Sean!! Why do keep letting Josh interrupt Doug?? He doesn't let him even finish a thought and you are not stopping him!!

Josh, you may be passionate, but you really need to just let your conversation partner finish their point. Many of Axe’s points remain underdeveloped because of this.

@hiddetjevanderwaal2827

4 жыл бұрын

Axe is simply too kind to correct you on that, but you can see him desparately trying at 1:04:05.

@lizicadumitru9683

4 жыл бұрын

Swamidas kept cutting Doug off left and right it was so annoying..ugh!

@user-ou7uo8rl5d

4 жыл бұрын

also , he has hard time explaining own views. i feel like after this video i understand axe's views but not swamidass' 🤷‍♂️ even a straightforward question about how similar is atheist universe to ours was such a burden to answer...

@lizicadumitru9683

4 жыл бұрын

@@user-ou7uo8rl5d Swamidass seemed to have a hard time understanding Axe's position.

@timbeauxclary

4 жыл бұрын

@@user-ou7uo8rl5d I think part of the issue is that Swamidass holds some views that are controversial and he is dancing around giving definitive answers. Like trying to nail Jello to a wall....

Unfortunately, Swamidass didn't understand Axe's position. Worse, Swamidass evidently didn't want to understand Axe's position inasmuch as Swamidass kept interrupting Axe, trying to speak over Axe, rather than listening to what Axe had to say. Ironically Swamidass portrays himself as someone who is fair and open-minded, but his behavior is at odds with his words.

@steveh572

2 жыл бұрын

It doesn’t appear to me as though Josh had any ill intentions. I think he needs to reflect on his decorum, though - specifically the constant interruptions and subtle personal digs.

For being such an intellectual Swamidas seems to be lost on a few finer points during this debate...interesting.

@lukeanderson5837

2 жыл бұрын

In my view he’s not lost, his modus operandi is avoiding the main point smart ID people are making, did it with Bebe, did it with Axe

I can follow Douglas Axe, but Josh Swamidass just sounds really confused and befuddled. And I wish he'd let Douglas Axe finish speaking.

@lizicadumitru9683

4 жыл бұрын

Right! Geez man, let him finish! Although Josh did make an interesting point regarding cancer.

@LoveYourNeighbour.

4 жыл бұрын

I can appreciate his passion, but I do hope that he'll eventually realize that his interruptions should be kept to a bare minimum...

@jamesmaybury7452

3 жыл бұрын

@@lizicadumitru9683 he made an interesting point but it was just an assertion. Doug, had a different view. I cannot logically see why Josh is correct. My understanding of the biology isn’t as deep as his but simply understood: cells divide then grow and do their job on the basis of signals. If the signal to divide gets stuck ‘on’ then the cell keeps dividing into useless cells.it’s a complex process but the fault diagnosis is quite simple, although it can com about in several ways from a fault at many points of the process. Until someone demonstrates or explains how cancer has invented specific new information that positively creates cancer, I can’t see it as anything more than a complex range of simple breaks in a specific, integrated system.

@labraw10

3 жыл бұрын

I found Swamidass incredibly unconvincing since many answers of his were like " if you worked in the field like me you'd agree" without explaining why at all it seems like an appeal to authority frequently used by evolutionists who always say how everyone believes it but can't articulate good reasons why

@roonski2048

3 жыл бұрын

Yeah, I tried reading Swamidass's book, "The Genealogical Adam & Eve", it seemed to me like a bunch of far-reaching-special-pleading. I couldn't get very far into it, although I appreciate that he's trying to keep the conversation going.

I have listened to Swamidass twice on this issue. Once with James Tour and now Doug Axe and still have no idea of what is methodology is. He wants to be eclectic but I have a hard understanding what his main point is.

@cygnusustus

3 жыл бұрын

I think I'd be embarrassed to have Swamidas as a debate partner no matter which side of the topic I was on. He's had his fifteen minutes and contributed nothing. Time to move on.

@tombadil5164

2 жыл бұрын

@@cygnusustus ive watched him a lot and his stance SEEMS TO BE evolution is correct, is not evidence against God, and i have no actual evidence to support it

@cygnusustus

2 жыл бұрын

@@tombadil5164 That's the problem though, isn't it? His stance "SEEMS TO BE". The guy is just wishy-washy, and a little woo-ish. Wishy-wooish? Wooey-washy?

@tombadil5164

2 жыл бұрын

@@cygnusustus I agree, this is why i avoid everything hes in anymore

@lukeanderson5837

2 жыл бұрын

Swamidass has a huge word salad problem. Bunch of words jumbled around that never make a salient, meaningful contribution to the debate

Josh was equally painful when talking to James tours… It’s like he doesn’t want to commit to anything and just sticks to arguing against semantics? It’s painful.

I am very disappointed in Swamidass in this discussion. He constantly interrupts Axe and is rudely dismissive of his arguments. I still do not understand his argument that consensus science promotes that natural processes are intelligent specifically in biology. This does not square with my studies of evolutionary science. It makes me question some of the claims in his book. It was important for me to watch this. I am less enthusiastic about his hypothesis because he seemed to lack credibility in his exchange with Axe.

@les2997

4 жыл бұрын

Some PhDs will have to be revoked. Swamidass does not understand that mutations produce noise not information. Noise degrades information

@lizicadumitru9683

4 жыл бұрын

I think Swamidas alludes to the idea that mutations aren't necessarily random or accidental because they are "pushed" along or created by the stricture that natural selection presses upon a certain species. And in that way, they can't truly be called random.

@LogosTheos

4 жыл бұрын

Swamidass interrupts everyone. It's a bad habit that you have to excuse.

