BiolaUniversity
Michael Ruse and Fuz Rana square off to debate the question “Are natural processes sufficient to explain the origin and the complexity of the cell?” Moderated by Craig Hazen, and recorded live at the University of California, Riverside.
Sponsored by Biola University’s Christian Apologetics Program, The Well Christian Club at UCR, and Come Reason Ministries.
Source
Dr Ruze completely mischaracterizes the whole ID theory. That it’s an anti scientific view modeled only after Genesis 1 and a bunch of fundamentalist Christians. Many athirst scientists believe the best explanation for life is ID.
And he thinks ID treats origin of life as a miracle he clearly doesn’t understand the probabilistic odds of it happening in a primordial soup. Belief in that bunk science requires more of a belief in miraculous hokey pokey mysticism than ID, which follows a standard pattern of philosophical reasoning that is identical to reasoning deployed by Darwin to defend evolution from his critics.
I wish they would keep philosophers out of these debates. They rarely know ehat they’re talking about.
Hot mud soup… uh, no.
I don’t understand why evil is a problem. There is no good without evil. Problem solved.
I would put money on the vast majority of creationists in this comment section coming from either Africa, the middle east, or the USA……basically locations known for their poor education systems and overly religious populations
Here's the argument, folks! Neither valid or having true premises, but hey, what else do you expect from creationists?
Premise 1: evolution deals with the origin of life
Premise 2: evolution cannot explain the origin of life
Conclusion: therefore, life was intelligently designed
Urggggg… US and Islamic Creationism…. Both have the same idiotic arguments both claim the same crap concerning the origin of human life… But they hate each other…
I'm basing my method off a dream, and your conclusion is to hard to believe.
For fuck’s sake, how many times does this need to be said? Evolution is not about the “origin of life”! It is about how life CHANGES!! If you want to debate about the origins of life, talk about abiogenesis!
https://youtu.be/t09Pzg9MSZ8
We see time and time again throughout history how miraculous NATURE can be. Wouldn’t it be more likely nature created life, then some supernatural event that has NEVER been seen in ANY form in the entire history of man? Its fact that when humans don’t understand something,they fill in the gap with God. Throughout history we have used God to explain what we don’t understand,but eventually we figure it out. I have NO DOUBT humans will discover the origins of life at some point.
The first speaker spent half of his time saying nothing but just babbled on. What a moron. He has an I problem. Must have said I over a hundred times. His opinion is not really important. Get to the facts.
If intelligent design was a scientific theory then it would be disprovable. If you believe intelligent design is a scientific theory, they what would disprove it?
If intelligent design isn't a scientific theory then it's not really intelligent, it's just rote belief.
There is always this arrogance in the way atheists speak that I know who is atheist before I know who is on which side.
Expert in Intelligent Design? LMAO! I didn't know there are degrees in "Bullshitting". Fuz is an expert at it. He like all apologists, go on and on and on with pure "drivel" till your head starts bobbling like a 6 month old and you just cave to his bullshit just to shut him up.
One of the major problem of the scientific search for origin of life (not only in origin of life) is "THE FASHION effect" which play a significant role. Ones a hypothesis gain popularity, it is turned into a BOOST ROCKET for publications. We have almost 30 years domination of RNA WORLD hypothesis which is NOT CHALLENGED for so long despite the fact that this hypothesis has lots of problems. From ~ 2015 a new more sober view comes to this problem rejecting RNA world and presented the RNA-PEPTIDE world as a better scenario for the origin of life. Just recently, (Oct 2018) was published a hypothesis showing more likely scenario where for sure RNA world is no need anymore, please look: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30279401
This hypothesis shows how everything may come naturally on its own place explaining the formation of the ribozymes and the genetic code, just if we follow the natural processes and simple logic. It is very imporatnt to say: this hypothesis shows at what point, an event COULD LEAD TO FORMATION OF LIFE AND DARWINIAN EVOLUTION.
if a christian asks "where did the universe come from?",I'll answer "your question implies that you claim that the universe was created by god. so, where did god come from??".
if a christian asks "where did the 1st thing come from?",
i'll answer "your question implies that you claim that the 1st thing was created by god. so, where did god come from??".
