Dinesh D'Souza and Steve Meyer debate the materialist versus theistic worldviews in The Mind of God, arguing that Darwin, Marx, and Freud failed to explain consciousness or the origin of life's complex code. Meyer highlights scientific mysteries like Newtonian gravity, Einsteinian space-time warping, and cellular nanomachinery as evidence for intelligent design, asserting the Big Bang necessitates an external creator since matter cannot self-exist. While critiquing the "theory of everything" for ignoring purpose, the discussion concludes that knowledge of God is properly basic, challenging modern science's inability to answer ultimate questions about meaning and death. [Automatically generated summary]
Transcriber: CohereLabs/cohere-transcribe-03-2026, WAV2VEC2_ASR_BASE_960H, sat-12l-sm, script v26.04.01, and large-v3-turbo
|
Time
Text
Shaping Matter and the God Hypothesis00:14:49
Stephen Meyer is the founder of the Center for Science and Culture at the Discovery Institute.
He is the author of a number of books, books on the cell, most recently a book called Return of the God Hypothesis.
And he's also the creator and the force behind a new film that opens this week.
It's called The Story of Everything.
It's in theaters April 30th.
We're going to talk about some of the themes in the film.
Steve, welcome.
Thank you for joining me.
You just informed me that I myself make a cameo appearance in this film, apparently part of a debate that I and another guy had against the physicist Lawrence Krauss and another guy.
Talk a little bit about that.
Well, right.
The film opens with the contrast of what we call two stories two stories of everything, two stories of reality.
The one is the dominant story that we've all been told that we are the product of unguided, undirected, purely naturalistic processes, and there was no designing agent or creator behind anything we see.
The other story, which goes back all the way to the ancient Greeks, as does the first story, is the idea that behind the physical world, there is a great mind, an intelligence, or a creator, and that we see evidence of that in, as the biblical book of Romans puts it, in the things that were made, or as the The Hebrew Bible puts it the heavens declare the glory of God.
So there are these two competing stories about essentially between a materialistic worldview and a theistic worldview.
And in the opening, we highlight some of the top materialistic thinkers of our time Richard Dawkins, Neil deGrasse Tyson, and Lawrence Krause, whom you debated.
And there you were on the stage.
I just realized it watching the premiere the other night.
So fun that we can have a conversation about it all.
You mentioned a moment ago how the story of design is very ancient, of course, goes back to the Hebrew Bible.
We find it also in other religions and other cosmologies.
But you point out that the materialist story is also very old.
Among the ancient Greeks, we can find it in Lucretius, we can find it in Epicurus, we find it in Democritus, who advanced a theory of atoms.
Now, interestingly, the ancient Greeks who put forward that materialist view thousands of years ago had absolutely no evidence for any of it.
And so it's interesting that, having done no experiments, claiming no real authority of science, they invented or put forward this story that, as you say, has now been taken up by mainstream science, by mainstream biology, by mainstream physics.
Is that something that happened in the wake of the Enlightenment?
Of Darwin.
Was that the turning point when the materialist doctrine became the conventional wisdom?
That's absolutely right.
It's actually, you can really trace it.
It's in the early Enlightenment, but it really takes hold in the late 19th century with figures like Darwin, like Thomas Henry Huxley, like Heckel in Germany, and then other figures like Marx and Freud.
So if you look at the end of the 19th century, you have.
The Darwinian account of the origin of life.
So that answers essentially the question of creation.
You have a Marxist materialist view of the future.
Is kind of a materialist eschatology of the utopian view of the future.
And then you have in the early 20th century the Freudian view of human nature, the problem of the human condition.
And Freud essentially addresses the question of what to do about human guilt.
So if you look at those three, just those three great materialist thinkers of the late 19th century, you have an account of creation, you have an account of where we're all heading and what to do about.
About the problem of human nature and human guilt.
So they answer the big questions that Judeo Christian religion had always answered, but now in allegedly scientific terms.
So, whereas the more theistic story had really dominated Western culture from the time of the Greek thinkers like Plato and Aristotle through Romans, like Cicero, Maimonides, and the Jewish world, and of course, the whole Christian account of origins is very much affirming the idea that there is a mind behind the universe, the creator God.
It's really not until the 19th century when the materialistic theory becomes the more dominant one.
