Hey everyone, it's time for another
reaction video. So, recently I promised
you that uh I'd be doing a bunch of
content uh on Stephen Meyer and
Discovery Institute and this recent uh
outpouring of propaganda that he's been
uh that he's been enacting here. They're
they're really on a push uh this year.
They have their ridiculous uh propaganda
theatrical film release that was I I
don't remember what it's called. Uh but
I'm going to I'll I'll look into that
later. Um, but so that that was kind of
the the main the the the centerpiece of
this propaganda push. But, uh, a few
weeks ago or fairly recently, I did a
reaction to Steven Meyer spewing a bunch
of [\h__\h] on uh some short clips on
some podcasts. Some of it some of it was
complaining about me, which they all
tend to do quite a bit at this point.
Um, but today we have a a nice special
one here. And so, if you read the title
of whatever I'm going to call this
reaction, you you know why we have to
talk about this video. So this one is
called Steven Meyer, John Lennox, and
James Tour. Three scientists on the
origins of everything. Oh boy, you guys.
So Steven Meyer is going to talk about
the origin of the universe. James Tour
is going to talk about the origin of
life. We got we got some some
intellectual powerhouses here. Uh but
they're but they're rebels going against
the mainstream, right? They're being
persecuted because their because of
their faith. Uh, but they have some
really hot takes on on on origins here.
So, uh, Meyer, you've seen me, uh,
debunk quite a bit. He got his own video
in the Discovery Institute, uh,
playlist, and then I've mentioned him a
bunch of times in other content. James
Tour, of course, is my most popular, uh,
back and forth with any of these ass
hats. Uh, I have single-handedly
completely ruined his credibility, and
he is now been reduced essentially to
the Mr. Fina meme. that is uh if it was
possible to put a a a video clip on a
tombstone, that would be that would be
where that would go. So, uh Mr. Fina is
of course his doing and and uh probably
his greatest legacy, having coined that.
Uh and then John Lennox, I actually did
a reaction video with Planet Peterson, I
think, about John Lennox. So, we've made
fun of him as well. He's another doofus
in this camp. not quite as volatile as
tour, but um in the end they're a bunch
of pseudointellectual frauds uh with no
real authority on the areas that they
claim to know about. Uh just spewing
religiously motivated pseudocience. Uh
and yes, even James to his nanoars and
graphine uh research do not uh give him
the ability to speak confidently on a
biogenesis, something he really truly
does not know a whole lot about. uh and
also actively lies about uh for Jesus.
So anyway, that that yeah, this is the
video. It's about an hour long, so two
to two and a half hours probably for a
reaction. We'll see how uh we'll see how
it goes. It's from the Hoover Institute.
Uh sorry, Hoover Institution, which is
just an absolute garbage uh propaganda
outlet. Puts out nothing but hot trash.
which I know that I have commented on at
least one or two videos from them before
because Meyer goes on there quite a bit.
Uh, and 1.4 million views. 1.4 million
views in a month. So, this one made the
rounds. So, um I don't know exactly what
they say and I don't know exactly uh how
well they how well they convinced uh
continue to uh convince the flock that
they're in the right, but uh we're going
to we're going to they're going to give
it the old college try and it will be so
pathetic that I will be able to laugh at
it and deconstruct it in real time as a
reaction video because that's how
pathetic this propaganda is. That's how
unbelievably stupid this uh all of this
[\h__\h] is. no matter how much they try
to play the the role of the esteemed
academic uh with all of their papers and
accolades and wearing a suit and uh
talking real smart like smart guys
around a round table. In actuality,
they're uh about as pathetic as it gets.
So, let's go ahead and start this from
the Hoover Institution. Meer Lennox and
tour talking about [\h__\h] Let's go.
Let's do it. Did the universe come into
existence by accident?
Or did something intend it or intend us?
A mathematician, John Lennox, a
historian of science, Steven Meyer, and
a scientist, James Tur. Uncommon
knowledge. Now
they're it's they try so hard to be so
sophisticated. It's just so [\h__\h]
funny. They got their suits. They got
their their accolades. And then here is
our classical music. We If you're
watching this brainwashed Christian,
you're very cultured, right? You are a
cultured person who cares about
knowledge and facts. And we're here to
give you the most sophisticated
presentation of facts that you're ever
going to see. Right, let's get to it.
Welcome to Uncommon Knowledge recording
today in Saltsburg, Austria. I'm Peter
Robinson, the director of the Discovery
Institute Center for Science and
Culture. Steven Meyer started his
professional life as a geoysicist. Then
he went back to school and earned a
doctorate from Cambridge in the history
and philosophy of science. Steven
Meyer's most recent book, The Return of
the God Hypothesis. John Lennox is the
professor of mathematics at the
University of Oxford Emmeritus. He
serves as president of the Oxford Center
for Christian Apologetics. John Lennox's
most recent book, God, AI, and the End
of History. James Tour is the WF Chow
Professor of Chemistry at Rice
University, where he also teaches
materials science and nano engineering.
Professor T holds more than 130 patents.
His most recent book, The Mystery of
Life's Origin. Steve John,
>> I actually didn't even know Tul wrote a
book. That could be a good one. I could
I could tear through that. But uh yeah,
so um no one stops frauds from writing
shitty books full of lies. So
advertising their books is not a big uh
is not a big flex here. Uh you would
think that they could point towards
primary literature, peer-reviewed
primary literature that expresses their
their contentions with the mainstream.
Uh but of course that's not possible
because they don't actually do science
in this realm. uh James is the only one
that does science but once again he was
introduced as uh as a professor of
nanomaterials uh or material science and
nanotechnology. Uh so if he wants to
give a lecture on on how to make
graphine, yeah, that's fine. He can do
that. And uh if that's all he ever did,
nobody would have a problem with him. Uh
right. So uh but all of the [\h__\h]
procilitizing disguised as scientific
discussion uh that is not legitimate
scientific output. So they cannot rest
on their credentials and laurels for any
of that. Doesn't matter what degrees you
have. Doesn't matter what papers you've
published. When you talk about these
topics, you're full of [\h__\h] And we're
going to expose you. So let's do it.
>> Uh Jim, thanks for joining me.
Two quotations. Here's the Oxford
biologist Richard Dawkins in 1995.
quote, "The universe that we observe has
precisely the properties we should
expect if there is at bottom no design,
no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing
but pitiles indifference."
>> I love how they they they pick on
Dawkins the way they pick on uh Darwin,
right? Because the brainwashed Christian
doesn't understand the concept of a
broad scientific community with uh
comprised of millions of experts that
all agree on certain things being true.
Uh but they they don't have a they can't
wrap their mind around that. They think
that Dawkins is like the president of
biology just like a lot of people think
Neil deGrasse Tyson is like the
president of science or something and
and serves as some authority on what is
what is scientifically true. You know,
Neil is a very good science communicator
and he's a he's a a respectable he's a a
dependable voice in terms of someone
telling you what the scientific
community has uncovered. He's not the
one doing all of the science, right?
Same with Dawkins. I mean, he doesn't do
he's he's at this point a science
communicator and now has disgraced
himself with all his transphobia and
Islamophobia and all that crap. Um, but
you know, he did good uh he did good
cyclcom uh in the 80s and 90s wrote some
some books that help people deconvert
and stuff, but in the eyes of the
brainwashed Christian, he's the demon.
He's the target. He's the guy. So, we
have to do a Dawkins quote, right? We're
not going to actually look at biology or
or any of the or yeah, we're not going
to look at actual the output of the bi
of the of the community of biologists
that uh that prove all of these things.
No, we're going to look at a Dawkins
quote and we're going to compare it to I
don't know what quote. Let's see.
>> Here's the second quotation. This is a
poem that dates back 3,000 years. Psalm
19. The heavens declare the glory of
God. The skies proclaim the work of his
hands. Day after day, they pour forth
speech. Night after night they reveal
knowledge.
>> Okay. Okay. So uh this is so which which
quote is better uh in terms so so
Dawkins quote is about how uh it's the
universe is indifferent towards life.
It's just all chance. Well, of course,
how could it be? It can't be chance. The
Christian God uh did everything. Um and
we're comparing it to a psalm from 3,000
years ago. It's I'm going to read it
again for you. The heavens declare the
glory of God. the skies proclaim the
work of his hands. So, not space, not
the universe, not galaxies, not uh not
anything like because this person who
wrote this had no [\h__\h] idea that any
of that [\h__\h] existed. The sky, the
heavens, the heavens being used uh
interchangeably with skies because they
[\h__\h] thought that heaven was in the
clouds. That if you go up in the clouds,
there's all angels and [\h__\h] float flo
floating around and sitting on clouds
doing eternal heaven stuff. Um, fast
forward a little bit, we've been up
there. That [\h__\h] ain't there. Uh, so the
so the the modern Christian
fundamentalist has to invent uh an
alternate dimension, right? It's a it's
another realm. When you go to heaven,
you go to some other spiritual realm.
So, right off the bat, uh, the heavens
declare the glory of God. The skies
proclaim the work of his hands. So, we
know that heaven's not in the sky. So,
now we're just saying the skies proclaim
the work of his hand. So, I'm looking up
at the sky. What am I missing? I don't
know what the [\h__\h] you're talking about.
Uh, there's atmosphere. Uh, there's
clouds. If you go beyond the Karman
line, now you're in space. What's all
that [\h__\h] Are So, we're talking about
stars and stuff, too. What are those?
Psalmist Psalm author. Do you know what
those are? Do you have any [\h__\h] idea
what stars are or any of the other [\h__\h]
or planets? Are they gods? Are they
little gods flying? Is this Apollo going
wee across the sky? Um, you don't know
what any of that crap is. Um, day after
day they pour forth speech. Do they
speak? What does that mean? Uh, that
sounds like a metaphor. If it's a
metaphor, what the [\h__\h] are you talking
about? Night after night they reveal
knowledge. Uh, no they don't. That's
what actually that's what scientists do
by enacting the scientific process. Uh,
they do science. They do empirical
science to figure [\h__\h] out. So, that
took quite a long time. Uh, in this day
and age, they didn't know [\h__\h] Uh, they
didn't know. So 3,000 years ago, we're
talking about borderline like this this
person who wrote this may may not even
have known the earth as a sphere. So not
not sure about that. I don't know the
exact I know that around 2500 years ago
was when uh you know ancient Greece uh
classical Greece is when it became quite
well known that the earth is a sphere
among educated people. Um so this person
probably didn't probably thought that
the earth was flat. I I'm not positive,
but but probably. But sure as [\h__\h]
thought that the Earth was the center of
the universe. Basically, this person
didn't know dick about the universe. Um,
so we're comparing that with a a modern
scientist and science communicator who
does know things and isn't unique,
shouldn't be singled out. We're talking
about the entire scientific community.
And and we're going to ask these three
bozos, which which is a better quote,
right? Presumably the question is which
one is uh what what do you resonate
with? What do you vibe with? The dumb
heaven thing or uh a smart person who
said a smart thing?
>> Which of those two better reflects, not
perfectly perhaps, but better reflects
the most recent developments in science,
Steve?
>> The most recent developments in science.
Are we going to go with the [\h__\h]
geocentric flatearther or are we going
to go with the guy who lives in modern
times who isn't completely [\h__\h]
clueless about absolutely literally
everything in the universe? Steve, you
want to you want to defend the the
second one because we all know you're
going to
>> I think the psalmist has got it right
and good the good professor Dawkins who
has a talent for framing issues
beautifully nevertheless gets it wrong
that the new developments in science
especially having to do with biological
and cosmological origins are pointing to
the reality of a transcendent designing
creator.
>> Jim,
>> I would think the psalmist has it much
much closer.
>> Much closer. John, are you going to
please stick up for rationalism and
which of those two?
>> I stick up for rationalism and say the s
the psalmist has it exactly right that
this is a wordbased universe. The fact
that we can describe it in mathematics,
the fact that biology uses language to
describe its central features of DNA.
But
a word-based universe, you guys. There
were words floating around before there
was uh before there was any math or
anything else. Um the fact that biology
uses language. No, it [\h__\h] doesn't.
You're going he's I I assume he's
pretending that we can use symbols uh we
can use symbols from our alphabet to
represent nucleotides in DNA. That that
that represents language being used by
biology. Um, so, so not at all shocking
here, right? We got the three propaganda
pedalling frauds, uh, working for
Christian theocrats all proclaiming that
the clueless biblical ass hat had had
the current status of science better
than the modern and and Meyer is so
gracious. Oh, and and Dawkins, he is
he's talented, bless his heart, at how
he frames things, but nevertheless, he's
a [\h__\h] idiot who doesn't understand
science, right? Um, so this pretty
pretty immaculately frames how this
video is is certainly going to go. I
mean, we know what the uh Meyer is going
to do his his God delusion uh cosmology
[\h__\h] Tour is going to do his a
biogenesis [\h__\h] uh and will not
evolve his script a single a single bit
ever. Uh, Lennox, I don't know what he's
going to talk about, but um, yeah, the
idea that the dude 3,000 years ago who
wrote a psalm has a better grasp on the
nature of the universe than anybody in
the 21st century, it's how dumb do you
have to be to fall for this? It's
basically they're attempting to prop up
science by negating all of science and
saying that the pre-scientific person
had science better. You just you can't
make this [\h__\h] up.
And Richard Dawkins statement is
contradicted by his own life because he
does believe actually in good and evil
apparently.
>> Um the big bang.
>> He didn't even bite. He's not like we're
not going to talk about morality right
now. Uh yeah, the whole Yeah, we get it.
You need God to have morality except no
you [\h__\h] don't. We can arrive at our
own morals. There's no objective
morality. Uh I don't believe in God and
I have morals. Uh many would say a
better moral compass than any of you
dick faces. So, um, yeah, we, well, we
don't even have to talk about it because
he didn't bite. So, let's go.
>> Uh, let's begin everything with an
excerpt. There's a there's a forthcoming
documentary in which all three of you
appear. It's called The Story of
Everything. I believe it will be in
theaters in the United States in April.
Is that right?
>> The film will open in theaters across
the country on April 30th.
>> All right. So, uh,
>> okay. Yeah. So, this is their big uh, so
if anyone This has been out now for a
while. If anyone can uh, come across a
bootleg copy of this or something, go
ahead and send it my way. Obviously, I
will want to either react to or do a
formal debunk on this because this is
the centerpiece of this year's uh
propaganda push. So, if you didn't see
the trailer, it's just another another
uh piece of it's just another turd that
the whole thing is just like look how
crazy everything is. Must be God. Like
that's literally the entire thing. So,
uh that will be fun to make fun of. So,
someone send me that if you if you get
across that. and it's based on your
book, The Return of the God Hypothesis.
Uh, and the documentary, as we will hear
ourselves today, describes three of the
most important recentish
innovations in science. Uh, Steve, if
the universe was always here, there's
nothing for a creator to do,
says Carl Sean. During a scientific
conference in 1927,
a Belgian priest and astronomer named
>> Now, hang on. Uh Sea Sean, they're
trying to present it as though Sean
disavows Big Bang Cosmology. This is
Wow. Uh okay, so uh Big Bang Cosmology
was well understood. Uh I mean within
Sean's lifetime. He looked pretty old in
that clip. So that must have been more
like the '9s. Um Big Bang Cosmology was
consistent well beyond reasonable doubt
by that time. Uh so Sean definitely this
is what these little cherrypick quotes
to try to character assassinate are are
bananas. Um but it doesn't matter right
the the thing is that uh these kinds of
figures who try to intellectualize their
science denial will cherrypick science
that they think corroborates the their
propaganda and conveniently big bang
cosmology does fit into that. So uh
because they they want to pretend that
it resembles uh the biblical account of
creation in Genesis. Uh so right let
there be light a beginning of the
univer. So science suggests there was a
beginning of the universe right and
science suggests that it came from an
initial singularity and then evolved
from there um in a way that is
complicated to explain but I do so in my
astronomy content if anybody wants to
watch uh that my astronomy playlist. The
second video which is right after the
intro goes through big bang cosmology.
