https://youtubetranscript.com/?v=AQf42t0Tf_c
So rehashing what we did without the recording, this line of questioning was prompted by the video that you did with Brett Weinstein a few months back, Jonathan, and it’s regarding the issue of teleology and evolution and the way that evolutionists and science, even modern scientists talk about it. And it seems to stem from this idea of the dethroning of theology from the queen of the sciences. In that conversation with Brett, he always talks about, he consistently talks about genes as having a will or a desire, some sort of sense of time, some sort of sense of agency. And as far as we know, genes, that’s not what genes are. You and I are not made up of this weird kind of polyp colony of a bunch of random genetic consciousness or consciousnesses, I guess, that what we do. As far as we know, and it wouldn’t even make sense if that was the case, that an epithelial cell in your skin gets to tell your heart what to do. That’s just weird. But they also talk about the idea that evolution itself has a sort of guiding consciousness, which, again, from a materialist point of view, makes zero sense. Yeah, well, in Brett’s case, it’s even worse than that. In Brett’s case, it’s been worse than that because on the one hand, he says something like, this is what evolution wants. And then he says something even crazier. That was crazy enough. Then he says something crazy, which is that, but now we have to move away from what evolution wants. And it’s like, what? So evolution as a teleology. And I’m going to declare a new teleology that that to liberate us from the teleology of evolution. But I’m not going to tell you where that teleology comes from. It’s just going to be this like amorphous thing that we all recognize to be better. And it’s just it’s so bad. It’s it’s really bad. I’m sorry. Can we give a definition, sorry, for people who don’t know what teleology is just like a brief. It just means it just means that there’s a reason for something. Right. So whatever a process has a reason, it has a purpose, a direction, something toward which it’s aiming. And the idea is that modern evolutionary thinking doesn’t says that there is no teleology. Right. Things don’t have purposes ultimately. And so your eye doesn’t have the purpose to see the reason. It doesn’t have the there’s not a reason for seeing that your eye exists. Your eye exists through a random, you know, a random process of mutations and selection that have brought about this phenomenon that we can now kind of add on top of that, a perception of what we think is meaning. But ultimately, that meaning isn’t there. But what happens is the evolutionists can’t avoid it. They always talk. They always talk as if there was meaning because that’s actually how humans interact with the world. And so they always end up in this weird situation. Just listen to an evolutionist for five minutes that they can say there’s no teleology. And then listen and you’ll see the teleology appears within within two sentences of what they just said. It’s inevitable because that’s actually you can’t you can’t look at the world without teleology. Humans meaning the very identities of things are teleological because we’re always identifying whether or not the example we’re looking at is good or not. So it’s like you’re always questioning, like, is this a proper example of what it is I’m identifying? And so the good is is implied in all identities. You can’t avoid it. It’s like it. And it’s something that that someone like Brett just can’t see. He has a blind spot. I don’t know what to say. But it is I had the same reaction you did when he got to the point where he was saying we have to rebel against the genes. Like this. The sentence is coherent, but the ideas behind it are so utterly chaotic. That can’t that can’t be a thing if if genes are conscious and evolution is guiding everything, there is no possibility of rebellion. That’s even more futile than losing for rebelling against God. It’s like you’re made. It’s like you’re saying you’re made out of this. This is what you’re made of. And now you, whoever that is, that’s made out of this is going to rebel against this because if you’re only made of this, there is no you to rebel against this. But where is this you that that isn’t made of this that can rebel against it? It’s like, whoo, it’s weird. It’s like it’s loopy in terms of its logic. It’s a kind of panentheism. It’s been very interesting to me to just kind of observe the. I don’t even want to call it paganism because paganism is a little too refined for what modern science is becoming. But it’s very shamanistic now, you know, where. I mean, the hell, the idea of talking about genes is having a desire is a very shamanistic kind of thing. Where you throw the knuckle bones to see what the genes want you to do. But the genes wanted you to do that. So. You rebel against them. But I think but I do think that what we’re seeing in Brett and it’s like he might be annoyed that I say this, but what I think we’re seeing in Brett is is the inevitability of of God, like that, that, you know, if you analyze the discourse, you realize that what he’s really saying is that there’s an there’s a transcendent good. Let’s say that first. Like, OK, maybe you don’t maybe we won’t say God right away. Say that later. Like there’s a transcendent good that is direct, that is higher than the material causes. And that transcendent good is calling the material causes out of their parasitic nature, out of their fallen nature. That’s what we would say as Christians. And it’s like, yeah, I’m fine with that. But it’s like if you if you’re saying it, but you can’t see the move you’re making, then that’s the frustration. But what I hope in these discussions, honestly, is that ultimately the people listening will see it and like people that are right on the cusp and are thinking, I’m not sure about this, I’m not sure about this. And they’re like, dude, this makes no sense. You can’t the propositions he’s making are not they’re not coherent. What is the goal of that kind of discussion? I mean, when Brett’s talking about rebelling against the genes or trying to, you know, shift the inevitable flow of evolution towards something that, you know, he is an enlightened 21st century biologist happens to think is the best course, what is the purpose of that? What is he shooting for? I don’t I don’t understand why an evolutionist would be speaking in such a, I mean, to be honest, with such a Christian lens, even though. Yeah, well, that’s what’s going on. I mean, that’s what’s happening. It’s like I believe that the religious is inevitable. I believe that the impetus towards towards religion is something that we’re made that way. And so that’s why it’s a universal. That’s why there’s religion all over the place in every culture and every time. And so I think that that’s what we’re seeing. Like he is that he’s just manifesting that in a very awkward and, and displaced way. And so he’s saying, he’s saying something like, it’s the end of the world, folks. You need to repent. That’s what he’s saying. And he’s just saying it in like he just can’t. He can’t. The place in which he’s standing doesn’t can’t hold what he’s trying to say. And so it ends up being contradictory and strange.