WEBVTT

1
00:00:00.120 --> 00:00:04.519
Hello, and welcome to my podcast. This is an audio version of my

2
00:00:04.639 --> 00:00:09.160
videos available to make listening to my
stuff in the background easier than YouTube makes

3
00:00:09.160 --> 00:00:13.679
it. But since my videos are
primarily made for YouTube, there may be

4
00:00:13.759 --> 00:00:18.160
occasional references to visual materials. If
you'd liked this podcast, add free you

5
00:00:18.199 --> 00:00:22.760
can join us on Patreon at patreon
dot com slash Vice Rhino. Please enjoy.

6
00:00:23.960 --> 00:00:29.160
Hello and welcome to my channel Vice
Rhino. Here today, I'm heading

7
00:00:29.199 --> 00:00:32.759
back to my roots to cover a
video by none other than Eric Hovend.

8
00:00:33.119 --> 00:00:36.679
This one's exciting for me because one
of the criticisms that I've repeatedly levied against

9
00:00:36.719 --> 00:00:40.960
Young Earth creationism is that it relies
entirely on poking holes in the theory of

10
00:00:41.000 --> 00:00:45.039
evolution and other science that they disagree
with and like to lump into evolution as

11
00:00:45.079 --> 00:00:49.159
though they are all the same and
inextricably linked, rather than presenting any scientifically

12
00:00:49.159 --> 00:00:53.719
backed alternative to evolution, acting as
though creationism would just be the default fallback

13
00:00:53.759 --> 00:00:58.759
position if they managed to discredit evolution
enough. But this video is called Beyond

14
00:00:58.960 --> 00:01:03.439
Darwin as signed alternative to evolution,
So will this finally be the video where

15
00:01:03.439 --> 00:01:08.239
a creationist actually tries to do something
other than just say evolution has problems and

16
00:01:08.359 --> 00:01:12.840
actually present a solution of their own. I have my doubts, but that's

17
00:01:12.840 --> 00:01:23.000
what the title says, so let's
go. We decided that today we'd talk

18
00:01:23.079 --> 00:01:32.120
about beyond Darwin, what's the scientific
alternative to evolution? Because we need one.

19
00:01:32.439 --> 00:01:36.319
Well, not to backtrack this early, but you only actually need one

20
00:01:36.560 --> 00:01:41.200
if evolution is wrong. And despite
the fact that creationists have been chronically unable

21
00:01:41.200 --> 00:01:44.519
to come up with one instead of
relying on their attempts to poke holes in

22
00:01:44.599 --> 00:01:49.840
evolution, they have never been able
to accomplish their goal of actually proving evolution

23
00:01:49.879 --> 00:01:53.879
wrong. So the next step of
providing a scientifically backed alternative that is more

24
00:01:53.879 --> 00:01:57.120
than just God did it has never
really mattered all that much because they've never

25
00:01:57.159 --> 00:02:00.359
made it to the stage where that
would be necessary. Terry they think they

26
00:02:00.439 --> 00:02:04.519
have, which is why bring it
up when relevant, but the reality is

27
00:02:04.680 --> 00:02:09.919
that they have not. For probably
fifteen twenty years now, the Discovery Institute

28
00:02:10.560 --> 00:02:17.199
has gathered scientist and started writing and
creating ideas around the idea of intelligent design.

29
00:02:17.560 --> 00:02:22.280
Yes, it was a thinly veiled
attempt to sneak creationism into the classroom

30
00:02:22.360 --> 00:02:25.960
after creationism itself had been thoroughly discredited. They paired down the religious language and

31
00:02:25.960 --> 00:02:30.360
gave their work a superficially scientific patina, but it is still at its core

32
00:02:30.639 --> 00:02:35.639
creationism. Now, historically, they
weren't coming out and saying the God of

33
00:02:35.680 --> 00:02:39.800
the Bible, right, and that's
because it's an organization that was designed specifically

34
00:02:39.840 --> 00:02:44.840
to push creationism into the classroom.
So if they did just come right and

35
00:02:44.879 --> 00:02:47.520
say the God of the Bible,
then they'd be denied outright. As teaching

36
00:02:47.520 --> 00:02:53.840
religious creation narratives in science classrooms is
a big no no. Well, it

37
00:02:53.960 --> 00:02:55.759
was a big no no. With
the current US Supreme Court. It wouldn't

38
00:02:55.800 --> 00:03:00.000
surprise me if they decided that the
protection of religious expression extended to teaching their

39
00:03:00.000 --> 00:03:05.479
religion as though or science in public
school classrooms. Okay, now that I

40
00:03:05.560 --> 00:03:08.759
have to press myself with the absolute
Bonker's show that is the American judicial system.

41
00:03:09.159 --> 00:03:12.840
Let's get back to Eric. One
of the guys has been part of

42
00:03:12.879 --> 00:03:15.759
the discovery is due for a long
time, Michael Denton. It is exposing

43
00:03:15.840 --> 00:03:21.240
that, look, evolution has to
move beyond Darwin. The article that Eric

44
00:03:21.319 --> 00:03:24.479
is showing how we move beyond Darwin
to the miracle of Man is basically a

45
00:03:24.520 --> 00:03:29.080
bait and switch. There is little
to nothing in that article that actually has

46
00:03:29.120 --> 00:03:31.960
anything to do with evolution. It's
mostly just an ad for Denton's book,

47
00:03:32.280 --> 00:03:36.719
and based on what is written there, it amounts to nothing more than Denton

48
00:03:36.759 --> 00:03:39.360
getting confused about cause and effect.
He spends a good chunk of it talking

49
00:03:39.360 --> 00:03:44.400
about how amazing it is that the
carbon atom is perfect for sustaining life.

50
00:03:45.080 --> 00:03:49.159
Yeah, carbon based life like ours, relies on the properties of carbon to

51
00:03:49.280 --> 00:03:53.240
sustain itself. In other news,
the towel that I dropped into the water

52
00:03:53.520 --> 00:03:57.560
is now wet. Obviously, that's
because the water was perfectly designed to make

53
00:03:57.599 --> 00:04:01.879
the towel wet. Right, We've
got to go past what Darwin taught us,

54
00:04:02.360 --> 00:04:04.520
and I'll give you a little history
lesson here in just a second.

55
00:04:04.680 --> 00:04:10.240
But we've got to move past this
idea because it's not healthy. It's actually

56
00:04:10.319 --> 00:04:15.199
hindering. It's actually hurting science because
it's forcing scientists to look at the data

57
00:04:15.319 --> 00:04:21.000
through the lens of Darwinian evolution being
true, and then forcing them to interpret

58
00:04:21.000 --> 00:04:27.920
the data with that lens rather than
saying, hey, what are our options?

59
00:04:28.439 --> 00:04:31.480
Yeah, that sounds all fine and
good. Superficially but we're at a

60
00:04:31.519 --> 00:04:35.720
point with evolution where the evidence is
just so strongly in its favor that that's

61
00:04:35.879 --> 00:04:40.759
just not a reasonable expectation. The
time for looking at the data and seeing

62
00:04:40.800 --> 00:04:44.959
what conclusion it would lead us to
was way back before we had found the

63
00:04:45.000 --> 00:04:48.279
conclusion that the data led us to, which was evolution. When Darwin came

64
00:04:48.319 --> 00:04:51.319
onto the scene, he did not
set out on his journey on the Beagle

65
00:04:51.399 --> 00:04:57.120
to prove evolution right. He was
just studying nature, God's creation, as

66
00:04:57.160 --> 00:04:59.600
he likely would have put it at
the time. But when looking at the

67
00:04:59.600 --> 00:05:03.959
evidence without a predetermined conclusion, evolution
became rather obvious. So obvious, in

68
00:05:04.000 --> 00:05:09.040
fact, that Darwin wasn't the only
person to formulate this idea. Alfred Russell

69
00:05:09.079 --> 00:05:13.519
Wallace came to the same conclusion around
the same time as Darwin, completely independently.

70
00:05:13.680 --> 00:05:15.680
In fact, at the time when
Darwin and Wallace were working, the

71
00:05:15.800 --> 00:05:23.040
previous evolutionary ideas were largely considered unscientific
and received extensive criticism from people like Charles

72
00:05:23.079 --> 00:05:27.639
Lyle, who creationists often attacked for
coming up with uniformitarianism as a way to

73
00:05:27.720 --> 00:05:30.759
make extra time for evolution to happen
so that he could spite God despite the

74
00:05:30.759 --> 00:05:35.519
fact that it was in his book
that positive Uniformitarianism where he criticized the transmutation

75
00:05:35.560 --> 00:05:41.519
of species, which was the precursored
evolution. And he died a devoted Christian

76
00:05:41.600 --> 00:05:45.279
who believed in a worldwide flood,
just one that was gentle enough to have

77
00:05:45.319 --> 00:05:48.120
not left any geologic record of itself. So why is it that creationists need

78
00:05:48.160 --> 00:05:51.480
to claim that we're starting with the
conclusion and interpreting evidence in light of that

79
00:05:51.560 --> 00:05:56.759
predetermined conclusion, rather than starting with
the evidence and following it where it leads

80
00:05:57.279 --> 00:06:00.600
simple it's projection. They want to
pre us, claiming that that's how they

81
00:06:00.720 --> 00:06:04.399
work by leveling that accusation at us
first, thus poisoning the well. So

82
00:06:04.399 --> 00:06:08.920
that when we make that accusation of
a creationist, the people who heard the

83
00:06:08.959 --> 00:06:13.519
creation side of things first, likely
other creationists will hear that accusation as a

84
00:06:13.879 --> 00:06:16.680
no you type of argument. Except, as I'm sure we'll see in this

85
00:06:16.800 --> 00:06:23.120
video, Eric is a presuppositionalist,
which literally means that he begins everything with

86
00:06:23.160 --> 00:06:27.319
the conclusion that the Bible is the
inerrent word of God and filters all of

87
00:06:27.360 --> 00:06:30.439
his information through that lens. And
he is quite explicit about admitting that,

88
00:06:30.639 --> 00:06:36.160
so this accusation against those who accept
evolution ends up being rather blatant projection.

89
00:06:36.240 --> 00:06:40.759
In this case, I've got my
own issues with the intelligent design community.

90
00:06:40.759 --> 00:06:43.920
I wish they'd come out and say
it's God right away. It is a

91
00:06:44.720 --> 00:06:49.120
bottom up approach to try to show
the existence or prove the existence of God.

92
00:06:49.560 --> 00:06:54.399
I prefer the top down approach.
See I'll let him make it a

93
00:06:54.399 --> 00:06:58.000
bit more explicit in a bit,
but this is literally what I just said.

94
00:06:58.319 --> 00:07:00.680
He likes a top down approach.
You start with the conclusion and work

95
00:07:00.720 --> 00:07:03.600
your way backward, interpreting the evidence
only in a way that would have it

96
00:07:03.759 --> 00:07:06.920
lead to your conclusion, even if
you do have to ignore a bunch of

97
00:07:06.959 --> 00:07:11.639
it and interpret that which you don't
ignore in complete isolation from the other bits

98
00:07:11.680 --> 00:07:15.600
of evidence, because there's no way
to make them cohesively point to your conclusion.

