Summary Does God Exist? | The Scientific Case For Intelligent Design - Dr. Stephen C. Meyer (Youtube) www.youtube.com
10,256 words - YouTube video - View YouTube video
Dr. Stephen C. Meyer The universe in the quantum cosmological model comes out of a set of preexisting equations from quantum physics. And so you have this very strange thing where the origin of the universe is depicted as a consequence of mathematics. But as 1 of the leading Quantum cosmologist Alexander Vilenkin has pointed out, math exists in the realm of a mind. It's conceptual. And so he actually asked Question he says before there was matter, space, time, and energy, he said, what tablet were these equations written on?
Dr. Stephen C. Meyer He said math is math is conceptual. It exists in a mind. Are we therefore saying that the universe came out of a mind. So even in adopting this quantum cosmological approach, which attempts to eliminate the beginning but does not, you have an even more profound theistic implication, and that you you imply the need for a preexisting mind to explain the origin of the universe.
n/a Joining me on the Freedom PAC podcast today, doctor Stephen Meyer, best selling author of Return of the God Hypothesis, Darwin's doubt. Steven, welcome to the Freedom Pied podcast.
Dr. Stephen C. Meyer It's awfully kind of you to invite me. Thank you for having me on.
n/a The pleasure's all mine, sir. I would love to start off this conversation. And this is a question that, I've been Really pondering with a friend of mine lately. And the question is, do you think that it takes more faith A greater faith to believe in a divine creation of the universe than it does To believe in the big bang, evolution, and what they call the wonders of the universe because I think both are very Extraordinary things to believe in.
Dr. Stephen C. Meyer Well, I'd slightly reframe your question in the following sense. I think the Evidence that we have for the big bang is actually evidence for a creation event. And so, in some ways, the There there's no tension there. In fact, it's the opposite. But, so to reframe your question, I'd say, does it take more faith to believe in, a divine creation, in theism, or materialism.
Dr. Stephen C. Meyer And I would say that the evidence for materialism as a worldview, as a comprehensive explanation for what we see around us is, is very weak contrary to the kind of default way of thinking of many people in the culture. And, that scientific materialism or scientific atheism, as it's sometimes referred to, is having, to increasingly invoke very exotic type of ex explanations in order to account for things that are much more simply explained by by the idea of a of a single transcendent intelligence who is active in the creation. So we have, the multiverse hypothesis. We have, the the simulation hypothesis. We have the idea of a a space alien designer.
Dr. Stephen C. Meyer All of these things are are have now been proposed by prominent scientific atheists to account for Some of the evidence that I talk about in my my latest book, return of the god hypothesis, that the universe, number 1, had a beginning, which is what the big bang theory establishes. Number 2, that the universe has been fine tuned for life since the beginning in a way that defies all odds. And thirdly, that life is not the simple homogeneous globule of plasm that the late 19th century biologists thought in Darwin's time, but rather it's an intricate, and highly complex, almost a factory in the way it functions. It's a a system that it it contains intricate nanomachines and digital code suggesting the need for a master programmer for life. So I think the the theistic understanding of origins is much superior to that of the materialistic 1.
Dr. Stephen C. Meyer And in that sense, belief in God requires much less faith than belief that and belief in the proposition that matter and energy are sufficient to explain everything we see around us. Yeah. Except for a long answer to a nice short question.
n/a Oh, I I love it. And it's it's extremely interesting because I know, you know, a lot of of of Atheists who will will die on this hill. And, you know, these are people that are, are very quick to dismiss, the idea of any sort of intelligent design. But these are people who happily explore concepts. As you mentioned, they're like the multiverse theory, which is, You know, something that requires a a serious amount of imagination.
n/a What why do you why do you
Dr. Stephen C. Meyer Highly spec highly speculative. It's a I call some of these new theories that are coming out in physics that attempt to explain the origin of the universe or its fine tuning as as mathematical castles in the air. Mhmm. People, become confused about they think that because they can they can dream up the the the concept that therefore it exists, They they will say, well, you say they'll they'll say, well, the same thing is true of theism except that the theistic explanation meets the test of Occam's razor. It doesn't endlessly multiply explanatory entities in the way that the multiverse hypothesis does or, the idea of a that we're living in a simulation.
Dr. Stephen C. Meyer The simulation is itself a it's a quasi theistic explanation. It posits a master programmer, But then it adds to that the idea that, well, we're our our experience is actually illusory, that we're we're just, we're just a a simulation in somebody else's experiment and that we don't really exist. But that has philosophical problems that or go all the way back to Descartes. If we've been if we've been deceived into thinking we exist, well, then we actually do exist. So So what's the difference between the simulation and the hypothesis and the God hypothesis at that point?
Dr. Stephen C. Meyer I I think the the scientific atheists are groping. And we can we can get more into that as we discuss the details of of my thesis.
n/a Yeah. You mentioned something there that reminded me of, I believe it was Michael Schurmer, who I was listening to, who described a lot of, the the ideas and the concepts that, You know, you talk about as I think you call it magical thinking. Could the same be applied then to these new, physics theories?
Dr. Stephen C. Meyer I think so. I mean, the essence of magical thinking, it's it's twofold. 1, magical thinking involves attributing the causal powers to various entities that those entities do not possess. And it also has the effect of distracting us, oh, from what's actually going on and what's most important. So, let me give you an example of some magical thinking.
Dr. Stephen C. Meyer My first book was called signature in the cell, and and the subtitle was DNA in the evidence for design in the evidence for intelligent design. The big discovery of late 20th century college, second half of 20th century college, was the digital code that's stored in the DNA molecule that is directing the construction of all the proteins and protein machines that are necessary to keep cells alive. So you have inside the what was previously thought to be a simple cell, You have a complex information storage, transmission, and processing system. Now in our experience, we know of only 1 cause of the generation for the generation of information. If we think about, a computer program, we know that it came from a program.