@les2997

4 жыл бұрын

@@LogosTheos Yes, he interrupts and then he babbles pointlessly.

In an odd way, I chose to watch this in the hopes that Sean and his great skill in guiding a complicated discussion would help me understand Josh's role in scientific/religious debate. He did his best...his VERY best. This is the 2nd long discussion I've watched involving Josh Swamidass and scientific experts. It will be my last. This 2nd discussion reveals the same challenges presented by Josh: interruptions, extended rambling, failure to focus on singular points, failure to listen to the other guest, linguistic gymnastics, interruptions, failure to concisely define his position and support it, interruptions, extended rambling...on and on. Thank you Sean and Douglas for your great patience and charity. I hope that Sean will host Douglas Axe in a different show without the INTERRUPTIONS and obfuscations of someone like Josh.

@kristijezek6328

Жыл бұрын

Couldn't agree more. It was so frustrating to watch that we gave up after about 45 minutes...

@edcroteau3237

Жыл бұрын

Totally agree... watch Josh's discussion with Michael Behe... just constantly interrupting him and misquoting him

@realcyberghost

Жыл бұрын

I disagree, in the end I got some grasp of their common ground and their differences, even though there is ways for Josh to improve his communication skills.

@JohnCook-om3iq

10 ай бұрын

Josh has une problem, and it's a very powerful one ie he need to satisfy the scientific world that he has a proof of a Christian God or any gods,?

@carolinerich7213

10 ай бұрын

Totally agree. It was frustrating to watch.

I have to say as someone currently in Biology in college Josh is off on what is being taught as evolution in the secular colleges. Doug was right on. And it is very frustrating as a Christian because you are not allowed to question them.

@kimberiedema6951

3 жыл бұрын

How are you dealing with it? Do you get doubts alot?

@martarico186

2 жыл бұрын

Josh loves to hear himself talk.

@gfujigo

2 жыл бұрын

We are allowed to question them. They just need evidence.

@anthonyrizzolo6431

2 жыл бұрын

Question all you want, they push back because you offer no evidence.

@jordandthornburg

Жыл бұрын

@@gfujigo many don’t want evidence. Some even admit it, they rule out ID on principle. It isn’t allowed philosophically.

I really appreciate that Christians with different view points can dialogue respectfully. That being said , I agree with Doug Axe. Have to respect his stand and what that cost him. Total respect 👍 At ground level many people do believe given enough time any thing could evolve. I'm from India and have heard much of this. And anybody dissenting on the same would be abused. ID does make a good case to navigate this. And contending for truth unto whatever the cost is important : (ps 51:6) In the case of Wilberforce against slavery. Against Devadasi system by Amy Carmichael (India), Against Sati by William Carey (India), Against Breast tax by christian missionaries in South India. People were not happy when people stood against these ☝️. It is unloving to leave people to bad ideas and thinking a false narrative is the only truth. It is easy to compromise with the world than actually take a stand against it.

Swamidass loves the sound of his own voice. The man dominates the dialog. Just be quiet and let Douglas respond, for goodness sakes.

Sean, great job NOT getting involved too much. You let them discuss then add when needed

@SeanMcDowell

3 жыл бұрын

Thanks, it’s not always easy to navigate these thingy!

@moriartythethird5709

2 жыл бұрын

@@SeanMcDowell yeah man you did a great job. Given my personality type would have me butting in periodically, I find your performance that much more impressive.

Lol watching Josh needlessly try to nail down Doug’s position with atomic precision is probably the most frustrating thing I’ve encountered this week.

I would like for Josh’s ego to be reigned in more by moderators. The more I watch his interactions in various debates and discussions, the more he comes off as wishy-washy, and having great ability to dance around issues without ever having to state anything definitively. He is also sounding more and more like a know-it-all. I think he needs to be more patient and humble. On the other hand, thank God he’s out there asking questions and thinking so deeply, and willing to discuss these topics; even with these critiques on his personality, there is obviously great benefit from the discussions.

Thank you Sean. At 1:07 we finally get down to brass tacks about the differences. Great summary!

@samdg1234

3 жыл бұрын

Should your timestamp not be 1:07:00?

Sadly, interacting with Swamidas comes across more like exploring a personality or emotional problem, rather than a scientific discussion. Rather than seeking common ground, and taking himself out of the discussion, he seems intent on disagreements, fine distinctions, arbitrary terminological stances, and generally nitpicking as much as possible, without conveying a clear point. Ironically, the net effect is that nobody really ends up understanding his views; all I know is that he's difficult to talk to, and cannot relate well to other people.

@KN-ul5xe

6 ай бұрын

Thank you. I was afraid I wasn't understanding something. Apparently he is just not understandable.

Doug @39:36 "you say that science does not rule _out_ God, I say that science rules Him _in_ " Boom! 😄

The more I try to understand Swamidass’ point, assuming he has one, the more confused I end up. Sometimes his way of explaining things reminds me of a popular Mexican tv/movie actor who played a funny character known as Cantinflas. Every time he explained something simple he went around the bushes using all kinds of unnecessary arguments that the person listening eventually got so confused that didn’t even understand what was Cantinflas talking about.

@gochocitizen

3 жыл бұрын

Cantinflear. Cantinfleando. Definition: 1. To speak in a silly and nonsensical manner, without meaning (after Cantinflas). (Colloquial) (n) 2. To babble. (n) To act like Cantinflas (Mex. comedic actor).

In answering the closing question Swamidass proved that he was off target most of the debate. I expected much better than that.

Instead of common descent I would rather take common design

@vyceanderson5924

3 жыл бұрын

That's very plausible and it's a shame few consider it, because common design makes sense in the way that all organisms on Earth share the same needs: the need for air, food, water etc.