99
00:07:15.680 --> 00:07:18.199
And he apparently doesn't like the Discovery
Institute's bottom up approach at looking at

100
00:07:18.199 --> 00:07:25.079
the evidence first, which is fucking
hilarious because the good old Disco tute also

101
00:07:25.240 --> 00:07:28.839
uses a top down approach. They
just pretend it's a bottom up approach in

102
00:07:28.920 --> 00:07:32.120
order to infiltrate classrooms, which you'd
think Eric would like, and actually,

103
00:07:32.120 --> 00:07:35.120
this is one of the reasons that
I think Eric is probably one of the

104
00:07:35.160 --> 00:07:40.680
honest creationists out there. I think
he sincerely believes what he says, which

105
00:07:40.800 --> 00:07:44.839
serves to explain why he would fall
for the creationist propaganda of the Discovery Institute

106
00:07:44.839 --> 00:07:47.199
when they claim to be working from
a bottom up approach. The next clip

107
00:07:47.240 --> 00:07:49.839
is a bit long. He goes
on a bit of a winding analogy in

108
00:07:49.959 --> 00:07:54.519
order to explain what he means,
but I'll let him finish the analogy before

109
00:07:54.519 --> 00:07:58.959
responding. We relate it to a
crime scene. If you walked into a

110
00:07:58.959 --> 00:08:01.959
convenience store and you were the detective, and you were there to investigate a

111
00:08:03.040 --> 00:08:07.839
robbery and a murder, and you
walked into this crime scene and you got

112
00:08:07.839 --> 00:08:09.920
your police tape all around, nobody's
come in, and you start checking out

113
00:08:09.920 --> 00:08:15.319
the evidence, and you see some
broken glass and it looks like the guy

114
00:08:15.439 --> 00:08:18.000
broke in. And then you see
some of the bags of chips had fallen,

115
00:08:18.079 --> 00:08:22.560
looks like some people had fall right
there. Then you see the body

116
00:08:22.600 --> 00:08:24.000
of the victim. You see where
he's laying, there's a footprint in the

117
00:08:24.040 --> 00:08:28.720
blood. That same footprint is over
on the countertop. Who looks like he

118
00:08:28.759 --> 00:08:31.480
had hopped over the countertop. The
cash out of the cash register is gone,

119
00:08:31.799 --> 00:08:35.360
so obviously a robbery. You couldn't
deduce and look at the evidence and

120
00:08:35.440 --> 00:08:41.759
try to figure out paint a picture
of what happened here. But if somebody

121
00:08:41.759 --> 00:08:46.120
else comes along and says, oh, hey, the store had a security

122
00:08:46.120 --> 00:08:50.000
camera. Here, watch this,
and they take give in the back room

123
00:08:50.000 --> 00:08:54.320
and hit play, and you watch
the murder and the robbery unfold. Now

124
00:08:54.360 --> 00:09:01.279
you know exactly where each piece of
the puzzle fits. Yes, but here's

125
00:09:01.279 --> 00:09:05.799
the thing. Video evidence is not
the be all and end all of evidence.

126
00:09:05.039 --> 00:09:07.799
If the robber had their face covered, as the ones in the video

127
00:09:07.840 --> 00:09:11.000
that you were showing did, then
you would still need to use all of

128
00:09:11.000 --> 00:09:13.879
that other evidence as part of the
process of figuring out who did it.

129
00:09:15.320 --> 00:09:18.000
And when it comes to court,
you need to provide verification that the CCTV

130
00:09:18.120 --> 00:09:22.399
footage is authentic. It's not just
assumed to be so. And there needs

131
00:09:22.440 --> 00:09:26.559
to be documentation about the chain of
custody of the tape so that the court

132
00:09:26.600 --> 00:09:30.080
can be certain that the footage was
not manipulated at any point. So,

133
00:09:30.360 --> 00:09:33.960
yeah, it's not merely a case
of here's a video the rest doesn't matter.

134
00:09:33.000 --> 00:09:37.000
The video's definitive. The video itself
is merely a part of the whole

135
00:09:37.080 --> 00:09:41.759
body of evidence. In the same
way, I go, guys, it's

136
00:09:43.000 --> 00:09:48.840
not ignorant to pull out the videotape
of how God created the heavens and the

137
00:09:48.879 --> 00:09:54.279
earth and say God is the creator. He told us how he did it.

138
00:09:54.679 --> 00:09:58.759
Well, No, the Bible is
not analogous to the CCTV tape.

139
00:09:58.799 --> 00:10:01.120
In that case, if we want
to hold to this analogy, the Bible

140
00:10:01.159 --> 00:10:05.000
would be more like a transcript that
someone who was not involved in the crime

141
00:10:05.000 --> 00:10:09.759
in any way claims as the transcript
of the CCTV tape. Except the store

142
00:10:09.759 --> 00:10:15.279
that was robbed doesn't even have a
CCTV system installed, and the person claiming

143
00:10:15.279 --> 00:10:18.799
it was the transcript isn't even claiming
to have directly transcribed it themselves, but

144
00:10:18.919 --> 00:10:24.519
they are passing on a transcription that
was compiled from several different transcripts, many

145
00:10:24.519 --> 00:10:28.039
of which directly contradicted each other,
and some of which were combined into one

146
00:10:28.159 --> 00:10:33.080
transcript despite the contradictions. With the
analogy thus corrected, we can see why

147
00:10:33.120 --> 00:10:37.039
the transcript would not be admissible in
court, and likewise, when it comes

148
00:10:37.039 --> 00:10:39.320
to figuring out the origin of the
universe and life within it. The Bible

149
00:10:39.399 --> 00:10:43.200
should not be treated as authoritative.
I mean, maybe, if it actually

150
00:10:43.279 --> 00:10:48.799
got a bunch of stuff verifiably right, we could actually consider what it says

151
00:10:48.840 --> 00:10:52.200
as a part of the body of
evidence. But given just how wrong it

152
00:10:52.279 --> 00:10:56.080
is about so many things, the
appropriate thing to do here is to dismiss

153
00:10:56.120 --> 00:11:00.799
it as irrelevant at best, well
at least when it comes to sciences like

154
00:11:00.840 --> 00:11:03.600
geology, cosmology, biology, astronomy, and you know, pretty much all

155
00:11:03.600 --> 00:11:09.600
of the physical sciences. From an
anthropological perspective, though it is undeniably an

156
00:11:09.600 --> 00:11:13.200
important collection of books that gives us
a glimpse into the development of a fascinating

157
00:11:13.240 --> 00:11:16.559
ancient culture. But that's not what
Eric is talking about here. In my

158
00:11:16.639 --> 00:11:20.279
experience, young with creationists are happy
to trade the importance of the Bible from

159
00:11:20.320 --> 00:11:24.759
an anthropological and historical perspective in exchange
for pretending that it got science right,

160
00:11:26.039 --> 00:11:28.759
even though the authors of the Bible
seem to have been under the impression that

161
00:11:28.759 --> 00:11:31.200
what kind of sticks a goat was
looking at when it had sex would determine

162
00:11:31.200 --> 00:11:35.919
the pattern of the resultant babygoat's fur. So I stick, I start with

163
00:11:37.120 --> 00:11:39.840
I say, the videotape, the
surveillance footage of what happened God's word,

164
00:11:41.080 --> 00:11:45.440
you stick with the transcript of nonexistent
video footage with a severely broken chain of

165
00:11:45.480 --> 00:11:50.279
custody, and all the science,
all the data fits perfectly with what God's

166
00:11:50.320 --> 00:11:54.559
Word actually says. If that were
true, you wouldn't need to start with

167
00:11:54.600 --> 00:11:58.000
it as the conclusion. In the
case of a robber being caught on CCTV,

168
00:11:58.480 --> 00:12:01.240
with all the evidence that you brought
up, they would likely be able

169
00:12:01.279 --> 00:12:05.960
to catch the guy even without the
video, and given that usually a robber

170
00:12:05.000 --> 00:12:09.039
will have their face covered while robbing
a store, you would still need to

171
00:12:09.039 --> 00:12:11.399
demonstrate that your suspect really is the
person in the footage. Even if the

172
00:12:11.399 --> 00:12:16.360
footage were admissible in court, even
if I grant that the Bible is analogous

173
00:12:16.360 --> 00:12:20.080
to the security footage, you still
need to use the rest of the evidence

174
00:12:20.080 --> 00:12:22.960
to show that God is in fact
the being that is depicted by the footage,

175
00:12:24.279 --> 00:12:26.960
and you can't do that. You
only ever try to attack the integrity

176
00:12:28.000 --> 00:12:30.720
of the rest of the evidence,
rather than presenting any of your own.

177
00:12:31.240 --> 00:12:35.039
This video is titled such that you
should be presenting your own evidence, which

178
00:12:35.080 --> 00:12:37.120
would be new for a creationist.
But we're a quarter of the way in

179
00:12:37.159 --> 00:12:41.879
and you haven't said anything that isn't
just typical creation as rhetoric. At this

180
00:12:41.960 --> 00:12:46.519
point, Roy when Darwin was coming
out with what he was promoting, Darwin

181
00:12:46.559 --> 00:12:50.799
and evolution, people were already dissensing
and doubting that. Yes, like I

182
00:12:50.799 --> 00:12:54.480
said earlier, the precursors to Darwin's
theory of evolution were not taken very seriously

183
00:12:54.519 --> 00:12:58.279
among scientists. So Lamarckian evolution,
for instance, was the idea that an

184
00:12:58.360 --> 00:13:03.080
organism would require a trait during its
lifetime and then pass that trade on to

185
00:13:03.159 --> 00:13:07.519
its offspring, with the quintessential example
being of the precursor to the giraffe needing

186
00:13:07.519 --> 00:13:09.960
to reach the higher branch to obtain
food, stretching its neck, and when

187
00:13:09.960 --> 00:13:13.840
it reproduces, its offspring will start
with a slightly longer neck. This was

188
00:13:15.120 --> 00:13:20.960
and remains to this day wrong the
mark he's dead, and it was the

189
00:13:22.000 --> 00:13:24.840
primary idea that scientists did not take
seriously in Darwin's time. The fact that

190
00:13:24.840 --> 00:13:30.480
the presuppositions of the scientists working in
Darwin's time led them to not take evolution

191
00:13:30.600 --> 00:13:35.440
seriously. But they change their minds
when presented with compelling evidence does not help

192
00:13:35.519 --> 00:13:39.840
your case that scientists begin with evolution
as the conclusion and find ways to make

193
00:13:39.840 --> 00:13:43.559
the evidence fit it. It demonstrates
rather the opposite, actually one revealing the

194
00:13:43.679 --> 00:13:50.360
fine tuning of nature for human existence. And there's the crux. I skipped

195
00:13:50.399 --> 00:13:52.279
most of this quote. He's just
reading directly from the article that he showed

196
00:13:52.279 --> 00:13:56.320
earlier. But the article doesn't even
have anything to do with evolution. It's

197
00:13:56.360 --> 00:14:01.360
all about making the teleological argument,
trying to demonstr that the universe was made

198
00:14:01.360 --> 00:14:05.480
with people in mind, rather than
trying to discredit evolution. Notably, Michael

199
00:14:05.519 --> 00:14:09.000
Denton, the guy whose article you're
quoting, accepts the theory of evolution.

