Perry Marshall is known for being, “ the #1 author and world’s most-quoted consultant on Google Advertising and has helped over 100,000 advertisers save billions of dollars in AdWords …” He has helped grow a tech company from $200,000 to $4 million in sales that eventually was bought by a public company. His works include The Ultimate Guide to Google AdWords Book, and 80/20 Sales and Marketing and many more. Now he is back to talk about his Book Evolution 2.0: Breaking the Deadlock Between Darwin and Design.
In this episode…
Do you think you know what “evolution” is all about? You might think a bit differently after you hear this conversation with Perry Marshall. In the last 15 to 20 years so much has changed in the science of evolutionary biology. What you learned in school is likely not what current evolutionary theory is teaching.
In this great chat Jeremy asks Perry to unpack his reasons for writing this book (he’s an Adwords specialist, after all), why he thinks it’s a truly significant issue to be thinking about, and the impact his book and accompanying lectures are having on the people he meets. What he’s come to believe is that evolutionists don’t think highly enough of nature and creationists don’t think highly enough of God, and that the new viewpoints on evolution show that to be true.
Perry’s research started with his own questions about the origin of life, viewed from his background as a systems guy. He simply couldn’t believe that the evolutionary theory he’d heard all his life could possible be true. Random events leading to the complicated forms of life we see on our planet? He wasn’t buying it. This conversation unpacks his journey from evolution skeptic to hard core “new evolutionist” and what he says the data is telling us about God, life, and the way we got here.
If you’re an atheist, you might hate this interview. If you’re a creationist, you just might too. But anyone who’s willing to open their mind, listen to the scientific evidence, and decide for yourself just might discover that you don’t know what you think you know, and that the existence of God may not be such a stretch afterall. It’s a conversation worth listening to.
Here’s a glimpse of what you’ll learn in this show:
- [0:24] Jeremy’s introduction to this episode and his guest, Perry Marshall.
- [1:42] Why Perry believes this topic is going to piss people off.
- [4:54] Things that could change the way you view the issue of evolution.
- [7:30] What it was like for Perry to grow up as a pastor’s son.
- [14:23] The issues and questions that brought Perry to research these issues.
- [18:04] The steps Perry took to answer his own questions.
- [27:00] Using his Google Ads expertise to tackle all the possible questions.
- [31:70] The ideal people for Perry to debate with… in his view.
- [32:25] The harsh responses of the “New Atheists” and why Perry targeted them with his responses.
- [43:50] The major omissions in evolutionary literature as a whole.
- [48:39] Why both sides of the debate are missing the biggest revelation of all.
- [49:00] Where atheists are correct.
- [51:20] The primary things that have changed in Perry’s thinking.
- [58:56] What Perry thinks God really wants to show us.
- [59:40] The $100,000 prize challenge Perry is making.
- [1:09:45] The likelihood that someone outside the field of biology will figure it out.
- [1:13:15] Scientists that Perry thinks would agree with him.
- [1:18:50] Perry’s response to a 7 paragraph 1 star review on Amazon.
- [1:22:45] The 7 year debate Perry had on the Infidels website.
- [1:24:44] How you can get 3 free chapters of Perry’s book.
- [1:27:30] Why Perry thinks people have to convinced themselves that God doesn’t exist.
Perry’s personal resources
- www.CosmicFingerPrints.com – Perry’s website
- Perry’s book: “Evolution 2.0: Breaking the Deadlock Between Darwin and Design.”
- The $100,000 Prize
- William Sikkema’s submission
- The “Infidels” Debate
People, Resources, and Concepts Mentioned on This Episode
- Charles Darwin
- “On The Origin of the Species” by Darwin
- Barbara McClintock
- James A. Shapiro
- Stuxnet
- Francis Crick’s central dogma
- Escher’s penrose staircase
- Bill Nye
- Richard Dawkins
- Ken Ham
- BOOK: In the Beginning was Information
- The Third Way of Evolution website
- The Miller Urey experiment
- Richard Koch’s book: Simplify
- Francis Collins – his book “The Language of God”
- Craig Venter
- Dennis Noble
- Systems Biology
- http://scholar.google.com search for “Epigenetics Lamarck”
- Jean-Baptiste Lamarck
- Jerry Coyne
- “Blink” by Malcolm Gladwell
The Art of Scientific Philosophy
by Anthony Chipoletti
Premise: There is only eternal, infinite awareness, life is the interpretation of information.