I'm very proud of it. it it explains it
as succinctly and clearly as possible
for for the layman. Um what happened in
each epoch of the of the development of
the universe. But uh anyway, they want
to pretend it's just uh God said let
there be light and oh look at that that
works with big bang. So I think what
we're going to see right now what Meyer
likes to do is explain a bunch of [\h__\h]
about big bang cosmology to sound smart.
Um and but then it just none of that
contradict like that's just science that
we all know and in no way supports the
existence of the Christian God as
believed by fundamentalists or or in or
God in general, right? It doesn't uh it
doesn't um uh it doesn't demonstrate
that a god must exist. Of course, it's
just the uh scientific understanding of
the of the development of the universe.
Um and big bang cosmology does not
describe the true origin of universe. It
doesn't describe the origin of the
initial singularity and there's a teeny
tiny gap of about a trillionth of a
trillionth of a trillionth of a second
after the initial singularity for which
we have no information. So you know
we're going through I assume so the
three the three places where they try to
wedge the god of the gaps in are the
origin of the universe the origin of
life and the and the nature of
consciousness. Uh origin of life doesn't
really work anymore and tour is an idiot
who is the only one who tries to do it
and fails miserably. uh consciousness
one. They have the other guy uh starts
with an E. Uh Michael, I forget his
name, but it it's one of the more recent
ones I did in the Discovery Institute
playlist. He's their guy for pretending
consciousness equals God. Um but then
the origin of the universe, that's the
only one where there's some room. You
there's a little room for that God of
the gaps. That's the only place he can
live anymore is that first trillionth of
a trillionth of a trillionth of a second
of the of the of the development of the
universe. And uh it's a god that doesn't
bother me if people uh believe in it. Um
but it's not it's not a creationist god.
It's not a progressive creationist god
that they're going to defend by implying
that a god had to trigger the origin of
life and then the then the the
proliferation of different forms over
geological time. That's not that god. Um
and it's certain sure as [\h__\h] not the
Christian god that the that the
theocrats that the Christian
nationalists they work for want to
promote in order to take over the
government. So, uh, yeah. So, presumably
we're gonna, so, okay, we're going to
get the [\h__\h] story of the Big Bang.
So, let's let some of this play. Um,
totally irrelevant to their grift, but
again, kind of key to make the viewer,
the science literate viewer, go, "Wow,
oh, he really knows what he's talking
about. Oh my gosh." Okay.
>> George Lameth shared a taxi with Albert
Einstein. What happened during that
taxi?
>> A fascinating story. Einstein's own
theory of general relativity implied a
dynamic expanding universe outward from
the beginning. He was unhappy with that
conclusion.
>> Einstein himself
>> Einstein himself. So he he fiddled with
his own equations to make sure that the
equa the the the term in the equation
that described the outward push
perfectly balanced with the
gravitational pole. So he could depict
the universe as static.
uh Lmetra worked with his equations and
showed that even on his own terms, the
universe was not static and that that it
was a dynamic universe, but he also was
well aware of the astronomical data
coming from Mount Wilson in California
showing what is called red shift, that
the galaxies are are moving away from
us. And we can tell that because of the
the the way in which the light has
shifted in the red direction of the
electromagnetic spectrum. And so in the
taxi cab on the way to this famous
conference in in Belgium in 1927,
uh, Lamemetra confronts Einstein with
this astronomical evidence and with his
own uh, depiction and re relays his own
work on his his his famous field
equations. And Einstein is reported to
have responded. He said, "Well, your
mathematics is impeccable, but your
physical intuition is abominable." And
so he rejects H I love when they make
the funny jokes. Um so yeah, that's all
true. Uh Einstein did not like Einstein
believed in the static universe. So
that's why he came up with the
cosmological constant and which he
called his biggest blunder which later
ended up being possibly vindicated
because it could be have I mean uh its
application with with dark energy
research. So um but yeah, so he's he's
trying to do a all of this is astro 101
by the way. you learn this freshman year
in college if you take astronomy 101.
So, uh to totally valid information, but
is meant to be number one to try to
portray himself as uh supremely
knowledgeable more so even than actual
cosmologists. Uh but two to uh to tee up
the science denial to come. Uh so let's
let's get there.
>> Out of hand, the idea that the universe
is dynamic and expanding. But two years
later, Arthur Edington at Cambridge
urges him again to go out to Melt Wilson
to see what Hubble has been has been
seeing through the telescope. And
there's some famous news.
>> Take a second to explain the red shift.
Right. Exactly. Okay. That's important
to understand.
>> Yeah. So, the light coming from distant
galaxies is as the physicists say
shifted in the red direction of the
electromagnetic spectrum. If you shine
light through a prism, the light will
separate into different colors red to
violet. The red light corresponds to
longer wavelengths. So if an object is
moving away and and is emitting any kind
of of a wavelength, that wavelength will
be stretched out. So if the object is
moving away, it's going to stretch out
and and the the the color of the light
will shift towards the red direction. It
will be redder than it would otherwise
be. And so as Edwin,
>> the ship's horn as the ship pulls away
from us to go off to sea.
>> Exactly. or or think of the train
whistle, you know, with the Doppler
effect from high school chemistry.
As the pitch drops, the wavelength is
also stretching out.
>> So, uh, as as Hubble began to survey the
night sky with these new dome telescopes
that were just being built in the 1920s,
his, uh, photographic plates and his
spectral analysis was showing that the
galaxies in every quadrant that he
investigated were redshifted. the light
coming was was being stretched which
suggested that the universe was actually
expanding outward as if from a beginning
point. And this was this was the the the
great discovery that led to people
thinking about well what would happen if
you ran that sequence in reverse if you
back extrapolate. If you think about
well what would the un if the universe
is expanding outward in the forward
direction of time what would it have
been like a thousand years ago or a
million years ago or a billion years ago
however far back you go you will
eventually reach a point where all of
that galactic material would have
converged in in the reverse direction of
time to one point which would mark this
the start of the expansion but arguably
the beginning of the universe itself.
So, a young
>> the the tragedy here is that the people
the target audience of this video um
ideally they would listen to this Astro
101 lecture and go, "Wow, that's really
interesting. I think I'd like to learn
more. I'd like to learn more about
science. This has inspired a desire in
me to go to uh to go to uh trusted
figures that are communicating science
or or just lectures, right? and I can
watch an MIT lecture or I can watch some
content communicating more about
astronomy so I can learn more about the
universe whereas you know that 98% of
them were just going oh wow you really
sound smart okay let's uh okay now tell
me about the Jesus stuff that's what
what I'm really here for uh that's
that's the level that I think most of
the viewers are that have convinced
themselves they're watching the fancy
classical music uh sophisticated culture
time hour but yeah
>> young student at Cambridge the physicist
Steven Hawk talking in 1966 presented a
mathematical demonstration of the
singularity.
I'm reading these words, but I don't
understand them, John, which is where
you're going to come in here. The
singularity, the moment when all matter
and light were infinitely
tight. So, as I understand it, the
singularity
exists somehow. I don't even know how to
describe it, but it exists outside time
and space because time and space haven't
come into a being yet. So, so explain
what explain what what this means. The
singularity,
>> they're very difficult concepts, but
what Hawking did was to confirm
what Lmetra predicted and what the red
shift showed and the Hubble telescope
and all the rest of it and gave a
stronger more mathematical confirmation
of it. And in more recent times there
are three brilliant mathematicians Venin
Bour and Alan Guth
and they worked out mathematically that
you just cannot have an infinite
sequence going backwards in time. It's
reminiscent of the old calam
philosophical argument that you can't
have an infinite sequence of steps
backward in time. So but from their
perspective
it's established that there was a
beginning whether you think in terms of
multiverses or not there was an absolute
beginning and that of course confirms
the statement of Genesis which states
there was a beginning and to
>> there it is right here's the leap. So we
go from science that nobody denies to
science proves Genesis, right? Because
it says there was a beginning. So any
story has a [\h__\h] beginning. So the
story of Christian mythology has a
beginning. Therefore, science proves the
Christian God is real. Like what a
[\h__\h] leap is that? What what else
what else does Genesis say? Does Genesis
talk about a quark glue on plasma? Does
does Genesis talk about the
recombination era uh and and
electromagnetic radiation? Does it talk
about hydrogen uh does it talk about big
bang nucleiosynthesis and the production
of helium and lithium and then and then
hydrogen and helium gas collecting to
form stars and then those going
supernova and creating all all uh
additional elements that then collect
again and form the next generation of
stars and galaxy formation. Does it talk
about all that [\h__\h] Oh, no. Because the
people who wrote it had no [\h__\h] idea
about anything about the entire
universe. Um, so it's just this whiplash
from like Astro 101, perfectly factual
information, right? All of that was
again that's you learn this in the first
two months of astronomy 101. All factual
information. But then they go from that
to therefore the the biblical account of
of the creation of the universe in
Genesis is true because of what
similarities, right? What what were what
what is there in Genesis that even
vaguely resembles any of the [\h__\h] you
just said other than there was a
beginning? There was a beginning is is
equivocating Genesis with all of
cosmology. Are you out of your [\h__\h]
mind? It's insane. To my mind it is
absolutely fascinating because I was at
a conference of very some very
highpowered physicists not far from here
a few years ago and I made the claim
that Genesis in the beginning God
created was relevant and I was
interrupted by a heckler who was a
famous physicist and he said look
professor Lennox you are not saying to
us are
that you believe that the first
statement in Genesis has any relevance
for us today. I said I am. I said of
course the Bible is not a textbook of
science. But when it says in the
beginning God created the heavens and
the earth. It's talking about the same
heavens and earth that you study as a
cosmologist.
>> Well then what [\h__\h] sense does that
make considering heavens doesn't
actually mean anything unless you mean
sky. and the sky and the earth were
created [\h__\h] 10 billion years after
the initial singularity. You are
disproving yourself in this sentence.
The heckler is actually just a smart
person telling you how [\h__\h] full of
[\h__\h] you are. In Genesis, it says
absolutely nothing even remotely
scientific. It just said in the
beginning, what does it say? God said,
"Let there be light." And then poof, all
this [\h__\h] And then the sequence of
things that he created, the the account
in Genesis makes no [\h__\h] sense. it's
light and then there's uh then there's
the earth and then I think trees come
before the sun and all this [\h__\h] like it
makes no [\h__\h] sense and you're trying
to defend it from a scientific
standpoint rather than an allegorical
one doesn't make sense as an allegory
any uh either but um what you just said
the heavens and the earth where the [\h__\h]
are you getting the earth being formed
immediately after the initial
singularity you're skipping 10 billion
years none of it makes sense in its
scientific context text. You got made
fun of because you're a buffoon who
shouldn't be saying this [\h__\h] at any
kind of conference. I don't know what
conference you're talking about. Um, but
you should be heckled. You should be
ridiculed. These are insane,
indefensible statements. Sorry.
>> Now, I said the interesting thing is
that for centuries,
what we now call science was dominated
by the idea that matter, space was
eternal. because Aristotle held sway and
it was only in the 1960s
that the evidence started coming in that
there was a beginning now said in my
country of the UK it was resisted by the
scientific establishment
>> and by Einstein himself
>> Einstein himself who did later change
his mind though which
>> so this is this
>> Einstein Einstein himself got to got to
throw in that uh that that accurate
pronunciation um yeah so what happens is
the scientist ific community looks at
all the available evidence and when a
new hypothesis comes up a brand new idea
it takes time to gather evidence to
substantiate it once it was properly
substantiated the the main thing was the
cosmic microwave background radiation.
So until we had that, yes, you can look
at recession velocities of galaxies and
things like that, but the scientific
community isn't going to instantly go,
oh, obviously this new understanding is
true. more uh more science has to be
done, more data has to be gathered and
once the CMBB was understood, it was
pretty resound like like yeah okay this
looks to be this very very um very very
precisely matches the expectation out of
this out of this uh big bang
cosmological model. We would expect to
see uh this this uh this artifact and it
would be stretched to precisely this uh
this temperature. So uh and the the the
the
anisotropic uh aspect of it too. So just
once we got the enough empirical backing
for it, everybody was like, "Yeah, this
is it." Same with plate tectonics.
People bring up plate tectonics as an
example of the closedminded
establishment uh academia, mainstream
science. No, it was a new idea. And once
they found uh the magnetic striping on
either side of a mid oceanic rift, they
were like, "Fuck, well, that's that
seals it, right?" They were like, "If
this is true, we should see this along
the ridges." They did the [\h__\h]
measurements. They got the magnetic
striping which proves that that magma
was coming out of the that rift and that
was pushing the plates. Um once we had
once once you have very firm, undeniable
empirical evidence, everybody switches,
right? Even the skeptics, even the ones
that are like, "Well, find that and then
I'll believe it." And then they do and
they're like, "Well, [\h__\h] me." All
right, then. Yeah, you're right. That
had to be the case. So, this is just
another This is just all of this anti-
anti-establishment rhetoric, right? this
idea of mainstream. They have to paint
this idea of a closed-minded mainstream
and then some rebel outlier trutht
teller uh Luke Skywalker going against
the grain with the new super secret hot
truth because that's how they have to
portray themselves because they spew hot
gibberish that's very obvious religious
propaganda that contradicts well
understood science. That's all they do.
Um so they need the story. They and they
and they they need the story so bad that
they try to tell the story from within
the history of science, but they're
lying every time when they do that. Once
they got the CMBB, okay, Big Bang
Cosmology is very very clear. And uh and
again, none of it substantiates any of
their propaganda. Yes, we understand now
that the universe almost certainly had a
beginning. And we don't know how that
singularity came to be or what was there
before, if that makes any sense to ask,
right? There's there's questions that
remain uh to be answered, but um none of
it supports any of this crap.
>> The notion of a big bang, if the proper
way to understand it, even though
there's a lot of math involved, this is
a this is strictly speaking a scientific
finding. This is an empirical finding.
No philosopher
on the contrary, Aristotle didn't
predict it. We discovered it. Is that
fair?
>> Yeah, I think we we discovered evidence
for it in the 1950s. Most scientists
didn't believe it. It wasn't until 1964
with this discovery of the microwave
background radiation.
>> Okay, that's another point. The
microwave background radiation. Tell me
what that means.
>> That was the convincing argument. This
same thing that Steve talked about that
they that
>> it's different from the red shift. Is it
or separate line of evidence that
provides additional confirmation at the
beginning?
>> Yeah. Myers's like, "Chill out, James.
This is not your wheelhouse. Let me step
in here." I love the [\h__\h] like the
perplexed look he's given. just like,
"Oh, don't don't call on me. Don't call
on me. Don't call on me." And he knew
the right answer. He knew the CMBB, but
he's also debunking himself. It's like
people before the evidence that very
strongly corroborated Big Bang cosmology
didn't fully accept Big Bang cosmology.
Only after the evidence corroborated the
model did they accept the model. Like,
gee, is that exactly how science [\h__\h]
works? Yeah, I guess it is, isn't it?
Okay, Meer, play a rescue. Let's go.
>> Yeah. So, so there was there was further
confirmation and so so I the the
scientific community was not there and
then all of a sudden it started it
started changing in the early60s.
>> Okay.
