Where Darwinism Breaks Down - with Stephen Meyer

The fine tuning argument does not necessitate us. Nor does it require the Biblical God. For example, the neoplatontic One would be provide a set of constraints. In fact Plotinus argues that mind is dependent on principles that make it possible. There is equivocation in the notion of information between the Shanon sense with is probabilistic relations between events and semantic information which what intelligence has. A lifeless universe has titanic amount of information in it in the first sense but none in the second. Shanon was repeatedly clear that he was not talking about meaning. The argument about information is very problematic and the fine tuning argument does not necessitate the emergence of mind. All of this is being run together. There is tremendous mindless information in a diamond. Are diamonds made by minds? If you don’t keep this distinction then computers are minds because they have extremely complex Information processing. Simply rolling some dice rules out alternatives and generates Shanon information. Using the language of choosing between alternatives is misleading. The dice are not choosing anything. The laws of nature rule out billions of alternatives but that does make them minds. Current evolutionary theory does not rely on just random change but also through processes of exaptation (tongue exalted for speech) niche construction, self-organization and emergence. Also if information only emerges from minds then how does it arises in brains? If information only arises from intelligence then how do neurons give rise to intelligence? Do they have minds? This position has many if not more than the questions being raised here against evolutionary theory. Nagel did not conclude theism. He concluded that we need to change our fundamental ontology. To see that developed well see The Blind Spot.

Great conversation, gentlemen!

Of all the interviews of Dr. Stephen Meyer I have seen, Jonathan, I have to say, in this interview he seemed most engaged. I think that is due to your ability to pick out and elucidate points throughout the discussion that were quite profound, and allowed Stephen to connect dots he doesn’t usually get prompted on in most interviews. This was truly one of the most enjoyable discussions I’ve seen with Stephen, and that is certainly due to you both being high in intelligence, but also looking at things from slightly different angles. Great interview! 👏

Jonathan, please discuss with your friend and frequent collaborator, Jordan Peterson, the idea of having Steven Meyer on his podcast. JP read Meyer's most recent book Return of the God Hypothesis and remarked that rarely had he read a book which contained so much information that he did not previously know. Pretty high praise from the hyper educated JP. I have been lobbying him in the comment section of his podcast to have Meyer on, but somehow I think you may be a bit more influential. Anyway, thanks for having SM on.

I discovered Mr Meyer recently so this discussion came right on time! Would love to see a 4-way discussion with Jonathan Pageau, Stephen Meyer, Jordan Peterson and John Vervaeke!

It’s becoming increasingly difficult to deny the truth of Christianity at this point. I was an ardent atheist for years, but with all the research I’ve done the last 6 years, I can’t hold that position any longer. Great conversation!

I’ve watched hundreds of hours of Stephen Meyer and his talks… And I’ve never seen him so anxious to enter into a conversation (to interrupt / in a good way). - This looks like to me that he is extremely engaged in this level of thinking… I’d say you’re definitely pulling the right strings to get this kind engagement from Meyer. By the way, I find all of this fascinating, and I find Myers work to be at the top of a very impressive list of scientific research. - great interview.

Arguments for Christianity as a true philosophical and phenomenological way of understanding the world are gaining prominence. Coupled with Meyer’s work on the scientific front, we may be on the brink of a return to an era in the West where goodness, beauty, and truth take center stage again.

Never heard of this fella. Ordering some of his books now.

I don't know if anyone has insulted Jonathan so thoroughly by accident as Stephen did when he said Jonathan was thinking like an engineer. 🤣

I would love to see a conversation between Stephen and John Verveake

Jonathan, it would be great to hear your conversation with biologist Michael Levin. He's already in conversation with Vervaeke and McGilchrist and, as I see it, kinda open for different ideas.

Been looking forward to this episode of Better call Saul

Something’s happening and I like it

Bring on James tour next please

Great conversation. I'm glad to hear Jonathan bring up Kastrup. While Bernardo has many good points, I was a bit frustrated in our conversations with him and have long thought that someone like Meyer could fill in the holes in his work. Stratford Caldecott goes back to Pythagoras, from a distinct Christian perspective, in his terrific book: Beauty for Truth's Sake.

I’ve been wanting this conversation to happen for at least a year!! Thank you!! 🙏🙏

Thank you, thank you, thank you Dr. Meyer for pronouncing "processes" correctly. (Most Darwinians say "process-ease", and that's my favorite reason for not taking them seriously.)

Awesome interview, Dr. Stephen Meyer!!!

Meyer should talk to Vervaeke, they have significant disagreements regarding darwinism and naturalism.