Christian Scientist Steven Meyer went on the Piers Morgan show and Piers took this opportunity to really press him on the existence of God I want to go through these one The Big Bang Theory so why would that lend support to a theory of a God but before we look at Steven's response let's first look at the moments that led up to this incident this all blew up last week CU Tucker Carson went on Joe Rogan and I don't know if you saw this but he said this about this very issue let's take a look if
evolution is real and if there is this I don't know but it's it's it's visible like you can measure it in certain animals you can measure adaptation yeah but there's no evidence that EV in fact I think we've kind of given up on the idea of evolution the theory of evolution as articulated by Darwin is like kind of not true in what in what sense well in the most basic sense the idea that you know all life emerged from a single cell organism and over time and there would be a fossil record of that and
there's not your response well uh I don't know what Tucker knows about all this but U probably not as qualified as you but he's he's you know he likes to start something happened here in London a few years ago 2016 a major conference convened by the Royal Society arguably the world's most August and prestigious scientific body was convened by a group of evolutionary biologists who uh are dissatisfied with the standard Neo darwinian theory of evolution and many of the the conveners are calling for a new Theory because the primary mechanism of biological change articulated by
Darwin and his subsequent followers now called the Neo darwinist the idea of natural selection acting on random mutations and variations is now understood to lack the creative power to generate major changes in the history of life and is is the the the Crux of this debate is it as Tucker was getting out there is it that if you actually start from where Darwin's theory begins the creation of the human being was so complicated the body The Way We Exist is so complicated it doesn't make any rational sense there's two issues really there's how do you
get to the first life from the simpler non-living chemicals that's sometimes called chemical evolutionary theory and that's a complete mess it's in it's in a state of impass and almost everyone even your recent guest Richard Dawkins acknowledges we have no chemical evolutionary theory that accounts for the origin of the first life and many people don't know that Darwin didn't attempt to explain the origin of the first life rather it he presumed one or very few simple organisms which we now know are not were not simple and then proposed a mechanism by which you could generate
all the new forms of life we see on the planet today but even that now is being challenged because the main mechanism of evolutionary change does a nice job of explaining small scale variation what Tucker was referring to I think as adaptation this would be examples like Darwin's finches where the beaks get little bigger a little smaller in response to varing weather patterns but it does a very poor job of explaining the major Innovations in the history of life such as the origin of birds or mammals or animals in the first place and there in
the fossil record we do see very abrupt many uh instances of very abrupt appearance without the trans transitional intermediates that you'd expect on the basis of the darwinian picture of the the tree of life so is your belief that the Darwin Theory actually fails then I think it does fail uh I think it it captures an element of the truth there's a the the smallscale microevolutionary variation is certainly a real process and no one uh disputes that natural selection is a real process but what's it what's at issue now is the degree to which it
has genuine creative power and I think at this 2016 conference the opening talk was given by a prominent Austrian evolutionary biologist not an American talk show host and uh uh he enumerated five major explanatory deficits of Neo Darwinism many of them surrounding this problem that the mechanism Lacks the the generative or creative power necessary to account for the major Innovations in the history of life well your bestselling book uh new book Return of the god hypothesis you argue there are three big scientific discoveries that point to the existence of God I want to go through
these one The Big Bang Theory so why would that lend support to a theory of a God or God right maybe just a little framing uh before I dive into the evidence um uh Professor Dawkins at Oxford has said that the Universe has precisely the properties that we should expect if at bottom there is no purpose no design Nothing But Blind pitiless indifference and though I'm on the opposite side of this science V God issue with with the good professor I think he does a marvelous job of framing key issues and this is one of
those great framing quotations because what he's saying is that that whether we think of it as a scientific question or a philosophical question or both if we have a hypothesis about reality the way we test that is by looking at the world around us and seeing if what we see comports with what we would expect to see if our hypothesis were true and his hypothesis is that of blind piess indifference which is a a shorthand way of saying that everything came about by strictly undirected material processes and what the materialists expected coming into the early
20th century was evidence of an eternal self-existent Universe one that had been here for an infinitely long time and therefore did not need an external Creator what in fact the astrophysicists the cosmologists the astronomers found was evidence of a universe that had a definite beginning and therefore one that could not have created itself because before the matter of the universe came into existence there was no matter there to do the causing and so the the picture of the universe that has emerged starting from the 1920s all the way to the present both from observational astronomy
and from theoretical physics is a universe that had a definite beginning and therefore requires some sort of external Creator or cause Dawkins is obviously one of the world's most famous atheists are you a believer in God yourself I do believe in God yes okay so let's play a clip from Dawkins on this show so why is it not possible that there is a superior being power which many people believe in different way there are at the bottom of the garden all sorts of things are possible you can't deny that well ex said I've never seen
Fair as the end of the garden no you've never seen God either no but you don't know for sure that either doesn't exist no I don't know that fairies don't exist fairies may may be leprechauns for all I know you know my big question for all atheists well is okay you don't believe in God but what was there before the Big Bang before this all started what in other words what was there before supposedly nothing what is nothing nothing to me seems to be a totally in congruous word what is nothingness and if you can't