200
00:14:09.399 --> 00:14:13.320
The design argument that he proposes is
one where a universe was designed in order

201
00:14:13.320 --> 00:14:16.440
to make the evolution of human beings
possible. So is your new thing that

202
00:14:16.519 --> 00:14:20.399
you accept evolution? If it's not, why are you using an article written

203
00:14:20.399 --> 00:14:26.200
by an evolutionist to make your point? Already people were going away a minute,

204
00:14:26.200 --> 00:14:31.440
this universe is perfectly designed, and
they've really helped develop the fine tuning

205
00:14:31.639 --> 00:14:37.600
argument, how the gravitational force has
to be absolutely perfect, and all these

206
00:14:37.639 --> 00:14:43.679
different scientific laws that they say are
on a Raiser's edge, and yeah,

207
00:14:43.720 --> 00:14:48.120
there we go. See that version
of the fine tuning argument is all about

208
00:14:48.159 --> 00:14:52.919
getting a universe where evolution of carbon
based life is possible. So if that's

209
00:14:52.960 --> 00:14:56.360
the one you want to use,
go for it. But it assumes old

210
00:14:56.440 --> 00:15:00.279
ages evolution and that there is room
for metaphorical interpretation in the j us A

211
00:15:00.320 --> 00:15:03.600
story. Also, it's got its
own problems. For one, you're showing

212
00:15:03.600 --> 00:15:07.279
that the life permitting range is tiny
compared to the whole spectrum of values for

213
00:15:07.320 --> 00:15:11.399
these constants and laws and whatnot.
But have you demonstrated that it is possible

214
00:15:11.399 --> 00:15:15.000
for them to be different? Does
your little graphic there take into consideration the

215
00:15:15.000 --> 00:15:18.440
fact that there's quite a bit of
variation that the constants could have that would

216
00:15:18.480 --> 00:15:22.000
still allow for a universe with lifelike
ours. Have you ruled out the possibility

217
00:15:22.000 --> 00:15:26.000
of other combinations resulting in universes that
would be hospitable to life that is not

218
00:15:26.120 --> 00:15:30.240
like ours. And on top of
that, there are some changes that we

219
00:15:30.279 --> 00:15:33.799
can be fairly certain would result in
a universe that is more hospitable to life

220
00:15:33.799 --> 00:15:37.399
than the one we live in.
The cosmological constant, for instance, is

221
00:15:37.519 --> 00:15:41.919
ever so slightly positive if it were
slightly negative That would encourage a great amount

222
00:15:41.960 --> 00:15:46.960
of galaxy and star formation, resulting
in more matter that is available for life

223
00:15:46.960 --> 00:15:50.440
to use. So we know that
the universe is not fine tuned to be

224
00:15:50.519 --> 00:15:54.519
optimal for life, despite being possible
for life. And in addition to all

225
00:15:54.559 --> 00:15:58.240
of that, the ultimate problem with
the fine tuning argument is the very existence

226
00:15:58.320 --> 00:16:03.279
of the argument meant itself. If
there were no god, what kind of

227
00:16:03.360 --> 00:16:07.039
universe would you expect to find life
in? One in which life is possible?

228
00:16:07.399 --> 00:16:10.960
Obviously, But if there were a
god, what kind of universe would

229
00:16:10.960 --> 00:16:14.360
you expect to find life in?
Then any damn universe that that God wanted

230
00:16:14.399 --> 00:16:18.240
to put life in. If the
universe were clearly not fine tune for life

231
00:16:18.240 --> 00:16:22.320
and yet life existed in it any
way, that could potentially be evidence that

232
00:16:22.399 --> 00:16:26.759
some supernatural being exists and is keeping
things going. But that's not what we

233
00:16:26.840 --> 00:16:30.639
see. We merely see that life
is sustained in a universe where it's possible

234
00:16:30.679 --> 00:16:33.360
for life to be self sustaining.
And then they go listen, if you

235
00:16:33.399 --> 00:16:36.120
were to move just a little bit
this way, an inch this way,

236
00:16:36.399 --> 00:16:38.759
or an inch this way, out
of this hundreds of miles or thousands of

237
00:16:38.799 --> 00:16:44.559
miles you don't get life, and
any way they present this and show it

238
00:16:44.559 --> 00:16:48.559
looks like life was designed to get. They're coming from the data, from

239
00:16:48.600 --> 00:16:52.960
the facts, from the information,
and trying to do news what happened,

240
00:16:53.200 --> 00:16:56.639
So apologies that I keep cutting back
to him at times that seem awkward,

241
00:16:56.679 --> 00:17:00.799
like he might be in the middle
of saying something. But this seems to

242
00:17:00.840 --> 00:17:03.799
have originally been a live stream,
so he's not exactly at his best here.

243
00:17:03.079 --> 00:17:07.039
But he is talking about a graphic
that's used to represent fine tuning,

244
00:17:07.240 --> 00:17:10.920
a ruler that is thousands of miles
long with a little tiny spot in the

245
00:17:10.960 --> 00:17:14.200
middle where life is possible, which
I already addressed when I talked about his

246
00:17:14.240 --> 00:17:18.039
little graphic there. But what I
want to mention here is that no,

247
00:17:18.599 --> 00:17:21.880
those graphics and the people who make
them are not starting with the data and

248
00:17:21.960 --> 00:17:25.960
deducing God from it. They are
starting with God and going data mining,

249
00:17:26.039 --> 00:17:29.799
ignoring the times when it looks like
the universe is not fine tuned, ignoring

250
00:17:29.799 --> 00:17:33.200
how much variation there is in what
these constants could be that would still allow

251
00:17:33.240 --> 00:17:36.759
for life, and pretending like it's
even possible for anyone to know at this

252
00:17:36.799 --> 00:17:40.680
point in time whether variation of these
constants, is possible, or whether there

253
00:17:40.680 --> 00:17:44.160
have been other universes that have existed
with variations in the constants, with the

254
00:17:44.240 --> 00:17:48.160
universes with the constants that allow for
life being the ones in which life develops,

255
00:17:48.240 --> 00:17:51.640
looks around and says, Wow,
this universe must have been designed for

256
00:17:51.720 --> 00:17:55.799
me, because I wouldn't exist otherwise. The amount of knowledge they have to

257
00:17:55.880 --> 00:18:00.480
pretend to have in order to draw
that conclusion is serd. And that's even

258
00:18:00.519 --> 00:18:03.480
if I ignore the amount of knowledge
that they have to pretend not to have

259
00:18:03.640 --> 00:18:08.160
in order to not have their conclusion
undercut before it begins. I go the

260
00:18:08.160 --> 00:18:12.759
other direction. But he goes on. He says, as the Darwinian paradigm

261
00:18:12.759 --> 00:18:19.440
tightened its grip on mainstream biology and
science, all vestiges of the old heliological

262
00:18:21.759 --> 00:18:27.319
organismic universe, all notions which place
humankind or life on Earth in any special

263
00:18:27.400 --> 00:18:33.799
or privileged place in the order of
things, were banished from mainstream academic debate.

264
00:18:34.640 --> 00:18:38.839
And that ladies and gentlemen is a
problem. No, that's not a

265
00:18:38.839 --> 00:18:42.440
problem. When we find out that
something is true and is well supported by

266
00:18:42.480 --> 00:18:47.599
the data, and makes testable predictions
and consistently holds up to scrutiny. Even

267
00:18:47.599 --> 00:18:51.640
when entirely new fields of science are
discovered that had the potential to completely falsify

268
00:18:51.680 --> 00:18:55.200
it, like genetics, it ceases
to make sense to not start with the

269
00:18:55.240 --> 00:18:59.839
idea that this well supported theory is
accurate. We don't expect astronomers to begin

270
00:19:00.000 --> 00:19:02.880
every single one of their papers with
the section demonstrating that the Earth is not

271
00:19:03.039 --> 00:19:07.680
flat and that geocentrism is false.
Those ideas are so thoroughly disproven at this

272
00:19:07.759 --> 00:19:11.279
point that it would be ridiculous to
expect that from astronomy and astronomers have better

273
00:19:11.319 --> 00:19:15.359
things to spend their time doing than
reiterating millennia old bits of evidence for the

274
00:19:15.440 --> 00:19:21.000
globe Earth that is the equivalent here. In order for evolution to be false,

275
00:19:21.400 --> 00:19:25.240
most of what we know about several
entire fields of science would have to

276
00:19:25.319 --> 00:19:29.599
also be false. But these fields
of science continue to produce accurate and useful

277
00:19:29.599 --> 00:19:32.799
discoveries. Add the young Earth into
the mix, and the number of scientific

278
00:19:32.799 --> 00:19:37.160
fields that have to be completely thrown
in the bin and started over increases well

279
00:19:37.279 --> 00:19:42.000
past the biological and paleontological areas into
geology, astronomy, physics, anthropology,

280
00:19:42.079 --> 00:19:48.160
history, cosmology, and more so. Yeah, I don't expect biologists to

281
00:19:48.240 --> 00:19:52.440
prove evolution in every paper, just
as I don't expect geologists to prove that

282
00:19:52.480 --> 00:19:55.640
the Earth is four point five billion
years old every time they publish a classification

283
00:19:55.640 --> 00:19:59.440
of a rock sample, or an
anthropologist to prove that humanity has existed for

284
00:19:59.480 --> 00:20:03.119
longer than six thousand years when discussing
ancient Native American cultures and so on.

285
00:20:03.839 --> 00:20:07.680
When we are looking at the world
and saying we are not going to allow

286
00:20:07.839 --> 00:20:15.240
the supernatural to come into the scientific
debate, the supernatural has nothing to do

287
00:20:15.279 --> 00:20:18.440
with it at this point, Madude. The teleological argument is still popular among

288
00:20:18.440 --> 00:20:22.519
apologists, even the ones who accept
science, because at its core, as

289
00:20:22.559 --> 00:20:26.799
with most arguments for God, it
relies on scientific unknowns in order to work.

290
00:20:27.200 --> 00:20:30.880
We don't know why the constants are
what they are, Therefore God must

291
00:20:30.920 --> 00:20:33.960
have made them that way. It
is a classic God of the gaps.

292
00:20:34.200 --> 00:20:38.480
But with evolution you don't get to
exploit the gaps because evolution is very well

293
00:20:38.599 --> 00:20:44.160
understood. Sure, sometimes there are
gaps with the specifics of how some feature

294
00:20:44.200 --> 00:20:48.599
evolved or how some fossil fits into
the overall evolutionary picture, and creationists love

295
00:20:48.640 --> 00:20:52.519
to latch onto those when they appear, but when the gap is inevitably closed,

296
00:20:52.680 --> 00:20:57.200
they always either ignore the fact that
we have an explanation or they rationalize

297
00:20:57.200 --> 00:21:00.640
it away, trying to figure out
why the answer or isn't actually the answer.