Dr. Stephen C. Meyer Or if we think about, an inscription on an ancient monument. We know that writing information comes from scribes. If we think about The paragraph in a book always comes from a writer. Information in a radio signal, same thing, came from a broadcaster. So when we discover information at the foundation of life, it's the most logical thing to conclude that that information too have an intelligent source.
Dr. Stephen C. Meyer But in contrast to that conclusion, we have people in the field of origin of life college, or chemical evolutionary theory, positing that undirected chemical reactions can somehow produce information. And time and time again in prebiotic simulation experiments, the actual chemistry when studied shows just the opposite. Chemical reactions operating on their own don't move in a life friendly direction. Instead, what happens is the experimenter has to manipulate the reactions, choose purified reagents, purchase them from, chemical labs, manipulate the experiment at every step along the way. So intelligence is involved in even the modest progress that prebiotic simulation experiments make in moving towards life.
Dr. Stephen C. Meyer But the experimenters seem unaware of the role their own Intelligent plays, and they and they attribute, causal powers to brute matter that brute matter does not have. It doesn't move in a life friendly direction. You can't get from chemistry to code. There's no evidence to the contrary. And the only cause we know of that produces, produces information is mind.
Dr. Stephen C. Meyer That's not magical thinking. That's what we know from science. But it is magical thinking that matter can do what only mind can do. And so I think there's a kind of reversal. Michael Shermer writes for Skeptic Magazine.
Dr. Stephen C. Meyer He wants to debunk, spoonbenders and and and and other people. I and we completely agree with him. But he wants to He wants to lump in with, the sort of parapsychological phenomena, and the idea of intelligent design. But intelligent design is not magical in that sense at all. It's what we experience all the time.
Dr. Stephen C. Meyer Minds generate information. But what we don't experience is matter doing the same thing. And so to attribute to matter the capability of generating information processing systems without the assistive intelligence, I think, is where the magical thinking now resides.
n/a Some extremely Interesting points there. And and this is why I was grab this is why I gravitated towards your work. I never heard anyone sort of Marry, religion and science, in the way that that you you try to do and you achieve. And I think for a lot of people, they may struggle to, you know, understand those 2 words being in the same sentence. They think that, You know, religion and and science are completely separate from each other.
n/a Why do you think, a lot of people may be surprised to hear that the 2 Can actually meet.
Dr. Stephen C. Meyer Well, I think there's been a popular cultural trope since the late 19th century that science and religion or at war or science and religion or in conflict. And this was the direct consequence of some late 19th century historical revisionism that was accomplished by some very prominent authors, and that was advanced by some very prominent authors. When I write about the the the books in question in my in my book, return to the God hypothesis. But they're telling us the the the story they told about the history of science and its relationship to religious belief was false. And most major is most, prominent historians of science today know that.
Dr. Stephen C. Meyer If you go back to the period known as the Scientific revolution, roughly 1500 to 17 50, maybe stretching back even a couple centuries before where the foundations of science were laid in the late medieval universities. What you see is that science and religion not only coexisted in in a happy sort of symbiosis, but rather that that science arose in a Judeo Christian milieu for specifically Judeo Christian, and even biblical reasons. There's a fantastic book called For the Glory of God published with Princeton University Press by the late historian of science, Rodney Stark, in which he explains that the motivation for studying the natural world during the period of the of the of the scientific religion, the scientific revolution was religious. The people like Newton in writing the Principia or the Principia, depending on your preferred Latin pronunciation, that Newton was wanting to show the mathematical principles that underlie the creation of the universe and in so doing, give glory to God, the ultimate geometry, the the the mathematician behind it all. And, and there was this powerful idea in that that period known as Intelligent, that Nature was intelligible.
Dr. Stephen C. Meyer It had secrets that could be discerned because our minds were made in the image of the rational creator who endowed the the the natural world with with reason and law like order and design. We are we have a rationality that can perceive the rationality that's built into the universe. So that was 1 of the the foundational motivations and inspirations for doing science. And 1 of the reasons that scientists had confidence that they could they could successfully discern the secrets of nature, often written in mathematics, as I mentioned. So this idea of a conflict between science and religion is really of late 19th century vintage.
Dr. Stephen C. Meyer It does result from an actual conflict, and that is the conflict between scientific materialists and the origins theories that they developed and, more traditional theists. But even in the late 19th century, you had figures like James Clerk Maxwell, who was a devoutly religious goddess Presbyterian as it happens. He had the Cavendish laboratory inscribed with the the, The verse from the Psalms, greater the works of the Lord, sought out by all who take pleasure there in. For him, that was the reason you did science. You were studying the works of the Lord.
Dr. Stephen C. Meyer But in any case, The argument in my book is that is that the the early harmony between science and religion that was that characterized the scientific revolution is either coming back with an increasing number of scientists or should be. It is coming back with an increasing number of scientists. There's still a lot of people holding out. But the the discoveries of of of late 20th century and early first 21st century science, both in biology, but also in physics and college, have, I think, very god friendly implications, and that's what my my recent work has been about.
n/a A word that's cropped up a few times already and and and does crop up in these type of conversations is time. I think for Intelligent design, it is suggests that there was a beginning to time. Now I've heard people like, Brian Cox explained, the possibility of, you know, the universe having no beginning and that almost in the sense that if you go if you ask somebody in the street, can you point me north, and you start travelling north, and you eventually get to the North Pole, and you Say, can you point me further north? That person says there's no such thing. There may be no starting point to time.
n/a I viewed you mentioned that there's direct evidence that the universe has a beginning. I know it's a A question you could probably spend hours answering in a lecture, but what hard evidence is there for the universe having a beginning that you may be able to offer In this.