@lmc4355

3 жыл бұрын

But common design would be very apparant in nature. For example the common ancestor of birds and mammals never had feathers. So you shouldnt find mammals with feathers or genes for feathers but with common design you should find many such animals.

Wow!! I'm really glad you clarified Josh's final question, Sean. I was very confused.

It seems to me that the crux of the disagreement is stated at 1:18:09 to 1:18:41. Science IS used to replace a designer. Fabulous, if frustrating because Josh butts in so much and doesn't let Doug finish his points, and well worth watching. Another great episode from Sean. Thank you.

@markmoore286

Жыл бұрын

Absolutely

Great comment section! Thank you for helping me to determine not to waste my time listening to these guys.

I've been very interested in what you had to say since your book has come out, and I have no real problem

Man, Josh made this a really hard interview. He wouldn't let the conversation evolve😉. Seriously, he is too nit picky and interuptive

Josh it's fun to hear you push back. Pro-tip, don't interrupt so much. Take notes of differences, and when it's your turn you can speak to the issue for correction. It's far to hard to listen to you interrupt. Worthy dialogue to have gentlemen.

Dr. Swamidass, common descent is an observation not an explanation. Moreover, common descent is not universal. None of the Cambrian organisms have ancestors that look anything similar. If a dumb natural process could create a code or generate information, we would have countless and never-ending observations, demonstrations, experiments and simulations reported by multiple laboratories and under varied conditions showing that this could work. Instead we have NONE.

@lizicadumitru9683

4 жыл бұрын

Can it be both?

Those two on the end are just spilling the tea and Sean is in the middle soaking up all the tea information like a paper towel.🤣🤣

So frustrating... Josh goes on and on for 5 mins, then Douglass gets a turn, talks for like 30 seconds, and then Josh interrupts and goes on for another 5 min!

@Greenie-43x

3 жыл бұрын

But Douglas can get so much more across in that 30 seconds than Smarmydass can rambling for minutes.

@8:50 there’s no one advocating for darwinism? 😲whaaat Lol . they may call it something different now & attempt to make it sound more sophisticated BUT Bill Nye still holds that teaching. The biggest atheist debators stand their ground strong for that form of origin, even top universities Still hold that stance. Still use Ernst Haeckel’s drawings. Still praise Charles’ books as their founding father. DID I MISS SOMETHING HERE? There are many meanings to “evolution”. Only micro evo is observable.

@CantonWhy

3 жыл бұрын

Unfortunately you've been given a rather obfuscated and perhaps accidentally misrepresented view of evolution. Who did you primarily learn from, if I may ask? Different religious sources (though not all, that's NOT what I want to imply) go wrong in different ways because young earth creationists without relevant expertise get things wrong when they try to format it for viewers who are trying to learn. The point on darwinism might refer to one of a couple things: Darwinism in biology refers to the ORIGINAL body of knowledge posited by Charles Darwin all that time ago, which has since been overtaken by neo-darwinism as we've developed the theory _substantially_ since then. However, _social darwinism_ is a political philosophy that absolutely nobody should advocate for, where 'survival of the fittest' as a phrase was actually coined. The philosophy implied that the weakest and infirmed and old members of any society should be killed off so that eventually we're left only with strong members of society. This was horrific, Charles Darwin did NOT endorse this in any way, and this philosophy went hand in hand with eugenics. Hitler opposed biological evolution, but he did practice social darwinism, and nobody talking about biological evolution in this day and age is defending social darwinism. Evolution merely explains the diversity of life, presupposing that life did begin at one point, and that life was simple. I'd have to know what you find objectionable about Ernst Haeckl's drawings. Haeckl's theory was wrong, but his studies of embryological development were fine, and the pictures he drew were useful and accurate enough that they are still used in some textbooks because those embryos (without their yolk and other material) really do look stunningly similar in some ways, enough so that with a book deadline looming, Haeckl originally had duplicates of a couple of embryo drawings for different animals, due to HOW SIMILAR they really looked at that age. I understand that's a bit confusing, but this is something you can look up, it's not a secret or conspiracy. Given the equipment he had at the time to view them, it's impressive they were as accurate as they are. If you want to know more, you can look up developmental photographs alongside the drawings. Hope that answered some curiosities. Sorry if I was unclear.

My thoughts halfway through the video: Swamidass mentions he thinks Intelligent Design proponents probably don't think God is in general supervising the evolution of cancer. Maybe I'm missing his point, but why not? Why doesn't Douglas Axe affirm yes he would? Proverbs 15:3 "The eyes of the Lord are in every place, keeping watch on the evil and the good." Isaiah 45:7 "I form light and create darkness; I make well-being and create calamity; I am the Lord, who does all these things." Some of this conversation seems to be separating creation from providence. God our Father is creator in his providential upholding of creation as well. Would not the order of the mathematical computation Swamidass seems be indicating upholds his belief in common descent be God upholding creation by his providence? Or maybe this math isn't actually common descent but is somehow a reflection of God's order in variation among living beings? Maybe that variation shows a pattern because of how God created the species to relate to one another, not because there is any common descent from apes to man.

@gfujigo

2 жыл бұрын

You make an interesting point. In fact, the point you make is why I don’t think that ID is true. ID looks for Intelligence in things like DNA or the flagellum because it seems to be a purposeful arrangements of parts that could not form in a step-by-step pattern. In fact there are a host of scientific issues with such claims and Behe has been debunked on this point and seems to shift the goal posts whenever he is presented with examples of what he claims are impossible to happen naturally. The main issue here is that it overlooks the fact that the single atom out in a void in space is just as intentional and just as purposeful as DNA and is just as designed as DNA. In fact, the mere existence of anything is a miracle and is in fact supernatural and evidence of God. (See the Experience of God by David Bentley Hart) I think that ID misses God’s creative power and in fact limits our ability to see and understand God in all aspects of the creation. It’s as if ID looks for God in the glitz and glamour of creation, and ignores the subtle simplicities in creation that may reveal vastly more about God than DNA ever could. All of reality is revelation of God’s intelligent design. The Bible tells us this. The Bible says all things are for him, from him, through him and to him. There is therefore no need to limit God to processes in the world we don’t understand.