if a christian claims "life must come from life.",
i'll respond "so the life of god came from what??".
if a christian claims "the eye is so sophisticated that it must have been created by an intelligent designer.",
i'll respond "god is more sophisticated than the eye, 2 the point of bein' able 2 create it, so he must have been created by an intelligent designer.".
if a christian claims "the cell is so complicated & so sophisticated that it must have been created by an intelligent designer.",
i'll respond "god is more complicated & more sophisticated than the cell, 2 the point of bein' able 2 create it, so he must have been created by an intelligent designer.".
if a christian claims "a watch must have been created by humans.",
i'll respond "1st, a watch is created from things that already exists on earth, this is different from your claim that god created the universe out of nothin', & 2nd, how about a rock or a bird, must they have been created by humans??".
If humans can do it, it proves intelligent agency is necessary.
If humans can't do it, it proves intelligent agency is necessary.
Wtaf?!?!
Phylogenetics has proven evolution true over the last few decades and intelligent design died of embarrassment after the Kitzmiller vs Dover trial of 2005. Why debate any more?
View a world class scientist shake this paradigm to it`s core……..https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TDPQEXa7S3I&t=392s
Sticking the shallow word god in sentences makes the word meaningless. Thank you, keep up the display and wonder where the flock dissapeared too.
Here is the question. If it's no intelligence behind the universe, how did intelligence came into the universe in the First place. Let's just say for the sake or argument that God Did Not play a part in creationing the universe. How did life start is the first question I must ask. Why did it start, why is man more intelligence then any other animal on this planet. Since this universe have no intelligence cause why do atheist pride themself on how smart they are in scientific research, compared to dumb religious people who believe and Intellectual Being created all of this. Surely if it was NO intelligence in the universe how did intelligence arrive out of Nothing don't that work against the laws of nature and physics.
Its a miracle! The only miracle is how Andy Dufrence managed to stick the poster back on the wall from inside his tunnel. If Michael Ruse didn't spot that massive flaw in the story then he isn't much of a philosopher
Anyone else extremely bothered by the woman who called the Big Bang “evolution’s miracle”? When will people get it through their head that biology and cosmology are completely different?
Laws: if they are natural laws, it imply there is a law giver , and there ARE natural laws of conscience.Bby adulthood you know certain thing that need no instruction such as a persons rights ,. without being instructed we know it is wrong to poke out some ones eye., and would feel violated is this was done to us. therefore we feel guilt , when we do so. . Conscious guilt is not of this world , It is a portion of God's spirit, given us a conception and will be recalled, and judged in Judgment." 2Co 5:10 For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ; that every one may receive the things done in his body, according to that he hath done, whether it be good or bad." If you violate natural law you will be judged by that law.
Ro 2:12 For as many as have sinned without law shall also perish without law: and as many as have sinned in the law shall be judged by the law;13 (For not the hearers of the law are just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified.14 For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves:
There is nothing scientific about the so-called "naturalistic approach" as espoused and demanded by Michael Ruse. That is a man-made imposition upon science by those hoping you are too ignorant to realize that virtually all of the great scientific achievements before and since Darwin have been made by Christians, and generally by creationists. Einstein is a notable exception, but even he was not so ignorant to rule out God.
Now, name one contribution to science in the name of, or in support of evolution. You cannot. All evolutionists do is waste taxpayer money.
Dan
Beware if you expect a science-based debate!
By the way, BIOLA University stands for their former name—"Bible Institute Of Low Angeles.
This was a set-up to allow intelligent design proponents to more easily present their errata on naive audiences. Several things are indications of this:
1) It's at BIOLA University.
2) Professor Ruse is a philosopher, not a biology scientist, and is notoriously quirky & easy to "bum rush" in debate when defending evolution, despite it being his philosophical specialty area.
3) the molecular biologist is an Intelligent Design "gritter", somewhat equivalent to a well trained pool hustler.
It's the only strategy the Creationists have left now that gene science & DNA has put the nail in the coffin of evolution deniers.
Darwin's classic work did not offer any explanation of the origin of life itself, keeping only to the origin of species from descent with modification. In fact, even modern evolution has nothing definitive either.