>> Peter, can I take just another quick hit
cut at the the uh uh the Steven Hawking
result
>> because what Hawking is doing
>> he resisted it himself, didn't he?
>> Later after he proved this singularity
theorem then he wasn't quite sure. He
liked the his own result. Yes. But the
basic idea is actually quite intuitive.
Um, according to Einstein's theory of
general relativity, which is it was
which is just a theory of gravity,
massive bodies curve the fabric of space
or what's called spacetime. And Hawking
realized he was studying black hole
physics in the 1960s. And he realized
that in the forward direction of time,
matter according to the astronomers was
getting more and more diffuse as the as
the universe expanded, which meant that
it was getting the curvature of the
universe was getting less and less
pronounced. But in the reverse direction
of time there would the matter would
have been more and more densely
concentrated. And so as you go back
further and further and further that
more densely concentrated
uh matter of the universe is causing the
space of the universe to become more and
more tightly curved. And if you go back
far enough, you eventually reach a
limiting case where you where you can't
go back any further because the matter
is so densely concentrated it becomes
infinitely dense and the curvature goes
to an infinite and at that point the
laws of physics break down and that's
what marks the beginning of the
universe.
>> All right. Um so we have here I said
we're going to go work our way through
three of these scientific developments
but again but John has already touched
on this the challenge to a purely
materialist view of the universe from
the big bang. if I have it right is that
there must have been a first mover where
if there was a beginning somebody
something had to begin it that's the
question at least at
>> matter space time and energy begin at a
finite time ago then before that or
independent of that there is no matter
to do the causing so you can't have a
materialistic explanation for the origin
of matter itself
>> I love the the gotcha smile so uh they
so Meyer harps on the origin of the
universe
because it is the most mysterious aspect
of modern science, right? We that we
have models that describe the very
beginning and almost the origin the the
t equals zero origin of the universe and
then obviously uh developing from there
um is astounding. It's absolutely
incredible that we understand anything
about the origin and development of the
universe. Um but we all have to admit
that we don't know t equals zero. We
don't know what happened. Um but the the
flaw the the crucial flaw in the logic
here is to um is to sew the seeds of of
discomfort, right? The the idea of a
universe existing without cause is
illogical and unintuitive. Um but the
idea that there has to then have been a
deity, an infinitely more complex deity
to kick it off in some way um also is
without logic, right? because you you're
refusing to then describe uh you're
absolving yourself of of the
responsibility of describing the origin
or explanation or cause of of that
deity. So, it doesn't work to say a
universe can't exist without cause.
Therefore, a deity exists without cause
to have caused the universe. You're just
kicking the can down, right? Who who
made the god? And so, they obviously try
to um intellectualize their their
logical their illogical position as much
as possible. And so say, "Oh, well, the
universe exists with time and only
things that that have a beginning have
to be caused by something." God always
existed uh exists out or either always
existed or exists outside of time or
some other thing. That also doesn't make
any sense. Just a second ago, Lennox was
talking about mathematicians proving
that infinite regress is impossible. So
having a god that exists infinitely
backwards in time doesn't make any
sense. If you want to say that God
exists outside of time or something like
that also does not make any sense,
right? I mean, it there there's not
really any basis for saying that
existing outside of time makes any is
logically coherent at all anymore than a
universe existing without cause. So, we
do have to we do have to admit that it
is a conundrum, right? the the conundrum
as to why anything exists at all, the
universe or a deity or whatever the [\h__\h]
you believe. Why does anything exist at
all is a perplexing a perplexing
question with with that is in the realm
of philosophy, right? And it uh we
certainly cannot disprove a deity of
some kind that decided to go poof. Uh
let's have the universe now. We can
certainly prove it's not the Abrahamic
God. It's not that piece of [\h__\h]
genocidal allloving God. Uh so it's ne
not the god that they want their viewers
to to uh to to land on. Um but we cannot
disprove any concept of any deity.
However, this argument of just there has
to have been something to cause the
universe, but the thing that caused it
is this other deity and I don't have to
explain its cause is [\h__\h] idiotic.
It's a copout. It's just a copout. um to
land at the predetermined conclusion the
Christian God is real and now we're
going to take over the government
Christian theocrats and brace yourself
for an Orwellian dystopian nightmare. Um
never forget that is who Discovery
Institute works for. That is who they
are pushing this propaganda for. The
people who are in Project 2025, they are
in bed with with Project 2025 people.
They are the intellectual arm of that
propaganda. They are trying to
intellectualize
uh all of sewing the seeds of doubt in
in mainstream science also known as
science. Uh so that's that's that's what
this is. Don't fall for it.
>> Got it. All right. Fine-tuning. This is
the second of the three developments.
Once again, we'll we'll begin with an
excerpt from the story of everything.
The basic idea of fine-tuning is that
the universe is just so that its
properties, the initial conditions, the
so-called constants of physics, the laws
of nature, uh, rest on a razor's edge so
that if they were slightly different
than they are in the actual universe,
the universe would not be habitable.
That is,
>> it's fun when philosophers try to
pretend to understand frontier uh,
astrophysics and theoretical physics.
Let's let him get his spiel out.
>> Is it would not be compatible with life.
What's he talking about? What are what
kind g give us some sense of the kinds
of parameters?
>> Well, the fi the finetuning idea is just
the idea that that the basic parameters
of physics fall within very narrow
ranges outside of which life even stable
galaxies even basic chemistry would be
impossible. So we've been talking about
the expansion of the universe. It turns
out that the force that is responsible
for that expansion call it called the
cosmological constant is fine-tuned to
something like one part in 10 to the
90th power. Little
>> Yeah. So [\h__\h] So um anytime they
try to assign these concrete values, uh
it's always baseless. It's always
baseless [\h__\h] Um they it is the big
scary numbers game. They always try to
it doesn't matter what they're talking
about. It's the chance of a protein
forming or the the the precision of the
cosmological constant. They always need
to put in chances are 1 in 10 to the 11d
billion. Um that's what they do every
time. It's always baseless. So, with
fine-tuning, it's not a good argument.
I'll admit it's it's a better argument
than some of the [\h__\h] with abiogenesis
and certainly evolution denial. Um, but
it's not a good argument. These half a
dozen or so parameters, um, there is no
evidence that they could have widely
disperate and variable values to begin
with. um they are always exaggerating or
or flatout fabricating the narrowness to
which they could vary and still produce
a universe that is resembles uh one that
we have. Uh there's also no abil there's
no attempt to discuss possibilities of
these values existing in some kind of a
superp position at the earliest instance
of the universe and then collapsing into
into concrete states. Um, I'm not the
I'm a lot better with uh debunking a
biogenesis stuff and and uh you know,
evolution denial fine-tuning arguments.
I talk about it a little bit in my uh
definitive guide to debunking
creationism, but uh if you're curious, I
mean, I just gave you a few things that
uh that make his that he's he's
dramatically overstating the validity of
the fine-tuning argument, but just
Google debunking fine-tune argument.
There's people who have done long long
long papers debunking the crap out of
this uh this idea. It's not a it's not a
valid argument. So,
>> little smidge this way, little smidge
that way, you'll get either a heat death
or a recolapse of the universe. The
force of gravity, the strength of the
force depicted by something called the
gravitational force constant, the basic
the mass of the quarks, the elementary
particles, all of these different
parameters, the speed of light, they all
fall within these sweet spots. So we
physicists are now talking about are
living in a Goldilocks universe. Not too
hot, not too cold, not too strong, not
too weak, everything just right.
>> So if I picture myself in a control room
with knobs, any one of which if some
child walked in and bumped into any one
of these knobs, the universe as we know
it, and certainly human life as we know
it on this planet, could no longer
continue. How many knobs are there?
>> Several dozen. Uh depending on which
physicist you ask. the the illustration
that you site is actually an
illustration of one of John's teachers
at at uh uh the University of Cambridge,
Sir John Pulkinghorn, the famous
physicist. He asked his student he used
to ask his students to imagine to depict
the finetuning. He asked them to imagine
a universe creating machine with a knob
for the strength of gravity, one for
electromagnetism, one for the
cosmological constant, a slider for the
speed of light and so on. And the point
was that each one of those those
parameters are precisely set and a
little little bit off this way or that
way and the consequences to the
possibility of life in the universe
would be catastrophic like
>> right and that's not a valid claim right
the the variability of those parameters
is dramat uh is dramatically understated
uh exaggerated in in one direction by
them there's a lot more variability than
uh than they imply and also So there is
nothing to indicate that they must have
uh completely variable uh uh potential
values in the first place. Um so and
then what I said about the superp
position and all that. So it but they
need the they need these uh analogies
right they need you to picture uh they
always have some kind of nice little
visual for for the lay person to go oh
wow. So, so first of all, it's a control
room, which is just perfect for
imagining a god behind the uh at the
console, right? Okay, let me make
gravity like this. Let me do this. Oh,
look at that. I got the right values and
now I have a universe with people that's
got people in it. So, it's just it's
adorable.
>> Life in the universe, but also the
ability to do chemistry. Do you do you
run into these in your life?
>> Well, actually, Steve Steve was under
underestimating the number of fine
tuning parameters there are. If you just
change the dipole moment of water, one
tiny, say that word again,
>> the dipole moment of water. So ju just
just uh uh how much electron density
there is on one side of the water
molecule versus the other just slightly
a fraction of a percent. Very small.
Life becomes impossible. Everything in
chemistry is balanced per what the [\h__\h]
Life becomes impossible if you alter the
dipole moment of water by 2%. Uh, that's
a whole lot of [\h__\h] It would change
the solubilities of things and it would
change certain parameters of physical
transformations. It wouldn't make life
first of all, you could have life
without water. You life could evolve in
[\h__\h] ammonia or something. It could
evolve in a different liquid medium or
without a liquid medium at all. I mean,
it's it's it's a little bit of a hard
pill to swallow. I mean, I would be
shocked, but there's nothing firmly I
mean, chemistry happens in the vacuum of
space. Um, but good god, like what a
asinine. What a [\h__\h] dumb thing for
James to say. You change the dipole
moment by a couple percent. It would
change how it would change certain
aspects of reactions and solubility and
all this other stuff. It wouldn't make
life impossible. It would just look
different. We'd have different molecules
acting as components of life, possibly.
Maybe not even that. Um, god damn it.
How that was shockingly stupid.
>> Perfectly for us to have life.
>> Fantastic. All right. You're a
mathematician. How improbable is life?
Is there a way of quantit quantifying
it?
>> It's extremely improbable. I I I think a
very good example of a reaction to an
early former finetuning was Sir Fred Hy
who was an atheist and who was my
examiner at Cambridge and he predicted a
resonance in carbon which was later
discovered and when it was discovered
his reaction was nothing shook my
atheism like that discovery now Sir
Roger Penrose is one of the most
>> resonance in car I don't even know what
the [\h__\h] that mean. What is he saying? I
don't even know. And learning things
about molecules and and and elements
affects your atheism. How? Uh, wow. What
a what a sad anecdote that was. That was
that was a whole big old nothingberger.
Uh, amazing.
>> Brilliant mathematicians in the world
worked with Stephen Hawking and so on.
And he has an analogy in his book where
he says if you want the universe with
the second law of thermodynamics where
even your Cadillac will rust everything
is running down. The creator's aim and
those are his words. He's not a believer
in God. The creator's aim must be
accurate to one part in 10 to the power
10 to the power 123 in order to get our
universe. and
>> big crazy numbers. Uh, so Lennox doesn't
know what the second law of
thermodynamics says. That's part one.
And then part two was to just pull a
number out of his ass. God second law of
thermodynamics uh which to the to the uh
to the to to to the pseudocience
pedalling uh charlatan of this variety
means everything breaks down. That's
what happens. Thermodynamics says
everything breaks down. That's what
entropy is. Um, and then zero ability to
or zero tether whatsoever to 10 to the
10 to the 123 uh whatever the [\h__\h] like
they all they do is just say a big
number. It's ju they just pull a big
number out of their ass. It's
incredible.
Many people have pointed out that if you
put a one here and a zero on every
elementary particle in the universe, you
still can't write that number out. In
other words, the improbability is beyond
our imagining.
>> Can we get a calculation? Can you tell
us how the [\h__\h] you got that number? No,
it's just look at big scary number. And
then everyone watching goes, "Wow,
indeed big scary number." That's why
life is so improbable because this
[\h__\h] guy said so and didn't
substantiate it at all. It's incredible.
So the idea of a creator is extremely
close when you see these kind of
figures. And the important thing is the
>> what what's the what's the probability
of a creator just existing without cause
right so you don't like a universe
existing what what are the odd do the
math there I I I did the math I'm not
going to share the math with you uh
because I don't feel like it but trust
me the math is valid that the odds of a
of a of an infinitely an infinitely
powerful deity just existing just
because the odds of that is 1 in 10 to
the 100 to the 20,000 to the Google plex
to the 50 gazillion to the 69 power way
bigger than your number. So sorry bro uh
the universe ex atheism wins. I said a
bigger number. I said a bigger scarier
number than you. So you lose. I'm sorry.
>> Fine-tuning is something that has been
scientifically established. They've got
to explain it and they don't have an
explanation
that actually works. Apart from the God
hypothesis filmed,
>> apart from all the [\h__\h] that you could
just Google right now and go reputation
of fine-tuning argument and read for
literally 5 minutes and uh and actually
learn something instead of pivoting to
Meyer's dog [\h__\h] book that he's been
coasting on for several years now. does
a really nice job of telling the story
of Hoy's discovery of this very these
very particular uh parameters associated
with building carbon that led him to
have this change of view and he's later
quoted as saying a common sense
interpretation of the evidence suggests
that a super intellect has monkeyed with
physics
>> famous in our in our fields. Yeah.
>> All right. Um, the information enigma. I
think I stole that term from your book.
Again, the uh Jim
>> kind of shocking that they would play
that very well articulated uh argument
here. Um, in the light of modern
science, the idea that the universe was
created for humans is [\h__\h] stupid.
Uh, quite quite frankly, um, and and
just indefensible. It's not compatible
with modern knowledge, right? The idea
that a god would create this in
unbelievably vast universe just to have
a planet and put people on that and
okay, there you go. What's all What's
all this other crap? Don't worry about
it. No, it's fine. It's It's not for
you. It's just I made you over here on
this one little planet. Uh enjoy that.
Like why why would you believe why and
where's all the life, right? I mean, if
you want to talk about uh finely tuned
for life, where the [\h__\h] is it? Mo most
of the universe is vacuum of space. Uh
it there's totally inh inhospitable
life. We don't see any life. Uh we can't
can't it it hasn't made itself known.
That's for sure. Um yeah, that's but
let's see how they spin that that quote.
That's a pretty good one.
>> I'm going to begin my line of
questioning for you with my memory of
what I think was a ninth or tth grade
science textbook which described the
Yuri Miller experiment.
1952.
couple of professors at the University
of Chicago.
>> God damn it. Uh so you're remembering at
least you have the defense that you're
remembering something from when you were
a kid and you're old as [\h__\h] Um but the
rest of us right you no longer have this
uh it is indefensible to begin a
discussion of aiogenesis by citing the
Miller Yuri experiment. It is it's
[\h__\h] ancient science. And these dick
bags do this every time. They talk about
the Miller Yuri experiment and nothing
else. They pretend that they basically
pretend that the field of origin of life
research does not exist. They say
scientists are clueless about the origin
of life and in order to do so they
pretend that the entire field does not
exist. Every goddamn time. Every goddamn
time. develop a closed system of glass
tubes and they insert water to represent
the ancient ocean, methane, ammonia and
hydrogen to mimic the early atmosphere
and then they subjected it to electrical
sparks to simulate lightning and they
produced amino acids. And what I
remember dimly because it was a while
ago but what I remember was oh the the
strong implication was we figured out
how to do the origins of life. They came
up with amino acids. Scientists will be
working on this. Sooner or later,
they'll come up with a living cell.