Josh is so strangely combative.

@HarryNicNicholas

Жыл бұрын

he's a bit of a nit.

I like how you summarized everything around 1:08 Sean, Josh, and Doug. The Bible says that you are both right: Science [creation] creates space for God, but it takes theological reasons: Hebrews 11:3: By FAITH we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that the things which are seen were not made of things which are visible. Science [creation] says that there's no way you can deny God/designer: "For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities-his eternal power and divine nature-have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse." ....Doug mentions this verse after I made the comment so I edited it :) .......editing again. Notice Hebrews points to the framing of creation itself that takes faith. Romans points to God's providence being continually seen since creation that leaves men without excuse. So even God's providence over random mutations and natural selection would leave men without excuse.

I found listening to JS confusing and frustrating. He seems to obfuscate issues rather than shed light. I found DA much easier to understand and more cogent. JS also interrupted a very forebearing DA far too many times.

Why are biology textbooks still referring to Darwinian evolutionary theory

@zombiesingularity

2 жыл бұрын

Same reason physics refer to Newton's theory. It's not wrong per se, there's just more to it.

I have two Biblical and Theological questions for Josh: 1. Does not macro-evolution contradict the Biblical doctrine of original sin? How would you distinguish human moral failures being the result of inherited evolutionary traits from the sinful nature that comes to Adam’s descendants solely as a consequence of the fall?? 2. Genesis 1-2 describes God creating distinct “Kinds” of creatures. How does the Biblical narrative of each “Kind” reproducing after its own “Kind” not contradict the macro-evolutionary narrative of one “Kind” of creature changing into another??

@PeacefulscienceOrg

4 жыл бұрын

1. No it does not. See, for example, the chapters I write about original sin, the fall, and evolution in my book. www.ivpress.com/the-genealogical-adam-and-eve

@PeacefulscienceOrg

4 жыл бұрын

2. You are repeating a common misreading of Genesis 1. The actually text "according to" does not refer to reproduction. The same Hebrew phrase is used in Numbers and Deuteronomy in lists of clean and unclean animals, where reproduction can't be the meaning, indicating the meaning is "many kinds." Note that Genesis 1 literally teaches that "Elohim called forth, and the land and the sea responded by making plants and animals of many kinds." That literal paraphrase doesn't teach evolution, but it is certainly consistent with it. As for Genesis 2, common descent and the de novo creation of Adam and Eve can be true at the same time. Those two claims are not in conflict. See my book again for this: www.ivpress.com/the-genealogical-adam-and-eve

@sombodysdad

4 жыл бұрын

@@PeacefulscienceOrg Mainstream evolution goes against Christianity. If mainstream evolution is true then Christianity is false.

How am I as a layman able to follow Douglas’s line of reasoning (irrespective of agreement) and Josh doesn’t seemed to be able to?

@GregThrasherTechGuy

3 жыл бұрын

Because Doug is trying to present things in a way that a layman can understand, but Josh acts like they are having a scholarly debate over lunch at work. It makes Josh come off as aloof, dismissive, and conceited.

@jollygreen9377

3 жыл бұрын

Agreed thousand percent

@LoriLev1107

2 жыл бұрын

Yep

@Gatorbeaux

2 жыл бұрын

agree 100%(and I have a masters in biology from Florida) Josh lost me alot and Dougs arguments were very succinct and well thought out

@LaurenceBrown-rx7hx

2 жыл бұрын

He’s using the socratic method

Frustrating conversation- Not only does Josh interrupt Doug mid-sentence repeatedly, but he consistently deviates from the point Doug is trying to make.

How could the cell cycle regulation have evolved ? How could the spindle assembly checkpoints have evolved ? How could we have done it?

I know a guy who tried to have a serious discussion with some atheist folks that contribute to Swamidass peaceful science blog, but eventually got bored by their unwillingness to discuss details in a scientific manner. It was so frustrating that the guy simply left.

@DartNoobo

3 жыл бұрын

And it shows right here. Josh presented himself as confused and without firm position from the introduction. Plain boring to listen.

Both of these men clearly approach science with a need to have it not dispute their faith. Exactly how science isn’t done.

by the 27 minute mark, Josh Swamidass just took the god of the gaps argument and ran with it. By 40 minutes in i had to leave my chair, because this back and forth thanks to Josh is not being allowed to leave the realm of semantics.

@DartNoobo

3 жыл бұрын

Yeah, God of the gaps is stupid position as shown even by Intellegent Design apologists. It is weird to me how Josh does not understand this.

@samdg1234

3 жыл бұрын

@@DartNoobo Do you believe in God?