298
00:21:02.079 --> 00:21:06.240
The only time creationists have ever had
a point about something is when they

299
00:21:06.279 --> 00:21:11.359
talk about how science communicators will often
hypothesize about what environmental factors existed in the

300
00:21:11.359 --> 00:21:15.599
past that would have led to the
selection pressures that favored certain characteristics over others.

301
00:21:15.079 --> 00:21:19.359
Often those scenarios are imaginative storytelling,
meant to capture your attention or to

302
00:21:19.400 --> 00:21:23.000
get you to learn something about the
actual hard science. And if you ask

303
00:21:23.079 --> 00:21:27.599
any scientists who is actively researching anything
to do with evolution, they will readily

304
00:21:27.640 --> 00:21:32.279
tell you that we can only speculate
about those types of things, but evolution

305
00:21:32.480 --> 00:21:37.079
does not rest on these stories.
Evolution rests on the hard data that underlies

306
00:21:37.119 --> 00:21:41.000
those stories. So even when creationism
does have a point, it would be

307
00:21:41.039 --> 00:21:44.680
like them getting upset when a parent
tells a toddler that babies happen when two

308
00:21:44.759 --> 00:21:48.160
parents love each other very much and
do a special kind of hug. Instead

309
00:21:48.160 --> 00:21:52.480
of explaining every detail about sex and
reproduction, you got to consider the target

310
00:21:52.519 --> 00:21:56.119
audience. Your average Joe will be
way more interested in hearing about those dinosaurs

311
00:21:56.119 --> 00:22:00.680
we're fighting each other in this made
up scenario that will result in them having

312
00:22:00.720 --> 00:22:03.799
a rudimentary grasp of the situation.
Then if you just started presenting straight up

313
00:22:03.839 --> 00:22:07.319
facts and data to them, And
yes, I did just imply that if

314
00:22:07.319 --> 00:22:11.359
you're not deeply interested in evolution,
you're the same as a toddler who doesn't

315
00:22:11.400 --> 00:22:14.759
know where babies come from. Evolution
is cool as fuck, and it's not

316
00:22:14.839 --> 00:22:18.160
my fault. You can't do the
ADHD hyperfixation thing like I can. That's

317
00:22:18.200 --> 00:22:23.799
a problem. It's certainly not scientific
to do, so, no, you

318
00:22:23.839 --> 00:22:29.559
know it's not scientific. It's not
scientific to ignore that. Literally every field

319
00:22:29.559 --> 00:22:33.400
of science says that you are dead
wrong. Letting a biologist not prove the

320
00:22:33.440 --> 00:22:38.319
basics in every paper they write is
fine unless you think that in math class,

321
00:22:38.319 --> 00:22:42.400
before solving the quadratic equation, the
kids should be required to demonstrate all

322
00:22:42.400 --> 00:22:48.079
the fundamentals of math that make the
quadratic equation possible, and not just once

323
00:22:48.240 --> 00:22:52.039
every single time they have to use
it. It would get incredibly tedious and

324
00:22:52.079 --> 00:22:56.440
would just be a colossal waste of
time, just like proving evolution in every

325
00:22:56.440 --> 00:23:02.279
biology paper would be Darwin one.
Eric, time that you accepted that my

326
00:23:02.440 --> 00:23:11.640
name is Darwin, daru and they'll
argue, well, science can only deal

327
00:23:11.680 --> 00:23:15.079
with the natural world. I get
it, but then you need to stick

328
00:23:15.119 --> 00:23:22.440
with just the natural world we do. There's nothing supernatural about evolution, and

329
00:23:22.480 --> 00:23:26.559
you need to stop trying to explain
how things came into the natural world.

330
00:23:26.720 --> 00:23:30.839
Oh you're talking about cosmology again.
Okay, Sorry, I was operating under

331
00:23:30.839 --> 00:23:33.519
the assumption that this would be a
video mostly about evolution, given that he

332
00:23:33.599 --> 00:23:38.039
references Darwin in the title and keeps
coming back to comparisons with Darwin, Well,

333
00:23:38.160 --> 00:23:41.680
Eric, have you ever asked a
cosmologist about whether they think the origin

334
00:23:41.720 --> 00:23:45.359
of the universe was supernatural? To
quote Sean Carroll from his debate with William

335
00:23:45.440 --> 00:23:48.559
Lane Craig, Well, you know
what it's recorded, so let's just hear

336
00:23:48.640 --> 00:23:53.160
Carroll himself say it. The discussion
we're having tonight does not reflect a debate

337
00:23:53.160 --> 00:23:57.839
that is ongoing into professional cosmology community. If you go to cosmology conferences,

338
00:23:57.839 --> 00:24:02.359
there's a lot of talk about the
origin nature of the universe. There is

339
00:24:02.440 --> 00:24:07.279
no talk about what role God might
have played in bringing the universe about it

340
00:24:07.440 --> 00:24:11.319
is not an idea that is taken
seriously and modern physics. You open a

341
00:24:11.400 --> 00:24:15.680
quantum field theory textbook or a general
relativity textbook, you will not find the

342
00:24:15.720 --> 00:24:21.960
words transcendent cause anywhere. What you
find are differential equations. This reflects the

343
00:24:22.000 --> 00:24:25.559
fact that the way that physics is
known to work these days is in terms

344
00:24:25.599 --> 00:24:30.480
of patterns, unbreakable rules, laws
of nature. Given the world at one

345
00:24:30.519 --> 00:24:33.440
point in time, we will tell
you what happens next. There's no need

346
00:24:33.640 --> 00:24:38.759
for any extra metaphysical baggage like transcendent
causes. On top of that, it's

347
00:24:38.799 --> 00:24:45.039
precisely the wrong way to think about
how the fundamental reality works. So yeah,

348
00:24:45.119 --> 00:24:48.880
cosmology is very much a field of
science that works within the bounds of

349
00:24:48.960 --> 00:24:52.599
naturalism. And you now, and
you're just going to stick with a natural

350
00:24:52.640 --> 00:24:59.119
world. You now can't explain things
like logic and morality and the very science

351
00:24:59.160 --> 00:25:03.240
theory are using. Oh god,
he's just jumping all over the damn place.

352
00:25:03.319 --> 00:25:07.200
Now, Okay, behind the scenes
stuff, sometimes you can tell how

353
00:25:07.240 --> 00:25:10.240
far ahead I watch in a video
before I start scripting, because I will

354
00:25:10.279 --> 00:25:14.240
often reference things that are happening later. But I usually don't watch the full

355
00:25:14.319 --> 00:25:17.440
video all the way through, and
for whatever reason, I just don't go

356
00:25:17.480 --> 00:25:19.759
back to my script to change things. If I predicted something wrong, I

357
00:25:19.799 --> 00:25:23.319
will go back to fix factual errors. And if I predicted something wrong enough

358
00:25:23.319 --> 00:25:27.160
to change my overall approach, I
might go back then. But usually it's

359
00:25:27.240 --> 00:25:30.240
little things like this that I don't
fix. It's usually subtler than this.

360
00:25:30.319 --> 00:25:33.400
But Eric is all over the place, so I just can't keep up.

361
00:25:33.720 --> 00:25:38.400
Okay, here we go. Logic. The laws of logic are descriptive laws

362
00:25:38.400 --> 00:25:42.720
that we use to describe how the
world works. If the world worked differently,

363
00:25:42.920 --> 00:25:47.759
we'd have different laws of logic to
describe that world. No God needed

364
00:25:48.160 --> 00:25:51.920
morality. Morality is more of a
problem for people like Eric who believe that

365
00:25:51.920 --> 00:25:56.200
a god wrote morality on all our
hearts, because it's painfully obvious that different

366
00:25:56.200 --> 00:26:00.839
cultures have different moral codes, and
even different individuals within this same culture will

367
00:26:00.880 --> 00:26:06.559
have moral differences. The only moral
precepts that approach anything like universal agreement are

368
00:26:06.599 --> 00:26:10.799
things that have a clear evolutionary advantage. Don't kill, don't steal, stuff

369
00:26:10.799 --> 00:26:15.240
like that, and even then the
agreement is only mostly universal. We will

370
00:26:15.319 --> 00:26:19.279
disagree about circumstances in which killing or
theft could be morally permissible. So even

371
00:26:19.400 --> 00:26:23.960
in morality that is mostly universally agreed
on, there will be differences of opinion

372
00:26:25.000 --> 00:26:27.319
when you get down to the details. As to science, the science that

373
00:26:27.359 --> 00:26:33.160
we're using was specifically designed to be
a workaround for our fallible senses, and

374
00:26:33.240 --> 00:26:36.960
by its very nature, it will
over time correct any errors to be more

375
00:26:36.960 --> 00:26:40.480
in line with reality. Sure,
science does have its issues, but it

376
00:26:40.599 --> 00:26:44.000
is the best system that we have
for learning about reality, and so far

377
00:26:44.119 --> 00:26:48.759
it has consistently produced reliable and useful
results. Science. The laws of science

378
00:26:49.000 --> 00:26:56.559
are not material in nature. Not
material does not automatically mean supernatural. You

379
00:26:56.599 --> 00:27:00.319
can't just assert that you've got to
connect those dots. Don't say they're just

380
00:27:00.319 --> 00:27:04.440
a product of the universe. Why
you're just saying that, No, they're

381
00:27:04.519 --> 00:27:08.480
human inventions. Science and logic were
invented by humans to describe the universe,

382
00:27:08.680 --> 00:27:12.680
and morality is essentially the result of
how we feel about certain actions. But

383
00:27:12.839 --> 00:27:17.799
regardless of the source of our morality, one thing is certain. It is

384
00:27:17.880 --> 00:27:22.920
subjective. Because if universe existed without
thinking beings subjects for morality to act on,

385
00:27:23.240 --> 00:27:27.359
then morality itself would not exist.
It would be meaningless. To say

386
00:27:27.359 --> 00:27:32.839
that something happening in that universe is
moral or immoral, because there are no

387
00:27:32.960 --> 00:27:37.480
subjects to which morality would be applicable. So, despite the apologious protestations,

388
00:27:37.680 --> 00:27:44.839
morality is in fact subjective. We've
got to move beyond Darwinian evolution. Yeah,

389
00:27:44.880 --> 00:27:45.680
no, no, no, what
you just said has anything to do

390
00:27:45.720 --> 00:27:49.720
with evolution, except maybe morality as
our moral compasses, seem to have evolved

391
00:27:49.759 --> 00:27:53.200
to help us survive as a social
species. So we ask questions like,

392
00:27:53.279 --> 00:27:59.680
hey, we're humans created or did
we evolve? We evolved? If animals,

393
00:28:00.400 --> 00:28:03.880
if there are animals, were the
animals created or did those animals evolve?