Dr. Stephen C. Meyer Yeah. I think that would be the first thing to say is that those who speculate about, the universe not requiring a big beginning are speculating. The hard evidence we have is all pointing towards a decisive beginning. The story started in the late or or in the the 19 teens twenties about a century ago as scientists discovered that the light coming from distant galaxies is being stretched out in a way that suggests that the universe itself is expanding outward from a beginning. And there have been many, many classes of confirmatory evidence from observational astronomy that have suggested that have supported the idea of the big bang theory or a variation on that theory known as inflationary cosmology, which also affirms beginning to the universe.
Dr. Stephen C. Meyer But those theories are the consequence of very specific observation, astronomical observations, establishing The, the expansion of the universe, ex establishing, that that all matter and energy was was congealed, in this I'm talking about the cosmic background radiation that there was a there was an initial state when when the matter and energy of the universe was compacted into, initially, it was a plasma, but very, very so suggesting definitely a beginning. But in addition to the astronomical observations, there are 2 lines of evidence from theoretical physics or, the theoretical developments within physics that also, strongly suggest a beginning. 1 was the the the development of the singularity theorems of, first Stephen Hawking and then Hawking working with Roger Penrose and later George Ellis. Their work is fascinating. It's based on the on general relativity, Einstein's great theory of gravitation.
Dr. Stephen C. Meyer Einstein thought that massive bodies caused space time literally to curve, creating preferred lines of trajectory for even light as it's passing through, passing by a planet or a a a are, and the idea there is that, and Hawking, who was working on black hole physics in the 19 sixties, realized that Astronomers were describing the universe expanding outward. That meant that the matter and energy of the universe was getting more and more diffuse, which meant that the curvature of space was getting more and more gradual in the forward direction. But in the reverse direction of time, there would the matter would have been more densely concentrated because we have an expanding universe in the forward direction, but it would have been more densely concentrated as the universe was smaller and smaller and smaller if you go in the reverse of time. And as the matter is more densely concentrated, the space gets more tightly curved, and you eventually reach a limiting case just as you do with the observational evidence of an expansion. And the limiting case is the place where the density of the universe goes to an infinite, and the curvature therefore So it goes to an infinite, and an infinitely tight curvature corresponds to 0 spatial volume in which you can put no matter.
Dr. Stephen C. Meyer So it's a sort of paradoxical result, but you also can't go back any further. The time at that point must begin. Now there's a way around that, that proof of a beginning. And it's, something that was divested as a kind of, exploited a a a kind of loophole where we have to think about, well, how would have gravity have worked in the very tiniest smidgens of of time in the very smallest reaches of space very, right after the beginning in the and and then this is a theory known as quantum cosmology in this metaphor of of the the there isn't anything beyond the North Pole. You can't that comes out of the quantum cosmological writings of of Hawking and others.
Dr. Stephen C. Meyer But it turns out that if you get into the technical papers of Hawking on quantum cosmology, you find that there's first of all, they don't get rid of the singularity. There is still a beginning in the in the mathematical modeling of the origin of the universe in the technical papers as opposed to his popular work, a brief history of time. But secondly and even more importantly, the universe in the quantum cosmological model comes out of a set of preexisting, equations from, from quantum physics. And, and so you have this very strange thing where you actually the the the origin of the universe is depicted as a consequence of mathematics. But as 1 of the leading quantum cosmologists, Alexander Volincon, has pointed out, math exists in the realm of a mind.
Dr. Stephen C. Meyer It's conceptual. And so he actually asked the question. He says before there was matter, space, time, and energy, he said, what what what tablet were these equations written on? He said math is the providence occurs within math is conceptual. It exists in a mind.
Dr. Stephen C. Meyer Are we therefore saying that the universe came out of a mind? So even in adopting this quantum cosmological approach, which attempts to eliminate the beginning but does not, you have an even more profound theistic implication, and that you you imply the need for a preexisting mind to explain the origin of the universe. So I I think that the the scientific materials are checkmated on this. Whether they go with a standard big bag model or an inflationary cosmological model or a quantum cosmological model, they are still confronted with the beginning, and they're still confronted with the need for an external to the material University, mind or creator. And I should mention there's a third line of, of evidence as well.
Dr. Stephen C. Meyer It's a a proof for this the beginning based on special relativity, not general relativity. It's called the Born Guth Falincan proof, and it is not subject to the same, the same loophole that, that the, singularity theorems are are based on. So there are ways of imagining that our University had is just 1 of a gabillion other University, and maybe there was a prior state. There's some newer cosmological models that I've addressed on my website, but these are highly speculative. The the hard evidence we have and our best reasoning from physics all points to the beginning.
Dr. Stephen C. Meyer As best we can tell, the universe had a beginning.
n/a Well, it is clear that, you know, you present your argument with a with a lot of hard evidence. If I were to play a sort of devil's advocate, I think in in in my experience anyway where I'm from, A lot of the people who are religious are inclined to This, intelligent design approach, they are people that had a preexisting belief And then went on to find science. I guess, some people would call it confirmation bias. Do you see With the people you speak to, do you find there are more cases of people seeking out evidence to confirm their belief or People who see an amount of, insurmountable evidence and then go on to believe.
Dr. Stephen C. Meyer Well, in the in the way I developed the arguments for first intelligent design and then secondly for, God as the best candidate to be that intelligent designer. I not only examine, evidence from physics, cosmology, biology, etcetera. But I use 2 modes of reasoning. 1 is called an in using a method known as inference to the best explanation. And in the recent book, I also conjoin that with, Bay Bayesian probability calculus, which is in a way as a a way of reasoning that specifically, guards against confirmation bias.
Dr. Stephen C. Meyer And so that's just a point to be made. I'm I'm aware of of of that. The confirmation bias argument, of course, a second point would be it can be made in both directions. Yeah. Both both sides in this argument have motivations.