A Creator God is a logical necessity based on the contingent nature of the physical universe.
Because the physical universe is contingent, it is not eternal. (Eternity means stability and immutability of essence, the impossibility of origin, cessation, or change, in effect, eternity means no past, present, or future; it is an eternal “now,” but matter/energy is in its essence a compendium of forces and potentialities; it is relativity itself, totally caught up in creation, living, changing, and dying, ergo matter and energy are not eternal) Every physical (natural) entity is contingent and therefore has a cause, and because causal chains cannot be of infinite length, because that would be an effect without a cause, if you were able to follow the causal chain back to the very beginning where the very first physical entity was effected into being, it's cause HAD to be supernatural, since the “natural” was not yet in existence, something cannot come from nothing, something cannot “be” before it “is,” and nothing can create itself (not even God). The reality of the impossibility of infinite causal chains also refutes any notion of a “multiverse” that some have posited as an explanation of the eternality of the universe, and it also nullifies the question “where did God come from?” that some have posed when God is explained as the ultimate cause of the universe.
Others (like Stephen Hawking) have foolishly said that we cannot talk about the origins of the universe since time itself did not exist before the universe began to expand at the Big Bang, so we just cannot know. However, since time is the progression of sequential relationships between two or more contiguous events, if there was indeed a point when there was no such thing as time, but assuming the universe did exist in some previous form, be it as a singularity, a quantum vacuum, or whatever, then because there was no time, then there would be no progression from the universe’s previous condition from “A” where there was no time to, “B” where there is time. Hence, if there was a point when there was no time, then there never would be time unless some supernatural (outside of nature) force created it.
Contingent beings are insufficient to account for the existence of contingent beings in the ultimate sense. Frederick Copelston once said, “If you add up chocolates, you get chocolates after all and not sheep. Therefore if you add up contingent entities, you are still left with contingent entities, and not an eternal one”: therefore there must exist a necessary, non-contingent, supernatural being whose non-existence is an impossibility, and from which the existence of all contingent, physical beings are derived (Hebrews 11:3).
Suppose God could be defined as Quantum consciousness as Dr Goswami suggests. Creative evolution by downward causation… ‘and God said’ … just wondering if this might be so.
I'm surprised Dr. Michael Ruse struggles with the problem of evil and suffering. Since this is the first problem that is addressed in the Bible, in Genesis during the Fall of Man. Hence, came the problem of evil and suffering. Its a lot more feasible to see issues of reconciling new scientific discoveries with the Bible than anything else. Even many of these issues have been addressed here by Dr. Fuz Rana.
Boring and bad debaters
Craig Hazen has "preacher hair" so there's already a bias.
Does a prosthetic hand or leg come about by Intelligent designer and Creator ? The human hand and leg is more complex in design than the prosthetic hand and leg.
The dumbest science book ever written is the Bible.
You can try your best to make evolution appear scientific. But, the bottom line is: nothing exploded, for no reason. Everything in the universe was formed by this explosion, for no reason and with no influence. Trillions of years later, life formed by accident. Trillions of years later, complex life was formed by accident. Never observed. No way to prove it happened. The mathematical odds are off the charts. No proof of change of kind from one species to another. Then you have "the aliens did it"!
You have the mermaid theory.
https://youtu.be/v-Fzf8CLg1s
This is all from SCIENTISTS, who I assume, don't want to rock the boat. Scientific? Are you kidding me? Aliens and mermaids?
If you question evolution , You are not a fucking educational institute you are a fucking institute of child abuse
Between these two is Einstein's God or Spinoza's God which is a naturalistic God.
He couldn't even give a straight answer to the first questions of genesis
This has the be the first debate that I have seen where the debaters were actually respectful toward each other. Well done gentlemen.
5 teams of detectives did not find the killer. therefore the butler did it.
First of all nether evolution or ID can say anything about origins these are the wrong subjects to discuss origins which already tells me there is a lack of understanding on these subjects. How many times are people going to make this mistake that evolution some how explains origins when it doesn't and nether does having this opinion that life is designed. Stop using these as a way to fight over origins when we still haven't worked this out just yet.