394
00:28:04.039 --> 00:28:07.680
By chance? They evolved? And
he never mentions if a planets did

395
00:28:07.680 --> 00:28:12.400
two by chances. An interesting addition
here, though, certainly there are aspects

396
00:28:12.400 --> 00:28:17.279
of evolution that have a degree of
randomness to them, but evolution itself is

397
00:28:17.359 --> 00:28:21.839
not a random process by any means. Well, if we got a question

398
00:28:21.880 --> 00:28:23.559
about humanity, we got a question
about animals, we got to ask a

399
00:28:23.680 --> 00:28:30.200
question about this whole planet. Was
planet Earth created or did planet Earth evolve

400
00:28:30.440 --> 00:28:33.880
by itself? And now we've left
the realm of the theory of evolution and

401
00:28:33.920 --> 00:28:40.480
have entered into Eric's Daddy's Six kinds
of evolution. The Earth did not evolve

402
00:28:40.519 --> 00:28:44.039
in the biological sense of the word. No, the Earth formed through the

403
00:28:44.039 --> 00:28:48.960
conglomeration of material in our son's protoplanetary
disk. It to me is mind boggling

404
00:28:49.000 --> 00:28:55.000
to watch Cosmos and how they'll show
the Moon forming. They'll just show all

405
00:28:55.039 --> 00:28:59.680
these comets coming and making the Moon, and it was two hundred thousand miles

406
00:28:59.680 --> 00:29:03.359
close the Earth. Well's what So
we're talking about a moon seventy three seventy

407
00:29:03.400 --> 00:29:07.640
three thousand miles away from Planet Earth. Do you realize what kind of problems

408
00:29:07.640 --> 00:29:10.720
you have there? The inverse square
law would take effect in the Moon and

409
00:29:10.720 --> 00:29:14.279
the Earth would just crashed into each
other. Anyway, what he's trying and

410
00:29:14.359 --> 00:29:18.279
failing to say is that with large
orbiting bodies like planets and moons, there

411
00:29:18.359 --> 00:29:21.880
is a limit to how close they
can get to each other before the effects

412
00:29:21.920 --> 00:29:25.920
of gravity become catastrophic, resulting in
one of them being torn apart. It's

413
00:29:25.920 --> 00:29:29.480
called the Rosh limit. Unfortunately for
Eric, this is something that we can

414
00:29:29.480 --> 00:29:33.119
calculate. The ross limit for the
Earth is eighteen thousand, four hundred and

415
00:29:33.160 --> 00:29:36.640
seventy kilometers or eleven thousand, four
hundred and seventy miles, which means that

416
00:29:36.920 --> 00:29:41.440
using your seventy three thousand miles number, the Moon was at its formation more

417
00:29:41.440 --> 00:29:45.359
than six times farther away from the
Earth than the Rosh limit, meaning that

418
00:29:45.400 --> 00:29:49.039
there would be no catastrophic tearing up
of lunar material. And this may seem

419
00:29:49.079 --> 00:29:52.759
like a petty point to add on
here, and it is, but I'm

420
00:29:52.759 --> 00:29:56.519
bringing it up anyway, the inverse
square law would not take effect. That's

421
00:29:56.519 --> 00:30:02.400
just the math of how gravity works
over distance, always in effect. Was

422
00:30:02.440 --> 00:30:04.599
the Earth created or did the Earth
evolve? When you watch these shows,

423
00:30:04.640 --> 00:30:08.319
they make it just sound like,
of course it evolved, of course that

424
00:30:08.480 --> 00:30:12.759
happened. No, it's not,
of course it evolved. It's of course

425
00:30:12.799 --> 00:30:17.880
our planet formed in the way that
planets form in the universe. We have

426
00:30:18.000 --> 00:30:22.400
no reason to believe that our planet
is special in its formation. And when

427
00:30:22.400 --> 00:30:26.079
you pay close attention, you're going
it's absurdity. It's fairy tales that they're

428
00:30:26.319 --> 00:30:33.359
making this stuff up. It is
not scientific whatsoever. I mean. You

429
00:30:33.400 --> 00:30:37.759
can read all about it in scientific
papers, which includes mathematical modeling verified through

430
00:30:37.799 --> 00:30:44.000
computer simulation, observations of extrasolar planetary
disks, the study of the composition of

431
00:30:44.039 --> 00:30:48.680
primitive meteorites, and a whole host
of other highly scientific endeavors. Surely to

432
00:30:48.720 --> 00:30:53.200
call all of that unscientific, you
must have a model that better explains the

433
00:30:53.359 --> 00:30:59.200
data and can similarly be confirmed through
computer simulation, right, Or is this

434
00:30:59.279 --> 00:31:03.279
just an argument from personal incredulity where
you personally find it hard to believe and

435
00:31:03.319 --> 00:31:07.519
so dismiss it without doing any of
the appropriate research. Because I know you're

436
00:31:07.519 --> 00:31:10.960
not going to want to hear this. But if I need to apply the

437
00:31:11.000 --> 00:31:15.359
label unscientific to one of these two
approaches, it's not the one that's working

438
00:31:15.359 --> 00:31:18.480
with data physics, math, and
astronomical observations that's going to get that label.

439
00:31:18.799 --> 00:31:22.920
What about the entire universe? Was
it created or did it evolve?

440
00:31:23.119 --> 00:31:27.799
Again? Neither as far as the
theory of evolution is concerned. The universe

441
00:31:27.839 --> 00:31:33.279
does not reproduce as far as we
can tell anyway, So evolution does not

442
00:31:33.400 --> 00:31:37.640
apply here. Though I am sure
someone after enough drugs, has hypothesized that

443
00:31:37.720 --> 00:31:41.680
the universe is like a living thing. Man, What if it totally is

444
00:31:41.759 --> 00:31:47.680
reproducing and there's like baby universes that
we don't even like know about. But

445
00:31:47.759 --> 00:31:49.640
as far as I can tell,
this is not one of the series contenders

446
00:31:49.640 --> 00:31:52.559
for the origin of the cosmos.
What I can tell you, though,

447
00:31:53.000 --> 00:31:56.640
is that the contenders that we do
have well, admittedly more speculative than the

448
00:31:56.640 --> 00:32:01.000
origin of the solar system, also
involved of math and simulation and data.

449
00:32:01.079 --> 00:32:07.000
While your simplistic answer of God did
it fails to adequately account for any of

450
00:32:07.039 --> 00:32:10.200
that. As I've said in previous
videos, even if God did do it,

451
00:32:10.519 --> 00:32:14.599
that still leaves us with the question
of how he did it, what

452
00:32:14.680 --> 00:32:16.920
mechanism did he use to get it
done? Sure, the Bible says he

453
00:32:17.039 --> 00:32:22.079
spoke and things happened, but even
granting that magic spells like that are possible,

454
00:32:22.279 --> 00:32:24.880
what mechanism did it use? Did
God have to speak out loud?

455
00:32:25.319 --> 00:32:29.920
Does that mean that there existed a
medium through which sound waves could pass in

456
00:32:30.000 --> 00:32:32.519
order for God to be able to
speak? Did God create that medium first?

457
00:32:32.839 --> 00:32:37.680
Did he speak silently? Is speak
just a metaphor for thought? Here?

458
00:32:37.119 --> 00:32:39.799
These are the kinds of questions you
need to answer if you want your

459
00:32:40.240 --> 00:32:44.839
model to be taken seriously, and
as far as I can tell, there

460
00:32:44.920 --> 00:32:49.359
hasn't even been an attempt to answer
these questions. Also, this is the

461
00:32:49.400 --> 00:32:52.880
periodic reminder that in this video we're
nearly halfway through and there still has not

462
00:32:52.960 --> 00:32:58.240
been a scientific alternative to evolution that
has even been mentioned, let alone supported

463
00:32:58.279 --> 00:33:01.319
with evidence of any kind. If
I grant everything Eric has said thus far,

464
00:33:01.680 --> 00:33:05.880
we get to a position of we
don't know how the universe or planets

465
00:33:05.880 --> 00:33:08.440
formed, and we don't know how
life got diverse, and that's the end

466
00:33:08.480 --> 00:33:13.160
of it. That's not an alternative, that's a gap that Eric hopes to

467
00:33:13.200 --> 00:33:16.559
stick God into. What about the
properties that make up our universe time space,

468
00:33:16.680 --> 00:33:20.519
matter, and energy? We're time, space, matter, and energy.

469
00:33:20.559 --> 00:33:24.119
Were they created or did they evolve? Again? Neither, But where

470
00:33:24.160 --> 00:33:29.240
they did come from depends on which
cosmological model we're going with, And realistically,

471
00:33:29.279 --> 00:33:32.319
we probably haven't discovered the cosmological model
that accurately describes the origin as of

472
00:33:32.440 --> 00:33:36.559
yet. But of all the models
that we do have which work with our

473
00:33:36.559 --> 00:33:39.599
current understanding of physics, not a
single one has them being created by an

474
00:33:39.680 --> 00:33:45.720
untestable, unfalsifiable super being. And
this brings us to the two basic world

475
00:33:45.799 --> 00:33:47.880
views that are out there. Some
people look at this world, they say,

476
00:33:49.400 --> 00:33:52.799
a big bang is what made this
world from absolutely nothing? No,

477
00:33:52.359 --> 00:33:59.039
that is a massive oversimplification of one
specific cosmological model that isn't even the most

478
00:33:59.079 --> 00:34:04.599
popular model of cosmologists. And if
you actually want to posit your own cosmological

479
00:34:04.599 --> 00:34:07.039
model, it would be super helpful
to you if you could demonstrate that you

480
00:34:07.079 --> 00:34:12.159
have an understanding of the existing cosmological
models, at least if you want to

481
00:34:12.199 --> 00:34:15.199
be taken seriously by cosmologists and aren't
just trying to appeal to Christians in an

482
00:34:15.199 --> 00:34:20.039
attempt to turn some of them into
Young Earth creationists and to provide simplistic thought

483
00:34:20.079 --> 00:34:23.199
stopping techniques to the ones who already
are Young Earth creationists. Because if you

484
00:34:23.280 --> 00:34:28.519
repeat often enough that cosmologists believe this
one ridiculous thing about the origin of the

485
00:34:28.599 --> 00:34:31.960
universe, then when someone who listens
to you encounters one of the other cosmological

486
00:34:31.960 --> 00:34:37.519
models being presented by another lay person
like me, they don't need to actually

487
00:34:37.559 --> 00:34:40.280
work to understand what is being said. They can just rest easy knowing that

488
00:34:40.440 --> 00:34:45.039
surely that model amounts to nothing more
than believing that the universe came from nothing

489
00:34:45.079 --> 00:34:49.199
in a big bang, because after
all, every cosmological model takes the Big

490
00:34:49.199 --> 00:34:54.119
Bang seriously because you know it demonstrably
happened, and the more sophisticated apologists who

491
00:34:54.199 --> 00:34:59.079
use the teleological argument that Eric attempted
to use earlier in this very video,

492
00:34:59.480 --> 00:35:02.320
even from a starting point that includes
the Big Bang, because the whole thing

493
00:35:02.320 --> 00:35:06.519
with that argument for God is that
the universe was set up by God in

494
00:35:06.559 --> 00:35:09.400
the Big Bang to be optimal for
eventually allowing the evolution of humans. So

495
00:35:09.559 --> 00:35:15.039
that includes Eric's evolution of the planet
Earth. And since I'm convinced that Eric

496
00:35:15.119 --> 00:35:17.880
is sincere in his belief, I'm
also leaning towards a position where, rather

497
00:35:17.920 --> 00:35:22.800
than Eric actually understanding it and choosing
to misrepresent it in order to make his

498
00:35:22.840 --> 00:35:27.039
point, I think Eric himself engages
in these thought stopping techniques, and so

499
00:35:27.199 --> 00:35:30.639
despite the fact that these things have
been repeatedly explained to him in great detail,

500
00:35:31.079 --> 00:35:35.719
he has managed to not understand them
through his use of these thought stopping

501
00:35:35.760 --> 00:35:39.079
techniques. It's actually kind of sad, but I mean, it wouldn't exactly

502
00:35:39.079 --> 00:35:42.559
shock me to my core if I
found out that he was just lying for

503
00:35:42.679 --> 00:35:45.679
Jesus and money this whole time.
I can't tell what's going on inside his

504
00:35:45.719 --> 00:35:49.440
head, but if he is lying, he does a better job of pretending

505
00:35:49.440 --> 00:35:52.039
to be sincere than a lot of
the other apologists who I know for a

506
00:35:52.079 --> 00:35:57.119
factor, lying like Matt Powell,
and this idea came out because who's the

507
00:35:57.159 --> 00:36:01.280
guy look at those telescope the hubble
Hobble's looking through his telescope, and he's

508
00:36:01.320 --> 00:36:06.840
realizing galaxies are getting further and further
away. No matter which direction he looked,

509
00:36:07.239 --> 00:36:09.599
the galaxies seemed to be getting further
and further away from where we're at.