1. There is a God, or any number of gods, however, it is humanly impossible to define any god.
2. There is Absolute Goodness, aka Absolute Truth, which is also humanly impossible to define.
3. Nothing has ever been created, nor destroyed, information simply changes from time to time.
4. There are an infinite set of points of view which observe life, only one of which is human.
5. The human point of view exists only in our cosmos, among an infinite set of other cosmoses.
Thanks Anthony for sharing! What were your thoughts on the interview and Perry’s book Evolution 2.0 discussed?
have a great day
oh yeah the topic 🙂 sorry about that … actually I thought the interview was awesome !! my previous study of Perry’s book and ideas were way shallow compared to your amazing questions and comments…I LOVE the whole idea of Perry’s quest and your insights to it…I should have posted my silly ideas to Perry for his comments too…will do that if possible…will try to keep in touch here too…thanks for your help…
Hey Anthony! thanks for your thought and ideas and kind words.
Yes, definitely post your ideas and comments here!
thanks for reposting the interview..all I ask is link to this page http://www.inspiredinsider.com/perry-marshall-evolution-2-0-interview/ on your site so people have the source
thanks for the comment, I separated my silly ideas from the interview post and linked the interview as you suggested…I usually do that first 🙂
sounds great Anthony!
Hey Anthony.. not sure why you deleted the comments but hope all is well with you
oops forgot to mention i posted this interview on my blog which no one ever looks at 🙂 http://gravitonring.blogspot.com/2015/12/inspired-insider-does-god-exist-with.html
Alas, your premise is fundamentally flawed and without substance or foundation, because:
1. If there were a god, or multiple gods, then they would have to be definable (all existence results in, and requires, definition of said existence, otherwise said existence could not exist!), ergo, a god, or gods, cannot exist.
2. You’re making a declared assumption that the adjective “absolute” attaches a special meaning to the following words; it does not… Goodness and truth have been defined on many occasions throughout history; please feel free to look this up.
3. I think you’re confusing the subtle interchange between energy and matter with information, but its an easy mistake to make.
4. Nearly right, there are an infinite number of points of view and some of them are human.
5. You might be right, irrelevant but right… I guess our cosmos is quite enough reality for me, thank-you.
thanks for your comments DrPete, you are absolutely right 🙂 since life is the interpretation of information, and you are alive, you absolutely cannot be wrong 🙂 in your interpretation of your own observation…for item three probably I was thinking that all energy and all matter have their origin in information, and if that information changes then so does the form of the energy and matter that is observed, sort of like the grapefruit that spawned our cosmos contained all the crap currently comprising our cosmos, however it seems to have changed its observed form quite a bit even though there has been no known information that was added to or lost from the grapefruit, it just changed its form from time to time ?? perhaps your critique had a premise that my interpretation was the only one ?? why did you think that ?? if everyone’s interpretation was the same, what would be the purpose of communication ?? anyway i think i was proposing that in the quantum world, everything possible and impossible does exist, however it seems obvious that no human point of view can observe all that quantum stuff actually happening 🙂 also any god may not be an observed stuff, only an observing stuff, aka intangible, which is what i think any form of awareness is, intangible, and fundamentally the only stable aspect of existence, that is, all aspects of existence are capable of observation and interpretation, which by my definition, cannot ever agree with any other interpretation exactly, so we can only agree to disagree, because there is no other option possible ??
regarding item 5, i am pretty sure i was thinking that all the other cosmoses, regardless of how they spawned into existence, are not only relevant, however may soon be observable, because we are still looking for the common element or whatever it is that CERN seems to have the first clue about, that is my idea of what the graviton might be, so when i invent my graviton flashlight everyone will be able to see the infinite set of cosmoses which coexist in the same time and space which our observed cosmos does, except the gravitons have produced an entirely unique set of physics or whatever the new science will be called, that enables those cosmoses to be observed, for example, our cosmos apparently loves the photon, which enables us to see it physically, perhaps because we ourselves, as a human form, are built into to the photon fabric… http://www.msn.com/en-us/money/technology/physicists-in-europe-find-tantalizing-hints-of-a-mysterious-new-particle/ar-BBnBPl0
opps i was going to add the picture that i think might crudely represent the graviton ring which is my science fiction pen name and title 🙂 http://www.sukidog.com/jpierre/strings/dbranes.htm i think the ring might be the common factor in the formation of cosmoses, however it may be so basic a form of information that it can actually create any laws of physics or whatever the new science of cosmic elemental particles which spawn new cosmoses…god now i have a cosmic headache 🙂
Thanks for sharing Dr Pete!