Now, to me, Steve, if you think about this materialistic philosophy or materialistic story, as you put it, it runs headlong into something that seems to be just a basic feature of human experience, right?
If you were to approach a normal guy and ask him about the world, about everything, the film is called A Story, The Story of Everything.
That person would say, well, we have a lot of material things in the universe.
We have stones and we have objects, but we also have a lot of immaterial things.
And we're not just talking here about God, we're talking about the fact that we have feelings, we have emotions, we have thoughts, we have algebraic relationships between numbers.
We have, and underlying the universe are all kinds of formulas, right?
And the laws of Kepler and the laws of Newton.
And none of these are physical material objects.
So, how can anybody subscribe to a materialist philosophy that doesn't give a full and adequate explanation of all these immaterial and non material things that are an obvious feature of our world and our experience?
It's a great question, Dinesh.
And I think for most people who, Inclined towards the materialistic view.
The key problem they have with positing a mind behind the universe, a creator God, is that they can't see that entity.
But I got in a conversation the other day in San Diego with an Uber driver, and he said, Well, you know, I believe in God, but I can't see him.
I said, Well, you know, you believe in lots of things you can't see.
And we were talking, I was telling him about the information bearing properties of living cells, that inside DNA, we have something very much like digital code, like software.
Bill Gates says DNA is like a software program, but much more complex than any we've ever created.
Well, we know that software comes from programmers.
And so the discovery of that kind of information at the foundation of life is a powerful indicator of the activity of designing mind in the origin and history of life.
And he said, he paused for a minute.
And I said, well, but he said, but we still can't see the intelligent designer you talk about.
And I said, well, we can't, we also can't explain the origin of the iPhone apart from something we can't see, that being the mind of Steve Jobs.
Steve Jobs is no longer with us, but The origin of this started in a mind.
And I think many people are kind of almost a nerd or they forget about the importance of their own consciousness.
We ourselves have immaterial minds, thoughts, feelings, intentions, volition.
And we know there are certain things that minds do that just brute matter doesn't do.
It takes a mind to shape matter into intricate structures, into information bearing structures.
We can't explain the origin of the internal combustion engine without Henry Ford or engineers.
So minds are realities that we sometimes forget about because we don't see them directly, but we perceive the world.
Through our senses, and those perceptions present themselves to our conscious mind.
So, if we forget about the importance of the mind, it's easy to forget that there's evidence of the activity of mind all around us.
Let's talk about a couple of famous moments in the kind of history of science or the history of materialism.
One of them, and I don't know if this is true or apocryphal, was supposedly the conversation between Napoleon and the physicist Laplace, in which Laplace was explaining the intricate workings of the sort of Newtonian universe, sometimes called the clockwork universe.
And Napoleon interrupted him to say, Well, where is your place for God in all of this?
To which Laplace famously replied, I have no need of that hypothesis.
Now, I've struggled for some time to understand what Laplace was saying.
To put it in my own analogy, it seems to me sort of like some guy who's giving an account of a house.
Right, and he's pointing out that in the house, you've got this intricate plumbing network, you've got stairways leading from here to there.
The whole thing functions with interconnecting gadgets, each of which relate to each other, forming a kind of self contained whole.
But somebody made that house, right?
The house, in other words, doesn't explain itself, and merely accounting for the complex interactions between the electrical grid, the plumbing system, and so on, is hardly a full and adequate explanation of the house.
What did Laplace think?
He was offering that sort of obviated or made unnecessary the God hypothesis.
That's an excellent analogy, Dinesh.
I love that.
Well, the story on this is a bit more complicated than it's often told.
It happens that Newton was not in any way a mechanist.
His whole theory of universal gravitation implied something that was profoundly non materialistic, which was the concept of action at a distance, that for some reason, That was completely inexplicable from materialistic terms.
Planetary bodies were exerting a force across a distance without pushing or pulling, without touching each other.
And when pressed on the cause of this, Newton somewhat coyly said, Hypothesis non fingo, I have no explanation.
I don't feign to know the cause.
But privately, he revealed that he believed that the beautiful mathematical structure of the universe and what he Described as the law of gravity was actually a mode of divine action.
Since there was no materialistic explanation for the gravitational attraction, he actually privately believed that this was something that was an expression of God's constant, as one of my Cambridge supervisors put it, God's constant spirit action was the explanation for gravitation.