Dr. Stephen C. Meyer And in fact, I think all people have have conflicting motivations. We'd all like for there to be god, because we would all like to know that our lives have the possibility of a lasting and enduring meaning beyond the grave. But we also don't want there to be a god because we just as soon be left on our own and not have to feel accountable to, a higher a higher power or person who might be might have make, moral demands on our lives. And so we all feel that push pull. And, and some people have tilted 1 way and others have tilted another way.
Dr. Stephen C. Meyer And then it's very easy to say, well, you believe what you believe because it makes you you you gives you comfort. And, somebody else can say, well, you believe what you believe because it gives you moral autonomy. And I think that's a that's a that's a wash. We have to we have to set those motives aside. And, and so and I think philosophical training helps helps 1 do that.
Dr. Stephen C. Meyer But the third thing I'd say is that there are an awful lot of stories, and I tell them in the book. And I in fact, I my own, interest in intelligent design and the cosmological argument, results from a conference I attended in 1980 I when I was very early in my scientific career in which, some very prominent scientists presented Evidence first for the beginning of the universe and why this I'm talking about Alan Sandidge, the great cosmology, who presented evidence for the Big Bang Theory and for the University having a beginning and then proceeded to explain why that evidence and other evidence about, for example, the fine tuning of the laws and constants of physics had caused him to have a rethink about his worldview and whereas he had been a long time agnostic, and scientific materialist. He had now become he had actually become a Christian. He'd become a theist. And not be not in spite of the evidence, but because of it.
Dr. Stephen C. Meyer It was a dramatic change in worldview be and because he had a deep think about what he was studying as a scientist. On the following panel in that same conference was a discussion about the problem of the origin of first life, which is even by leading Evolutionary biologists almost universally college as an unsolved problem from the standpoint of evolutionary theory. And 1 of the scientists on that panel repudiated his own, his own work as a chemical evolutionary theorist, as a advocate of evolutionary abiogenesis, and announced that he had come to, think that there must have been some kind of intelligent cause at work in the original life. His name was Dean Kenyon. We can also think of, cases such as Fred Hoyle, who was a strident scientific atheist, who rejected the Big Bang theory because he thought it had theistic implications.
Dr. Stephen C. Meyer He thought it smacked with the Genesis account where the first words were in the beginning. And he actually coined the term big bang as a kind of pejorative to make fun of the idea that you can have a universe emerging out of literally nothing. And, Then later upon discovering some of the exquisite fine tuning of the universe that was necessary to make carbon and therefore to make life, Hoyle himself reversed field and embraced a kind was he not a religious person, but he embraced a kind of theistic perspective and and was quoted as saying that the best evidence we have suggests that a superintellect has monkeyed with physics and chemistry to make life possible. And so there have been any number of these types of cases. I tell a number of the stories of these reversals in my book.
Dr. Stephen C. Meyer You may recall, for example, that Einstein, who is not in any way classically religious. Nevertheless, by the end of his career, had very much rejected the scientific materialism of his youth, And he had long re he he also had rejected the big bang theory because it smacked of the Genesis account and later came around after being confronted with the evidence of the of the the redshift and the expansion of the galaxies. So, I think, that'd be my last this is the third point in answer to your question is that that there have been many people who have changed their minds, who had no confirmation bias science support of theism. They were they had just the opposite view. And I think that's been the trend line, in in, in this discussion about the relationship between science and faith in the last 100 years is that more and more people have been coming back to faith in God because of the science, not in spite of it?
n/a I think when people hear the word creator, I think that for a lot of Atheists, they probably have an easier time imagining the creator as being a sort of all encompassing universe, you know, a collective Rather than a 1 figure we can point at. When you're talking about A creator of intelligent design. What identity do you attach to that creator? Is it A collective, or is it a figure we can point to or not point to, but a figure?
Dr. Stephen C. Meyer Well, it's a great question because and if you don't mind, it invites me to tell a little bit of story. And that is that the the first my first 2 books, Signature in the Cell and Darwin's Doubt, applied methods of design detection that, that we tout but which have been developed, within different fields. It it is it is a fact of of human reasoning that we can very often tell when something is the product of an intelligent agent as opposed to undirected material processes. We have we've got great monuments in the UK with inscriptions on them. We have in the United States.
Dr. Stephen C. Meyer This famous example we've used is the pictures of our US presidents on the mountain in South Dakota called Mount Rushmore. When you look at that right away, you know that a sculptor had been involved. It wasn't something that was produced by wind and erosion. And 1 of my colleagues, William Demski, has, explained why what what the criteria are that trigger that awareness. And he says part of it's the improbability of the shapes or the the the the artifact we may be looking at.
Dr. Stephen C. Meyer But, but it's also our ability to to match a pattern. There is a the shapes we know on the mountains are, shapes we know independently of the human face or even the the the shapes of the president. And and so in in my work, I develop I I show that these established methods of design detection when applied to the living state, end up triggering, or justifying an inference to to to design. Another way we Recognized design is precisely when we have functional or specified information in a sequence. If you, whenever we see information, and we trace it back to its source.
Dr. Stephen C. Meyer We always come to mind not a material process. Bill Gates, our our computer Guru here in the Seattle area has said that DNA is like a software program, but much more complex than any we've ever created. Richard Dawkins has even acknowledged that the DNA is like a machine code and that the if it were just apart from differences in jargon, we might be describing something that we'd find in a computer engineering journal. So we have, and we know that information in our experience, whether it's in software code or or or written text, always issues from an intelligence. So in the first 2 books that I wrote, I made the argument that we have decisive indicators of design in the inner workings of the cell and in the and in the and in the the systems that work in animals that are responsible for animal development.