510
00:36:10.199 --> 00:36:14.679
So he said, it looks like
the universe is expanding. Well they

511
00:36:14.760 --> 00:36:16.599
drew from that. Well maybe if
we go back in time, that means

512
00:36:16.639 --> 00:36:21.480
it used to be closer together.
It's possible that everything started off as a

513
00:36:21.559 --> 00:36:25.840
singularity and then expand it. Okay, horrible explanation of how we discovered the

514
00:36:25.840 --> 00:36:30.159
Big Bang aside. I'm willing to
bet that he doesn't mention that the guy

515
00:36:30.199 --> 00:36:32.440
who actually came up with the model
that became known as a Big Bang was

516
00:36:32.480 --> 00:36:37.039
a Catholic priest George LaMeta, because
if the guy who had developed Big Bang

517
00:36:37.119 --> 00:36:42.079
theory believed in God, that would
throw a pretty big wrench into the works

518
00:36:42.079 --> 00:36:45.400
of his idea that scientists are desperately
working from a presupposition of naturalism in order

519
00:36:45.400 --> 00:36:49.599
to figure out how everything could work
without a God. Hubble is much easier

520
00:36:49.599 --> 00:36:52.760
to disparage that way, as he
was raised a Christian, but seemed to

521
00:36:52.760 --> 00:36:57.320
shy away from professing any sort of
actual belief, choosing instead to deflect anytime

522
00:36:57.320 --> 00:37:00.760
he was asked. Also well,
Hubble did discover shift, which is the

523
00:37:00.760 --> 00:37:04.000
fact that galaxies that are moving away
from us have their light waves stretched out

524
00:37:04.039 --> 00:37:07.000
as a result of the Doppler effect, making them appeer shifted toward the red

525
00:37:07.039 --> 00:37:10.000
side of the electromagnetic spectrum. The
key part of that discovery was not the

526
00:37:10.039 --> 00:37:15.119
red shift itself, but the fact
that the amount of redshift corresponded to the

527
00:37:15.119 --> 00:37:19.360
galaxies distance from us. The further
away something is, the more red shifted

528
00:37:19.360 --> 00:37:22.840
it's em radiation is. Actually,
now that I think on it, red

529
00:37:22.840 --> 00:37:25.760
shifted is probably not a great term
for it, but it's one that's so

530
00:37:25.840 --> 00:37:30.079
intrenched now that doesn't really make sense
to change it. Because if you shift

531
00:37:30.199 --> 00:37:34.599
microwave radiation towards the visible red light
end of the spectrum, that would actually

532
00:37:34.679 --> 00:37:38.320
be violet shifting it unless when it
passes the visibly red part of the spectrum

533
00:37:38.320 --> 00:37:42.440
it's still called red for some reason, in which case, when you listen

534
00:37:42.440 --> 00:37:45.440
to the radio you're listening to it
in red. None of that matters though.

535
00:37:45.480 --> 00:37:49.639
That's just my random, irrelevant observation
of the day. By the way,

536
00:37:49.679 --> 00:37:52.840
scientists are now beginning to reject the
Big Bang idea. Do you have

537
00:37:52.880 --> 00:37:55.599
a citation for that? Which scientists? Come on, Eric, If you

538
00:37:55.679 --> 00:38:00.280
make a claim like that, you
gotta name names and give sources. Just

539
00:38:00.280 --> 00:38:02.199
stated it like it's a fact and
move on. That'd be like if I

540
00:38:02.280 --> 00:38:06.480
just said, by the way,
Young Earth creationists are now beginning to reject

541
00:38:06.559 --> 00:38:09.079
the global flood idea. If I
said that, wouldn't you want to know

542
00:38:09.159 --> 00:38:13.079
who? And yes, I did
just cut him off there, but I

543
00:38:13.119 --> 00:38:16.079
did watch far enough ahead to verify
that he never actually provides anything to support

544
00:38:16.079 --> 00:38:21.559
that assertion. So it's Hitchin's razor
time that which can be asserted without evidence

545
00:38:21.639 --> 00:38:27.159
can be dismissed without evidence. Problem
is this worldview comes from the perspective of

546
00:38:27.280 --> 00:38:31.320
there is no God. Nope,
it sure does not. Refer back to

547
00:38:31.360 --> 00:38:35.840
my previous comments about a Catholic priest
being the guy who formulated the Big Bang

548
00:38:35.880 --> 00:38:38.480
theory, or Charles Lyle being okay
with the idea of a worldwide flood.

549
00:38:38.840 --> 00:38:44.559
There's also the example of Charles Darwin
himself. He began his career with the

550
00:38:44.559 --> 00:38:47.119
goal of becoming a clergyman, and
to that end he attended the University of

551
00:38:47.159 --> 00:38:51.519
Cambridge in order to get the Bachelor
of Arts degree that the Anglican Church required

552
00:38:51.519 --> 00:38:54.280
at the time in order to become
clergy Upon his graduation from Cambridge in eighteen

553
00:38:54.320 --> 00:38:58.639
thirty one, he set sail on
the Beagle for a five year mission to

554
00:38:58.760 --> 00:39:02.519
seek out new life and new civilizations. Hey, that kind actually fits there,

555
00:39:02.840 --> 00:39:07.400
except in the Star Trek context.
New life and civilizations would literally be

556
00:39:07.559 --> 00:39:13.800
life and civilizations that are younger than
Earth's civilizations, while different civilizations on Earth

557
00:39:13.840 --> 00:39:17.000
would probably be roughly the same age. They'd just be newly encountered life and

558
00:39:17.039 --> 00:39:22.679
civilizations. But I digress. On
his voyage, his goal was to discover

559
00:39:22.760 --> 00:39:25.599
the centers of creation, which would
explain the diversity of life in terms of

560
00:39:25.639 --> 00:39:30.719
God creating life with a limited capacity
for adaptation in different locations throughout the Earth.

561
00:39:31.199 --> 00:39:35.880
But the evidence he collected on his
voyage convinced him of the opposite.

562
00:39:36.400 --> 00:39:39.679
So tell me, Eric, how
exactly was Darwin looking for an explanation that

563
00:39:39.679 --> 00:39:45.280
would exclude God? If he literally
went on his foundational voyage with the intention

564
00:39:45.320 --> 00:39:51.880
of finding evidence for God's creative acts. Some people try to blend this there

565
00:39:52.079 --> 00:39:57.480
is no God idea with well,
maybe God used evolution. That's not how

566
00:39:57.559 --> 00:40:01.239
blending ideas works. What's happened is
that Christians who actually put in the effort

567
00:40:01.239 --> 00:40:07.199
to understand science have come to the
conclusion that the evidence for revolution is undeniable,

568
00:40:07.400 --> 00:40:09.679
and so try to make it fit
within a biblical framework by not insisting

569
00:40:09.679 --> 00:40:15.440
on a selectively literal interpretation of the
Genesis creation stories. And I say selectively

570
00:40:15.440 --> 00:40:19.119
literal here for a reason. Ask
Eric if he believed that the snake was

571
00:40:19.199 --> 00:40:22.280
really just a snake, as it
literally says in the story, and he

572
00:40:22.320 --> 00:40:24.440
will likely tell you that, no, it's the devil in snake form.

573
00:40:24.920 --> 00:40:29.199
Ask Eric if the line warning in
Genesis two seventeen that if you eat of

574
00:40:29.239 --> 00:40:31.480
the Tree of knowledge of good and
evil in that day, you shall surely

575
00:40:31.559 --> 00:40:36.239
die is literal, and he'll probably
tell you that it's actually talking about a

576
00:40:36.280 --> 00:40:40.000
spiritual death, not a literal death, despite the story not even implying that.

577
00:40:40.719 --> 00:40:45.599
Also, I'd like to know how
Adam managed to literally name every single

578
00:40:45.679 --> 00:40:47.719
non marine animal. If we take
the creation to set their word. The

579
00:40:47.760 --> 00:40:52.360
creation account in Genesis, too,
is actually just giving a more detailed look

580
00:40:52.360 --> 00:40:55.760
at day six of the Genesis One
creation account not a separate story, despite

581
00:40:55.760 --> 00:41:00.000
the fact that God creates plants in
this story when that happened on day three

582
00:41:00.119 --> 00:41:02.320
and the other one. But creationists
say that that's what happened on day six,

583
00:41:02.519 --> 00:41:07.440
and these days are literal twenty four
hour periods. So in less than

584
00:41:07.480 --> 00:41:12.639
twenty four hours, Adam named every
single non marine animal and every single bird.

585
00:41:13.159 --> 00:41:15.480
According to answers in Genesis, there
were about one three hundred ninety eight

586
00:41:15.599 --> 00:41:20.679
kinds of animals that fit that description, which means that if Adam had the

587
00:41:20.679 --> 00:41:23.440
full twenty four hours to name them
all and didn't take any breaks to eat

588
00:41:23.559 --> 00:41:27.719
or sleep, he had less than
one minute to come up with a new

589
00:41:27.800 --> 00:41:30.440
name for each kind of animal.
Now, sure you might be able to

590
00:41:30.480 --> 00:41:35.119
get through a few pretty quickly,
but eventually the creative juices just stopped blowing

591
00:41:35.119 --> 00:41:37.760
and you need some time to think. So does Eric think that that's what

592
00:41:37.920 --> 00:41:43.880
literally happened or is that part metaphorical? And what language is he naming them

593
00:41:43.920 --> 00:41:46.119
in? Do we still have these
names today? Was there even a point

594
00:41:46.119 --> 00:41:49.840
in Adam naming all the animals if
he did so in a language that was

595
00:41:49.880 --> 00:41:52.679
doomed to die out, and we'd
have to come up with new names anyway.