And Laplace came along, realizing that Newton had not proposed a materialistic explanation, he posited an explanation not for gravity itself.
But for the origin of the solar system by reference to gravity.
And when Napoleon asked him about this, he was alleged to have said, Seer, I have no need of that hypothesis.
William Herschel, one of the great astronomers of the time, was apparently in the room.
He may not have said those exact words, but he apparently did convey that idea that he believed that by explaining the origin of the solar system as a consequence of gravitational force, his idea was something called the nebular hypothesis.
He had solved all the mysteries that Newton had left unsolved.
But not only did that hypothesis not ultimately stand, he never gave an account of this mysterious action at a distance that's part of the Newtonian system.
It's worth, Steve, I think, spending just a moment highlighting what that is.
In a materialist conception of the world, you have physical objects, but they can only move each other by.
Touching and pushing each other, right?
It's kind of like I would call it the billiard ball theory.
How do you move a billiard ball on a table?
Well, you have to hit it with a stick or with another billiard ball.
The ball isn't going to move itself, right?
You can't just stand near the ball and go, move, move, please move.
The ball's not going to do anything, right?
So, Newton's point is that, and this is, of course, the discoverer of the laws of gravitation, Newton's point is that if the moon is pulling on the earth and vice versa, gravity, Without any cord linking the moon to the earth, how does the moon even know the earth is there?
How does the earth know?
How do the two know without touching?
How do they exert a force the one upon the other?
Isn't this really what Newton was grappling with sort of intellectually?
Exactly.
That was the huge mystery.
And he explained that he could describe the force, he could describe the strength of it with a very precise formula.
That was related to the distance between the objects and the masses of the objects.
There was a beautiful mathematical precision to the way the law operated, but there was no underlying materialistic explanation for why gravitation occurred.
And he was accused by contemporaries who were proponents of something called the mechanical philosophy of bringing occult forces into science.
And he defended himself simply by saying, I hypothesis non fingo, I can't.
Tell you the cause, but I can describe its action with precision.
Now, people think mistakenly that we've resolved the mystery of gravitation because Einstein came up with a new theory in 1915 called general relativity, something we discussed quite a bit in the film because his new theory of gravity implied that the universe is expanding outward from a creation event, something that Einstein tried to avoid, the implication of which he tried to avoid.
But the new theory of gravity is no less mysterious because the idea of Einstein's theory is that matter.
Crypto, Space-Time, and Einstein's Mystery00:03:57
Warps or bends space, or what he calls space time.
And we see the evidence of that, but space is also immaterial.
It's not a physical thing.
So, how is the so called bending of space actually affecting the trajectory of material bodies?
We have confirmed that it does, but we don't again know why.
So, what you're saying with Einstein, and I never thought of it quite this way, is that once again, we have a, let's call it a mystical encounter between the physical and the immaterial, the physical here being matter.
Right?
Physical, this table is a physical object.
And the immaterial being space and time, because neither space nor time have a kind of material presence.
And yet, according to Einstein, this physical thing matter is interacting with constantly, space and time.
And yet, Einstein doesn't know why.
He knows what the kind of algebraic or mathematical connection is, but he can't account for it.
He doesn't solve the problem at the basic level.
Isn't that what you're saying?
Exactly.
The underlying cause of gravitation, if you will, is still occult in the sense that the 17th and 18th century scientists accused Newton of.
Of affirming.
There's yet one further wrinkle on this mystery.
Now, physicists are talking about gravitons as the cause of gravity, but gravitons are massless particles and they're not pushers, they're pullers, they're attractants.
So, you still have this, however deep you go in this, you have this sense in which you can't explain the material world apart from something that's essentially immaterial.
Here's the thing about crypto it's here to stay.
That argument is over.
But think about it.
This is a market that never sleeps.
It's moving at midnight.
It's 2 a.m., 3 a.m.
And while you're asleep, who's watching?
Because here's what nobody tells you.
Most crypto platforms give you a login, wish you luck, and call it a day.
That's not investing.
That's gambling with your retirement and hoping for the best.
That's why I've partnered with Block Trust IRA.
Block Trust IRA is a crypto IRA built for Americans who refuse to be on the losing side.
Of that equation.
Their award winning AI engine navigates the notoriously volatile crypto markets around the clock, automatically rebalancing your portfolio to protect your gains and limit your exposure when markets swing.