Dr. Stephen C. Meyer And there's a there's a whole system of circuitry that controls how the information is expressed as animals are developing. And so I wrote this this book about not only the origin of the first life, but the origin of animal life. But I didn't take the argument any further than that. I just said it was a mind of some kind is required. So, naturally, my readers and others have pressed me and said, well, what what what type of mind are you envisioning?
Dr. Stephen C. Meyer Are you envisioning perhaps a space alien, as, even Francis Crick proposed that as a possible explanation for the for the origin of life because he recognized that the problem of the origin of life was extremely formidable and the the conditions on planet Earth were not, amenable to a chemical evolutionary origin of life. So he posited what a theory known as panspermia that life was designed on another planet and received here by some sort of intelligent space alien. Richard Dawkins even floated the idea in in a in the in an interview in a film and never several years ago. I think he later recanted or at least regretted having said so. But, it's a possibility.
Dr. Stephen C. Meyer It's a possible explanation. Now I've never been very con convinced of it. Because for 1 thing, it just pushes the problem of the origin of information. It doesn't kick the can down the road. It it, it kicks it out into space.
Dr. Stephen C. Meyer And if you can't, if chemistry on earth doesn't produce information, then it's it's no good to say, well, that somehow it happened on another planet. That's not doesn't really solve the problem. But what I did do in the new book is I expanded the the the inquiry to examine evidence from from geophysicist and cosmology. And in addition to evidence of design in living systems, there's exquisite evidence of design in the universe as a whole, in the structure of the universe, in what, and in and in specific parameters. The strength of the fundamental forces, the masses of the elementary particles, The the the strength of the force that is causing the expansion of the universe called the cosmological constant, the the, the initial conditions of the universe, the arrangement of matter and energy at the be very beginning of the universe.
Dr. Stephen C. Meyer Turns out that all these things are exquisitely fine finely tuned, meaning that they fall within very narrow ranges or tolerances outside of which life would be impossible. And as Fred Hoyle pointed out, that kind of fine tuning suggests a fine tuner. And, also, that evidence of design is present from the very beginning of the University. So no no alien being within the cosmos who allegedly evolved a long time after the beginning could be responsible for the origin of the universe itself or the fine tuning present from the beginning of the universe that precedes any conceivable evolutionary origin of a of a being in another in another star system or something. So The question of the the the of the identity of the designing intelligence, I think, comes down to 2 basic options, either an immaterial agent within the cosmos or a a a a some kind of mind within the cosmos or a mind beyond the cosmos, a transcendent or an imminent intelligence.
Dr. Stephen C. Meyer And I think the over the the The ensemble of evidence we have not only from college, but also from physics and cosmology suggests that the transcendent intelligence is a better is is it has has has better explanatory power. And that's what I call the return of the God hypothesis. So I would identify the designing intelligence responsible for life and the universe as an agent that that is that is separate from the University, but also acts within within the universe that, long after the beginning. So a a a transcendent and active intelligence, and that's typically what Tip that's typically what traditional theists, mean by God. So I think I think what you can identify, the designing agent to to that degree.
Dr. Stephen C. Meyer There's other other considerations. Yeah. But that's I think science is pointing in the direction of a transcendent active intelligence, which is what we typically mean by god?
n/a Well, Steven, this my number 1 indicator of a great interview Is when I ask a question, and 10 more come to my mind when I hear the answer. So when I, mentioned in our Weekly newsletter on the podcast that doctor Stephen Meyer was coming on the show. There were a few topics that were Suggested to us far more than others. We were hit with many, many questions, and I took them all. I and I tried to, pick the ones that we were peppered with the most.
n/a And if I promised a few people that I would try and get these topics out, there are 3 questions that I Promised
Dr. Stephen C. Meyer our listeners I would try and ask. Let's let's go for it. That's sounds great.
n/a The first 1, and you've mentioned his name, a few times already. Now I was hit with several replies with the name Richard Dawkins. Now you're obviously on on on different sides of the fence And, you know, to a new atheist like a Richard Dawkins or a Sam Harris, what are your thoughts? Not on these guys as people, as humans, but for what they've contributed to the conversation.
Dr. Stephen C. Meyer I have actually a surprising admiration for Richard Dawkins, both as a writer of very clear prose about science, but especially for his ability to frame, foundational issues. In the blind watchmaker, first page, Famous quote. He says, biology is the study of complicated, systems that give the appearance of having been designed for a purpose where the keyword is appearance. That is classical Darwinian thinking, and it frames the issue extremely clear clearly is the The appearance of design that we see in living systems, the product of an unguided undirected process such as natural selection acting on random mutations, such that it's only in appearance, or are do we have evidence in biology of features that are best explained by an actual designing intelligence. It's 1 or the other.
Dr. Stephen C. Meyer It's a beautiful framing. Now, of course, I disagree with Dawkins about the answer he gives in the end. I and for 1 thing, there is Dawkins himself acknowledges that no 1 knows how life first received. And yet there is a striking appearance of design in the in the first living cell. So there's at least 1 and that is the digital code, the information storage transmission and processing system.
Dr. Stephen C. Meyer We've been talking about the miniature machines, all of that. None none of that has been explained as the result of an undirected chemical evolutionary, process or origin. And so there's at least 1 1 striking appearance of design that has not been explained away by undirected evolutionary processes or 1 class of such. And so that opens the the whole discussion up again, but the framing is beautiful. That's exactly right.
Dr. Stephen C. Meyer It's either mind or matter that are the ultimate explanatory principles. Secondly, another another beautiful framing, device that he uses in another of his books. He says that the universe we observe has precisely the properties we should Back to the bottom, there's no purpose, no design, dot dot dot, nothing but blind, pitiless indifference. That's a that's a that's a wonderful way of framing the ultimate issue of the relationship between science and larger, as you might call them worldview explanations or metaphysical hypotheses. Dawkins is a scientific materialist.