I like both of these men and while I like Josh's desire to fully understand, and find common ground when possible, and I that he endeavors to be a peace maker whenever possible, I think he miss understood Axe's meaning of "confronting" in his book in the first place due to his own lenses of history in dealing with some confrontational Christians. Axe's meaning and one of the points of his book is that we should have no qualms about confronting the idea of neo-Darwinian materialism, and we can do so boldly (not mean or like jerks and is plain from the text and from Doug's own speaking and personality) because the incredibly unlikely probability of even simpler proteins forming via natural process have been empirically nailed down in the lab, and they too back up our design inference. As do the likely hood of any functional arrangement of parts, whether at the macro, micro or atomic level of structures. Design by man or by nature doesn't just happen by naturalistic laws of physics and chemistry. They provide the basis for it but not the arrangement of it. I wish Josh had spend less time on definitions and more on the details that he thought none of us would want to hear and that he had allowed Dough more time to defend in details is argument which is not insignificant. Unless Josh can show us why Doug's research results are wrong, in some concrete detail, then there is no debate about the the supposed mechanism of Neo-D, it's bankrupt for anything beyond small changes like adaptation within a species, not not powerful enough to create them or life itself. All that said... It's nice to listen to two people who disagree just have a conversation and have it not devolve in to name calling. ;-)

One of the key powerful points that Josh made was that why should we think God would create in the same way as humans. It reminds me of the Bible text that God’s ways and thoughts are as far apart from ours as the east is from the west. Evolution may well represent God’s way of creating. Also, the fact that cancer is really complex and requires information also shows the potential that natural processes possess. Of course the question is who created or sustains the natural process.

@michaelalfredtan9826

4 жыл бұрын

Yes, I agree that God's ways are different and higher than man's, but I come to a different conclusion and would have to disagree with Josh. The biblical account of creation and origins while not "scientific" in the way a science textbook would have presented it, is logical, and corresponds to reality. The scientific method is not the ONLY way to ascertain truth, nor should truth claims be explainable or provable by science to be true. I also do not agree that the underlying mechanisms for cancer is a good argument for Darwinian evolution. 1. Cancer, for the most part, by definition is not a "living" organism because it is not an autonomous entity. it needs a host to survive. I say "for the most part" because viruses and prions may be considered as "living" by some, but are also host-dependent, but that's besides the point. In this sense evolution does not apply to cancer 2. Yes, mutations drive cancer cells to evade the host's DNA repair mechanisms and immune system, achieve "immortality", multiply uncontrollably and metastasize and proliferate, and become "stronger" in doing so. But it does not mean it becomes successful in the sense that living beings succeed by surviving and proliferating in their environment. The apparent "success" of cancer in what it does, in the bigger perspective, result in rogue disorganized processes that lead to the host's death AND ultimately the cancer's destruction. It "wins" the little battles in the body but ultimately kills its host and it "dies" with the host - - not characteristic of successful living organisms, as it is not living nor is it, no matter how smart it appears, successful. Which leads me to the next point.. 3. Darwinian evolution, particularly the principles of natural selection based on random mutations that lead to phenotypic expressions favorable for survival and species propagation does not apply to cancers. They may acquire the favorable mutations that allow them to survive in the patient, but a cancer is not able to pass on this genetic information to it's offspring and make the next generations "successful" because it dies with the patient and is not able to transfer or infect another host before doing so to preserve it's lineage. Darwin's theories apply to living organisms, cancer is not one. 4. Cancer is a PART of a living organism. A part of a whole. It is a complex aberration that ultimately leads to the organisms' death. If it dies with the patient, it does not propagate its "species". I would have to agree though, that what we now know about cancer biology shows that mutations CAN be BENEFICIAL and be propagated within species for their survival. To say that this process explains macro evolution though is a big jump and falls way short of bridging the gap, sorry. The way I see it, it is by these truly remarkable processes (that no human intelligence could make up, but we are now so priveledged to observe and somehow understand), that an intelligent God (whether it was designed and set in motion in the beginning or it is perpetually being guided) can blow our minds, and show us how He is directing things and workings of galaxies and of molecular and subatomic domains all at the same time while caring so much about us, knowing even the numbers of our hairs! God is awesome!!! The universe knows it, someday humanity as a whole will see it, but it may be too late for some. Sorry for the long response. Good day to you! God bless you!

@gfujigo

4 жыл бұрын

Michael Alfred Tan Awesome points you made and well thought out. I never thought about it that way - specifically that the cancer is not an independent living organism. Good points and thanks for sharing these. Much to think about.

@gfujigo

3 жыл бұрын

@Karl Jansen Good catch. It’s important to be accurate.

How would Swamidass explain the evolution from prokaryotes to eukaryotes?

@patldennis

3 жыл бұрын

Mitochondria and chloroplasts are clearly derived endosymbiotic "prokaryotes-bacteria and cyanobacteria, respectively" whereas the eukaryotic cell proper (the majority of the nuclear genome and non plastic organelles) clusters phylogenetically with the Lokiarcheaota. So, persistent use of the term prokaryote is a bit problematic, like recognizing invertebrates as a bona fide group (echinoderms and others are closer to vertebrates than other 'inverts' and/or vertebrates are really just derived invertebrates) since eukaryotes are an amalgam of the two prokaryotic groups

How could the the DNA nucleotide sequences that code for pre-mRNA, in coordination with the DNA nucleotide sequences that code for specific TF-binding sites for promoter/enhancer regions, along with the DNA nucleotide sequences that code for regulatory ncRNAs have evolved?

@solemnexistence3526

3 жыл бұрын

With an inconceivable amount of _intelligence_ and _design_ 🤗

Sean, this is awesome to have dialog between Christians with opposing views, however, I do believe theistic evolution is dangerous. While some believers are struggling to harmonize Darwinian evolution with the Bible, atheists are using evolution to drive a wedge between the unsaved and the gospel.

@jesussaves7938

3 жыл бұрын

I agree. To me, this kind of conversation is like "What Christians Should Adopt from Satanists". Not one word of Scripture is in favor of 'Goo-to-you-by-way-of-the-Zoo'!

@gochocitizen

3 жыл бұрын

@@jesussaves7938, exactly! Distorting God’s creation account, by interjecting academia types unnecessary theories, is an attempt to discount the inerrant Word of God... whether they mean to do it or not.

