKBOARD: President Obama involved with ILLEGAL Trump, FBI investigation & Michael Flynn takedown

Related posts

Leave your comment

43 Comments

  11. I know the new atheists say it appears to be intelligent but they never give there theory of why it’s not and just argue and divide
    But it’s not by accident that they do this because it’s hidden from them and it’s happening with everything that’s against truth and reasoning. Zeitgeist !

  13. What a bunch of conceits. What's up with "the best explanation?" We don't need a best explanation. We don't need any explanation. I worked it out at 6 years old that how the universe came into creation has no value. You can't make products or do anything with that information. There is a whole slew of explanations about life that have no value because even if we have it one cannot act on them. I don't know. I don't know how the universe was created is all you need. You will miss out on nothing in life not knowing how the universe was created. Intelligent design is a complete waste of time. Evolution on the other hand is used to make vaccines and other medical treatments. Evolution regarding the Cambrian period is irrelevant and meaningless. Evolution that takes longer than the span of a single human life is not being used for anything. There is no excuse of inserting some god or intelligent design into knowledge gaps, none whatsoever. Because it is unable information. Just say I don't know.

  17. Smart Religous quackery! These guys are religious SOPHISTS, Zpedling books to idologs blocked in childish beliefs taught in Sunday school. Expert vocabulary of mysticism, they are not in tune to reality, just as Dilluted w- mankind's own power in words as tech guru (billionaires) are in leftist politics. This is a Curtain of global ideological blind compartmentalized dark age nonsense! Big talk, poor reasoning!

  18. This is what I understood from it after reading Stephen Meyer book "the return of the god hypothesis". 🙂

    This is the recent empirical evidence from the 20th century that all scientists agree on:

    – Finding #1: The universe has a definite singular beginning (Big Bang did not cause the origin of the universe, it was merely an effect. An effect is the result of a cause. The cause cannot consist of space, time, matter or energy since those come into existence at the beginning of the universe. The causal profile of any postuled explanation for the origin of the universe must then transcend the domains of space, time, matter or energy and make a dramatic change of state from nothing physical to everything that exists.) Previously, everyone thought that the universe was eternal and ever-present with no definite beginning. Now, there is a beginning, which coincidentally also rhymes well with the account in Genesis which states that the universe has a beginning.

    – Finding #2: The universe is finely-tuned in its basic physical parameters at or shortly after the beginning (tuning needs a tuner). This is evidence of design in the universe.

    – Finding #3: The digital code information and a complex information storage-processing-transmission system was discovered (complexity needs a guided process). This is evidence of design in life.

    There are two perspectives, namely theism and materialism.

    – Theism = god created man. A pre-existing concious transcendent being with great power and intellect is the cause in which everything came from. Here, god is a concept of reality.

    – Materialism = man created god. Matter and energy are eternal and self-existant from which everything comes from and that the arrange themselves by unguided forces to produce the first cell evolved by darwinian means to produce intelligent beings that have a concept of god. God still exists on this perspective, but God is rather seen as a concept of the mind than a concept of reality.

    These are the theories that attempt to account for the data above:

    – Theory #1: A single transcendent external intelligent cause. (theistic explanation) This covers all three findings.

    – Theory #2: The multiverse. (materialistic explanation) This attempts to cover only finding #2 (fine-tuning). The fine-tuning is a result of a cosmic lottery on this view. Lately, the advocates have recognized that this cosmic lottery needs underlying universe-generating mechanisms. From the two mechanisms that have been proposed, one is based on the string theory and and one is based on inflationary cosmology. As you delve into this, it turns out that these universe-generating mechanisms must be themselves be exquistely fine-tuned to produce other universes. Therefore, this explanation ends up presupposing unexplained fine-tuning and then you are back to square 1 with no account for finding #2. In summary, you have only pushed back the question of fine-tuning one generation on this theory (!). This theory does not negate the designer, since (1) it presupposes unexplained fine-tuning and (2) according to the many-worlds interpretation, there may still be a designer in this particular universe.