Before saying anything, I just want to preface my reply by stating a couple of facts:
1.) Perry is a genius, and I have nothing but great respect for him
2.) I’m a long time customer of his, and greatly value his insights, and will continue to pay good money for them in the future.
Now, on to Evolution 2.0…
I’ve yet to read the book, but I’ve read every one of Perry’s emails and blog posts about it, and I did listen to a chunk of the above interview. I sort of feel like it’s being presented as a new concept, but it’s just theistic evolution of the Hugh Ross variety. (again, I haven’t read the book, so my opinion is only worth so much here)
Since this topic ruffles feathers on both sides of the evolution/design debate, I’ll declare myself at the outset as an intelligent design young earth creationist…just so ya know.
I feel like Perry’s content does wonder’s for the intelligent design discussion, but my concern is for the slippery slope it creates for Christianity. (not for the faith itself, but for the form it creates by fusing these two things together)
I don’t see a reason to try bridging the gap…
It seems unnecessary in my world view of course because I hold the Bible to be authoritative, infallible, inerrant, etc…Without any hint of discouragement or disagreement towards science.
If you try putting new wine into a new wine skin, it’ll burst and spill out all the wine and destroy the wine skin too…That’s sort of what I see happening here.
In an attempt to win evolutionists perhaps we destroy the faith of the young believers and do more harm than good? And while Jesus’ new wine couldn’t fit into the old traditions of Judaism, He provided a new wine skin as well…His disruption came with sure ground for everyone to stand on, whereas new wine without the skin to go with it leaves us with nothing.
I am struggling to see how these things aren’t mutually exclusive.
I guess I don’t really see the gap that’s trying to be bridged either…I feel that good observation agrees with the Biblical account of creation, and as a believer, feel no compulsion to “fit evolution in somewhere” i.e. the gap theory, or the day age theory, etc…
And HERE’S WHY:
What you gain is not worth what you lose. And you never trade what you know, for what you don’t know.
Any interpretation of Genesis that isn’t done as a historical narrative with a literal meaning isn’t compatible with the rest of the Bible…No matter what type of literary criticism/gymnastics you impose upon the text to make it fit.
Because if you go down that rabbit hole-
We have death before sin…When there’s definitely no death prior to sin, so if evolution is true (even if guided by intelligence), the gospel is negated…Death is actually apart of God’s design, not a result of rebellion.
And if it’s not due to rebellion, we have no need for a literal reading of the gospel. No real reason for Jesus’ death burial and resurrection…No Christianity at all.
I don’t feel that it’s fair to say guys like Ken Ham have used young earth creationism to “line their pockets”. You may disagree with that world view, but you have to admit it’s at least intellectually honest. He believes in the authority of scripture, and is willing to stand on that premise.
So my question, if I were having a conversation with Perry, would not be aimed towards the science, it would be aimed at the faith…If you don’t appeal towards scripture as your source of authority, rule, and practice…as trustworthy in it’s original form,…don’t you inevitably end up throwing the baby out with the bathwater?
Isn’t it all or nothing?
If you say you can throw out a literal interpretation of Genesis 1-3, you’d be in disagreement with the rest of scripture, and of course, Jesus Himself.
To reinforce my above preface, I have great respect for Perry as a thinker, and the tone of my reply is meant to be up beat, not an interrogation.
I am however curious (perhaps I just need to read the book already),…which of the above views as a Christian, does he approach the Bible with?
Day age theory?
Gap theory?
Something else?
I won’t pretend to be a biologist…from what I can tell, Perry knows a lot more about that subject than me, and the bulk of what I hear him saying is the same as what any Christian would agree with as far as the intelligence behind design.
But as someone who’s spent the last 15 years studying the scriptures, I have serious issues with both the Day age theory, and the Gap theory, so I’m curious as to what new view Perry may hold, if not one of these.
As a final thought…
Where in scripture do we see discouragement to do science? Why do people think Christianity stifles research? The glory of God is to conceal a matter, but the glory of kings is to search a matter out…Finding wisdom and knowledge are of utmost importance in the Bible…No where do I see research being condemned as unholy…if anything I see it’s pursuit as a very righteous activity.