Doug Axe is amazing on proteins, folding, and Design.

Thanks for this discussion. I wish more could do this

@SeanMcDowell

Жыл бұрын

You bet!

@jamesgordon8867

Жыл бұрын

I didn't know that you updated "Evidence". Pray your dad is doing well. So glad you followed in his footsteps. I met him once. Praise God for all the real work you all do to give us knowledge that our Bible is true, that the work you do is so badly needed. Many blessings

ETDAV is an awesome book - thanks to the father and son team. Would love to hear more from them. We need a modern Pauline ministry to the pagans and atheists to cure what ails our world.

@SeanMcDowell

3 жыл бұрын

I’m glad you liked it. We enjoy doing stuff together as we can.

I agree 100 % with Douglas in what it is said. I think Josh has a hard time understanding someone who thinks differently from him.

Swamidass runs a website named “peaceful science” but I don’t get what that exactly means? Can science be non peaceful?

@Leslie_Crich

3 жыл бұрын

From the little i've seen here, it seems to mean Avoiding conflict with mainstream science by being obscure about your own position.

I like Josh's enthusiasm, but I would appreciate it if he would make fewer interuptions when Doug is making his points. I want to hear what Doug's points are too.

What I find interesting is that scientists who believe in God still assume they can explain the process which God used and certainly came up with to make everything. Why?

@samdg1234

3 жыл бұрын

I don't think that scientists who believe in God do assume they can explain the process which God used. Where do you see that?

Good Job Guys :-)

It's so hard to follow the points that Josh is trying to make

@DartNoobo

3 жыл бұрын

Well, it is expected, since he himself described his position as confused from the very beginning.

@26:30 Swamidass refers to what science understands and what it still doesn’t. Then apparently he thinks that the part that science still can’t explain is where God can’t be ruled out. I disagree. It’s the part that science knows, the processes that are accurately described, that point to conscious design. The cell cycle regulation, the spindle assembly checkpoints, the DNA motifs in TF binding sites for the promoters and enhancers

@gfujigo

2 жыл бұрын

I think all of reality - even a rock on Pluto - points to God. The Bible says that all things are for, from, to and through God. It also says in him all things hold together. There is no need to look for God just in what seems to be complex and not see the glory and intelligence and wisdom of God in something seemingly simple and irrelevant. The problem with ID is that it fails to realize all of reality is intelligently designed by God. So a universe with physically continuous processes is even more impressive. That doesn’t mean that the physical is all there is in existence. Minds, spirits, angels, God, etc all exist and are are more fundamental than the physical. The physical, being a reflection of God and his intelligence is complete just like a painting or a software application is complete once a creator creates it.

Watching from Kansas! Dodge City

That was hard to watch. Agreed that Josh is certainly passionate and may be a proficient scientist, but certainly not adept at effective discourse. I'd like to hear more if he wasn't picking on semantics and allowed us to follow the broader points...

Note that the questions aren’t about how it happened but how it could have happened by unguided naturalistic processes. Basically how could scientists have done it today?

It says a lot when the "scientist" needs a layman to translate for him to a scientist. Doug Axe is a more well spoken version of AiG and seems to prove his world view is fueled by cognitive dissonance

@gfujigo

2 жыл бұрын

What do you mean by that? How did you determine that is the case? I am curious. Thanks.

@freegracerevival

Жыл бұрын

I think his case is that because Josh can’t seem to understand things that somehow that reflects bad on Douglas as a scientist. Flawless logic.

Doug Axe is absolutely right - evolution as taught in schools is most definitely Darwinian

There should be a debate between Aron Ra and Josh Swamidas on the the same or similar topic.

Sean makes a great distinction between the putative "mechanism" for increasing levels of sophistication and biological function versus the larger view that a guiding or creating "intelligence" (an understatement!) is also necessary. This paradigm, one Swamudass holds to, allows for common descent as a reading of the physical development of species, but is by no means an affirmation of a mere statiscal "mechanism" as adequate to explain everything being studied in the related sciences. He's careful to describe the "tree" as a hypothesis under testing, pushing back against the idea of "secular scientists" merely "accepting the tree" per Axe's assertion. This is a very important distinction. It is still an hypothesis under testing... Swamidass considers common (physical) descent as nearly demonstrated, scientifically ("indisputable"). This is, perhaps, a premature final position... yet, as conceded by Axe, here is where the crux lies, that Behe and others HOLD BOTH VIEWS. Behe is an ID proponent who does not dispute common descent. God acts BOTH beyond nature AND within nature. As the AUTHOR and SOVEREIGN of both "realms," it is no "violation of physical laws" when God does so. It is, however, a demonstrable EXCEEDING OF STATISTICAL PROBABILITY ALONE. CHANCE AND TIME ALONE ARE INSUFFICIENT CAUSES FOR ALL WE SEE. That's another way of evaluating and demonstrating the claim of "miracles." Romans 1:20 is still firmly in place. "I'm distinguishing purely accidental natural processes alone from a guiding intelligence introducing nonrandom adaptive and gain of function innovation into the history of life's development" to paraphrase Axe. Miraculous involvement in natural processes. The tentative pushback Swamidass assigns to this assertion is consistent with his current vocation as a research scientist in a secular university environment. He is much more careful to nuance theories of design... like Behe and Dembski. In short, the differences amount to "how much or how little" God is demonstrably ("provably") involved over time, not whether God is involved, for both of these scientists. We can "like" one or the other of these guys more or less, but we're called to love them both. What I appreciate about Swamidass is his further work on testing various hypotheses for interpreting and affirming scenarios for the Adam and Eve story in the early Genesis accounts. I recommend his book highly for wading through the "human origins" questions. Just remember that our native intelligence demands an adequate Cause. Even Einstein said that the most surprising thing about the universe is that it is intelligible. At its root, this may be the right place to remind us of both the immanence AND the transcendence of God, Whose omnipotence and ominpresence may prove too difficult to "tease out" scientifically... since there's actually no "out" to be found! Praise God for all three of these servant leaders!