596
00:41:52.400 --> 00:41:57.039
As with most things in apologetics,
if you take them seriously, they

597
00:41:57.119 --> 00:42:01.199
lead to far more questions than they
answer, which isn't inherently bad. After

598
00:42:01.239 --> 00:42:05.599
all, there are plenty of things
in science that's once you start understanding them,

599
00:42:05.599 --> 00:42:08.280
they raise more questions than the answer. But the problem is that if

600
00:42:08.280 --> 00:42:14.440
the questions raised by taking apologetics seriously
are answered, they make everything more absurd

601
00:42:14.679 --> 00:42:16.559
rather than given clarity. See I
look at the world, and I say,

602
00:42:16.840 --> 00:42:21.280
no, this world is incredibly designed. God was a smart designer.

603
00:42:21.400 --> 00:42:23.760
He's a very very intelligent designer.
That's the creation is the world being.

604
00:42:24.039 --> 00:42:28.719
Yeah, okay, But if you're
providing an alternative to evolution, you can't

605
00:42:28.760 --> 00:42:30.760
just say, hey, I'm personally
of the opinion that it sounds silly.

606
00:42:30.800 --> 00:42:36.199
Therefore God is the less silly option. That's not how alternatives work. You

607
00:42:36.320 --> 00:42:39.280
have to provide an alternative that is
at least as good at explaining the data

608
00:42:39.360 --> 00:42:44.000
as evolution, ideally better at it, and you have to be able to

609
00:42:44.079 --> 00:42:47.880
demonstrate that scientifically, not just through
assertion. And personal incredulity. As I

610
00:42:47.920 --> 00:42:52.000
expected, this video has just been
an attempt to poke holes in our current

611
00:42:52.079 --> 00:42:57.320
understanding of science without actually providing any
reason why creationism would be the better alternative,

612
00:42:57.400 --> 00:43:00.760
just assuming that if enough holes are
poked, creation and specifically Eric's version

613
00:43:00.760 --> 00:43:06.679
of Young Earth, creationism is the
default fallback position. That's not how this

614
00:43:06.760 --> 00:43:09.719
works. Also, he now goes
on this huge rant about Christians who accept

615
00:43:09.719 --> 00:43:13.880
evolution. I'm going to skip most
of that bit. It's not relevant to

616
00:43:13.880 --> 00:43:16.760
this topic, let alone what the
James Webb Space Telescope is discovering. They're

617
00:43:16.800 --> 00:43:22.480
like, oh, galaxies that are
supposed to be just now forming, We're

618
00:43:22.519 --> 00:43:27.440
seeing them fully formed, fully functional. We got a problem. James Webbs

619
00:43:27.480 --> 00:43:36.719
based telescope is destroying classic astronomy and
cosmology. It's destroying and many of the

620
00:43:36.760 --> 00:43:39.840
things that they held dear about about
how the world began. It is doing

621
00:43:39.880 --> 00:43:45.079
no such thing. Discovering the old
galaxies it is discovered was one of the

622
00:43:45.119 --> 00:43:49.880
primary missions that it was launched for, and according to astrophysicist Brandt Robertson,

623
00:43:50.199 --> 00:43:53.440
the observations that it has made match
what astronomer is expected to find based on

624
00:43:53.519 --> 00:43:58.719
current models of galaxy formation. Now, sure, if you just read the

625
00:43:58.719 --> 00:44:01.480
coverage of these discoveries on whose outlets
like The Guardian, you'll see them talking

626
00:44:01.519 --> 00:44:06.800
about how these are universe breaking galaxies
that would require us to completely revamp our

627
00:44:06.880 --> 00:44:10.760
understanding of cosmology. But if you
read the actual papers that spawned these news

628
00:44:10.840 --> 00:44:15.960
articles, you find phrases like preliminary
indications have suggested these candidate galaxies may be

629
00:44:16.119 --> 00:44:21.679
more massive and abundant than previously thought. However, without confirming distances, their

630
00:44:21.679 --> 00:44:27.039
inferred properties remain uncertain. And however, none of such candidates has yet been

631
00:44:27.039 --> 00:44:31.000
confirmed spectroscopically, leaving open the possibility
that they are actually low redshift interlopers.

632
00:44:31.519 --> 00:44:36.920
Notably, the galaxies discovered, if
the redshift measured ages are accurate, are

633
00:44:36.960 --> 00:44:40.400
metal poor and extremely young, which
is exactly what we'd expect of a galaxy

634
00:44:40.400 --> 00:44:45.719
that formed immediately after the Big Bang. Also, this is the classic creationist

635
00:44:45.719 --> 00:44:49.599
dilemma. Even if what we learn
about these galaxies turns out to be incompatible

636
00:44:49.599 --> 00:44:52.840
with current models of galaxy formation,
requiring us to revamp those models, the

637
00:44:52.920 --> 00:44:57.960
creationists like Eric are left with a
problem if they accept the science that shows

638
00:44:57.960 --> 00:45:00.760
these galaxies to be too young for
our current models, then they are necessarily

639
00:45:00.760 --> 00:45:05.559
also accepting the science that tells us
that the light emitted from those galaxies has

640
00:45:05.599 --> 00:45:10.000
been traveling towards us for over thirteen
billion years, far longer than would be

641
00:45:10.000 --> 00:45:13.960
possible if the universe were a mere
or six thousand years old. This is

642
00:45:13.960 --> 00:45:16.559
one of those things where in order
for you to make Young Earth creationism scientifically

643
00:45:16.559 --> 00:45:21.960
feasible, you need to throw out
and explain away all of the data that

644
00:45:22.079 --> 00:45:25.519
is collecting, not just selective bits
of it. Because hey, we found

645
00:45:25.519 --> 00:45:29.679
a galaxy that is thirteen point four
billion years old, which is older than

646
00:45:29.719 --> 00:45:32.599
we expected. Is not something that
supports your claim that nothing in the universe

647
00:45:32.639 --> 00:45:37.079
is older than six thousand years.
But guys, it's time to move beyond

648
00:45:37.159 --> 00:45:39.239
Darwin. Let me share with you
a couple more reasons why we need to

649
00:45:39.239 --> 00:45:45.159
move beyond Darwin and get a scientific
alternative to evolution. Oh, I see

650
00:45:45.239 --> 00:45:51.280
this video was entirely bait and switch
shocking. I know I could have never

651
00:45:51.360 --> 00:45:54.840
predicted that, But yet here he
is admitting that they don't actually have a

652
00:45:54.880 --> 00:46:00.440
scientific alternative. They still need to
get one. Here's a new flash for

653
00:46:00.519 --> 00:46:02.559
you, Eric. If you actually
want there to be a scientific alternative to

654
00:46:02.599 --> 00:46:07.559
evolution, and you want that alternative
to be widely accepted, you have to

655
00:46:07.599 --> 00:46:12.159
develop it independently of your attempts to
poke holes and evolution. Sure, poking

656
00:46:12.199 --> 00:46:15.760
holes and evolution would necessarily be a
part of the process, but it can't

657
00:46:15.920 --> 00:46:19.880
just be poking holes. It has
to be here's something that is not adequately

658
00:46:19.920 --> 00:46:23.239
explained by evolution, and this is
the reason why my explanation is a better

659
00:46:23.280 --> 00:46:28.400
fit for the data. So far, you've only been engaged in here is

660
00:46:28.440 --> 00:46:32.679
something that is not adequately explained by
evolution anyway, moving on, And what's

661
00:46:32.719 --> 00:46:37.239
more, the things that you claim
are not adequately explained are usually pretty well

662
00:46:37.320 --> 00:46:42.599
explained. Your impression that they aren't
explained stems from a lack of understanding,

663
00:46:42.679 --> 00:46:46.400
not from the explanation actually being inadequate. Are you familiar with the sent from

664
00:46:46.679 --> 00:46:52.559
Darwin dot org. Yeah, that's
where a creationist organization, namely the Discovery

665
00:46:52.599 --> 00:46:55.400
Institute, got a bunch of scientists
to sign their agreement to a statement that,

666
00:46:55.760 --> 00:46:59.800
on the surface level, is actually
kind of in line with how science

667
00:46:59.800 --> 00:47:02.239
works. The statement was, we
are skeptical of claims for the ability of

668
00:47:02.320 --> 00:47:07.679
random mutation and natural selection to account
for the complexity of life, careful examination

669
00:47:07.679 --> 00:47:12.760
of the evidence for Darwinian theory should
be encouraged. Skepticism is the basis for

670
00:47:12.840 --> 00:47:15.960
all of science. It is a
withholding of acceptance of an idea until sufficient

671
00:47:16.000 --> 00:47:22.559
evidence is presented. And random mutation
natural selection alone are not the only processes

672
00:47:22.559 --> 00:47:25.559
through which evolution works. So yeah, I would be skeptical of anyone who

673
00:47:25.599 --> 00:47:30.920
claimed that. And careful examination of
the evidence is always encouraged in science,

674
00:47:30.119 --> 00:47:34.360
so of course that should apply to
the evidence for the theory of evolution.

675
00:47:34.960 --> 00:47:37.760
Notably, on their most recent list, there are over a thousand signatories.

676
00:47:37.840 --> 00:47:42.199
I'm not counting the exact number,
and for some reason the Discovery Institute seems

677
00:47:42.199 --> 00:47:45.960
hesitant to give it live updates.
But it's still going and scientists can currently

678
00:47:45.000 --> 00:47:49.840
still sign the list if they like. They've been collecting signatures for twenty two

679
00:47:49.960 --> 00:47:55.000
years now, and notably they defined
scientist pretty loosely and allowed basically anyone with

680
00:47:55.079 --> 00:48:00.519
an advanced science related or apparently science
related degree to sign. There are plenty

681
00:48:00.519 --> 00:48:07.559
of engineers, computer scientists, dentists, aviation experts, philosophers, and more

682
00:48:07.599 --> 00:48:10.039
in unrelated fields. As of two
thousand and seven, when they only had

683
00:48:10.079 --> 00:48:15.480
seven hundred signatures, Fewer than twenty
five percent of them were from biologists.

684
00:48:15.719 --> 00:48:19.239
There are also people with no scientific
qualifications who are allowed to sign, like

685
00:48:19.320 --> 00:48:22.920
Bernard Diabrera, who has never worked
as a scientist and has no formal scientific

686
00:48:23.000 --> 00:48:27.960
qualifications, having an undergrad degree in
the history of philosophy of science. Some

687
00:48:28.000 --> 00:48:30.639
of the people that signed it later
asked for their names to be removed,

688
00:48:30.679 --> 00:48:34.800
feeling misled when they realize that the
list was being used to promote creationism.

