Darwin DEBUNKED: Using Breakthroughs In Math & Science (14 Minute Density!)

In this video, David Gelernter (a computer scientist from Yale University), David Berlinski (a Mathematician) & Stephen C. Meyer (a philosopher of Science) discuss the mathematical and scientific problem with Darwin's theory of evolution. It's a great conversation because these three gentlemen are not in total agreement with each other in terms of their conclusions based on the holes in Darwin's theory, but what they do agree on, and the conversation that ensues is both extremely fascinating and important. I hope you enjoy!

[kriszorr]

'The first gulp from the glass of natural sciences will turn you into an atheist, but at the bottom of the glass God is waiting for you.' - Werner Heisenberg

[yeshuasbeloved]

Doctors have diagnosed my mom with leukemia. They're still trying to find out what kind. She's been on dialysis for 10 years. I'm asking my brothers and sisters in Messiah Yeshua/ Christ Jesus to stand in agreement with and also in declaring my mom's miraculous healing and excellent health for God's glory! I'd also like to enjoy more years with my mom as she is my closest friend other than Yeshua.

[JohnMcClain-pt]

My family moved to Chicago in 68 and I began sixth grade that year. DNA entered science for me and my peers that year and I've been following the studies of it ever since. This exact issue is the reason I became a Christian in 83, having fought it in my own mind since that beginning. Intelligent design has been at the forefront through all those years and this conversation I just watched provides the explanation for what I adopted because "it was the only way that felt right". I've been a technician in digital electronics more than sixty years and a mechanic even longer. We humans often make serious choices by "feel", and take years or decades to flesh out that feeling with facts that bring clarity eventually. Thanks!

[Tomonaroma]

Even Charles Darwin thought his own theory was "grievously hypothetical" and gave emotional doubts when he said, “The eye to this day gives me a cold shudder. To think the eye had evolved by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest possible degree." But he thought of the same about something as simple as a peacock's feather, which he said, "makes me sick."

In an 1863 letter, he amplified by pointing out that evolution by natural selection was "grounded entirely on general considerations" such as the difference between contemporary organisms and fossil organisms. "When we descend to details, we cannot prove that a single species has changed; nor can we prove that the supposed changes are beneficial, which is the groundwork of the theory.”

[randywise]

A simple cell in our bodies has more things happening in it that a city and it all works together in harmony to perform its place it the bigger part. Without us having to think about it. We are created wonderfully.

[matthewjohnson]

Stephen Meyer is the man and Berlinski is a legend. I paid my daughter to read and review Myees ‘Signature in the Cell’ with me and within a year after she decided to change her major from art to biochemistry, that’s how awesome his book and arguments are.

[CaptainSteve]

Long periods of time aren't favorable to random assembly when random disassembly is occurring at the same or greater rate.

[iantoes]

The most simplest living cell is still very complex, and yet people believe something so complex came about by chance. The weird thing for me is when someone stumbles upon some rocks stacked on top of each other they will assume human intervention when the number of rocks are as little as 3 and for the sceptic 5 is certainly enough.

[cinsc]

The mathematical problems with Darwinism have been known for over 50 years. Michael Denton wrote a comprehensive challenge to the theory in the mid eighties. I wouldn't be surprised to learn that the "Four Horsemen" weren't consciously attepting a Hail Mary back in the early 2000s. Coversations like this have been a long time coming.

[sidanx]

You just finding this - what is amazing NOONE ever talks about this discussion

[FelonyVideos]

I've never needed for the theory of evolution or survival of the fittest to be true or false to be compatible with my religion. For that reason, I've never had a pony in this race, but the race has always interested me. Over the past 10 years, I have grown to finally understand the mathematics and mathematical realities required to still believe in either theory. It is preposterous, beyond the probability of being struck by lightning a googleplex number of times, and survviving to tell about it, and then repeating that sequence a googleplex times over again, always unscathed. Sure, its possible, but... 😅

The additional nail in the coffin is the one James Tour posits - that no one has ever gone from chemistry to biology in the lab. It has never happened, and it is going to require the entire horsepower of the coming singularity hundreds of years to figure that one out.

It doesnt bother me one bit to think that we are in a simulation, I just happen to think that God is the programmer. Its no skin off my nose. I dont have to think that day one in genesis had only 24 hours in it. For all I care, that first day could have lasted 13.8 billion of our current years. It also doesnt bother me that the last half of that day might have been 4.5 billion years long.

Given all my apathy, it is painfully obvious to me that Meyer and Tour are exactly correct. An intelligent being created all of this, probably with the sweep of his hand or the breath of his voice. I just happen, and laugh at me if you like, think that I know his name.

[djamelzitouni]

It is not a matter of being a Christian or an atheist, it is a matter of believing in a creator first versus rejecting a creator.

[brandonb]

Don’t know how you popped up in my feed but I’m glad you did.
Also, where to find the full video?

[apbtxca]

I’ve watched this discussion several times since it came out a few years ago, and I still think about it quite often

[michaelbabbitt]

After many years of reflection, I have come to see that people who use their intellects a great deal (and who do have great intellects) are often captured by that intellect. Intellect is a great tool for discovering aspects of the world only it can discover. However, if God cannot be fully understood by intellect but must be related to by the heart, one's innermost being, then it will fail the person using the intellect to attempt to understand God and grasp what/who He is.
You see this capture in Jordan Peterson, Berlinski, and many atheists and skeptics. They cannot get past it. The intellect is a wonderful tool of discovery that is sorely unused by too many people. It can be a launching pad into new possibilities (apologetics was that for me), but if you never let go of the intellect at some point (an act of humility), the rocketship of Godly relationship will remain stuck on that launching pad, and you will never soar into the heavens of the Kingdom of God. In that case, intellect becomes its inverse: it becomes a means of endarkenment that keeps you from meeting God. I hope this makes sense.

[bobobobos]

I can literally feel the humbleness of these people through the screen 🤔

[wms]

Thank you for posting these conversations. God bless you.

[amandacarmel]

I’ve watched this interview with David, David and Stephen sooo many times I have it almost memorized! I did an intelligent design vs Darwinism debate and this interview helped me sooo much!!!

[matthewrawlings]

I'd highly recommend the program this clip is from. It's uncommon knowledge from the Hoover Institution. Peter Robinson (the host) is hands down the best interviewer in the english language.

[tubejones]

Current evolutionary biology is so far beyond Darwin's ideas that critiquing him to try refuting evolution is much like criticizing the Wright brothers to deny the existence of space flight.