Regarding the off track detour by Swamidass quoting text from a book on guarding truth, what a waste of time.

@LoriLev1107

2 жыл бұрын

Yeah I thought that was bad form as well.

@ peacefullscience KZread won't let me make long comments so I'll have to make a couple.

This guy is definitely not a Christian. He is a materialist atheist. He only adheres to Christianity in order to sustain his strong family ties. I think his relationship with his family and their opinion means a lot to him. Otherwise, he would say what he really believes. He is only pondering how to hold fast to being an atheist without harming his family.

@CantonWhy

3 жыл бұрын

whoa hey, we don't know what's in his head. And accepting evolution doesn't deny God, either, so I don't know how you're drawing that inference.

❤ I got Douglas axe book 🎉😊

PLEASE bring on Dembski! I really enjoy his work and we need to get him back into this conversation if he is willing!

@SeanMcDowell

4 жыл бұрын

I will try!

@chrisa-95

4 жыл бұрын

Dr. Sean McDowell awesome! (:

@tellingtruthexperiencingli9355

4 жыл бұрын

This will be difficult to do. Recently, Dembski wrote a tribute to Phillip Johnson and said that he had not followed ID for years.

@user-ou7uo8rl5d

4 жыл бұрын

@@tellingtruthexperiencingli9355 he doesn't need to follow it since what he wrote stands still. Just need to articulate what's in his book and present it clearly. Nobody really rebutted ID. They just waiting it out praying that some new magical discovery will turn tables in their favor.

@caiobjj

3 жыл бұрын

@@tellingtruthexperiencingli9355 I come from the future to let you all know that this interview indeed happened. :D kzread.info/dash/bejne/oYd-mMiaoqSWabw.html

Wow, what an interesting interview/discussion. I think this may eventually go down as one of the most significant discussions in the history of intelligent design / evolution debate. Great work, Sean.

@steveh572

2 жыл бұрын

Actually, on second listen, I do think Sean should’ve done a better job at moderating. Specifically, stopping Josh from his constant interruptions. As an example, Justin Brierley managed this well when he had Swamidass on his podcast, debating Behe. kzread.info/dash/bejne/f59pqLyqmNXIXaQ.html

I think Josh could have a debate with Josh

@Greenie-43x

3 жыл бұрын

He'd still find a way to interrupt 😂 Great comment!

I have multiple debates with my atheist friends and they definitely do say what Doug just said (which Joshua claims atheists do not say): "given enough time, physical laws and processes would be capable of producing complex life"

What part of the story of life isn’t explained by evolution by natural selection. Please could you set these out so I can read up on them

Josh made confusing and poorly argues points. And he topic switched rather than doubled down. Yet another case of someone with a preconceived point of view keen to defend it. I found it a frustrating interview even though I was keen to watch and persevered to the end. My vote goes with Doug Ax and ID. Great idea Sean to try to facilitate these types of dialogues.

@Greenie-43x

3 жыл бұрын

Agreed! Now if Smarmydass would actually engage in dialogue 🙃 For a scientist, he's one hell of a dancer.

"We're trying to grow a challenge in which we speak in a respectful way to one another." This one came up a little short - frustratingly so.

I am about 2/3 the way through this. I just need to post this while it is before me. I have tried for hours to see how Joshua departs from the ID camp and I really can't come up with anything of substance. Even in this video, Sean at this point at least (52:22) can't even see or at least see and state what prevents Josh from being an ID'ist. He sees it as a mistake to think that science argues for natural processes alone.(52:39). *What?* What else is the atheist scientist saying is required if natural processes alone are not up to the job? Why can he not see how people are struggling to see what part he thinks God is required to perform?

Swamidass is Making this more painful than it needs to be we are on minute 45 and he is still arguing about definitional terms… Would love to see them actually get into the science instead of Josh getting so hung up on semantics…

@Greenie-43x

3 жыл бұрын

That seems to be Joshua's normal practice. He also wastes a lot of time rambling about areas where they supposedly agree. Why? That isn't why we're here! Check out JS with Behe, Tour, and the best discussion yet against him was Gunter Bechly(spelling?) Gunter was great at kindly shutting down Smarmydass' rhetoric.

I would like to know from Josh, what part of the numbers did Doug and his team got wrong. He mentions it, but I think (I might be wrong) he never indicates where are the issues in their hypothesis. I think in order to debate a numerical based proof, you must give the anti-thesis or correct response, which in turn not only would proove that Doug's argument is incorrect (if that were the case) but also support Josh's as well. I don't want to be bias (I'm human, that's difficult!) but I am skeptic of scientific explanations that discredit math and statistical based theories, like if math or statistics is flawed, but we base a lot of science and engineering in math and statistics. I would like to understand, but I need an answer other that "you've got the math wrong"...

@gfujigo

2 жыл бұрын

If you go to the forums at peaceful science you will see ID arguments addressed thoroughly. ID arguments simply do not hold up to scrutiny. The truth is another problem with ID is that it’s perspective on God is far too small. The Bible teaches us that in God all things hold together. It also teaches us that God created and sustains everything. So a single atom in a void in space is just as intentional and designed as DNA and it still tells us so much about God and his love and his care for creation. Physics, evolution, biology, math, chemistry, cosmology, etc. are all parts of the story of how God sustains the world and perhaps one way in which he acts in it. We should not expect God to create and sustain like we would. In a computer, the CPU is just as intelligently designed as a key on the keyboard. We should stand in awe of God’s work and thus bask in the gift of life and salvation through Jesus Christ.