    – Theory #3: Quantum cosmology (materialistic explanation). This attempts to cover only finding #1 (the beginning). Quantum cosmology was proposed as a way of circumvent the problem of the singularity (finding #1) – the definite beginning of space and time and energy. Taken at face value, it seems to imply that prior to the material universe, there was a mathematical reality that existed independenty from space, time and energy. Ironically, one of the proponents of this theory, Alexander Vilenkin, has noted that if you have pre-existing laws of nature that are purely mathematical, with no physical system for them to describe, that would imply a realm of pure thought that pre-exists the universe, since math exists in the realm of mind (!). In other words, if the material universe came out of math and math exists in the realm of mind, then we are really saying that a mind pre-dated the universe (!). That has its own theistic implications of a designer, implying at least philosophical idealism.

    – Theory #4: Panspermia ("alien designer"). (materialistic explanation) This attempts to cover finding #3. A non-transcedent designer ("space-alien") seeded the origin of biological information. The problem is that (1) it does not explain the ultimate origin of biological information, it just pushes it out to outer-space and (2) that alien-designer would have to be evolved from simpler organisms and (3) it does not explain the origin of fine-tuning that has been present since the beginning of the universe.

    In conclusion, these three findings gravitate more towards a theistic explanation than a materialistic explanation is how I interprete the data. Even if there would have been a valid materialistic theory, a such theory have to be extremely theoretical, ad-hoc, convuluted, exotic and esoteric kind of explanation as opposed to the simpler postulation of a single transcedent intelligence to explain the findings in the Occam´s razor sense. Therefore, I would say that the findings are best explained by theistic notion of the design agent, which is coincidentally also similar to the designing attributes ascribed to God of the Bible, namely transcendence and intelligence hence personhood (mind, not force).

    One objection raised to this theistic explanation is that of incompetent design. If the information is the product of a transcendent intelligent designer, then why do we see so much junk-DNA that appears to not have any function? The response is that (1) the junk-DNA really do have an important function and – lo and behold – in 2011, the Encode Project established that the function of non-coding regions of DNA (junk DNA) is similar to that of an operating system in computers, and (2) it is only a problem for the non-biblical designer but not the biblical designer, since – as seen in Romans 1 and Romans 8 – aboridiginal design and corruption of design and decay are to be expected.

    __________________________________________________________________________________

    This is what the earlist scientists assumed, based on the Bible, when they began the scientific enterprise (which they had no way of nothing on beforehand):

    – They assumed that nature had laws. The laws of nature is a juridical metaphor with theological origin. Since there are laws, there is also a law-giver and law-sustainer. The evidence of the creator was through evidence of design in e.g. the solar system and the mathematical harmony in nature. The earlist scientists believed that natural science (then called natural theology) was a way of revealing the work of the creator. The scientists also found evidence of design in nature. Newton in his theological epilogue "the general scolium of principia" explains that gravity alone could not account for the origin of the delicate balance in the solar system. For that he said, it required an intelligent mind. Johannes Kepler and Robert Doyle was part of the scientific enterprise as a theological project (to bring glory to god).

    – They assumed that nature was intalligible. They talked about nature as a book – like there is a book of scripture there is a book of nature. And if nature is intalligible, we could understand it since it was created by a rational intellect (god) who built rationality, order and design into the universe. And that same rational intellect (god) built our minds in his image so that we can understand the lawfull order, rationality and design in nature.

  21. Nothing new here. Science no more points to the existence of a Cosmic Designer now than it did 'then'. Religious beliefs still have no evidence to support them beyond the view that 'it's fantastic so it must be God". Nothing new is emerging from the extremely arrogant pro-God lobby… but then it doesn't have to does it…they just 'know' they are right. Religious fundamentalists are more than capable of twisting science to confirm their beliefs. You should see the Muslims do it…they are particularly 'good' at it. Are Muslims 'better' at it because their religion is more correct than Christianity i wonder.