“You cannot interpret a system by it’s missuse” – Ravi Zacharias
There may have been “Christians” in the past who have opposed scientific research by explaining away the unknown with lines like “God did it that way and that’s all you need to know”, or “His ways are higher than our ways and His thoughts are higher than our thoughts ya know…”
But that doesn’t mean that CHRISTIANITY, as taught from the source itself, encourages such an attitude.
Hopefully Perry has time to respond…(and forgive me if much of this has already been responded to in the book or the part of the video I skipped.)
Brian! wow!
thanks for sharing and I never thought of it like that… as filling a wineskin. I love that metaphor.
I also really enjoy how you disagree so respectfully. If more people were like you when they disagree the world would be a much better place.
now lets try to get Perry to way in here.
Perry has earned at least that much respect in my book over the years. What fun would the conversation be if we all got angry? I admire the 2.0 approach, I just see it as sort of a slippery slope like much of theistic evolutionary theory…You end up having to compromise the rest of your theology (as a Christian anyway) in order to fit it in, and really, we don’t need to. The pursuit of truth is what it’s all about and at the end I’m sure we’ll all find out who’s right. I appreciated the interview. Thanks for the share
Thanks Brian, what other questions would you have asked Perry in the course of the interview that I did not touch on?
Good question, perhaps I’ll have to think some up and get him on for an interview myself! He’s been very gracious to give his time for these types of conversations and more. Check out his interview on “Why God cares about business” on my blog (shameless plug) at brianowens.biz. I think you did a good job with the questions honestly. Enjoyed the parts of the conversation I took in (about the last 30-40 minutes). Will try to take it all in this week and see what rabbit trails we can further explore
Brian,
You’re asking good questions. You’re on the brink of becoming an atheist – I’m so proud. 🙂
Here’s why:
You assume in your comment that evolution and your view of Christianity cannot coexist. As a recovering young earth creationist, I agree with you. Richard Dawkins agrees too.
If the Christian God has to fit into young earth creationism, then your God will crumble upon investigation, and he will crumble quickly if you pursue truth, regardless of where it leads you. If you believe based on fear of “what you will lose,” then you are clinging to a story, rather than pursuing truth.
You asked an important question:
“Where in scripture do we see discouragement to do science? Why do people think Christianity stifles research?”
You answered this question several times in your own comment:
1) “I’ll declare myself at the outset as an intelligent design young earth creationist.”
2) “I hold the Bible to be authoritative, infallible, inerrant, etc.”
3) “Any interpretation of Genesis that isn’t done as a historical narrative with a literal meaning isn’t compatible with the rest of the Bible.”
These are all story-based beliefs. You believe in a story that cannot be tested objectively. In fact, when pursued objectively, they all crumble. Therefore, they are all in opposition to science and/or an objective search for truth.
Perry pursued truth, and he found God. Cool for him, although he came from a religious background, so he is biased. You pursue the Bible as your source of truth, so when you read science and see a contradiction, you have to defend your faith.
“Isn’t it all or nothing? If you say you can throw out a literal interpretation of Genesis 1-3, you’d be in disagreement with the rest of scripture, and of course, Jesus Himself.”
If your religion is dependent upon this, welcome to agnosticism! 🙂
If you are not willing to throw the baby out with the bath water ,then you cannot find truth.
Full disclosure: Brian and I are friends, and we’ve had many conversations about this.
Hey everyone, it’s officially a party…Ryan Moran is here!
“Could we with ink the oceans fill, and were the skies of parchment made, were every stalk on earth a quill, and every man a scribe by trade; to write the love of God above would drain the oceans dry; nor could the scroll contain the whole, though stretched from sky to sky. ”
And a blog comment can’t even begin to hold the response I have to your post.
So I’ll request a one on one date to enjoy a cup of something good and continue where we left off last time.
Your points are well taken, but miss aimed.
So say when and I’m there old pal!
As for the greater discussion of evolution 2.0, I think Ryan is a prime example of what happens when the wineskin bursts….you’re left with nothing to stand on and both theories are mangled. So you either conclude with agnosticism, or get firmed up in one side.
But this we agree on, … the two are not compatible.