689
00:48:34.880 --> 00:48:37.760
What's more, the list is not
a good representative sample. It cast its

690
00:48:37.800 --> 00:48:42.880
net far and wide and a mass
a total of a thousand signatures, which

691
00:48:42.880 --> 00:48:46.360
amounts to about zero point zero one
percent of all scientists worldwide. Meanwhile,

692
00:48:46.480 --> 00:48:50.760
the National Center for Science Education has
a similar list of people who sign a

693
00:48:50.760 --> 00:48:53.360
statement affirming the theory of evolution,
and in order to sign that, you

694
00:48:53.440 --> 00:48:57.880
not only have to be an active
scientist. Notably, the descent from Dharminism

695
00:48:57.920 --> 00:49:01.280
will accept signatures from former scientists,
people with scientific sounding degrees that aren't actually

696
00:49:01.320 --> 00:49:06.719
scientists. But you also must be
named Steve to sign this one or some

697
00:49:06.920 --> 00:49:10.519
variation of Steve. Currently there are
one four hundred and ninety Steves who have

698
00:49:10.559 --> 00:49:14.519
signed, and since only about one
percent of scientists have a name that is

699
00:49:14.519 --> 00:49:17.079
a variation of Steve, it can
then be extrapolated that this represents about one

700
00:49:17.159 --> 00:49:22.320
hundred and forty nine thousand scientists who
would have signed if they were not forbidden

701
00:49:22.320 --> 00:49:27.239
because of their name discrimination. I
know it's wild anyway, This means that

702
00:49:27.280 --> 00:49:31.000
their petition accurately represents the opinions of
at least one point seven percent of scientists

703
00:49:31.000 --> 00:49:36.280
worldwide, a couple orders magnitude more
than the descent from Darwinism. It still

704
00:49:36.280 --> 00:49:39.400
doesn't prove anything as far as the
actual theory of evolution is concerned. At

705
00:49:39.480 --> 00:49:44.039
best, a successful petition of this
kind would be an argument from authority,

706
00:49:44.320 --> 00:49:47.079
But it does show that it's far
easier to find scientists who will agree that

707
00:49:47.119 --> 00:49:52.199
evolution is a thing than to find
ones who disagree about evolution. For example,

708
00:49:52.199 --> 00:49:57.519
he shows a picture of an alligator
and a fossil alligator. Now,

709
00:49:57.599 --> 00:50:02.480
according to the Old Earth in ger
and according to the evolutionary interpretation, this

710
00:50:02.639 --> 00:50:09.119
fossil alligator would be somewhere between fifty
four and thirty seven million years old.

711
00:50:09.440 --> 00:50:15.360
So a couple things here. Firstly, was this fossil alligator examined closely and

712
00:50:15.400 --> 00:50:19.840
found to be morphologically identical to modern
alligators. I doubt it. Sure,

713
00:50:19.880 --> 00:50:23.679
it looks superficially similar, but superficial
similarities do not make something identical. It

714
00:50:23.760 --> 00:50:29.039
is quite possible, likely even that
evolution did happen in that time, but

715
00:50:29.079 --> 00:50:31.760
the overall body plan remained fairly stable. In fact, we know that the

716
00:50:31.800 --> 00:50:37.519
crocodilian body plan has existed for about
two hundred million years now. And while

717
00:50:37.519 --> 00:50:40.559
it does appear that crocodilians evolve slowly
compared to other types of animals, the

718
00:50:40.599 --> 00:50:45.320
fact of the matter is that they
do evolve, and there have been hundreds

719
00:50:45.360 --> 00:50:47.599
of species of crocodilians that are known
through the fossil record in the course of

720
00:50:47.599 --> 00:50:52.840
that time. So yeah, crocodilians
as a category are weirdly evolutionarily stable.

721
00:50:53.079 --> 00:50:55.920
After all, in the same time
span that we went from the first crocodilians

722
00:50:55.920 --> 00:51:00.719
two hundred million years ago to today, we wound up with the twenty four

723
00:51:00.760 --> 00:51:04.519
species that made it to modernity,
while birds ended up with about ten thousand

724
00:51:04.519 --> 00:51:08.079
species over that same time period.
But just because something evolves slowly does not

725
00:51:08.239 --> 00:51:13.920
mean that it does not evolve.
Nothing about evolution says that all species must

726
00:51:14.119 --> 00:51:17.119
change over time. If the environment
is stable with no new selection pressures,

727
00:51:17.119 --> 00:51:22.320
and the organism is already well adapted
to that environment, then there is no

728
00:51:22.400 --> 00:51:27.360
evolutionary driving forces aside from genetic drift, and genetic drift on its own moves

729
00:51:27.440 --> 00:51:32.679
very slowly. This one's from Germany. Now, when they examine the crocodile

730
00:51:32.840 --> 00:51:38.079
from somewhere between thirty seven million and
fifty four million years ago, they notice

731
00:51:38.119 --> 00:51:44.880
something. It hasn't changed. Where
is that examination published? And is it

732
00:51:44.880 --> 00:51:49.039
a crocodile or an alligator? I've
been referencing crocodilians, which is a category

733
00:51:49.039 --> 00:51:52.960
that includes both. But a crocodile
is a specific type of crocodilian, as

734
00:51:52.079 --> 00:51:55.440
is an alligator. And can we
really trust you to say that it hasn't

735
00:51:55.519 --> 00:52:00.360
changed if you can't tell the difference
between the two anyway. He goes on

736
00:52:00.400 --> 00:52:04.480
with more examples of the so called
living fossils, but the response is basically

737
00:52:04.559 --> 00:52:07.360
the same for all of them.
Not only have there been evolutionary changes,

738
00:52:07.360 --> 00:52:12.840
albeit minor ones, to every single
one of his examples, but evolution does

739
00:52:12.880 --> 00:52:15.800
not demand that an organism must change
in order to survive. It is simply

740
00:52:15.840 --> 00:52:21.159
that the organism that is the best
fit for the environment will survive to reproduce.

741
00:52:21.480 --> 00:52:24.159
If an organism is a good fit
for an environment and that environment remains

742
00:52:24.159 --> 00:52:29.599
relatively stable, then there is no
reason that that organism should not also remain

743
00:52:29.639 --> 00:52:35.159
stable. It is time for us
to move beyond Darwin and say Darwinian evolution

744
00:52:35.280 --> 00:52:38.679
doesn't make sense. There's got to
be a better way. Well, unfortunately

745
00:52:38.719 --> 00:52:43.800
for you, not only does evolution
make sense, but thus far nobody has

746
00:52:43.800 --> 00:52:45.679
been able to come up with a
better way. Maybe Eric will be the

747
00:52:45.719 --> 00:52:49.559
one to do it, but I
doubt it, as in order to supplant

748
00:52:49.599 --> 00:52:53.639
an existing scientific theory, you must
first actually understand it, and Eric clearly

749
00:52:53.679 --> 00:52:57.559
does not. There's got to be
a better way. I happen to know

750
00:52:57.719 --> 00:53:00.360
that better way is a matter of
fact. I'm going to share with you.

751
00:53:00.840 --> 00:53:05.079
I know the better way. I've
got a scientific alternative to Darwinian evolution.

752
00:53:05.159 --> 00:53:07.639
Oh okay, then maybe this video
wasn't debate and switch after all.

753
00:53:08.000 --> 00:53:12.679
Maybe in the last two minutes and
twenty six seconds of the thirty one minute

754
00:53:12.760 --> 00:53:16.000
video, he will present the case
for a scientific model that accurately accounts for

755
00:53:16.079 --> 00:53:20.599
all of our observed data. Better
than evolution does, and so is worthy

756
00:53:20.639 --> 00:53:23.719
of consideration. Let's hear it,
Eric, But first I need to talk

757
00:53:23.719 --> 00:53:27.840
about what evolution means. I need
to talk about Andy Stanley, and then

758
00:53:27.840 --> 00:53:31.000
I'm gonna have time just at the
end to give you the summary of what

759
00:53:31.039 --> 00:53:37.400
a scientific alternative is to Darwinian evolution. I don't understand this is the end.

760
00:53:37.559 --> 00:53:40.119
There are two minutes and ten seconds
left, where like ninety five percent

761
00:53:40.119 --> 00:53:44.199
of the way finish this video.
How can you still have more to go

762
00:53:44.320 --> 00:53:51.000
over before getting to it? Before
I do that, though YouTube and basebook,

763
00:53:51.000 --> 00:53:52.360
I've got to let you guys go. I'm so sorry. I'd love

764
00:53:52.400 --> 00:53:55.840
you guys to catch the rest of
this program. It's available at creations at

765
00:53:55.880 --> 00:54:00.440
eight. Oh. Okay, there
it is. There is a scientific alternative

766
00:54:00.480 --> 00:54:02.960
to evolution, but in order to
find out what it is, you have

767
00:54:04.039 --> 00:54:07.599
to send me money. I stopped
the video before he got super grifty,

768
00:54:07.639 --> 00:54:10.599
but that is indeed where he goes
with this. Unfortunately, Eric, if

769
00:54:10.599 --> 00:54:15.079
you want the scientific community to take
what is supposedly your scientific idea seriously,

770
00:54:15.519 --> 00:54:20.039
you can't hide up behind a paywall
like that. You gotta actually present it

771
00:54:20.079 --> 00:54:23.039
publicly. That's it for this one. Today's comment to the day comes to

772
00:54:23.119 --> 00:54:28.320
us from mister Rusty one oh three, who says Western Canada checking in could

773
00:54:28.320 --> 00:54:30.559
pick anywhere in the city you're within
a fifteen minute walk of a weed shop.

774
00:54:30.760 --> 00:54:35.400
They're fucking everywhere here, although I
think I might low key be in

775
00:54:35.400 --> 00:54:38.480
the city with the most dispensaries per
capita. Well glad to hear that Western

776
00:54:38.559 --> 00:54:43.639
Canada's embracing the concept of a fifteen
minute city. Well done, Thanks for

777
00:54:43.719 --> 00:54:45.039
watching. I'll be back next Friday
with more, but if you need to

778
00:54:45.039 --> 00:54:47.880
get your Rhino fix in before then. I live stream with service every Wednesday

779
00:54:47.920 --> 00:54:51.559
at eight thirty Eastern on my other
channel, The Watering Hole, and I

780
00:54:51.639 --> 00:54:54.280
stream with my partner every Tuesday at
one pm Eastern. Here thanks to Tim

781
00:54:54.360 --> 00:54:58.840
Robertson for being my Patreon and sponsorship's
manager, and special thanks is always to

782
00:54:58.920 --> 00:55:01.840
my patrons, who are the scientific
replacement for the current consensus that is my

783
00:55:01.920 --> 00:55:06.639
channel. If you'd like to be
hidden behind a paywall rather than shouted from

784
00:55:06.639 --> 00:55:08.440
the mountaintops, you can join us
on Patreon for as little as a dollar

785
00:55:08.440 --> 00:55:12.760
per week over at patreon dot com, slash vice Rhino, or by supporting

786
00:55:12.760 --> 00:55:15.000
the channel and one of the other
methods that can be found at links dot

787
00:55:15.039 --> 00:55:17.119
vice rhino dot com, which is
also where we find links to my other

788
00:55:17.159 --> 00:55:20.559
projects. If for whatever reason,
you want to send me stuff, my

789
00:55:20.599 --> 00:55:52.920
po box addresses in the description.
See you next time. Your average Joe

790
00:55:52.960 --> 00:55:55.679
will be way more interested in hearing
about how those dinosaurs we're fighting with each

791
00:55:55.719 --> 00:55:59.960
other in the made up scenario that
will result in them having a rudimentary graph

792
00:56:00.119 --> 00:56:02.000
with the situation. Oh, I
should breathe more.