>> Nobody thought that. That's a straw man
that tries to portray the the the
arrogance of the scientific community
and thinking we were so close to
explaining the origin of life. Nobody
thought that. They were just like, "Look
at that. We got amino acids. That's
cool. That's a cool result. Uh what
should we what should we investigate
next?" Uh nobody thought that that was
anywhere near explaining the origin of
life. Um, but it's been 70 [\h__\h] years
and we figured out a lot of [\h__\h] Um,
and so there's the there's systems
chemistry that that they will continue
to pretend doesn't exist until the end
of time. Uh, and the and the elucidation
of of uh of of self-replicating systems
of molecules that evolve by natural
selection. How could that possibly
pertain to origin of life? Nope. Doesn't
exist. Not real. Um, okay. So, here
James is going to do his [\h__\h] now. He's
he's been chomping at the bit. Let's
see. Has that happened?
>> Watch out. You're going to provoke him.
>> No, that
>> that's code for We all know that James
is [\h__\h] insane and flies off the
handle. Uh so so uh be careful. Be don't
don't agitate him or he's going to turn
into a godamn lunatic right before your
very eyes. We heavily sedated him before
this uh before this interview. Uh but
but even even so if you say the wrong
thing or or if you bring up Dave Fina uh
the the the beast might get loose. So be
careful. Be careful what you do here.
Tread lightly.
>> That hasn't happened. Uh that experiment
there's no doubt they made amino acids,
but the amino acids were just a very
small amount of what was in there. There
were many other things and you have to
stop the reaction pretty early on or the
amino acids all get consumed. they
undergo something called the Millard
reaction where the the aman groups
reacts with an aldahhide that forms and
it it decomposes. The Millard reaction
is the reason that that you put bread in
the oven and it starts to turn brown and
and and uh uh this this crusty part over
the top. This is what happens during
that reaction everything decomposes. So
if you stop
>> amino acids turn crusty brown if you
don't stop the experiment. uh is every
time they have to do some really dumb
analogy because like the the the create
the average creationist watching if you
talk about science for more than eight
seconds their eyes start to glaze over
and they go ah this is like school and
so you have to go no no no it's like
bread it's like bread don't worry it's
don't it's not molecules it's bread you
know what bread is right okay now let me
I have another eight seconds to talk
about science before I have to talk
about some [\h__\h] that you understand um
yeah talking about The Milliary
experiment is [\h__\h] pointless. They
made amino acids. No, they don't
decompose. Uh, none of this [\h__\h] means
anything. Um, it's just they made amino
acids and then we have to talk about all
of the other science where it goes from
there. All the [\h__\h] that he that that he
denies, all of the polymerization of
amino acids to yield polyeptides, which
I showed right to his dumb face in the
debate, and he just shrieked like a
toddler and said, "Nuh-uh." But I'm sure
we're going to get to that.
>> Stop it early. Then you can find some
amino acids. But there's many other
caroxyic acids, many other amines. So
you have many other components in there.
These are it's just a very small
quantity. And of the amino acids, you
get the simplest of amino acids in a
large amount, the the glycine and the
alanine and the other ones in a very
small amount. And so
>> no, you got a bunch of them. So they
they they only detected like three or
four at the time, but they archived the
the glassear and then they later tested
the residue and found uh I don't know
exactly how many, but most I think most
of the biologically relevant amino acids
were were were actually in there. So um
so that's not true. James just lied. So
of the the 12 or so or 10 or so that
they did isolate there's there's one
greatly predominates and none of that
would be useful in nature plus it didn't
have kirality and so that's why
>> where' the goalposts go they didn't have
kiral I mean they had kirality they were
recemic but uh no that's a totally
separate question right uh I won't
launch into that but in my content
debunking James store I have multiple
videos with very very long sections
going over all the potentialities for
the for the uh for the for the uh
development of homocality in biological
molecules can happen at the monomer
level. I talk a lot about um a lot about
crystallization and and and uh just
different way there's just a lot of
there's a lot of [\h__\h] Uh so yeah, go
check out that content.
>> Quite never led led to life.
>> Jim, this is more than 70 years ago.
What have you chemists been doing?
>> That's right.
>> How come nobody How come nobody's
produced a living cell yet? What's going
on? What's going
>> Okay, so straight to the So he's just
mocking. What have you guys been doing?
Well, a lot of [\h__\h] if you actually look
into it. We like people are working on
self-replicating sets of molecules uh
that evolve by natural selection. It's
pretty [\h__\h] incredible actually. Um
so they're not trying to build a cell.
That's synthetic biology. The actual
process by which these self-replicating
sets of molecules in vesicles would
yield a protoell could have taken
millions of years. So it's not a
realistic thing to expect uh experiments
with autocatalysis to yield a protoell
on their own. Um synthetic biologists uh
almost certainly will at some point
synthesize a functioning protocell. But
it it's not a direct goal of origin of
life research. I mean there's overlap.
Synthetic biology overlaps with origin
of life research. But the point is that
there's absolutely no guarantee or
indication that any kind of hypothetical
protoell that you could synthesize would
necessarily be the same or similar to
the first protoell that evolved. Right?
So it's not I mean it's it's cool as a
proof of concept, but origin of life
researchers are trying to figure out how
life evolved on Earth. The exact way
that it happened here, not the not the
myriad potential ways to synthesize
something like a protoell. So it's a
straw man. I've talked about this a lot,
but um he's jumping from the Miller Yuri
experiment to a straw man of modern
science. Uh that's it. It's all I got.
They can't do anything else
>> going on because it was really premature
to think that life would come from that.
The more we learn about the cell, the
harder this target gets. So, every year
it gets harder because the cell is more,
the farther the target escapes us.
>> Right. I've heard your spiel, James. I
know your bag of tricks. Uh no, it
doesn't get further away at all. Uh,
learning things about modern ukareotic
cells has [\h__\h] nothing to do with
what the first protoell was. The goal
doesn't move at all. The goal was always
the simplest protoell possible. And uh,
you spewing all your [\h__\h] about
interacts and all this crazy [\h__\h] and
the movies that Meyer plays that depict
modern ukareotic cells that are the
product of billions of years of
evolution has [\h__\h] nothing to do with
abiogenesis. It's like looking at the
Burj Khalifa and saying, "Well, how did
prehistoric humans first build a shack
of of twigs?" That's how [\h__\h] dumb
this is. And so, even if we move a what
we think would be a little bit closer,
the target has moved miles away versus
millimeters that we might think we're
getting closer. And that's how we know
we're not even close. So, you can track,
are we approaching a target? When will
we have a solution? you you you track
the distance to the target and when the
target is getting further away much
faster than we're approaching it's not
going to be next year that we find this
it's not going to be for many many years
this is why I say all the origin of life
researchers will die of old age before
this is discovered their children will
their students will die of old age and
their students students will die of old
age so when you join one of these
research groups be prepared to die of
old age without
>> be prepared to die. I'm going to kill
you because I don't want anyone working
on this. Um it's just this like hey guys
don't even bother don't bother doing
this science that hurts my feelings
because you're not going to get
anywhere. I say so James Tor the best
scientist ever says don't study origin
of life research. Don't don't join that
field because I don't like it. I don't
want you guys to figure anything out. Um
every goddamn time the target is going
nowhere. The target is the first
protoell and the first protoell has
[\h__\h] nothing to do with extent life.
Has nothing to do with anything that
you're talking about. Uh and it never
will. Sorry.
>> Without solving this. So what you mean
to say is that 70 years after the Yuri
Miller experiment and a good many years
after I and who knows how many other
Americans read about it in science
textbooks,
the leaves on those trees, the fish in
that lake, the four of us at this table,
we have no idea where life comes from.
We have absolutely no idea where life
comes from. None whatsoever.
>> None whatsoever. Nobody has done
anything since Miller Yuri. Nobody has
done anything to elucidate origin of
life in 70 years except for the
thousands and thousands of people that
have published millions and millions of
papers that have gotten us dramatically
closer to understanding the origin of
life. Uh it's just like you this is what
they can all they can do is literally
deny the entire field of science that
hurts their feelings. He's pretending it
doesn't exist even though I presented
all of this [\h__\h] right to his [\h__\h]
face in a live debate. And all he can do
is go nuh-uh and shriek like a maniac
and play with chalk. That's all this
[\h__\h] guy can do. And he's never going
to change his tune. All he can do is
hope that people don't find my content.
They can they can character assassinate
me on the evolution news blog. Dave is a
stupid anti-semite heathen. Don't ever
watch his content. or if you do, you'll
see how [\h__\h] dumb James Tor is when
he tries to talk about this [\h__\h] It's
lit. His argument is literally nuh-uh.
All of origin of life research versus
nuh-uh. That's what he's got. And when
people will will say,
>> and you say that as a man who is a full
professor at Rice University with 130
patents. In other words, this is not
some snake handling uh crazy person from
>> 850 peer-reviewed publications. He's one
of the top organic synthesis chemists in
the world. He knows the chemistry.
>> He's the best scientist ever. So, don't
listen to any other scientists that
actually works in the field and is way
more qualified. Don't listen to Nobel
Prize winning, right? If we're going on
the pecking order of of laurels, uh,
well, Jack Shastak has a has a Nobel
Prize, so he's more accomplished than
you, so he must be right and you must be
wrong. Right? If that's where we're
going to go, I'm going to trust the
thousands and thousands of scientists
that are much more accomplished than
than you that don't resort to their
[\h__\h] sweat shop of 40 graduate
students that put out dozens of papers
per year that that you have nothing to
do with, which you've admitted. You've
publicly admitted to the fact that you
just go, "Oh, my students make all this
[\h__\h] and I just put my name on it and I
get the paper. It's incredible." He flat
out [\h__\h] said that in an interview.
Um, so sorry James, your papers don't
[\h__\h] matter. They have nothing to do
with origin of life research. You don't
understand the field. And anytime people
prove to you that you're wrong, you just
go like this and shout. That's all it
is. So sorry, Meer. I know that you rest
on James really heavily because he's
literally the only actively publishing
scientist that works for Discovery
Institute. Um, but he's a buffoon that
has been discredited by yours truly.
You're very welcome.
>> So, the the chemistry just doesn't work
and and we're nowhere close there.
That's just one problem of a thousand
problems that have to be solved in order
to get life. So, we're very far from
understanding where life comes from. And
>> chemistry is only one problem. There's a
thousand problems. There's the chemistry
and then um I don't know more. There's a
bunch more. That's it. I don't know.
That's what the [\h__\h] And and and so
there there's other questions about why
why they would keep suggesting that that
we're close when we're not. But but as
far as where we are, nowhere close.
Absolutely clueless on the origin of
life.
>> Got it. May May I take a a cut at the
idea of that the target receiving unpack
that metaphor? because the target
receding corresponds not to something
changing in the cell but rather are
getting more and more understanding of
the complexity of the cell. And one of
the huge ironies of the of the 1952 1953
experiment with with Miller and Yuri is
that in 1953, the same year when their
publication comes out about the
experiment, we also have the first
elucidation of the DNA molecule with
Watson and Crick. And what they
discovered and and subsequent to that
was that the DNA contains information in
a digital form and it's part of a
complex information processing system
that makes life possible. So it's not
>> Wow. Wow. Except you keep uh pretending
that we need DNA for life when we don't.
The first life utilized RNA, not DNA. So
every time you guys bring up DNA, you
sound like [\h__\h] idiots. Um but it
sounds like we're going to get into
specified information. That's the Demsky
[\h__\h] That's why I had to very recently
do uh do another debunk for the
Discovery Institute playlist on Demsky.
So, if you're interested in learning
about why all this specified information
[\h__\h] is nothing but propaganda, uh
that would be the video that I would
suggest.
>> Amino acids are just building blocks of
proteins. Proteins are important
components in an information processing
system that's reading the information
from the DNA to make the important
molecular machines. How long is a
typical strand of of DNA?
>> Well, it depends on the organism, but
>> a simple cell.
>> Simple a simple cell.
>> Yeah.
I I mean, a human being, it'll be 2 m
long. I mean, in in each cell,
>> yes. So, what you're saying is we now 3
million characters, but in the simplest
of cells, it's going to be at least
thousands of units long. But the deep
>> I love when Meyer Meyer's like, "James,
you are here for one thing only.
Prebiotic chemistry and and trying to
assassinate the concept of origin of
life research. Do not talk about
anything else." But he can't. Like he
tried to interrupt him, but James is
like he's like just dialing it up a
little bit. Uh and Mar's like, "Oh god."
Okay, just let James speak a little bit.
Please don't humiliate us.
>> DNA is not a protein. every one of these
molecules. I mean, the the amino acids
are are make proteins. DNA is an il is
an iligonucleotide. It's it's and so
>> it's a poly it's a polyucleotide.
>> You need to solve the sugar problem and
you need to to solve
>> if we were to create this on on our own.
>> Yeah. I I mean DNA is a whole different
class of compounds. So So there are four
different classes of compounds that were
made out of. None of these have been
solved. You just Miller Yuri just looked
at the building blocks of the building
blocks and that was a mess
>> and then you got to link the building
blocks and then you got to sequence them
properly and they don't want to hold on.
Oh, so so grant every bit of that. But
but here's in what's in my head is if I
understand it correctly way way back in
the days of Charles Darwin, the general
assumption about this the single cell
that was that it was a simple form of
life. There was some sort of vague
notion that it was like a little blob of
jello or that it was simple. And now
>> Darwin was so dumb. Everybody in
Darwin's time thought that cells were
simple, but they're not. They're super
duper complicated. It's almost like
they're the product of billions of
[\h__\h] years of evolution that has
nothing to do with what the first
protocell was. It's just they cannot do
anything but this. They cannot genuinely
express what origin of life researchers
are working on. They cannot genuinely
talk about systems chemistry and what we
understand about uh about about
replicators and what the actual genuine
target is which had virtually none of
the features of of modern modern
ukarotic cells. They don't even show
proarotes. Sometimes they do but usually
they're looking at modern ukarotic cells
with tons of organels in there. Yeah. No
[\h__\h] that we can't show how that arose
by chance because it [\h__\h] didn't. It
arose as the product of billions of
years of evolution. God damn it. But go
ahead, show your movie. Show your movie
belt. Look at the crazy look at crazy
thing in modern cell. Look at crazy
thing in modern cell. Therefore, God and
uh random processes could never could
never form this um com the most the most
unbelievable straw man imaginable. And
they will never put it down. No matter
how many times they're called out for
it, they'll never do it. We look inside
every single one of cells and it's as
though we find a code or written
instructions
2 meters long
>> in every single cell. Is that correct?
>> Well, in a human cell, it'll be that
long. In a simple cell, it'll be
shorter, but you still have all these
levels of of of
>> molecules that you have to deal with it.
It's so much more complex than than what
you're thinking. So much more. So it's
more complex than you're just looking at
one little thing. And so now when you
look into the cell next year, you see
more that you'd have to solve in order
to get the simplest of cells to work. So
So we want to look
>> No, not the simplest of cells. There are
cells that are way more that are way
simpler than you [\h__\h] ukareotic
cells. They're called proaryotic cells.
And there are cells that are way simpler
than that. Even proaryotic cells are the
products of bacteria are the products of
billions of years of evolution. It it's
just it like why do I even do these at a
certain point where it's just me yelling
the same [\h__\h] for the 47th time. They
will never stop with this [\h__\h]
script. This exact script. Look at crazy
modern ukarotic cell. Therefore god.