No panic, no emotion, no missed sleep at 3 a.m.
Your savings sit inside a $200 million institutional grade insurance shield managed intelligently and secured from day one.
Their AI never sleeps.
It's rebalancing your portfolio around the clock, managing risk.
Responding to volatility, protecting what you've built automatically, intelligently, without panic.
Voted Bitcoin Magazine number one technology platform, and that doesn't surprise me one bit.
Open your crypto IRA today, and Block Trust IRA will give you up to a $2,500 inflation shield bonus straight into your account.
Go to DineshCrypto.com and sign up today.
They can print dollars, but they cannot print crypto.
That's DineshCrypto.com.
Well, it's finally happening.
I'm turning 65, and I got to take a little pause and do a little bit of a shriek.
You know, ah, I'm not happy about this.
And it also means I've officially become a target.
Now, for months, I've been bombarded by junk mail and robocalls from insurance companies trying to sell me on their Medicare plans.
Design Arguments Beyond Biology00:14:44
Like many government programs, Medicare is confusing, and if you don't get honest and accurate advice, You can end up on the wrong plan, overpaying for the same coverage that you could be receiving for a fraction of the cost.
They can review all your options in under 20 minutes.
In fact, if you're already on the best plan for your needs, they'll tell you.
If you aren't, they can help you switch.
There's no pressure, no sales tactics, just straightforward help from people who understand Medicare inside and out.
And the best part, it's totally free.
I've worked with them, they help me navigate Medicare.
I know they can help you too.
So give them a call, 706 262 4774.
Again, 706 262 4774.
Steve, you're associated with a movement that is called intelligent design.
And the intelligent design argument was made very famous in the early 19th century, I believe 1802, by an Anglican naturalist and theologian named Paley, William Paley.
And as Paley gave the argument, it goes something like this If you're walking on a seashore and you see stones or shells, You don't know where they came from.
For all you know, they could have been there a very long time.
Maybe they were even there forever.
Nobody knows.
But if you are walking on the seashore and you stumble upon, let's say, a watch and you pick it up, you look at it, you know that that object was designed.
You may not know who made the watch, which company, where it comes from.
Is it a Swiss watch?
You don't know those things.
But what you do know is that this watch hasn't been here forever.
It's not found, you may say, in nature.
It's something that was designed.
And Paley used this analogy to give many, many examples for how human beings, other forms of life, and the universe itself appear to be designed.
Now, in the middle of the 19th century, Darwin, in a sense, supplied the rival argument with regard to life, that life forms can generate.
Other life forms through a process that he calls or that was later called natural selection.
And yet, would you agree that even though Paley's argument was to some degree refuted in a limited domain, Paley's underlying argument has never been refuted and, in fact, can be resurrected much more strongly than Paley made it now using the very knowledge and techniques that science has developed in their intervening?
200 years.
Yeah, well, that's actually the gravamen, the force of our work is to show that the underlying intuition is actually quite strong.
Darwin did a nice job of explaining what we call adaptation, the small scale variations that allow organisms to adapt to their environment.
Now, in the 19th century, most biologists believed that the adaptation of organisms, their fit to their environment, was a powerful evidence of intelligent design.
Insofar as Darwin was able to explain that, at least in a limited context, he seemed to have refuted the design argument and that put the Paley forces back on the back foot.
But since then, one of the questions I often ask is well, natural selection does do a nice job of explaining adaptation, but is that the only appearance of design in nature, to use a phrase that Darwinians like to use?
And if not, has the process of natural selection and random Variation, mutation explained all the others.
And it's clear that it hasn't.
For one thing, Darwin never even attempted to give an account for the origin of the first life, in which we find, even in simple cells now, we find not only intricate structures such as a watch, but we find digital code in the form of the DNA molecule or in the presence of the DNA molecule.
We find a complex information storage and processing system for that information.
We find little miniature machines.
In multicellular organisms, we find circuitry.
There are multiple indicators of the activity of a mind that are not explained by the process of natural selection acting on random variations and mutations.
And instead, these indications or these features are things that we know from our uniform and repeated experience are the product of intelligent agency.
So, all of this makes possible a powerful reformulation of the design argument.
And one slightly technical wrinkle on that is that the form of the argument that I've developed, for example, in my book Signature in the Cell, which you kindly mentioned at the Top of the interview is not a merely analogical argument.