Dr. Stephen C. Meyer He's a scientific atheist. He's saying that what we see in the world around us is exactly what we'd expect if scientific materialism were true. That is if Matter and energy were the eternal self existent things that didn't and did not require an external creator. But what he's what he's also implying is that metaphysical hypotheses like scientific materialism or theism or pantheism are testable in much the same way we test our scientific hypotheses. We go out we we we have a hypothesis about reality.
Dr. Stephen C. Meyer We go out and we look at the universe, and we see, Well, do the properties match what I would expect based on my metaphysical hypothesis? If they don't, then I need to adjust my my my thinking. But if they do, then I have confirmation. Well, I use that framing quotation in my new book, return to the god hypothesis, because, for 1, It's it does affirm that metaphysical systems of belief or, like, a god hypothesis or, like, scientific materialism are testable in much the same way we test scientific theories. But secondly, because I make the argument now In this case, I'm contra dark Dawkins.
Dr. Stephen C. Meyer I'm 180 degrees in on the opposite pole that the properties that we see in the universe are not what you'd expect if there was nothing but blind, pitiless indifference. They're not what you'd expect based on scientific materialism. The scientific materialism through, materialists from the 19 twenties up until at least the 19 nineties and now even into the present, as you've mentioned, have resisted the idea that the universe has a beginning. We and yet the hard evidence we have is pointing decisively in that direction, but they have resisted it. Why?
Dr. Stephen C. Meyer Because it's inconsistent with of materialism. You wouldn't expect the universe to have a beginning if matter and energy are eternal and self existent as scientific materialists have long affirmed. It's contradictory. Either if the universe is eternal and self existent, it doesn't have a beginning. But what we have seen is that the universe does have a beginning.
Dr. Stephen C. Meyer That's an unexpected result on the basis of scientific materialism. Similarly, the materialists did not expect the the exquisite fine tuning that's been discovered. Witness the conversion from materialism to theism by Fred Hoyle who discovered many of those first parameters. And Most importantly, the scientific materialist did not expect the integrated complexity of the living cell. Richard Dawkins himself, 2 summers ago, tweeted in response to a new animation that was uploaded onto YouTube by an Australian group depicting I think it was the the DNA replication system, but it which is part of the overall information processing system in the cell.
Dr. Stephen C. Meyer And Dawkins confessed to being knocked sideways at wonder at the complexity of the information processing that was going on inside the cell as depicted by this video. The the living cell bears hallmarks of intelligent design. That is to say there are features of The information information itself is a hallmark of intelligent design, but the there are design patterns in the way the information is processed, meaning established, methods of processing information that are known from high-tech digital computing. We've got automated error correction in the cell. We have sophisticated encryption where you have 1 genetic message layered on top of another.
Dr. Stephen C. Meyer It's called overlapping genes. These are these are these are strategies for data compression or embedding messages in other messages that are known from cryptography. So we are finding things in the living system that, a, have not been explained by any chemical evolutionary model of the origin of life and, b, which in any other realm of experience would trigger an awareness of a designing intelligence, a master programmer of some kind. So when when you take Dawkins's framing and apply it to these debates, you see evidence of a actual design and b evidence that is much more expected on a theistic design hypothesis than it is on the basis of scientific materialism, qua blind, pitiless, indifference. So I love the way he frames the debates, and And I think that actually makes it helpful to get to the truth, but I think he's take he he's come to the wrong conclusion.
n/a That's a very classy take. I the second of the 3 questions I wanted to ask you. Now I'm not sure if you're a frequent user of the app TikTok. But At the moment on TikTok, there's a clip, from a podcast appearance of yours on The Joe Rogan Science, And it's a specific answer you gave. And when I say it's going viral, it's going viral.
n/a I've seen countless edits of it. I've seen people Talking about the answer, saying how powerful it is, saying that you need to listen to this answer, you know, whether you're a believer or whether you're ace atheist. And on that topic, and it was on the the when Joe posed to you why God would create a world in which they were so much suffering, I was sent, a video by, of Stephen Fry. Now I'm not sure if you're Familiar with this.
Dr. Stephen C. Meyer Oh, I know Stephen Fry. He was a Cambridge man, a great, great comedian. Yeah.
n/a Yes. Yes. Well, there was a video of of, somebody asking Stephen Fry for his take on God. As you know, he he is an atheist. And I'm gonna just read out a quote from the video, and I don't want to offend anyone when I read this quote, but I just want to hear Your take on.
Dr. Stephen C. Meyer I I I I'm not easily offended. Worry not. Fantastic.
n/a So Stephen Price said, when asked what he would say If 1 day he came face to face with god, he said, first of all, I'd say, bone cancer in children, what's that about? How dare you? How dare you create a world where there is such misery that is not our fault? It's not right. It's utterly, utterly evil.
n/a A world where there are insects whose sole purpose in life is to burrow into the eyes of children and eat their way out. Why should I respect a capricious, mean minded god who creates a world That is so full of injustice and pain. That is what I would say. What is your reaction to Stephen Fry's take there.
Dr. Stephen C. Meyer Well, there there, and we only get on the Joe Rogan experience, which was quite a great experience. We only got to discuss, we we discussed the problem of evil in a very, very short, part of the interview that we didn't get into it in a great deal of depth. But there are actually 2 facets to the problem of evil as it's proposed. 1 is the problem of of, of human evil, of things that we you know, man's inhumanity to man as it used to be called. And I think that that is very adequately addressed by what's called the free will defense.