That's it. They cannot do anything but
this.
>> Look at the simplest of cells. something
something like a bacterium, something
very simple. Even with that, there's so
many layers of communication that you
have to have. It's not just taking all
these classes of compounds and throwing
them into into the the the lipid
membrane, right? Because nature also
didn't do that. Nature didn't take a
bunch of molecules, make them float
together, and go, "Oh, got a bacterium."
That never [\h__\h] happened. Nobody is
suggesting that that happened. We had
systems of self-replicating molecules
enclosed in vesicles that evolved and
complexified over time to yield the
first protocell. So honestly where that
first the first thing that qualifies as
life is completely ambiguous. You have a
physicochemical continuum where you have
systems of molecules and then over here
you have undeniable protoells and you
would be hardressed to say which
generation say okay now we have life.
It's very ambiguous where that would be.
But I tell you what it won't be. It
won't be a [\h__\h] bacterium. It won't
be a bacterium with with psyia and
fleella and whatever the [\h__\h] other
structural features you want to point
to. That is a product of billions of
years of evolution. You [\h__\h] [\h__\h]
Try to get it through your head. I don't
think you can. That would be like saying
I could take all the parts of the engine
of my car, take them all apart, and
throw them into the passenger
compartment. And if I just wait long
enough and shake it long enough, that
engine would assemble, mount itself, and
everything would start working again.
Nobody would think that. Yeah, because
it's a really [\h__\h] dumb thing to
think that does not in any way represent
anything about science whatsoever. You
can't This is Ken Hovind. This is a
Kenth Hovind argument. And on my very
first two-part response to him, I was
actually shocked that that that's what
he came out of the gate with. Remember
when I made my very first little
45minute video on him? That was in
retrospect. so kind and so polite. I
called him a respected scientist. I said
he's not a con man. I was so nice to
him. Um, and then he came with the
14-part series, Dave is a [\h__\h] blah,
blah, blah. And this is what he started
with. He did the Kent Hovind [\h__\h] of
like [\h__\h] tornado through a junkyard.
Uh, who would think that you could just
throw all the parts of a plane or a car
together and it would make a car? What
the [\h__\h] does that have to do with
prebiotic chemistry, dickbag? Has
[\h__\h] nothing to do with it. It's sets
of self-replicating molecules that you
pretend haven't been substantiated in a
lab, which they have been for the
entirety of the 21st century, 25 years
or so that we've been looking at
replicators, what they can do. Um, and
you just have nothing. You literally
cannot even acknowledge the existence of
the field. It's very sad.
>> That's exactly what you're saying if you
had all the P pieces.
>> These are crazy men. I want to talk to
somebody reasonable. So, John, it's just
a question of time. Don't Don't we The
universe is X billion years old. Even if
it did have a beginning, it's what's
>> 13.8
>> 13.8 billion years old. 13.8 billion
years is a long time.
>> But it's not a long time when you think
of the improbability of this kind of
thing happening. I I think the the thing
that really gets to me is you talk about
this being couple of meters long, but
it's information of an exceedingly
complex linguistic kind.
>> No, it's not linguistic. It's not
symbolic. It's not any of the [\h__\h] that
they're talking about. It's a sequence
of nucleotides. That's it. and you try
to personify it and paint all this [\h__\h]
on top of of it by talking about codes
and digital codes that humans make to to
to pretend that DNA has to have been
formed by God which once again is not
required for the origin of life in
general uh at all. uh first prototell
was RNA based so yeah
>> and language does not get generated by
natural processes
>> it's language
>> information it's code
>> it is language information code and what
Miller and Yuri discovered was a couple
of letters and then
>> they didn't discover letters and DNA is
not a language DNA is a [\h__\h] molecule
it's a goddamn molecule just because we
can assign letters from our alphabet to
the particular nucleases doesn't mean
they're literal letters, okay? They're
[\h__\h] molecules.
>> Once they elucidated
the decoding, the DNA, they realized
that the letters are valless unless
they're in the right order, but it's
worse than that. You mentioned the
living cell, but you see, you need a
living cell to get DNA, and you need DNA
to get a living cell. So you're in the
biggest of all chicken and egg problems.
>> It's not a problem at all. Cell came
first. You had protocells that that
utilized an RNA based genome and then
eventually at some point DNA replaced it
because it is more stable. There's
evolutionary benefits to utilizing DNA
instead of RNA as information storage.
I'm not going to pretend that a we know
everything about that transition. Me
certainly not. I'm there are plenty of
people who understand that transition
better. But what we can certainly say is
that is that life predates DNA. Uh
that's very very well understood in the
origin of life community. So quite
shocking that none of you can seem to
get this through your heads.
>> And the biologist will correct me or
sorry I meant life predates DNA. I don't
even remember what I just said. Uh it's
well understood that life predates DNA.
That's what it is
>> in systems biology. Now they're
concentrating on the fact that there's a
great deal of top- down causation in
this whole field and there are levels
>> top down causation. What do you mean?
>> Well, that you need to sell first to
manufacture all the things that create
it. And you have levels of
complexity going from the basic DNA to
epigenetics above it, the folding of the
proteins, all this kind of thing. And in
Darwin's day and even later, Miller
Yuri, they hadn't the faintest clue of
the nature of what they're dealing with.
You can have
>> Yeah, they didn't know [\h__\h] and now we
do. Uh why are you whining about
epigenetics? What the [\h__\h] does that
have to do with the origin of life? Were
there epigenetics involved in the first
RNA based uh protocell? [\h__\h] of
course not. Uh these are all structural
features. These are these are aspects of
a cell that evolved over time.
Okay? It's like there's just so many
analogies you just the Burj Khalifa [\h__\h]
again with the right. You don't have to
aim for the thing that is the most
complex thing today at the beginning of
that process. It's just like it's it's
the same thing all every time over and
over again.
>> 15.8 billion years. You're going to have
138 billion years. You're going to have
1,380
billion years.
>> You can have 1,300,842
gazillion82
917*
10 to the negative* 10 to the bazillion
Evan. What you you can have any number
you want. Let's keep talking about
numbers. Let's keep listing random
numbers because that means something.
You're not coming close because it's in
the nature of the thing that you do not
get language like complexity through
natural processes.
>> So I have so much content about this
kind of thing. I mean when I debunk
Meyer and then the Discovery Institute
stuff and the James Tour stuff and it's
just they don't want their viewers to
understand systems chemistry. They just
don't want they don't want them to. So
there there's all the prebiotic
chemistry that is well understood to get
to biop-olymers. So getting to
polyeptides is [\h__\h] trivial. I
presented all of this to James right to
his dumb face. He just shouted nuh-uh
and played with chalk. Polyucleotides
also not a mystery. So uh so so RNA
getting to RNA um is not not very
mysterious. We're still trying to figure
out exactly which the pathways were to
get uh to get each component of RNA. But
nucleotides polymerizing on on clay
surfaces is is not is not uh not
controversial at all. So uh if you are
granted uh RNA molecules all kinds of
quadrillions and quadrillions of
sequences of ribboucleotides you're you
some percentage of them are going to be
functional. So you're going to get
molecule you're going to get RNA that
does cool [\h__\h] They're called
ribosymes. So they either participate in
metabolism or they participate in
synthesis. They're going to build
polyeptides or they can self-replicate.
So we we understand ribosymes that
self-replicate. So you get quadrillions
upon quintilions of these sequences.
Some of them are going to do some [\h__\h]
And the ones that do something
interesting and proliferate their own
existence will then uh will then exist
in in higher in a higher concentration
and go on to do more [\h__\h] It's really
conceptually not that [\h__\h] hard to
understand. But that's why they have to
pretend that none of it is real, right?
And they absolutely cannot deal with the
fact that we are demonstrating these
principles. We are demonstrating these
principles scientifically of
self-replication. They will lie out of
their asses about, oh, it's only
replicated 10%. No, it [\h__\h] didn't.
Even if you talk about the liation
mechanism, that doesn't make any sense.
But then they're doing it with
polymerase activity. Um, it's it's, you
know, it's an it's an ongoing field. But
the the idea of of of uh of
self-replicating uh RNA and in autoc
catalytic sets where there's metabolism
happening and so forth, it's not it's
just you you you're just ignoring. You
have to brainwash your viewers into
ignoring the the existence of this
entire field of science. That's all it
is. You have these self-replicating sets
of molecules until you get a protoell
and then from there the cells are
evolving by natural selection. And this
is where all of these additional
parameters uh then arise. So life first
then all of this other [\h__\h] you're
talking about [\h__\h] epigenetics. Give
me a [\h__\h] break. You want to talk
about epigenetics in the context of the
origin of life? How intellectually
dishonest can you be? It's insane.
>> So we're stuck
>> if there's a code point in a different
direction.
>> Exactly. Because when whenever we see
information and we trace it back to its
source, we always come to a mind. Bill
Gates has said DNA is like a software
program. Richard Dawkins has
acknowledged that it's machine code.
Well, whenever when we see Bill Gates,
who knows [\h__\h] all about biology, said a
thing, uh Dawkins, I'll misquote him and
say and pretend and because he's the
prophet that you want us to take down
right now. Um, no, it's not like a
[\h__\h] computer code. It's not like
that at all. It's a sequence of bases
that corresp that that that undergo base
pairing by rules of chemistry. That's
what it is. A a software program, we
always know that it came from a
programmer. In fact, whenever we see
information, whether it's in software or
a hieroglyphic inscription or a
paragraph in a book or information
embedded in a radio signal, you trace it
back to its ultimate source. You always
come to a mind, not a material process.
So Jim has brilliantly shown how
inadequate these undirected chemical
evolutionary theories are. The flip side
of that is that there's a positive case
for a designing mind having played a
decisive role in the origin of life.
Because as John has said, information is
a mind product.
>> But science, the natural sciences, as
Jim has said, can't give us that.
So that's what
>> So I mean I sit here listening to the
three of you and
my little mind is struggling with all of
this because the answer I mean I love I
love when these [\h__\h] interviewers
like play the proxy of the of the
science illiterate Christian viewer.
They're like you guys I mean you guys
are scientists but like what am I to do?
I don't understand anything that you're
talking about. G Willilickers, G Whiz
Willilickers. Like, it's just so clearly
a standin for for the for the [\h__\h]
viewer to then kind of like think for
them and go, "Well, but I guess if I
guess if what you're saying is that
science doesn't have an answer, does
that mean God? Does that mean the
Christian God? Yes, I think it does. So,
I have an intellectual basis for all of
my science denial and all the ridiculous
[\h__\h] that I've been brainwashed into
believing. Thank you. Thank you, Hoover
Institution, for for helping me to
arrive at the conclusion that I am
intellectually justified in all in in my
regressive beliefs and science denial.
Thank you. It's almost like this is
exactly the [\h__\h] point of you
existing. God damn it. It sounds like a
loophole now, an intellectual loophole,
but the answer was all, oh yeah, yeah,
but okay, more just more time. All we
need is more time for these these
processes for random accident to happen.
But of course that's not chemically
plausible.
>> Time time is the enemy. Actually time is
the enemy. As soon as you have these
molecules
>> when you have the molecules they break
down. I wrote a fake paper about how
proteins are supposed to fall apart so
fast even though no they [\h__\h] don't.
But don't watch Dave's video debunking
the [\h__\h] out of my paper or I mock him
relentlessly for [\h__\h] I mean just
watch that video. But it just it's an
entire video on exactly this thing that
he's trying to say.
they start to degrade. Just just like if
you if you if you have something you
that's valuable to you and you put it
outside and it it starts to rust. These
molecules
>> rust isn't decomposition, you [\h__\h]
idiot. Rust is oxygen atoms adding to a
metal or coordinating to a metal. What
the [\h__\h] does that have to do with
decomposition? And no, they don't do
that. No, they don't do I I I could I'm
not going to summarize that video, but
he basically just ignores everything
about uh it's just just go watch that
video. his fake paper about proteins
falling apart. It's [\h__\h] hilarious.
>> If you just had one molecule of RNA, one
molecule, it only lasts hours, hours.
And
>> it only lasts hours because I say so
because I did some [\h__\h] math where I
took the degradation of one monomer and
then just multiplied it by the number of
residues in the thing. Uh and then I
completely disregard uh folding that
that stabilizes the molecule or it's or
annealing to any kind of clay surface
where the where the polymerization is
happening. that also stabilizes
molecule. So, basically, I just ignored
absolutely [\h__\h] everything and did
[\h__\h] math that uh that is supposed to
support my conclusion that molecules,
they just fall apart all the time.
Unless you have God, God has to be in
the water going. Okay. All right. Next
one. Okay. Next one. Okay. Everybody
stay together. I'm using my magic God
mind powers to keep it together against
the laws of chemistry. Yay. I got an RNA
because I'm God. Because I can do it.
It's so [\h__\h] stupid. It's degraded.
So you say well if you waited billions
of years it's degraded proteins will
last on the order of days that's it. So
so this element of time is actually the
enemy and not the savior of this
process.
>> Okay. So the idea that the universe came
about
by means of totally undirected
impersonal forces. All three of you
would consider that
>> implausible preposterous
>> implausible in the extreme.
>> All right. And so, okay, so now let me
ask you this.
Why do all three of you get roughed up
by your fellow by your colleagues? Here,
here I've got Jim Tour. I looked on
YouTube. You got in a debate with some
YouTuber called Dave Fina, who considers
himself a science influencer, explainer,
>> which is what you need to have.
>> Can you do me a favor here? I want you
to read the the title of that paper
there. It's by your buddy Jack Shastak.
He's done some research on this.
>> Yeah, I know. And Jack Sust even says he
cannot get it. And here's what he said
in in a recent YouTube. He claimed your
work quote only serves to keep
indoctrinated buffoons in their blind
faith. Close quote. That's not a very
nice thing to say.
>> Oh, did my did my facts hurt your
feelings, [\h__\h] Um, wow. He just I
don't know if to knew that he was going
to bring me up. I don't know. He uh I
mean, how how can't you, I suppose,
because I uh have done uh quite a lot of
work here in uh in humiliating him. So
it usually they just pretend I don't
exist, but uh in this case it seems like
they want to talk about it. Um so that's
exactly what it is. Um they showed a
clip of me humiliating him during the
debate, one of the many times that I was
using uh actual research to disprove the
dumb [\h__\h] he was saying. Uh it was about
Shastack. He was whining about the the
about the linkage and I showed him that
the that uh that functionality tolerates
variety of linkage and then and then
they they do the oh Dave just reads
titles of paper. No, I [\h__\h] showed
what's in the paper. You're you're the
[\h__\h] trying to pretend that the
title of the paper contradicts
diametrically the contents of the paper.
That the paper doesn't do what the title
says the paper is doing. Um it's just a
pathetic defense mechanism to ignore
research that uh that that ruins his
ruins his [\h__\h] script. Um yes, that
is what tour is for. That is what tour
is for is to keep the ind indoctrinated
buffoons happy with their with their
science denial and their uh their their
their cowardice and in their inability
to look at what the [\h__\h] science is
actually doing. So James, any thoughts?
>> Which brings us to Steve. Here's from
Charles Marshall's review.
>> Wait, you're not going to get a
counterpoint from James? We're not going
to get something here. Uh come on, man.
That was You're just named dropping me
to go, "Oh, look how mean Dave is."
Seriously.
Godamn. That's That's [\h__\h] cowardly.