It's an argument that has a properly scientific form called an inference to the best explanation, where a best explanation is one that posits a cause which is uniquely known to produce the effect in question.
The effect in question, in this case, is the digital code in the DNA.
The cause that we know that produces that kind of information uniquely is a mind or an intelligence.
So, the design argument, I think, is on very solid footing today.
It has been refined since Paley's time, but the basic intuition that Paley had, I think, is very sound and was never fully refuted by Darwin.
I remember reading, I think it was the biologist Franklin Harold's book on the cell many years ago.
Harold was, as far as I know, not an intelligent design guy or perhaps not even a theist.
And he makes the point that not only is the cell mechanically incomprehensibly complicated, not only does it have Code in precisely the manner that you described, but it also has the ability to reproduce itself.
It can make other cells, right?
And if you think about, let's think of a material object that someone designs, like a computer chip or even any kind of a highly complex widget.
As far as I know, we haven't figured out how to make a widget that can make other widgets, right?
The widget stops with itself.
But the cell has all these qualities.
So I think what you're saying is that Darwin never explained the cell.
In fact, he didn't know anything about the cell.
He only explains how life form A can over time be transformed into life form B, but he took for granted the existence of life with all its original complexity.
He didn't even try, am I not right, to explain that?
No, you're absolutely right.
He did allude to the problem and offered a very rudimentary speculation in a letter to a friend, Joseph Hooker.
That's the origin of the phrase, a warm little pond.
He imagines that.
All the different chemicals that are in a warm little pond might have arranged themselves if they were hit by lightning or some source of energy.
But he never developed that in any detail.
And you're right, what we now know about the interior workings of the cell challenges the kind of broad Darwinian schema in a fundamental way.
The basic idea of Darwinism was that you could move from the simple to the complex through a series of very gradual transformations.
That were governed by the process of natural selection.
We now know, however, the cell itself was not simple.
Contrary to what Darwin and his contemporaries thought, his so called bulldog, Thomas Henry Huxley, said that the cell is a simple homogeneous globule of undifferentiated protoplasm.
In other words, just a little enclosure with some goo on the inside.
Well, if you think of the cell as essentially an enclosure of jello, it's not hard to imagine how a couple simple chemical reactions from very simple Simple chemical compounds might have produced that protoplasmic substance that people assumed was the basis of life.
But now we know that the cell, in its own way, is as complicated as multicellular organisms, insofar as it has actually not one, but you alluded to the second one, two separate information processing systems at work.
One takes the code in DNA and uses it to build the proteins and protein machines that cells need to stay alive.
That's called protein synthesis.
The other information processing system takes the information in the DNA and builds a copy of the DNA so that you have.
Organismal self replication.
And inside the cell, you have something akin to a kind of automated factory, all run by code and the machines that the code makes.
It's mind blowing.
No one had any idea of this in the 19th century.
So, if scientists now in the 21st century are trying to explain the origin of life, we're 160 years or more on from that primal mystery.
We've made no progress from the standpoint of a chemical evolutionary account of the origin of life.
And leading origin of life scientists recognize that the field is at a state of impasse.
They make minor improvements or minor innovations in their ideas of how the basic chemical substrate might have arisen, the chemical parts, but no ideas about how they arrange themselves into the code and into the machines and into the information processing systems that are necessary for cells to stay alive.
And yet, those very features information, information processing, nanotechnology, nanomachinery these are things that In our experience, only arise from intelligent design.
Let's consider a different version of the design argument, one that is not so much in the realm of biology or chemistry, but rather in the realms of physics and astronomy.
The question here is whether the universe, and by the universe, it's important to recognize we're not talking about the Earth or our solar system or our galaxy, the universe as a whole.
Did this universe always exist, or did it in fact have a beginning?
Not just a beginning, by the way, in time, but a beginning of time itself.
Kind of a crazy idea, right?
And for a long time, I mean, going back to Aristotle, there was the theory that the universe might be eternal, might always have been there.
But in the early 20th century, partly through Einstein, partly through others, there were spectacular discoveries that put together.
Made it very clear that the universe had, in fact, 14 and a half billion years ago, a beginning conventionally known as the Big Bang.
It was the beginning of space, it was the beginning of time, it was the beginning of matter.