  22. Sean Mcdowell is a very good interviewer. That question he asked about the inspiration of the title of Stephen Meyer's book and the way he asked it was brilliant. If I could make one constructive criticism though, he must have said "OK" or "gotcha" more than 50 times while Stephen was talking during the course of this interview and it brought the focus too much on him which I found distracting. Other than that he did a GREAT job on the interview.

  23. When you look at a Stephen you are looking at a giant in his field, living and working in our current time. How fortunate we are to benefit from his groundbreaking work. What may be even more impressive than his intellect is his courage. This man is under constant attack from the secular world. can you imagine being ridiculed and minimized by your piers and still pressing forth in the same field? Please pray the covering of the blood of Jesus upon him.

  26. In a true scientific pursuit of truth; we would find the answer without any kind of imposed preconception. IOW; if a god is behind it all; we will find that out whether we like it or not; faith notwithstanding.

  28. Thank God for "Return of the God Hypothesis." The failure to consider the Laws of Nature as inseparable from the Laws of Nature's God in proper scientific research and application is destroying society.
    Thomas Steven Roth, MBA, MD
    Christian Minister for Biblical Medical Ethics, and therefore, Scientific and Religious Refugee from the Clinical Practice of Psychiatric Standards of Care

  29. Yes, science cannot yet answer many questions without doubt: how life arose, how evolution works in detail, whether the universe is finite or infinite, why the constants of nature are just the way they are, whether there are other universes besides our universe, and so on. But do these open questions prove that God exists?

  30. Stephen Meyer is a very intelligent scientist, but as with many who are opposed to the fairy tale of evolution in all of its iterations, he massively over-thinks the problem. The debate shouldn't be about biology, or paleontology, genetics, or anthropology, or even radiology. These are all just "smoke and mirror" tactics designed by secularists to successfully muddy the waters. So what this debate really boils down to is simple – scientific fraud – who started it, and when.

    The largest and most widespread case of scientific fraud ever to be visited upon humankind, dubbed the "theory" of evolution, started with Charles Lyell and his fraudulent, anti-scientific, preconceived agenda, of "freeing science from Moses." His oxymoronic and false statement, "the present is the key to the past" was next, and only foreshadowed by the publication of his biased treatise, "The Principles of Geology," in 1830, which was based on intentionally flawed "scientific research" in geology. (Note that Lyell was never trained as a geologist. He was a lawyer. Surprise you?)

    Ironically, another Charles – a one Charles Darwin – read this very same book on his journey to the Galapagos on HMS Beagle. As luck would have it Lyell's unfounded and fraudulent concept of deep time is exactly what Darwin needed prompt him to publish "On the Origins…," in 1859, since he needed a huge span of imaginary time for his dumb idea to work.

    So we have a trained lawyer and a trained priest both purporting to be a geologist and a biologist in the 19th century, during an era when all it took to be a "scientist" was money. And their anti-scientific theories still rule all of science almost 200 years later. Imagine that?

    Lyell's actions, which should get him thrown in prison as a scientific fraud if he were alive today, resulted in his unfounded concept of "millions and/or billions of evolutionary years," which he made up out of thin air for the sole purpose of discounting the Biblical account of creation. Right alongside this fraud Lyell also concocted the "geologic column" out of thin air, which exists nowhere in the rock record, and only in the minds of men and in the textbooks they fraudulently create. Also called "deep time," this unfounded and false concept is, and has been, the very foundation of evolutionary theory, without which it would simply not exist as anything more than what it is, was, and will someday be considered as a bad idea with no science whatsoever backing it up.

    In short, take away the imaginary deep time and all evolutionary theorem sinks to the dustbin of scientific history where it belongs along with the rest of science's dumb ideas. It IS really that simple. So, if everyone who believes in science and the scientific method were to jump onto the same page and start informing the general public on the follies of "deep time," this so-called "debate" would soon be over, period.