That's really crazy. Um maybe they did
tell James that they were going to drop
a quote and and Meer was like, "Look,
they're going to bring Dave up. Just
[\h__\h] don't blow up. Just just don't
say anything. He's going to move on
right away." I told him to move on. So,
we're not going to talk about Dave. Just
Okay. So just be be calm
>> of your book Darwin's Doubt. This
precedes your book The Return of the God
Hypothesis. And by the way, this review
appears in Science, which has got to be
one of the two or three most esteemed
scientific journals. Quote, "The book's
subtext is to provide solace to those
who feel their faith undermined by
secular society and by science in
particular. Meyer's selective
scholarship appears driven by his deep
belief in an explicit role of an
intelligent designer in the history of
life. Quote,
>> it it's just they're parading around
examples of educated people debunking
their propaganda and going why is
everyone so mean. They're making no
attempt to even it's like you like we
are debunking you with science. Me, this
guy, we're saying accurate things to
prove that you're lying. your [\h__\h]
book, which I debunked the hell out of.
It's actually the main thing that I
focus in my 90minute piece on Meyer as
number two in the in the DI uh playlist.
Uh he's just lying the whole [\h__\h]
time about the Cambrian explosion and
and related uh events. He's lying the
whole [\h__\h] time. So, yes, that is
exactly what it is. It's lies to help uh
brainwash people into thinking that they
are justified, scientifically justified
in rejecting science. That is the
mission statement of Discovery Institute
is to pretend that religion is science.
The overintellectualization
of blind faith and dogma and a rejection
of scientific principles. They're trying
to disguise that as actual scientific
scholarship. That's why they talk about
I got so many papers and I got this
degree from blah blah blah blah blah.
It's all [\h__\h] smoke and mirrors, man.
And they will do nothing to defend their
propaganda from the people who who uh
accurately expose them.
>> Close quote.
How come?
>> The reason for those quotes,
>> yes,
>> is that the people that wrote them do
not take the scientific arguments
seriously
>> because you don't have scientific
arguments. You're just [\h__\h] lying
about science the whole goddamn time and
humiliating yourself. That's why we
expose you.
>> And they are actually exemplifying what
they're accusing Jim and Steven. And
that was what I've seen all the time.
They will not get
>> of the faith. These are the materialist.
>> Yes, I know. But they're not able to
defend it intellectually. So they give
these kind of ad homonym
>> said the [\h__\h] loser charlatans that
cannot defend their distortions of
science. So they resort to ad homonyms.
Dave is just a science explainer. So
what the hell does he know? Well, I
[\h__\h] humiliated you, James, and both
of you dick bags as well. Um, any of you
want to debate me? I'll debate you,
Meyer. I'll debate you. I'll [\h__\h] I
definitely will debate you. What do you
say? I know you're watching this. I know
you watch everything I do and then
decide whether to or are we going to do
an evolution news? Are we going to do an
evolution news because Dave debunked Avi
Lobe and we're going to whine about
anti-semitism?
Is that an ad homonym? Is whining about
me being an anti-semite? Is that
character assassination? Or is it just
you dumb [\h__\h] being completely
incapable of addressing everything I say
to expose your distortions of science
right here buddy? Jim and he will speak
for himself and Steven have issued
challenges to these materialists to come
up with evidence real argument. And do
they Jim?
>> Well the the YouTuber doesn't have the
capacity to understand the science. So
what I've done is I've challenged
>> David is a dum dum. I mean, it's not
like he debunked everything I've ever
said on this topic ever to to
smitherines and has reduced me to the
laughingstock of the scientific
community single-handedly, but he just
doesn't get it right. He just But don't
look at his content. Don't look at his
content where he humiliates me for hours
and hours and hours um with real
science, with actual science, actual
peer-reviewed science. Um but he doesn't
get it. So, I issue challenges to the
real scientists who treat me like a
[\h__\h] troll and ignore me because
that's exactly what I am. Uh, so when
they don't respond uh to [\h__\h] that was
debunked to my face in the debate,
right? What were his challenges? Number
one, polyucleotides. I explained that to
you right to your face in the debate.
Uh, pol uh, yeah, poly polyeptides and
then polyucleotides were the first two.
Explain that to you in the debate.
Number three, polysaccharides [\h__\h]
made by enzymes. Fourth one was
specified information. That's not a real
thing. That's creationist propaganda.
And then the fifth thing was the cell.
We didn't get to it, but I tried to
explain some aspects of systems
chemistry to you and you just shot your
pants and and shrieked like a toddler.
Uh, so you don't have challenges. You
don't actually have challenges, James.
And everybody in the scientific
community ignores you because you're a
toxic loser troll and they have actual
science to do. That's why I'm the one
who who debunks the [\h__\h] out of you
because that's what I do. I'm a science
communicator. So, it's my job to
humiliate you. And boy, what a great job
of that I've done. Don't you think?
>> PhD chemists or biochemists to engage
with me. I've challenged them openly uh
on my YouTube channel. Others have
reached out to them to meet with me.
We'll go on a neutral channel. I'll go
on their channel uh and we'll have this
discussion because the chemist can
understand what I'm talking about.
YouTubers can't. And
>> yeah, that's funny because I've actually
humiliated you even on chemistry that uh
has nothing to do like you didn't
understand stochastic crystallizations.
Like there was so much chemistry that
you legitimately don't understand. It
wasn't you like spewing your your
science denial script. Like you're
actually really dumb with a lot of areas
of chemistry that don't pertain to like
your graphine and nanocars and [\h__\h] like
that. Um but what was the other thing
you said? There was something else I
wanted to say. They I don't remember
now. Maybe I'll think of in a second.
>> And uh uh so when I go to the people
that understand what they're talking
what what what I'm talking about, they
won't engage. So
>> yeah, that was what I was going to say.
Yeah. Uh astrophysicists ignore
flatearthers. Does that mean the Earth
is flat? No. Because they're just
scientists that don't give a [\h__\h] about
trolls like you. They're not going to
acknowledge you in any way, shape, or
form because you're a [\h__\h] troll,
James. Sorry. Their silence says it all
because no answer is an answer in
itself. They will not respond to the
arguments because the they see exactly
what I see. It this is not a mystery.
What I'm bringing forth is is is quite
obvious to the scientist. It's really
quite obvious.
>> Any working chemist knows what you're
>> and so why aren't any other scientists
supporting you here, James? You're the
only one spewing this [\h__\h] the
entire scientific community looks at you
in disgust and ignores you and you're
still saying scientists are saying are
seeing what you're seeing. Look at your
first challenge. How do we get
polyeptides? We can all acknowledge that
getting amino acids are [\h__\h] trivial.
And then I showed you countless examples
of how we've shown that amino acids can
polymerize to get polyeptides by
prebiotically plausible chemical
activators or wet dry cycling. You
acknowledged none of it. chat your pants
about your DK linkage, which is a total
straw man because those amino acids were
not necessary for the origin of life.
And I showed you research where they
were coupled anyway, and you just shout
your you just shout clueless and and cry
like a little toddler. Why should anyone
in the scientific community acknowledge
you when that's how you treat even a
generalist like me who can so easily
debunk your claims right to your face?
Why should anyone pay attention to you,
James? And in fact, you don't want
anyone to. You want them to continue
ignoring you. Just like Eric Weinstein
wanted all the physicists to ignore
geometric unity so that he could then
say, "Well, why is no one paying
attention to me? Please don't pay
attention to me. Why is no one paying
attention to me? It's just pathetic. All
of you [\h__\h] are like this. Nobody
nobody in the field gives a [\h__\h] about
you. You are so meaningless. They don't
think about you."
>> That's what you're talking about.
>> Any working synthetic chemist, organic
chemist knows what I'm talking about.
Anybody who's worked with molecules,
they know exactly what I'm talking
about. So, they don't touch it. There's
there's the more fundamental question is
why? Why? But but as far as the the
science goes, nobody's going to going to
contest with what I say. And this this
information problem is very fundamental
because what we now know in 21st century
biology is that you want new biological
form you have to provide or something
has to provide new information. Charles
Marshall my critic there to his credit
did do a debate with me for a rather
extensive debate. It's up online and he
was proposing we were discussing the
problem of the origin of the Cambrian
animals the so-called Cambrian explosion
which is an explosion of biological form
>> in the fossil record. in the fossil
record. But before that, it would be
required an explosion of information.
And he had simply proposed, well, maybe
before the Cambrian animals, there were
some pre-Camrian organisms that wouldn't
show up in the fossil record. And I
said, yes, but you still to build them.
You would still require information. The
information problem is still
fundamental.
>> So, it has nothing to do with Cambrian
explosion at all. Right. And there are
precamrian forms that are in the there
are idi fauna that very that very
directly uh feed into the forms in
Cambrian that we see in the Cambrian
explosion. But all it is you don't even
need to be talking about Cambrian
explosion. All you're really saying is
how get new forms though. Well, in order
to in order to pedal that you just have
to deny all so with him behe uh axe that
whole [\h__\h] Well, actually, no, no, not
axe, more beehe. I forget exactly the
ones the ones that are that pedal this
exact thing of how do you get new forms.
They always deny macro mutations. They
just they they they offiscate about what
mutations can actually do to the genome.
They basically pretend that you can only
have point mutations. In actuality, you
can have gene duplication and
neofunctionalization. So, you get an
entirely new gene. You can have denovo
genes. So a promoter gets transferred
and now you have a non previously
non-coding region which is a new gene.
So a totally new gene totally new
protein product. You can have chro
entire chromosome duplication and then
every single gene on that chromosome can
then uh neopalize. So uh and there are
plenty plenty of these kinds of uh macro
mutations that in a single generation
you have to understand this in the
concept of of in the in the context of
embryionic development what that can do
right the the form that that arises is
being read from the genome if you
dramatically change the genome you can
get an entirely uh different form and in
my content I've show all kinds of
different examples of even point
mutations let alone macro mutations that
uh that dramatically alter the
morphology of an organism. So this is
it's just another big nothing burger.
It's just like the they deny literally
the entire field of origin of life
research. They deny most of genetics uh
uh and the and the entire concept of
macro mutations and what that means for
embriionic development. So uh that is
that part
>> his comment in the in the debate at that
point was fair comment. So this has not
been solved by evolutionary theory
either biological evolutionary theory or
chemical evolutionary theory. But again
to reiterate John's point, information
is something that is produced by a
particular type of cause of which we all
know and that is an intelligent mind.
And we're finding at the foundation of
life, information encoded in DNA
expressed in complex information
processing systems. It's absolutely
exquisite. So
>> yeah, uh in the the information in DNA
is the sequence of nucleotides. That's
it. It's just a sequence of nucleotides.
There's no special sauce. There's no
mystical essence that needs to be
implanted from a deity into the
molecule. It's just a [\h__\h] sequence
of nucleotides. That's all it is.
>> If if information precedes the new
biological form,
I'm sure this is metaphorical or I'm
sure I'm getting this wrong,
but is it something like the new species
must be imagined before it comes into
being? Well, the species is a bit of a
>> or new form or
>> new form the fundamental new forms of
life require
like because we don't they they don't
like to get specific with taxonomy,
right? They like to this is where they
try to do a Kent Hovind thing with
kinds. Um they don't want to say new
because speciation occurs, right? We
observe uh the development of new
species. So he can't say no, you can't
get new species because we [\h__\h] see
it. We watch it happen with our own
eyes. We see it happen. So he has to
have this nebulousness of kind which he
tries to tether to film. That's why he
talks about Cambrian explosion all the
time because Cambrian explosion in that
first of all he lies about how long it
was. He says it's 10 million years. It's
more like 40 or honestly as long as 80
million years. Um but that is the era
when many or most of uh fila that modern
animals uh fall into originally arose.
That's true. Um, but uh, so he's that's
why he fixates on that time period
because it's like, well, how'd you get
that form and that form and that form?
Um, but then he won't genuinely talk
about the the concepts in molecular
biology that allow for it. Um, but then
it's also this other DNA magic
information [\h__\h]
>> We know that just require information.
>> We know that information is required to
build them.
>> Okay.
>> Okay. And we know that information comes
from a mind. So when we see these
explosions of new form,
>> information can come from a mind.
Therefore, all information comes from a
mind and uh and a god exists. It can't
possibly just be uh molecules that exist
and have random sequences of monomers
and then certain sequences happen to
have some kind of function and so they
proliferate in a statistically
significant way and then natural
selection uh guides the the those
particular sequences. Can't possibly be
the case. And you can't possibly have
random processes that change the
sequence of nucleotides, even though
yes, you [\h__\h] can, and we know what
they are. And those can't possibly
dramatically change the morphology of a
developing organism, even though, yes,
they [\h__\h] can, because we can see
that. We've seen that happen. Um, it's
just lie after lie after lie after lie,
distortion after distortion after
distortion. They have nothing else.
Don't have a leg to stand on.
>> I think we are seeing evidence of of the
activity of a of a divining a designing
mind. Yeah. By the way, so back in 2019,
uh, I recorded a show with you and David
Berinsky and David Galertner, and that
was on
>> the mathematical challenges to
neodyarwinism.
>> Darwin to Darwin.
>> I got to do I should do a reaction to
that one, too. I' I've seen that. I've
seen clips of that, and like [\h__\h]
Burlinsky with his goddamn denim vest
and a cane. Look at this [\h__\h] [\h__\h]
tool. Binsky is going to get an
installation in the in the DI list at
some point. And the comments on this
show on YouTube were scathing. Why are
you wasting to me? Why are you wasting
your time with these cranks? And 2023,
we recorded another show with you and
John and Michael Beehe, not the same
topic, but similar topic. And the tone
of the comments was completely
different. Do you feel
>> because you started heavily moderating
your comment sections and deleting
anyone who debunks all of the dumb [\h__\h]
that you say? Uh, could that have
something to do with it? No.
a change in the way you're being
received. Is it generational?
>> Yeah, I don't know if it's generational,
but something's shifting very science.
>> Yeah.
>> At my University of Oxford,
>> and all three of us know this person,
there's a brilliant scientist, Dennis
Noble. He's a fellow of Royal Society,
is regarded widely as the father of
systems biology. and he is on record as
a scientist to say that neodyarwinism
doesn't need to be refined. It now needs
to be completely replaced.
>> Yeah. And uh so neodyarwinism isn't even
the modern uh model of evolutionary
biology. We have a modern synthesis, an
integrated synthesis. And uh Noble is
now a Templetonf funded crank. Uh so go
watch my video on uh Dennis Noble to
elucidate uh the the details of his
pseudocience and the reasons that he is
pedalling them. Um you can also watch my
content on Sabore because uh Sabore
worships Noble and talks about him
constantly and so there's a lot of fun
content uh where he's just glazing
Dennis Noble and thinks that that's an
argument. Um so yeah uh yeah no Noble
does not really enter into this doesn't
work. Sorry guys. Now the interesting
thing is that there are some leading
biologists in the world saying similar
things. Many of them are still quite
materialistic but they've given up on
this. Whereas the general public tends
to hang in with the old stuff and
they've never heard this.
>> Oh, I see. That's all right. You you you
experience the same sort of change, more
openness.
>> I Yeah, I I think the papers are
certainly being written differently. So
the origin of life researchers are not
making the the gross extrapolations from
a very small piece of data.
>> This [\h__\h] thinks that actually
thinks that origin of life researchers
think about James when writing their
papers. Like oh James is going to get me
if I if I write that so I better change
it. They don't [\h__\h] think about you
James. You are a troll. You are you are
a flat-earther to astrophysicists.