Now, as you said earlier, Einstein was a little rocked, a little perturbed, a little discombobulated by this.
Einstein didn't reject God, Einstein accepted that there might be a kind of great mind behind the order and laws of the universe.
But Einstein didn't like this idea that somehow the universe popped into existence 14 and a half billion years ago.
What inferences can we draw from that that bear upon the question of whether or not the universe was created as the Hebrew and the Christian Bible say it was?
It's a striking confirmation of the first words of the Bible.
And Einstein, early in his career, was very inclined towards the materialistic story that we've been talking about.
But as he matured as a scientist and later realized he had been completely wrong in rejecting the idea of a beginning, he did affirm that there was some kind of a mind behind the mathematical harmony of the universe.
And then his contemporaries recognized that, with the evidence for a beginning, that created a philosophical problem for the materialist.
I think Einstein himself recognized that.
That means that matter itself comes into existence at a finite point in the past.
Prior to that, many physicists and many philosophers believed that the universe might well be eternal in a temporal sense, that matter and energy were the eternal self existent things from which everything else came, in the same way that theists believe that God is the eternal self existent thing from which everything else comes.
So, this is part of these rival worldviews that are expressed in these two competing stories of everything.
But and and when it was discovered that the universe, as best we can tell, had a beginning, it raised a problem for materialists because now there was a need to give a causal account of the origin of the universe.
But matter itself, being one of the things that comes into existence, can no longer be invoked as the cause of the origin of itself.
I like to say that before the origin of the universe, if we can even talk about before, since time itself begins, or maybe more accurately, independently of the.
Independent of the origin of the universe, there is no matter to do the causing.
And so now, with the evidence of a beginning, there's a need for an external cause or creator to explain the origin of the universe.
The beginning itself doesn't prove that God exists, but postulating the existence of God provides, I think, the best explanation for the origin of the universe, and therefore can be affirmed in much the same way we would affirm any other scientific hypothesis.
In other words, theism, the theistic story, Is much more expected and provides a better explanation of the origin of the universe than does the materialistic story.
We've been doing something interesting in this conversation, Steve, which is we are approaching it almost with scientific spectacles.
It's almost like we arrive from some distant galaxy on Earth.
The Flawed Theory of Everything00:08:24
We look around, we're trying to make sense of it all.
We're reasoning from what we see and what we know to what we can posit or infer.
Now, in some senses, I think religious people would say, well, this is a very bizarre, unnatural conversation that you two are having because your starting point is skepticism.
Your starting point is like tabula rasa.
We don't know anything, and so let's start out as if we are pioneers trying to figure some stuff out.
A lot of people would say, listen, the knowledge of God is implanted in every human mind, and that if human beings are refusing God, this has nothing to do with.
The clockwork universe, nothing to do with finding a watch on the seashore, nothing to do with Einstein.
It's just willful perversion.
People who don't want to accept divine authority and moral accountability.
And so they come up with all kinds of sometimes clever, sometimes cockamamie theories to, in a sense, go against the knowledge that is already there inside of them.
I just want you to offer how would you address those people?
Do you think that this knowledge of God is ingrained in human beings?
And all that we're doing is, in some ways, supplying elegant rationalization of what people already know?
Or do you think that skepticism is, in a sense, honest in that you have people who genuinely say, I want to know, but guess what?
I just don't see enough evidence in the universe for anything other than, let's say, material things.
Wow, that's a fantastic question because you could do a whole philosophy seminar on that.
Alvin Planning, the great theistic philosopher, argues that knowledge of God is properly basic.
It's something that we all have and it's built into us.
This is a very Calvinist view.
That there is a sensus divinitatis that we all have.
The book of Romans in the New Testament would have a lot to say about that as well.
It says, From the creation of the world, God's invisible qualities, his eternal power and divine nature, often equated with the notion of wisdom, because it's so oftentimes affirmed in the Bible that in wisdom thou hast created all things, as it says in the psalm.
He says, His eternal power and divine nature are clearly seen being understood from the things that are made.
So, there is, yes, maybe a sense of the divine that we all have, but that's reinforced by what we see, what's been made in the world around us.
And so, there is a legitimacy in a biblical view to inferring the reality of God from the effects of God's own actions in creation.
You can infer the causes from the effects.
And that is also a form of scientific reasoning.
It has a logical form, it's called abduction.
As opposed to induction.