Dr. Stephen C. Meyer It goes all the way back to Saint Augustine. And and that's what I discussed with Joe Rogan that there that that, the the the the Judeo Christian view of this, the Jewish view, the The the Christian view has been that god believed or god thought it was worth the risk to create people with true freedom, who could make choices that were necessarily harmful to themselves, to other people, and which, went against God's desires for human flourishing because it was better to have act to create actual, agents with that freedom than it was to create a world few full of puppets or machines. He was trying to spread blessing to the planet he created by by creating other beings who could genuinely love him and each other and and appreciate what he had created. I find that entirely a satisfactory answer. Where things are more difficult is with the problem of what's called natural evil.
Dr. Stephen C. Meyer This is what what Steven is referring to in that quotation that that nature is has this aspect. We see the evidence of design in nature, but we also see evidence of decay and destruction and things that end up being harmful to humans. Now, if I were only a proponent of the theory of intelligent design, but that did not also have, did did also there was not also, for example, a a bible believer. I am a I'm a Christian, and I I believe the the witness of of the biblical text. I don't think I would have the planetary resources to make sense of natural evil.
Dr. Stephen C. Meyer And in fact, if you read some of the natural theologians from the end of 19th century or the early 19th century, You get the feeling as they're describing nature that they've never really left a manicured Oxford or Cambridge College garden. You know, that they think that nature is only pristine. But, of course, we know that nature is not pristine. We see evidence of design, but we also see evidence of decay, and we see destructive processes at work in nature. Now from the standpoint of, of biblical Christianity, that's exactly what you should expect.
Dr. Stephen C. Meyer The book of Romans written by Saint Paul tells us that from the things that are made, the unseen Qualities of the creator, his eternal power and divine nature are clearly seen. That's that's 1 thing we see we see. But he also tells us that nature is in bondage, to decay, that it's been subjected to to bondage and it's and that it's it's subjected to decay, that there are processes of degradation at work in nature. And that is in fact what we do see. So on the basis of biblical Christianity, I would expect to see both those things, and we do.
Dr. Stephen C. Meyer So that's confirmation of that of of a of a a a biblical ID perspective, if you will. Now the question is, Why was that? That that raises a further question, which is, well, where did that impulse where where did that come from? Why why is there decay in nature? And the Bible tells us a backstory.
Dr. Stephen C. Meyer It has a backstory that has to do with not only the rebellion of human beings, but the rebellion of of angelic beings that were put in charge of nature. And that and it doesn't tell us the whole of the backstory, which is somewhat frustrating. But it implies that the the the subjection of nature to decay was also the result of rebellion against God, that there was to be either a, a dominion of humans over nature such that, that that nature would continue to be pristine as God had made it, or perhaps that it had something to do it had something to do with the way in which We rebelled against God, that we lost that power to control nature and and and to keep it in that pristine state. But the but the End of the Bible tells us that at at at in in the end of all things, that too will be put right, that nature will again, have that since different metaphors are used. The lion will lie down with a lamb.
Dr. Stephen C. Meyer There'll be a a tree of life, that will, will will bring healing, and there will be no more tears and no more sadness. Because the Bible is so incredibly concerned about human suffering. And the whole of the long arc of the Bible is about the restoration of all things, our proper relationship with God, our proper relationship to each other, our proper relationship to the environment. And because I have so many other reasons for believing the biblical witness, I Take that, the I take that affirmation of the backstory on the authority of the scripture that I have other reasons to to believe. I can't I I don't think that the backstory is fully developed.
Dr. Stephen C. Meyer So we we don't we're not told all the details of what happened and how how The fall of created beings ended up affecting nature, but we are we are told that it did, and it and it it caused this degradation. So this is an area where, I think religious thought and scientific thought come together. I think it is in the broad sense, It provides an adequate explanation for natural evil. But in all the specific details, there's things that we're not fully told. But I I personally have reasons for accepting the witness of the Bible, so I'm willing to accept the uncertainties that come with that with that.
Dr. Stephen C. Meyer That's kinda where I am on the topic. And the other thing I would say is that that, you you know, be because and this is the the Extraordinary thing about the the specifically Christian message that Jesus Christ is presented as god in the flesh who comes and suffers in the same world that we've been living in. And so there is an affirmation that God himself is as acquainted or more acquainted with human suffering than even any individual person is experiencing, that he's experienced it himself. He's he experiences and empathizes with us. He he in our in our suffering.
Dr. Stephen C. Meyer And so whereas it might be possible to think of sort of an abstract deity as far removed and indifferent to the human condition. The message of the incarnation in Christianity is that god is anything but. He is god with us in that name that that the messiah has given Emmanuel. So there's these are deep questions. It takes a long time to kind of deliberate about all this.
Dr. Stephen C. Meyer But, I I'm satisfied that god is with us in that and that there is a plan for reversing those things that are most painful in every person's experience.
n/a Well, just 1 final question, and I promise I will Let these guys know where they can connect.
Dr. Stephen C. Meyer And your your your your viewers, listeners are have some incredibly astute questions, I'd say.
n/a The Final question. A lot of our listeners are fans of the public intellectual, Jordan Peterson. I've had his wife Tammy on this podcast. I've had his son, Julian on this podcast. And a lot of people wanted to ask about, your opinion on on where Jordan stands?
n/a Because I think a lot of people are confused on Jordan Peterson's Stance on this topic of religion, a lot of people think that he has a foot in both camps. What are your honest thoughts On Jordan Peterson and his relationship with religion.
Dr. Stephen C. Meyer What a what a fun question to think about. Well, a couple summers ago, Jordan tweeted out, a very kind thing about my book or and he said that he had rarely read a book where he had learned so much about which he knew, you know, about which he was so much in ignorance or something. It was it was very complementary. And then he followed up with another tweet asking about my mathematical challenge to the creative power of mutation and selection. And And what did his his followers have to say about that?