That's that's what you are. you are a
[\h__\h] denying the field of science that
they do that they that they engage in
and uh they don't care about you. I'm
sorry. And none of this shift is
happening, right? They're trying to
paint it as like there's a there's a
shift to brewing. So get in get in on
the ground floor while you can. We're
going to overturn this dirty materialism
paradigm from the stupid mainstream
scientists. And the new era is going to
be us uh us Jesusloving scientists uh
that that know about souls and how God
had to make all this stuff progressively
bit by bit because he's such a loser god
that he can't just make make a universe
where life can come about by
naturalistic processes. Pretty insane.
>> They used to make the press still hypes
it up and and the origin of life
scientists are responsible for allowing
a lot.
>> The press does still hype it up. I will
give him that, but it's not the
scientist's fault. It's [\h__\h]
clickbait culture. Deal with it. A
>> lot of that to go forth because a lot of
times the press will will ask you, did
we get this right? And and so they they
will have extrapolations there. So it's
still in our textbooks. It still is
there. But but uh
>> primordial soup model. I hate the soup
in the textbooks. Uh that was one of my
favorite parts of the debate where I
proved that he is a lying fraud to his
face about the textbooks and he shhat
his pants and did his clueless uh
pageantry. That was a glorious moment.
>> Uh the conversation is beginning to to
change.
>> All right, we're Peter, we're talking
somewhat descriptively and maybe even a
bit abstractly about the complexity of
the cell. And I think one of the things
that can be very helpful is to actually
see an animation of what's going on in
the way the digital code in the DNA is
directing the construction of the
proteins and the protein machines that
we need to stay alive in that little
clip you showed of Jim from the story of
everything film comes right after an
animation that shows that. And so that's
one way without having to do a PhD in
molecular biology, people could get a
little bit of a handle on what we're
talking that animate.
>> Watch this cartoon that's like, "Oh my
god, [\h__\h] is so crazy. Modern modern
life is so crazy. So, how did that come
about by chance? Don't learn anything.
Don't learn any science that will very
easily explain to you how this all came
about by naturalistic processes. Just
look at movie of crazy thing and go, "Oh
my god, therefore, God
is just one of a million different
animated things that are happening in a
cell." So, so you can't just solve that.
There's so many other pieces that need
to be solved in order to have life.
>> Wheels within wheels within wheels of
complexity.
>> And it's a matter of perception. You
quoted the psalm at the beginning, the
heavens declare. That's perception.
And one of the impressive things to my
mind is the response that a mind is
behind this is usually a matter of
perception. If you see the word exit
above a door, it's just four letters.
Very simple. But you immediately know
that whatever processes have been used
to create that sign, there's a mind
behind it. Why? Humans can make signs.
Isn't that crazy? Humans invented
language and signs. Therefore, God
exists. This is the [\h__\h] level. Like,
these guys are praised as intellectuals.
This is the cream of the crop that
creationists have. and they say dumb
[\h__\h] like that. Can you like wrap your
head around that?
>> Because it conveys meaning it's got four
letters. You take the 3 point whatever
billion letters in a DNA strand and many
of my scientific colleagues just look at
it and say chance and necessity. They
never dream of doing that with the word
exit.
>> Um one more clip from this documentary
with the story of everything. There's
actually a big problem in evolutionary
biology. It's called the problem of
gratuitous beauty.
Many organisms have beauty beyond
anything that's relevant for their
survival value.
>> Gratuitous beauty.
>> Gratuitous. So there's an objective
metric of beauty. Now they're
objectively beautiful or is it
subjective? And does that play? It's
like what? So a hummingbird is is
beautiful. Uh, and that pertains to its
survival. Why? Because of color. Because
that is a nice color. Is there any
evolutionary basis for certain colors?
Uh, I think there are, aren't there? Um,
so this is more just like this is like,
wow, cell is so complex, therefore God.
Wow, things are beautiful, therefore
God. It's [\h__\h] stupid. It's a dumb
argument.
>> Explain that. Well, it's the idea that
that organisms have a a beauty that
doesn't in any way convey anything that
helps them in the Darwinian competition
for survival. It's unnecessary to help
account for why they have survived. It's
just there. I love
>> Okay, you showed a bird. You understand
that all like peacocks and like all of
this the feathers and the colors and
everything, it's for mating. It serves a
an evolutionary purpose. It's for
attracting a mate. So, do you have a
better example than a [\h__\h] bird and
the colors on a bird? Because we
understand that
of tropical fish. I love to snorkel in
in Hawaii. And when you look at the
patterns on the fish, it's really hard
to believe that well, this the Hawaiian
trigger fish has exactly that. There's
one even called the Picasso trigger
fish. It's so beautifully painted.
There's these all these different
patterns and and and
>> you're literally showing that in front
of the coral that is of similar color.
Uh it's called [\h__\h] camouflage,
[\h__\h]
>> And designs that really seem to have
absolutely nothing to do with whether
they're they're going to survive or not.
Some of them are so brightly colored
that they're almost saying, "Come eat
me. Eat me." Uh they're not really
helping in the in the process of
survival. They seem to suggest that
perhaps the creator was not only a good
software programmer but also a great
artist.
>> God made pretty fish for our enjoyment
so that we could go, "Ooh, look at the
pretty fish." No. Can't have anything to
do with mating, camouflage, or things
that actually make sense. No. Can't
possibly be that.
>> And you can say the same about
mathematics and art and music. Well,
okay.
>> They're not necessary for survival.
>> So, let me ask you, let me ask you that.
Here we are sitting in Saltsburg, the
hometown of Mozart. Yeah.
>> If you are an evolutionist, evol
whatever the term is Darwinist,
>> how do you explain the ser the
evolutionary process that produces
Mozart?
>> Very badly.
>> No, come on. Do your
>> How could evolution make Mozart? Uh,
evolution made smart brains for
survival. And another thing that a smart
brain can do is make nice sounds. Uh,
it's really not that hard to understand.
Uh, don't bring Mozart into this. He's
my favorite composer of all time. [\h__\h]
you guys.
>> Your best is there. If you were, if you
were forced to argue for the other side,
what would you say?
>> Well, you must say if there is no God
behind this universe, you are forced by
your worldview to say it must have
happened gradually through
infiniteesimal steps over long periods
of time. And you must say that driven by
your worldviews. Nothing to do with
science or observation or anything else.
>> No, we couldn't possibly be arguing uh
science based on all the science that
we've done. [\h__\h] [\h__\h]
>> It's the only logical solution. And that
has always been a big problem for me
that if you're sitting with an atheist
hat on, you're forced into this. And so
therefore, a lot of
>> And that's not scientific.
>> Yes, it's not scientific. It's simply
your belief system.
>> Science isn't scientific, but our
baseless belief system is science
because we use science words and deny
science while doing so. The [\h__\h]
upside down clown show of apologists. It
just never ceases to amaze me, right?
Their blind faith is science because
they say so. And science is blind faith
because they say so. It's [\h__\h]
bananas.
>> I see. So, um, could I I thank you very
much for the seminar, but I'm just
wondering
this may get a little bit I'm just going
to ask you about your personal
reflections, your personal responses to
all of this. How well here here's here's
Isaac Newton in the general skull and it
concludes the Prancipia. quote, "This
most beautiful system of the sun,
planets, and comets could only proceed
from the council and dominion of an
intelligent and powerful
>> powerful being."
>> Newton was really smart and he believed
in God. So, God exists.
>> This they they actually parade this [\h__\h]
around. He lived 400 years ago before
literally all of biology and modern
biology and geology and all of this
other information that helps us
understand how all of this [\h__\h] came
about through naturalistic processes. He
is pre borderline he's at the at the at
the earliest the earliest era of modern
science. Uh and he believed in God so
God must be real. Uh let's not point at
brilliant atheists and say therefore God
can't be real. Uh that wouldn't be this
exact same argument at all. Um yeah,
just uh look, creationists, you know,
will always do this. They'll go, "Here's
a list of ancient scientists who
believed in God, therefore God must be
real." Uh talk about a [\h__\h] argument
from from authority. Pathetic. Pathetic
that you would even try to do this.
Pathetic.
>> Yes. All right. Intelligence
powerful. Got it. Can we get from the
science to a being that is in some ways
in some way or another loving, merciful?
Can the science get us?
Can the science get us where we
eventually need to go? Because this is
we're we're pedaling propaganda for
Christian nationalists, not Hindu
nationalists or Buddhists or anything
like that. We are trying to get to
proving that the Christian God exists.
So, we've done all of this fake science
to to to to prove that a god exists. But
how can we prove that it's the Christian
God? Can you guys help us with that?
With your science, with your big science
brains, convince me that this God, that
this designer that you're talking about
is the Christian God because obviously
it is. Duh, right? We're all Christians
and so it has to be the Christian God.
But help me do some more propaganda to
to get me there. Come on. to God as we
all as many religions suggest he is. Is
there any or or or do we need to just
say no no no no no we're not going
there. Intelligent design is simply a
very limited finding that
information is necessary for certain
scientific for certain processes that we
observe. Information comes from minds.
That's as far as we're going. How how do
you handle this problem? Well, my
initial reaction is the one that uh the
Christian apostle Paul mentions that
looking at the world, the universe, we
can reasonably conclude that there is an
intelligent mind behind it. We have
intelligent minds after all and that it
shows a beauty at points beyond itself.
But then you come to a completely
different source of knowledge. If you go
back to Francis Bacon, who's
>> so the answer is no. No, science cannot
help us here. We are now going to just
be doing uh Christian run-of-the-mill
Christian apologetics without any
science in it. Thanks.
>> Often called the father of science. He
talked about two books. God has given us
the book of nature and the book of
revelation in the Bible. And it seems
perfectly logical to me. If the science
is pointing towards an intelligence, the
logical question to ask, has
God revealed himself? Now, you see, when
it comes to me getting to know you,
Peter, I could put you and analyze your
brain waves. I could MRI scan you. I'll
never get to know you unless you reveal
yourself to me. Now, if you reveal
yourself, usually in speech, of course,
my mind keeps working. I reason and see
that what you're saying makes sense. And
it seems to me the analogy is perfectly
justified. God claims to have revealed
himself in his word and in Christ. And
we don't stop our rational processes
when we see that revelation. We need our
minds to read it and understand it. And
it's when those two worlds come
together, our observation of the world
getting us as far as a god, a creator.
But now at the level of revelation and
another thing, our own personal
experience as persons reacting to all of
this and to scripture. All of that goes
together and focuses on one thing.
>> So don't worry idiots. You don't need
any more bogus science talk. Now you can
just rely on your own intuition that
told you that it must be the Christian
God that you were brainwashed into
believing. Because why go through the
process of acknowledging that it that
it's no different from believing in Zeus
or Vishnu or whatever or Thor or
whatever the [\h__\h] other kind of gods
from all the various mythologies uh that
have existed over time. Just it's going
to be the Christian God because I don't
know he said some [\h__\h] It's in a book.
The book says he said some [\h__\h] None of
us have heard him since but he used to
talk all the time. It's got to be that
God. That's uh that's about the level of
sophistication we're getting from Lennox
here. And it's the cumulative effect of
that
that means I'm sitting talking to you as
a convinced Christian and a person
convinced of the value of science.
>> Jim, how do you handle
how do I'll put it another way. You say
in in this documentary, I think it's
your voice that's quoted, that in the
earlier times, Galileo, Kepler, Newton,
all these men of science
took for granted, as all of humankind
seems to have done for millennia, that
there was a creator. All right?
>> Can a scientist in the year 2025 talk
that way?
>> Look, we used to all believe in God
because we didn't understand anything
about the universe. How could you how
could you conceive of life evolving from
a common unisellular ancestor that came
about by naturalistic processes until
that science has been done and
substantiated? Uh you you don't have
that option. Now the science is there
and it's it's allowing people to arrive
at atheism or at least to decouple from
fundamentalist
gods of of specific religions um in a
way that was not an option hundreds of
years ago. It's not that [\h__\h] hard to
understand. Now we understand things
about the universe and life, right?
Biology, geology, astronomy, etc. So, it
is now possible to be a an atheist. I
think they used to call or somebody
called it a an intellectually fulfilled
atheist. I think it was Dawkins actually
that said that. Um, but uh what like
what what's so [\h__\h] hard to
understand? And it doesn't matter that
you like you can still believe in God.
You just can't believe in this kind of
loser god that you guys are trying to to
brainwash the the gullible masses into
into believing a progressive creationist
deity of of of fundamentalist Christian
belief system that is not compatible
with science. A god who goes here's the
universe boom and it unfolds by natural
processes. You can still believe in that
god and many many many scientists do
probably most actually if you look
globally. Um uh so this you know they're
going to try to spin something about
religious scientists being persecuted
and [\h__\h] like that. No [\h__\h] believe
in a god but believe in a god that is
compatible with science because the one
that you guys preach about it ain't.
Sorry.
>> Or do you do you personally have to be
very careful about saying here's the
evidence and I stop there. Well, when I
write scientific papers, I look at the
evidence and I write certain things.
There's there's other things that we're
we're we're excluded from from being
able to write. We just look at the
evidence and we we report up upon it. We
might make extrapolations, but no, I
don't bring God into the scientific
papers. But,
>> and that's the way it should be.
>> That's that's the way it should be. I'm
fine with that.
>> Can you imagine? He's writing a paper on
graphine and he's like look how cool
graphine because is because God decided
he should make this cool thing. Uh where
where the [\h__\h] would that work? His his
legitimate scientific output obviously
has nothing to do with God and it has
nothing to do with any of these topics
that any of these assets are pretending
to understand. He doesn't do research.
Like people will whine in my comment
section about how awesome James is and
how how dare I the arrogant Dave uh to
to debunk the [\h__\h] out of him in all my
content they're too afraid to watch. But
they actually have convinced themselves
that he's an origin of life researcher
that he works in that he or at the very
least works in molecular biology. Some
of them will call him a biochemist and
[\h__\h] like that. He doesn't work in this
[\h__\h] His legitimate scientific output
has [\h__\h] nothing to do with these
topics and he genuinely does not
understand these topics. He doesn't
understand biochemistry, molecular
biology, evolutionary biology, any of
this [\h__\h] Um, so yeah, no duh. His
papers on graphine and [\h__\h] don't talk
about God. Why would they? That's his
actual science, which honestly at this
point I don't think he does too much of
because he's busy doing this crap for
for Meyer. This is where a good chunk of
his money comes from. Um, yeah, he's got
that sweat shop of grad students. Keep
pumping out those papers, guys.
>> But what you see is you see a regularity
in nature. It doesn't have to be this
way, but it is this way. And this is how
we know that we have a God who has a
consistency and a purpose. Parents who
are consistent with their children are
usually much better parents. And that's
what children long for. They love for
consistency. It's not that Prooseidon is
is angry today and that's why we have
the winds. I mean, he's not a capricious
god and this
>> Yeah, not at all. He just commits
genocide whenever the [\h__\h] he wants. Uh,
this is like you're you're the this is
the the the schizophrenia that results
from Christians trying to decouple the
God of the Old Testament from the God of
the New Testament. They need that god to
be the same god, but also it can't be
the same god at all because the old one
is a wrathful sociopathic genocidal
piece of [\h__\h] and it is not compatible
with the new allloving one. The
consistent parent, the consistent parent
who allows horrific suffering all over
the world all the time. Um, but yeah,
but but but do go on about parenting,
James. Yes,
>> regularity is what drives us to say,
hey, I can study something that would be
in a plant and I can expect to see
similar behavior in an animal. I can see
this type of behavior. I can see the
consistency of how molecules work. I can
do the experiment in Austria. I can do
the experiment in Houston, Texas. It's
going to be the same way. It didn't have
to be, but it is the same way. We could
be in a completely logically
inconsistent universe where the laws of
physics are different in different
places and where absolutely nothing
makes sense. Uh okay, I guess. But
wouldn't that require a god? Uh let's
think about it logically here. That
would require a god to be like the laws
of physics will be this here and then
arbitrarily they'll be different over
here and experiments will be different.
uh the one where the laws where
everything is logically consistent,
that's kind of the lowest energy state
that makes sense with with no designer.
