Stephen Meyer on The Cosmological Argument

#1
Here is a series of videos (or transcripts) of Stephen Meyer (author of Darwin's Doubt and Signature in the Cell) discussing the Cosmological Argument. The discussion is about the history of materialism, the big bang, why the fine tuning of natural laws indicates design, and why the multiverse theories don't solve anything, there's not much about God in it, it's about evidence of design in the universe.

Part 1:
Part 2:
Part 3:
Part 4:

Transcripts are here: http://www.jashow.org/wiki/index.php/Does_the_New_Scientific_Evidence_about_the_Origin_of_Life_Put_an_End_to_Darwinian_Evolution?

Click on the blue title bar for each show to go to the transcript. The Cosmological Argument transcripts are the last four "Discovery xxx" . The first five transcripts I believe are transcripts of videos of Meyer discussing Signature in the Cell.
 
Last edited:
#2
Oh god, not more ID claptrap. As I've said before, this stuff is exactly what the skeptics fear and associate psi research with, and why perhaps little progress is made.
 
#3
Some of the most intelligent and talented scientists were convinced to give up materialism because of the cosmological argument.

http://www.jashow.org/wiki/index.ph...odern_Science_That_Prove_God_Exists/Program_3

Fred Hoyle, the famous British astro-physicist who spent a lot of his career trying to get around the implications of the Big Bang Theory by posing other models to explain away the beginning of the universe, eventually came to realize that the fine-tuning evidence provided compelling evidence of design.
Hoyle says that, “A common-sense interpretation of the data suggests that a super-intellect has monkeyed with Physics and Chemistry, as well as Biology, to make life possible.”

...
John Polkinghorne, [is] one of the leading physicists from Cambridge University. ... Polkinghorne has a charming way of saying it. He says, “Well, I don’t say that the atheists are ....” He says, “I think that theism – the theistic design hypothesis – provides a better explanation.”
What convinced Fred Hoyle is the argument that the universe must have been designed because natural laws are fine tuned to support life. The rate of expansion of the universe is fine tuned to one part in 10^60, the gravitational force constant is fine tuned to on part 10^40. There are 25-30 parameters in our universe fine tuned to support life. The multiverse theories don't eliminate the need for fine tuning (design) they just push it back one step - whatever is generating universes would need to be fine tuned.
 
Last edited:
S

Sciborg_S_Patel

#4
I do think it would be a mistake to have the litmus test for acceptable ideas be decided by the skeptical opposition.

I don't personally worry much about God anymore, and I think the designer(s?) physics possibly suggests could be more akin to Hoffman's Objects of Consciousness than the entity religions describe, but I don't think there's much harm done in inviting such discussion.

If anything, I suspect more people believe in God than Psi so this might be an overall good strategy to get believers to realize that a science of God will have to pass through the road of the paranormal.
 
#5
Oh god, not more ID claptrap. As I've said before, this stuff is exactly what the skeptics fear and associate psi research with, and why perhaps little progress is made.
So did you actually watch the videos? Have you actually read Meyer's "Darwin's doubt"? Discussion about the anthropic principle is by no means confined to ID proponents, and the arguments Meyer adduces against the explanatory power of neo-Darwinism are actually much discussed in peer-reviewed journals; it's just that in public any scientist who wants to keep his job has to appear to tow the party line.

I can't say for sure that ID is true, but I do know that it's currently a better hypothesis than neo-Darwinism's emphasis on random mutation/natural selection, which simply don't work because they can't explain various organismal radiations such as the Cambrian Explosion, the Mammalian Radiation, or the Big Bloom. These events occurred very quickly in geological terms, and the number of changes required couldn't have happened that fast. Matter of fact, there are enormous problems explaining even much slower rates of evolution. Meyer gives the mathematical arguments in his book.

We went through all this in the old forum, in which I did an extensive review of Meyer's book. The forum doesn't seem to be accessible, unfortunately, though I still have a copy of the review on my hard drive. Whatever, please don't be so ready to dismiss ID. Many of those sympathetic to it, such as myself, are actually strong proponents of evolution: having a degree in biology, I've seen fossils and am familiar with the fossil record: there can be no doubt that evolution has occurred. The main point is, IMO neo-Darwinism fails big time to explain it.

Supporters aren't by any means all religious types, even at the discovery institute. Meyer happens to believe the designer is the omnipotent God of the Christian Bible, but his actual arguments stand up for folk like me who have different views: I don't believe that any Source Intelligence that might be involved, as it acts in the world, is omnipotent. It acts as if it's learning as it goes along. There are also agnostics and even a few atheists who can see the problems with neo-Darwinism and are open to the possibility of some kind of conscious input to evolution.
 
Top