And abductive inferences can be strengthened and justified by a move that I referred to before by showing that you're making an inference to the best explanation.
So, in a way, I think there is, yes, an intuitive knowledge of God that people have.
The book of Romans goes on to say that we all suppress that in one way or another, but that God can yet still be known from the things that are made.
And so, what we're doing, I think, has both theological legitimacy.
But also, scientific legitimacy.
We're reasoning in a very properly scientific and philosophical form when we look at the effects and we compare the possible competing explanations.
And then we say, well, which one is best?
Which one provides the best causal account of what we see?
That allows us to reason from the effects back to causes.
And there, I think we get a very strong basis for the inference to intelligent design or the inference even to a transcendent creator, as we've been talking about in the case of trying to explain the origin of everything, the origin of the universe itself.
I mean, what I love about all this, Steve, and about this film, which I'm excited to watch, by the way, April 30th in theaters, the film is called The Story of Everything, is that you truly are dealing with everything.
You're dealing with the whole picture.
Now, in science, there is something called a theory of everything, but it's not a theory of everything, right?
It's an attempt or at least a project to try to take two things.
On the one hand, Einstein's relativity.
On the other hand, quantum physics and make the two kind of gel or make the two compatible with one another, which by the way, still has not been done.
But even if you did it, it seems to me you haven't even come close to giving a theory of everything because if you were to say to the people who did that, all right, well, why is there a universe?
What is the purpose of life?
What comes after death?
They would be utterly silent and bewildered by these questions, which would not fit into this so called theory of everything.
I guess my point is that this theory of everything is pretty much a theory of quite a few things, but leaving a whole bunch of perhaps most important things out of it.
But in your film, you really are giving a theory of everything.
Well, we're giving a causal account of the underlying causal account of everything the origin of the universe, the origin of its finely tuned structure, and the origin of life and the information that's necessary to build life.
So, we're looking at three great origins questions and asking the question does an undirected material process of some kind or a designing intelligence provide a better explanation for those three great discoveries of modern science?
The three discoveries being that the universe had a beginning, that it's been finely tuned against all odds.
In order to make life possible, and that in life, long after the beginning, we see in the origin of life evidence of a designing mind in the form of the exquisite information and nanotechnology that cells need to stay alive.
So, we have essentially three acts or stories within the story arc of the film about the stories of those discoveries and how they've affected scientists and have caused many scientists to.
Reconsider or reaffirm the God question.
Utterly fascinating stuff.
And Stephen Meyer, thank you very much.
Thank you, Dinesh.
Great, great questions and discussion.
Today, I'm going to tell you a story which may seem very strange to you.
How in the world did this start?
Has the universe always been here or is it finite?
We want to take our metaphysical hypotheses and see what they point to.
Here is evidence for what can only be described as a supernatural.
You bet.
Turned out to be the tip of the iceberg.
Without guidance, we would get a life unfriendly universe.
We're dealing with a system of manifold, complex design.
We associate information with a rational intelligence behind it.
The universe, it bears everywhere the fingerprints of its creator.
The concept of life as a cosmic phenomenon should have many consequences.
The question then was what does one do about it?
Big news coming out on silver right now.
The U.S. just added silver to the critical minerals list.
What does this mean?
This is an important list of minerals that are considered crucial for U.S. security and economic viability.
So, when you buy silver to help protect your savings, you're also buying a critical mineral that's needed for the U.S. and its economy to survive.
To my partners over at Gold Co.
They're the number one gold and silver company in the country.
They have over 8,000 five star reviews and they have the best gold and silver offer in the business.
So don't put this off.
Don't ignore the facts.
Get your free 2026 gold and silver kit from Gold Co. while you still can.
Gold, Silver, and Critical Minerals00:00:53
And get up to 10% in bonus gold or silver while supplies last.
Go to DineshGold.com.
That's DineshGold.com.
Hey, I'm now on Substack.
It's kind of full circle for me.
I started out as a journalist, writing articles for National Review, The American Spectator, The Washington Post, lots of places.
After my stint in the Reagan White House, I pivoted to writing books, and that was way back in 1991.
So I've been mainly known as an author and, of course, later as a filmmaker.
But my first job, journalist, and now I'm getting back to that.
On Substack, you'll get original articles and commentary, groundbreaking investigations, exclusive access to film clips and show clips.