Uh if you if you actually engage in in
genuinely uh you know, honest uh thought
about this stuff. So I don't know what
the [\h__\h] you're talking about, man.
>> So what we can perceive by that is that
we have a consistent God and he is
magnificent in what he he shows to us. I
mean I see so much more than what you
can see. So if I look at a leaf I know
in that leaf there's this magnesium atom
sitting in the middle of a pferin which
is four nitrogen atoms sitting there and
there is a funnel where light can come
in.
>> He does this [\h__\h] every time he did it
on Tucker Carlson. Look watch me explain
watch me explain freshman undergrad
level uh biochemistry. I'm going to
explain to you at a at at a freshman
year level how how photosynthesis works.
Uh so that you think I'm super duper
smart, therefore God exists. Uh it's
just like [\h__\h] bananas. Normal people
learn [\h__\h] and they're like, "Oh, that's
how that works. It does not point to
God." Okay, sorry, dude. And that light
hits the magnesium atom and that will
eject an electron and that then starts a
photosynthesis process. And that's what
what causes this plant to be able to to
take up CO2. I love that [\h__\h] just
like leaning forward like, "Oh my god, I
be the most incredible knowledge is
being shared with me right now. Crack
open a [\h__\h] textbook, dude. Go to
school. Learn some shit." Like you, it's
so funny when these types pretend to be
enamored with the knowledge that's being
shared with them. You [\h__\h] hate
science. If you wanted to understand
science, you'd learn science and you'd
quickly learn how all of these dickags
are lying to you. Uh so this like this
performative thing of like, oh my god, I
like this science because the the
religious apologist is explaining it to
me, but none of those dirty atheist
heathens can explain this [\h__\h] to me
because that's coming from Satan and I
don't like that.
>> And to release oxygen, take that carbon
and make it a part of that tree now. And
I know why the the the colors are
changing here. Why are the colors
changing? Because you have this
chlorophyll and you have the the number
of double bonds are beginning to get
oxidized and they're changing. And so
you see this beauty to God when you get
into the sciences that the common person
cannot see. And I see all of this as
soon as I look at that leaf in my mind's
eye because I've studied it at the
molecular level. And then that gives me
a greater appreciation.
>> Wow. You're so smart, James. You're
smarter than everybody. Nobody could
ever have explained freshman year
biochemistry. Uh therefore, if you
believe God is real, he must be. And
we're just all here so impressed by your
chlorophyll [\h__\h] God damn it, dude.
>> It's an appreciation of design. Can I go
back to the the quote from Newton?
>> Oh, sure. But
>> Oh, yeah. Go ahead.
>> You go back to that. But but I want to
ask you because as I understand it,
>> your work in intelligent design, you are
attempting as far as
>> you are willing to go a little farther
and say actually we can bring the notion
of an intelligent mind into science into
go ahead.
>> Yeah. Into the question of origins okay
there are different types of science.
The type of science that Jim does is
he's studying things the regularity of
nature at the bench. He's doing
experiments chemically with
nanotechnology, various things. If if
you ask the question, what does nature
ordinarily do? The answer to that
question will necessarily be rendered in
terms of material processes because
we're describing what nature ordinarily
does.
>> If however you ask the question, where
did this or that feature of the of the
universe or life come from in the first
place? It might be that life or the
digital code within it is the product of
undirected material processes. But
another possibility is that the
information in the cell or or the
machinery in the cell uh or the
information processing system in the
cell uh resulted from the activity of a
designing mind. And there we need to
bring in we need to do a different kind
of science where we bring in our
knowledge of cause and effect in the
present to reconstruct what most likely
happened in the past.
>> This reeks of Kenham's uh observational
versus historical science [\h__\h] Uh
it's all the same kind of science.
you're you're still you're still making
a completely baseless claim that has no
support whatsoever in science. And the
more that we understand about the
scientific processes that brought about
all of this all of the all the natural
phenomena, the more it becomes blatantly
obvious that this is religious
propaganda masquerading as science. So
you can try to go, well, no, no, no,
it's not that kind of science. It's this
other kind of science. It's a different
super special kind of science. No, it's
not. You're just a [\h__\h] fraud. You're
just a fraud lying about science. That's
it.
>> And because we know from our our
knowledge of cause and effect that it
takes a mind to generate specified or
functional information. When we find
functional information embedded in a
molecule and we know that that's
necessary to produce life, we can infer
that the mind played a role in the
origin of life. So that's a that's a a a
different it's a reasoning about
>> except no you can't you cannot infer
that. That's a religious propaganda.
Everybody go watch my Demsky video. Uh
you can you have uh you have many many
many uh biop-olymers with different
sequences. Some by chance have function
and then those proliferate in a
statistically significant way and then
are modified over time by natural
processes. It really is that simple. You
just have to wrap your head around
chance producing function or natural
processes, random processes producing
function by chance and then that
proliferating in a statistically
significant way. Again, it's it's just
natural selection. It's chance and
natural selection. Whether we're talking
about biology, chemistry, whatever it
is, um they just cannot let their
viewers know about this stuff. That's
it. about the question of design or no
design within what are called the
historical sciences. And that's a
perfectly legitimate thing to do. The
opposite would be to say, well, I have
all this information about what of what
life is made of. Now, I'm going to ask
the question, how did it originate?
Well, I could, since I'm a scientist,
I'm going to say I have to limit myself
to strictly materialistic explanations
for everything. But then I might miss
the right answer because it might be
that I'm looking at something that
cannot be or is not produced by material
processes but which instead is always
produced in our experience as a result
of a designing mind. And that's what
we're saying is absolutely the case
about the presence of information in a
living system. That's
>> and there's a little thing to add to
that.
What kills materialism for me is that
information itself is not material.
And that's the end of it. That science
itself has
>> it's a magic spiritual essence made of
unicorn farts. Right?
>> Showed us in this information age that
information is an immaterial quantity
that's not reducible to physics and
chemistry. So that if we're going to
study it at all,
>> we've got to widen our definition of
>> reality.
>> What is you buy this
>> science?
>> Oh, abs. We don't have to do [\h__\h] Uh
the information the genome is the
sequence of nucleotides. That's it.
Whatever else, whatever other example
you can get information from anything.
The a sample of particle a sample of gas
particles has information in the way of
their their their momentum vectors or
masses or whatever. Um, it's not just
the way they're selling information as a
as a as an ethereal special sauce. It's
[\h__\h] meaningless.
>> Oh, absolutely. Mean by this in
information is not material. And and we
even see this
>> in the scriptures. It says in the
beginning was the word that is
information and the word was with God
and the word was God. This starts with
information right here. And then it was
that word.
The word became flesh and dwelt among us
and we saw his glory. Glorious of the
only begotten from the father full of
grace and truth. That word then took on
the material. It starts with
information. Always starts with
information which itself is immaterial.
>> In the in the film in the story of
everything, Jim's got a great riff where
he says if we could we're asking the
wrong question. We need to start asking
about the origin of the code. Not just
the origin of the molecules, but the
origin of the code that is
>> that's it. It's just the molecules. And
he refuses to engage with the
explanations for how the molecules came
about
>> stored in the molecules. That's the real
question. And the real contrast here is
very vivid because the materialistic
understanding of the universe starts
with mass energy or nothing actually and
builds up by unguided materialist pro uh
processes to produce information as an
end product. Whereas the worldview we're
talking about is the exact opposite.
That mind is primary and mass energy in
the universe are derivative. There's a
col.
>> Yeah. You have blind faith in a deity.
That's uh that's that's what you're
bragging about. You're bragging about
your blind faith in a deity.
>> Colossal clash. And I think that's where
we can begin to understand the so
socalled clash between science and
religion. It is not a clash between um
science and God. It is that we're coming
up with two diametrically opposed world
views. And you can see that the issue is
a worldview problem. Take the Nobel
Prize for physics.
Very simply there many atheists have won
it. Christians have won it. Their
science doesn't divide them but their
worldview does. Sorry, gentlemen.
>> No, it depends on the worldview, right?
If you're the the worldviews that you're
comparing are ancient superstition
that's that contradicts science. That's
not the same as believing in God. So,
you're trying to attack the atheists as
you guys always do, angry atheists. But,
um it is possible to believe in God and
accept science. That's not the kind of
God that you guys are uh proilitizing.
>> We could talk about this for ages. Um
but we but last question I began with
Dawkins and Psalm 19 which deal with the
nature of the universe. Let me close
with a question on the nature of man.
The here's a quotation that sums up the
materialist worldview.
It comes from a year 1907 when I think
it probably still seemed brave and new
and fresh to express this point of view.
The newness is gone. But in my judgment,
the worldview
lingers. It remains present if not in
the American Academy dominant.
>> And so I'm going to read you this
quotation from 1907 Bertrand Russell.
>> You knew where I was going with it. I
afraid so.
>> And then I'd like to hear
Not so much how you would reply to Bert
and Russell who's been dead since 197
something or other, but how you would
reply to some student, a kid at Rice, a
kid at Oxford, um, who reads this and
say, "Yeah, I think that that that seems
to me to be the worldview that all the
really cool professors have." How do you
reply? How how would how do you speak to
that to a student who finds this
impressive? And here it is. Here's the
quotation. that man is the product of
causes which had no provision of the end
they were achieving. That his origin,
his growth, his hopes and fears, his
loves and beliefs are but the outcome of
accidental collocations of atoms, and
that the whole temple of man's
achievement must inevitably be buried
beneath the debris of a universe in
ruins. All these things, if not quite
beyond dispute, are yet so nearly
certain that no philosophy which rejects
them can hope to stand.
Oh my god, I'm not the special creation
of a deity that that made the universe
just for me. Oh no, my whole reality is
unraveling. Um, brave to say it at that
time, but Bertran Russell is a smart
dude. So
>> Jim Tour, how do you how do you
>> I would just say how do you know that?
How how can you know that? Tell tell me
what's the measurement?
>> But how come though, Birdie? How come?
How do you measure that? How do you do a
measurement? My god, the [\h__\h] like
moments like these where you catch James
offguard with a quote are where you
really see how [\h__\h] dumb this guy
actually is. That allows you to know
that and it would wither immediately.
There's no there's no evidence that
could show that
>> John.
>> Well, I would say that statement, as my
teacher of quantum mechanics, Sir John
Paulyhorn, pointed out, is
self-refuting, that if it was true, we
couldn't possibly know it. And he points
out that that kind of explanation.
>> Why? Why couldn't we know that? You're
just baselessly asserting that. Why
couldn't we? I mean, it's hard it's hard
to say that we would know that there
would be no God, but he's clearly
talking about the gods of religions,
right? He's disavowing the idea of
special creation with uh from a deity
with intent that that also intends
things of us, right? It's a disavow of
this idea that like we're here because
that God made us and he wants us to do
these things um which often include
killing a particular type of people or
or dominating a particular type of
people, right? It's it's it's a very
important step in human progress to go,
hey, you know what? Saying we're going
to murder these indigenous people and
take their land because God told us we
can do it. To disavow that is pretty
[\h__\h] good thing. I feel like that's
kind of the main spirit of a quote like
that. But uh no, I mean all of these
guys are are probably Zionists, so they
probably disavow the idea that that
there can't be a chosen people that can
take whatever they want. So, yep.
reduces thought to the random motions of
atoms and so it dissolves thought so
that what he is talking is sheer
self-contradictory nonsense
>> it's not though because there so you're
trying to imply that there must be souls
which you can't substantiate so uh sorry
>> when I was in Cambridge I saw the window
a book why I am not a Christian by
Burton Russell I walked up and down dare
I read it I read it and it confirmed my
Christianity because it seemed to me he
had never begun to understand what the
message of Christianity or indeed
biblical theism was.
>> He's just a dummy. You guys don't read
the book. Don't even read it. I read it
for you and it sucks. Don't read it.
>> Steve, may I segue from Russell back to
the original quote from Dawkins because
they're very similar. Sure. Remember
remember he his framing was
>> nothing but pitilous indifference.
>> Yeah. The universe we observe has
exactly the properties we should expect
if at bottom there's no design, no
purpose, nothing but blind, pitiles
indifference. It's a wonderful quote in
that it suggests that metaphysical
systems of thought, worldviews are as
testable by looking at the world as
scientific hypotheses are. And what the
the argument that we've been making and
the argument that comes through in the
the film you've you've highlighted is
that the big discoveries of of 20th and
21st century of science are not at all
what you would expect from a
materialistic point of view. The
materialists did not expect they
expected an infinitely old universe that
never had a beginning. But what we
discovered is that the universe had a
beginning. They didn't expect that the
universe would be finely tuned against
all odds to allow for the possibility of
life. Materialism has nothing to do with
assuming that a universe would be
infinite. That doesn't mean anything.
Um, you're just trying to highlight the
science that you think confirms uh any
of this [\h__\h] Um, yeah. No, this is
>> when Hy discovered that, he was shocked
and it shocked him out of his atheism.
Nobody expected the digital
nanotechnology that's been found inside
cells. And in fact, Dawkins recently was
quoted
>> digital nanotechnology inside cells.
This [\h__\h] [\h__\h] just said digital
nanotechnology inside cells. So
molecules are technology now because it
has to be tech because we make tech and
we make things and therefore it's tech
so God made it. So that like it's just
the [\h__\h] pageantry, dude. It's just
he they want to pretend that modern
science confirms God. And here are a
bunch of examples that don't at all
support that because we're lying the
entire time about all of it. quoted as
saying he was knocked sideways with with
wonder upon seeing an animation of the
DNA uh uh information processing system
that an Australian group rendered. So
all of these things, the complexity of
the cell, the finetuning of the universe
and its origin a finite time ago are all
completely unexpected from a from a
materialistic point of view, but they're
exactly what you would expect from a
theistic point of view. That is to say,
the the worldview that affirms the
reality of a transcendent and
intelligent creator.
>> No, not at all. And we could talk for
hours about all the examples within
biology uh that make absolutely zero
sense from a design standpoint, but
that's going to have to be for another
day. I'm [\h__\h] tired. This has been
long as hell. Let's wrap it up.
>> Steve Meyer, Jim Tour, and John Lennox.
Thank you, gentlemen. for Uncommon
Knowledge, the Hoover Institution, and
Fox Nation. I'm Peter Robinson.
Wow, what a waste of time. I mean, not
not for for me. This is good stuff for
me, but um what what a what a [\h__\h]
waste of a conversation. It's just like
I mean, I'm not surprised obviously at
this point. It is the same goddamn
talking points every time. Look how
complicated a cell is, therefore God. Uh
all of this [\h__\h] is just same same crap
every time. So, uh hopefully that was
fun for you guys. That was man that
ended up being uh well that was what
probably coming up close to to 3 hours
two and a half between two and a half
and three hours. Um so that was that I'm
going to do more on Meer. I got I think
I have another different video uh that I
was going to react to at some point
there. Once again, if anyone can find a
bootleg of that theatrical release, I
will obviously want to do something on
that. Um, but just in general, yeah, I
just learned that James Tour wrote a
book, so maybe I'll hunt hunt that down
and make fun of that. Um, never ending
uh party with these guys. Just so much
[\h__\h] to make fun of all the time. Um,
and also increasingly urgent as we are
seeing uh project 2025 enacted in real
time and uh these ass hats are part of
that. So uh hopefully you got something
out of that. Uh as always, thanks for
watching. I'll see you next time.