Dr. Stephen C. Meyer And then then that created a spirited Twitter debate. And so for the first time, I composed a 240 word or letter message on Twitter. I'd never done it before. And summarizing the the evidence that we have, showing that, an accumulate an accumulation of mutations and will degrade the structure of what's called a protein fold long before a new protein structure called a protein fold, a new structure can arise. And this is a fundamental impediment to the creative power of of the evolutionary mechanism.
Dr. Stephen C. Meyer I mentioned this on on, on on the a Rogan podcast, but I've written about it extensively. Anyway, it showed to me that that, I mean, Jordan Peterson is clearly interested in the big questions. I think he's he has in his expositions about the, of the Bible, highlighted the psychological wisdom that's present in the biblical stories, particularly in the book of Genesis about the the the family of the patriarchs. And now and now he's done the similar thing on Exodus. And so when he's asked directly, well, do you believe?
Dr. Stephen C. Meyer Then he says, well, that would come to say, I do believe would come with a great responsibility to act as in con in a way that's consistent with that belief. And and so I I really don't wanna answer that question. And he says, you know, it's a question of how so He wants to say that the proof is in the pudding of how you live and that people should, I I think, essentially make a determination of that by assessing how he lives. But he's he's been famously kind of ambiguous or, cagey in his response. And he gives a reason for for for so doing, which I can completely respect.
Dr. Stephen C. Meyer I think he's such a fascinating figure because he's clearly a very authentic person who is grappling with the big questions, questions of morality, questions of how we should live. He gives fantastic advice to young people about about, lifestyle choices, encouraging people to get out of the hookup culture and actually get married and start a family and take on responsibilities. And and, you know, I wrote a piece for the Jerusalem Post in summer of 2022 talking about the passing of Steven Weinberg, 1 of the great physicists of our generation. Weinberg was an aggressive, scientific atheist. He had no no, interest at all in religion.
Dr. Stephen C. Meyer He thought it was a waste of time. But in writing the piece, I argued that His passing may well represent a kind of passing of the torch or a or a waning of the influence of the new atheist. And that instead, The most interesting figures on the scene right now are what I call the new new atheists. Figures like Tom Holland and Jordan Peterson and Niall Ferguson and Douglas Murray and others who, in some ways, would like something like theism or Christianity to be true because they lament the loss of a Christian or Judeo Christian foundation for culture. But for 1 reason or another can't quite get themselves over the line to belief.
Dr. Stephen C. Meyer Now I had a 3 way conversation with Douglas Murray and Tom Holland, on the wonderful Peter Robinson hosted program uncommon knowledge last fall. And it dropped earlier this year, I think, in January. It's had a lot of views and a lot of interest. It was a fantastic discussion, and I think Douglas Murray is still in that camp of being a sort of new new atheist. He has a great respect for Christianity.
Dr. Stephen C. Meyer He wrote 1 of the most moving, reflections on the burning of the cathedral at Notre Dame, but he himself is not a believer. I don't exactly know either where Jordan Peterson is, but I suspect he is a believer at some level. In the case of Tom Holland, I think he's no longer a new new atheist. I think he's no longer a a Christian atheist. I think he's moving in a in a decidedly, theistic and Christian direction.
Dr. Stephen C. Meyer And so Each of these interesting figures, I think, has their own interesting journey and story, and that's what makes them so fascinating. In each case in no none of those cases do you have anything like confirmation bias going on. I mean, Holland's story is fascinating as in the story, and he he's fascinated with the the ancient pagan empires, Assyria and Greece and and and Persia and Rome. And he and then He discovers that something dramatic changes in the 1st and second and third centuries AD and that whereas the ancient world is abjectly cruel and severe and unforgiving, Suddenly, you have this concern for widows and orphans and the disenfranchised and hospitals and the sick. And and he says, what changed?
Dr. Stephen C. Meyer Well, it was it was a sermon on the mount. It was it was the Nazarene. It was Christianity is what changed the western world. And now we're all swimming in that Christian milieu whether we want to acknowledge it or not. We have Christian ways of thinking that have that have been part of our culture for centuries.
Dr. Stephen C. Meyer And so, I mean, he's just an absolutely fascinating figure because he comes from the he comes into the religious question, the god question from a point of view that had no confirm no inclination to be interested in this at all. He discovers it in a sense of news. So I just think it's a really interesting time in the culture that you have figures like that who have that very that we're all involved in a very authentic journey, search, inquiry, and advancing a very authentic perspective that is something we all should should think about. So So, you know, I I'd love to I I'd love at some point to get a chance to talk with with with Jordan, because I think he's He's raised the most interesting questions right in the center of the culture.
n/a I think that would be an amazing conversation, and We've given our audience something to think about here as we finish because 2 names you mentioned, Danael Fergs and Douglas Murray, 2 former guests to Showing Is
Dr. Stephen C. Meyer that right? Oh, you're you're getting everybody. That's great.
n/a Have almost ever downloaded episodes, so I'm sure we're gonna get, some messages about What we've just discussed there, doctor Received Meyer, please let everyone listen and watch and know where they can connect with yourself and get a copy of the book.
Dr. Stephen C. Meyer Oh, thank thank you. My website for the book is return of the god hypothesis.com. And, it has Lots of videos and videos of debates, animations of cellular processes, op ed articles that I've written. It's a it's a nice place, a porthole, from which you can navigate to find all kinds of resources. And so that's probably the best place to start.
Dr. Stephen C. Meyer Returnofagodhypothesis.com. I'm also a fellow of the Discovery Institute in Seattle, and you can find me by clicking on discovery.org.
n/a I will make sure everything, referenced there is in the show notes below. Once again, doctor Received Meyer, thank you so much for your time. It's been an absolute
Dr. Stephen C. Meyer for having me on, and and good wishes to, friends in in Wales. And, I love your slight Welsh accent. We know people who talk like you. So it's great. It's a great place.
Dr. Stephen C. Meyer So thank you.