Interesting to see the very first conversation Josh has EVER had with another human being.

Great content. I think Dr Swamidass could have done better at not over talking Dr Axe so frequently.

Science is for discovery to realities of our world that we do not understand and does not eliminate a Creator.

Josh is right.

Josh seems persuaded by a few alignments between genetic theory and human chimp genomes. It is actually a form of circular logic, where the theory comes primarily from the human and chimp genomes, it may be a true theory but cannot be proven by its accordance with the initial information. Otherwise I didn’t notice him bring any mechanism that produces new design information in a genome or evidence for common descent that can’t also be interpreted by the idea of a common designer. I find Josh’s standpoint gives a temptation that we can be accepted by the world (unlike Doug’s rejection and job loss) and accepted by God on the basis of a promised ‘intellectual understanding’ . I think it is untrue and actually very dangerous.

I wish Joshua would just let Doug finish his thoughts... I saw Joshua doing the same thing with Michael Behe

I appreciate this debate; however, it felt more like they were having a mutual discussion between themselves than teaching the audience of their own understanding of this subject matter. I felt lost in the dialogue. Maybe I'm too simple minded. 🤷

@SeanMcDowell

3 жыл бұрын

It was a sophisticated one-don’t feel bad!

Good Lord this guy Swamidass feigns ignorance so much. In an attempt to make Doug seem unclear but its the exact opposite. Doug was lucid and intelligent and Josh was childish and cryptic

@jy1733

3 жыл бұрын

Amen! Well said

I'm confused how sean mcdowell supported joshua's book. he is soo confusing in his thesis as he tries to explain things.

Oh boy, Swamidass seems so confused and keeps interrupting Doug. He can’t make his point clear. It’s kind of disappointing. Specially coming from someone who claims to be a Christian. To Swamidass credit I should say that he looks very tired and maybe is sick?

I appreciate the work of Swamidass, but his defensive posturing in the form off frequent interruptions, makes this conversation unbearable to listen to.

Sean, time to move to Rumble !

This is good.

In the beginning GOD created the heaven and the earth.

Josh needs to chill and just listen!

I’m amazed that “intelligent design” is still a thing. Clearly we haven’t evolved in the last couple of centuries. There is how the world actually is, and how theology would like it to be. Those two things are irreconcilable and that should be enough to make even the most sincere creationists rethink their approach.

Ive read a book by Swamidass on Adam and Eve. I find it an odd argument - science, particularly evolution, does not speak against or for the possibility of God creating Adam and Eve de novo. Yet he still maintains the evolution of 'humans' outside' the garden. He's trying to have his cake and eat it, but fails. He's happy to understand the 'creation' of Adam and Eve literalistically, ie literally from dust, and from a rib respectively. Eventually they or their descendants breed with those outside the garden, thus he argues Adam and Eve are still our ancestors, but not our sole ones. So God was happy for the rest of humanity to evolve, but at some point whilst that was happening He decided to make 2 special people in a magical garden. Sounds like a story...

@thinkislamcheckmychannel

3 жыл бұрын

And why is that not possible

@PC-vg8vn

3 жыл бұрын

It's possible in the sense that anythings possible but that doesn't mean that's how it happened. Indeed Swamidass isn't able to give any evidence for it. He is just trying to reconcile scientific findings with a very literalistic understanding of Genesis 1 & 2. But there is no reason to understand Genesis 1 & 2 like that.

As a system design engineer, Doug is correct - anytime you see a system operating in a repeatable process that hits a target, there is intelligence behind it. Natural selection, by definition, is unguided and denies any intelligence. And I disagree with Josh - I have never heard before that natural selection operates "top=down". It is, by definition, "bottom-up" (small, multiple changes over time lead to a new species. That is bottom up).

I like this discussion better than most surrounding a theist perspective on evolution. I don't understand why abiogenesis is being wrapped up into evolution; the start of life and life evolving are not the same thing. - I see I am not the only one getting confused about the unclear distinction between the two. Also, so much is known and works without God in the equation. Why must the fringe of people's understanding require God or God of the gaps. - Especially when evolution is well known and understood. It works. "Science" does not "need a God". While the evidence does not show a God, disproving God is something the evidence is never likely to do. - The evidence is clear that the Bible is not literally accurate though. The probability argument isn't a very sound one, especially when resorting to probability by chance requires knowing the odds the number of chances. - Is it 1/1, 1/1,000, 1/1,000,000, 1/1,000,000,000,000, etc...? - And how many chances were there? 10, 100, 100,000,000,000? There is also a mistaken understanding of intelligent design. Our design is far from intelligent. Our design actually is pretty poor, if not by random chance. - If we were designed to have dominion over this planet, then why are we designed with such paranoia? Regarding science as canonical, is quite misleading. Evolution is not a religion. A good amount of deflection. "Cancer" is lost, not gained. Just because it is not a positive mutation, there is new information. - And if they are cancers developing into adulthood or later, it has the opportunity to be passed to the next generation, influencing a population over time. While I disagree with Josh's premise; I do like (and appreciate) the way in which he arrives at it.

They spent (wasted) too much time talking about SETI Signals could look like noise to any observer that doesn’t know the formula or algorithm used to make such a signal. Let’s talk biology.

Evolution is a scientific fact. The theory of evolution explains how it works. Before anyone says, "it's just a theory", go find out what a scientific theory actually is. Evolution does not describe the origin of life, abiogenisis does. At this point the origin of life on earth is unknown.