explain it it to me and I believe in God but to me it suggests there must be a a power bigger than the human mind the start of all this that was able to comprehend what may have happened because we can't right Dawkin wants to portray theistic belief as if it's uh equivalent to belief in fairies and and he'll concede that well it's possible but I think there's a stronger argument for the the the theistic case and that is that when scientists and philosophers reason from evidence they typically use method of reasoning that has a
technical name it's called inferring to the best explanation where the best explanation is one that where you're invoking a cause which has the kind of powers that would be required to explain the phenomenon of interest and you correctly pointed out in your conversation with him that when you get back to that what physicists of often call The Singularity the point where matter space time and energy begin to exist the materialist is really up against a huge conundrum because prior to the origin of matter there is no matter to do the causing that's what we mean
by the origin of matter that that's where it starts right and so if you want to invoke a cause which is sufficient to explain the origin of matter you can't invoke matter it's in principle materialistic explanations are in principle insufficient so you need to invoke something which is external to the material universe and is not bounded by time and space as well and that starts to paint a picture of the kind of cause you would need that has the the sort of attributes the traditional theists traditionally associated with God God is a a Timeless uh
God is outside of time and space has causal Powers is is an agent with volition and therefore can initiate a change of state from in this case nothing to and do you believe that God now the case that Stephen Meer just made there it's a very compelling one but there's something he's leaving unaddressed here which is that his entire case for the existence of God is resting on his assumption that the Big Bang is true that there was a creation to the universe so now we're going to look at the five most important scientific discoveries
that have left many people convinced that the Universe did have a beginning that the Big Bang is true stay tuned for the fourth one because it caused Stephen Hawking to concede that it is probably the greatest scientific discovery that we have seen in this Century if not in all time and now Frank Turk in his book I don't have enough Faith to be an atheist he sums up these five scientific discoveries with an acronym called Surge and if you haven't read his book I highly recommend it especially if you're a skeptic and you're just really
doubting the belief in God I've read a few others like the reason for God by Tim Keller but I mean this is the one that has really presented the most compelling case to me so that's a good thing to know but we're going to start with the S which is the second law of Thermodynamics which states that the universe is running out of usable energy so if you have a running car if you keep running it running it running it it's eventually going to run out of gas but why is that relevant well if we
look at the first law of thermodynamics it states that the total amount of energy in the entire universe is constant which is a finite amount and so Turk writes in his book if your car only has a finite amount of gas while it's running and it's using gas then would your car still be running today if it started running an infinitely long time ago in the same way if the universe was eternal then it would have been out of energy by now and now the U in This Acronym is that the universe is expanding and
so if we take Einstein's general relativity he predicted this expanding universe but it wasn't until later maybe like 20 years later Edwin Hubble used his telescope and he finally confirmed that yes the universe is expanding and it's expanding from a single point you might ask why is this relevant to proving a beginning well if you look at the universe like as a recording in Reverse you'll see that it will keep shrinking shrinking shrinking shrinking to the single point and and not just to the point of like maybe a basketball or a baseball or like a
golf ball or even like the the tip of my pinky but it shrinks all the way down into like the point that is mathematically and logically nothing in other words when we get to that single point there was nothing and then if we take it out of reverse bang suddenly there's something and then the r in The Surge acronym stands for the radiation Afterglow that was caused by the big bang and so in 19 1965 Arnold pendus and Robert Wilson they discovered the cosmic background radiation which is basically just like the leftover light and heat
that was caused by the Big Bang the universe's initial explosion and so the interesting thing about it is that the wavelength patterns that were discovered in it were exactly what we'd expect from a singular big bang and it was this discovery that really crushed the steady state theory in the universe that the Universe has just always kind of been steady and the same Eternal and stuff and it's really left the big bang with no credible competitors I mean if you remember in grade school we were taught the big bang that we weren't taught these other
theories because they just aren't holding weight in scientific Academia and now the G in This Acronym stands for the great Galaxy seeds so if the Big Bang were true we'd expect to see some slight temperature variations in the cosmic background radiation and so in 1989 NASA decided to put its money where its mouth is and they built a $200 million satellite and sent it into space to try discover this stuff but what they actually found after running the satellite is the thing that led Steven Hawking to call this the single greatest discovery of the century
if not of all time and it was not only that they found these variations in the temperatures but they were amazed at the Precision of the degrees and temperature changes because they appeared to be precisely tweaked just enough to cause the matter to be able to come together and form galaxies but not enough to be able to cause the universe to collapse back in on itself and the astronomer George smut said it is like looking at the Fingerprints of the work of God when you look at these photos and the e in This Acronym to
finish this up is Einstein's theory of general relativity which shows that time space and matter all came into existence at the same time and they're also interdependent on each other so one cannot exist without the other two being present and it was this thinking that led to a lot of the discoveries and a lot of the scientists to look for evidence of the Big Bang which allowed them to discover all the things we just talked about so the question is really not whether the universe had a beginning but how did it begin and as Steven
Meyer points out that there's really two answers here if we if we just hyper reduce this and it's either that the Universe came about from nothing or it came about from something and now it's the atheist position that nothing created something created the universe the theists believe that it's something that created the universe in their case God but if you want to learn more about the evidence for God and why belief in him is is reasonable and it's not intellectual suicide I recommend checking out the video on screen right about here that being said have
a great day y'all hope you enjoyed bye-bye
