Bret Weinstein

In my opinion, if we had all of the information, the simplest explanation would always be right. It would be a more reliable law. But in general, the simplest explanation tends to be right. If you take the intelligent design folks and you extrapolate from what they seem to be suggesting, they do not escape the

necessity for a darwinian explanation even if the creatures of earth were designed on a drawing board by a creature that wanted to make them that creature has to have come from somewhere and the only explanation that has ever been proposed for where such a creature could have come from is darwinian evolution

necessity for a darwinian explanation even if the creatures of earth were designed on a drawing board by a creature that wanted to make them that creature has to have come from somewhere and the only explanation that has ever been proposed for where such a creature could have come from is darwinian evolution

necessity for a darwinian explanation even if the creatures of earth were designed on a drawing board by a creature that wanted to make them that creature has to have come from somewhere and the only explanation that has ever been proposed for where such a creature could have come from is darwinian evolution

So to me, the problem with intelligent design, the most fundamental one, is that even if it were true, you've basically solved the problem of explaining Earth's creatures at a cost that is a million times worse in terms of parsimony. If it's hard to explain a tiger, Through Darwinian processes, it is that much harder yet to explain a tiger designer.

So to me, the problem with intelligent design, the most fundamental one, is that even if it were true, you've basically solved the problem of explaining Earth's creatures at a cost that is a million times worse in terms of parsimony. If it's hard to explain a tiger, Through Darwinian processes, it is that much harder yet to explain a tiger designer.

So to me, the problem with intelligent design, the most fundamental one, is that even if it were true, you've basically solved the problem of explaining Earth's creatures at a cost that is a million times worse in terms of parsimony. If it's hard to explain a tiger, Through Darwinian processes, it is that much harder yet to explain a tiger designer.

So the point is, sooner or later, you're going to reach for Darwinism because there's literally no competitor. There's nothing else anyone has ever done.

So the point is, sooner or later, you're going to reach for Darwinism because there's literally no competitor. There's nothing else anyone has ever done.

So the point is, sooner or later, you're going to reach for Darwinism because there's literally no competitor. There's nothing else anyone has ever done.

Right.

Right.

Right.

Yeah, I mean, it is, you know, we humans are not built to understand evolution because in general it's not very useful to understand it. So our minds are not structured this way.

Yeah, I mean, it is, you know, we humans are not built to understand evolution because in general it's not very useful to understand it. So our minds are not structured this way.

Yeah, I mean, it is, you know, we humans are not built to understand evolution because in general it's not very useful to understand it. So our minds are not structured this way.

Oh, in one way, yes, because let's put it this way. I think we teach evolution badly. There's a process that I would call selection, which accounts for all pattern in the universe, right? Some differential force that arranges the size of the pebbles on a beach, it arranges the galaxies, it accounts for the number of stars of each different type, the elements.

Oh, in one way, yes, because let's put it this way. I think we teach evolution badly. There's a process that I would call selection, which accounts for all pattern in the universe, right? Some differential force that arranges the size of the pebbles on a beach, it arranges the galaxies, it accounts for the number of stars of each different type, the elements.

Oh, in one way, yes, because let's put it this way. I think we teach evolution badly. There's a process that I would call selection, which accounts for all pattern in the universe, right? Some differential force that arranges the size of the pebbles on a beach, it arranges the galaxies, it accounts for the number of stars of each different type, the elements.

Selection produces all of that structure in the prebiotic universe. It becomes adaptive in the biological sense when you add to selection heredity. Right? When the patterns in the universe become capable of biasing the universe into producing more of themselves. Right? Red dwarf stars do not bias the universe into producing more red dwarf stars. There's no heredity there.