  33. To Sean McDowell that's been the problem for yrs our church leaders..& Pastors trying to harmonize..this..ungodly dogma..with special creation…then inject variations of this filthy dogma into the sacred text of holy writ..I watched a court case up in Kansas..where Creations tried to prove their case against evolutionists..w/o using Gods Word..ha ha & fell flat fat faces..as well they should have for being that stupid

  34. Now if we can get REAL Science in the classrooms of America..students may just take.." Education " serious again..& make Education FUN again.instead of having to decide what is scientific…& WHAT isn't science…in a court..BY court JESTERS.Posing as Lawyers…pretending to be scientists….in our courtrooms I stead of our science Labs..where science belongs & can be tested…by scientists..NOT Lawyers…who don't even know their constitutional Law…yet wanna tell us what constitutes science…thx a ton Mr Myers….& guys like Douglas Axe…for doin in the Labs..what "Pastors" haven't done for yrs in churches…Contend for the Faith..Jude 3. & help in students to do the same..thx sooooo much guys,,..for the courage to do so…

  35. If god existed there would be no need to prove his existence.

    Aside from that I will limit my comment to the ‘fine tuning’ argument since the cambium explosion, the DNA code and the other ‘proves’ can be considered as old wine in new bottles labeled by the god of the gaps.

    Ok, so the fine tuning. Nature gives us a very clear answer with every ejaculation where 100 to 200 million spermatozoa are wasted down the drain and only one will result in life. And even that one winner can result in a far from perfect outcome. There are many reasons to assume that successful universes are a result of the same procedure where billions fail miserably, some result in defective but still viable universes and the rare winners like our universe. The waist in spermatozoa and would be, could be, couldn’t possibly be universes doesn’t make a particular strong case for intelligent design.

    By the way, smart to misquote Dawkins on more than one occasion but aside from that you stated that Dawkins doesn’t have the answer on some topics. That alone makes him a far more serious scientist than those who pretend to have all the answers referring to a celestial wizard.

    Since the dawn of mankind approximately 10.000 gods have inglorious disappeared so no believer should be to cocky about his or her personal delusion since it’s only a matter of time before he, she, it also bites the dust 🙂

  37. OK I get it but here is the ONLY problem that bothers me. it appears at least a little to bring the blind watchmaker idea at least one step closer to fruition though it cannot explain just how the process of reproduction got started it might explain how something can evolve after it does. This is the splinter in fully resting your faith in the intelligent design hypothesis if there is any truth to it. What am I not seeing here and what are you not seeing here? > https://youtu.be/qiKW1qX97qA or here > https://youtu.be/9zfeTw-uFCw or perhaps here? see if you can figure out the scam in these videos. However I wonder if any form of artificial intelligence could have worked out the codes for reproducing cells on earth. That is another question. Could an artificial intelligence effectively become God?

  39. https://youtu.be/UnDNoIddnz8

    Read this book (now on amazon) – The Theory of Evolution is a Result of Erroneous Extrapolation.  It destroys evolution using Mathematics. It proves the existence of God.

    Daniel 12:10

    King James Version

    10 Many shall be purified, and made white, and tried; but the wicked shall do wickedly: and none of the wicked shall understand; but the wise shall understand.

    Definition of pestilence: a deadly or virulent epidemic disease.

    Mathew 24:7
    7 For nation shall rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom: and there shall be famines, and pestilences, and earthquakes, in divers places.

  40. In some sense, saying that a mind preexists the spatio-temporal universe is, from the rational point of view, circular reasoning. Because we only know of a mind existing alongside the material spatio-temporal universe. For it to make sense, one must believe in already having experienced one's mind existing outside this physical reality, what clearly extrapolates rational reasoning. In other words, sustaining that mind preexists physical reality is a matter of pure belief and/or subjective experience.