Edit for clarity: the two not being compatible refers to the Bible and evolution. But I concede theism in a more general sense is compatible
Hooray! Would love to have another in-person conversation about it. If you offend me, I’ll just walk around barefoot to connect with the earth and feel better about myself (inside joke between Brian and myself).
But your response is a perfect example of your viewpoint being a story based belief. Being compelled by the love of God is a nice story, but it cannot be tested. Therefore, it is not scientific. It’s fine in a religious context, a church, or as a conversion story, but it must stay out of the confines of science.
If “the wineskin bursts” when you pursue truth in an objective sense, that’s a very weak wineskin.
My response was a poem about the massive size of our topic and meant to illustrate why a blog comment isn’t the best place to elaborate. And still isn’t…
However, I do wonder why you are so against stories…
Long ago and far away, a princess kissed a frog and he became a prince.
Replace the kiss with BILLIONS of years and its the same fairy tale. Not observable, repeatable “science”. I like my stories better. :^)
Seriously though…full discussion elsewhere! And reply to your text messages! Lol
You just described the creation story. Replace BILLIONS with 6,000, and you find why your beliefs are anything but compatible with science/reason/logic/captainblackhat.
Oh geeze, let’s just have a Google hangout debate already. And Merry Christmas.
if you have a google hangout debate on the book let me know and will have to post a link to it! and you will of course have to at least extend an invitation to Perry also!
Oddly enough, Ryan and I probably agree on more than we disagree about with the book. Though I’ve yet to read it. But a good old fashion origins debate would be fantastic. Perhaps the first ever 3 way debate on the topic.
sounds great to me! I will see if we can make that happen. The debate of does God Exist?!
I haven’t read the book yet either, but from previous discussions with Perry I don’t think he would be what is called a “theist evolutionist”. Yes, he believes in evolution and he believes in God, but the term “theist evolutionist” is used for people who accept Darwinian evolution, but believe in God anyway. Perry accepts evolution but rejects Darwinism, as I do.
Perry is also not a young earth creationist, so there is a good chance you will not like what you hear, but his ideas are based on a scientific search for the truth.
By theistic evolution I simply mean the belief that God is behind evolution, guiding it. Darwinian evolution is more about natural selection with a bit of randomness in mutation. As for “not liking what I hear” I wouldn’t go that far…it’s a good conversation and I enjoy having it. A search for truth is what it’s all about. Science is one discipline we use in that pursuit. But as Perry said himself, the answers may come from a variety of disciplines, like philosophy, mathmatics, marketing, etc…and at the end they’ll likely meet together with the theologians who’ve been simply taking God at His word the whole time. :^)
Brian, I guess I was wrong about how you would feel in a discussion regarding evolution, sorry.
Terms can be confusing, as two people can mean two different things with the same term. The term “theistic evolution” SHOULD be interpreted the way you mean it, as God-guided evolution. The classic advocate of Theist Evolution, is Ken Miller, a Catholic. He believes fully in Darwinian evolution and he believes that God set life up to be run through a Darwinian mechanism, but God himself takes no part in guiding the process.
Recent advances in science, however, such as genome sequencing and induced evolution, have led us to a point where most Biologists are rejecting Darwinism. Our genetics change as a direct result of a change to our environment. This can be repeatedly tested and it is now clearly how things evolve, not through Darwinian randomness and selection.
For the record, I like your use of the term “Theistic Evolution” better than the way some people are using it. I was only intending to clarify some things.
No worries my friend. Thanks for the follow up!
Yes IntelligentAnimation lets get Perry in here to chime in. when you chatted with him what did he express?
My discussions with Perry were among a group of blogs on Huffington Post which were authored by a scientist named James Shapiro (he is on your reference list above). Shapiro rejects Darwinian evolution and Perry was in alignment with Shapiro’s views on the subject.
As a former Biology major, I consider the idea of life being a result of chance chemical reactions to be hopelessly impossible and frankly ridiculous. I have read Shapiro’s book “Evolution: A View from the 21st Century”, a book that drew rave reviews.
Perry and I were in strong agreement, as I recall. Intelligent agency of some kind is clearly needed for all aspects of all life. Some of this intelligent agency is our own free will, of course, but some of it is not. Genetic changes are now known to be not random, but intelligently controlled and predictable.
Perry draws connections between this clear indication of intelligence at work with his perception of God’s works, but I would prefer that he speak for himself.
St. Thomas Aquinas on Intelligent Design (with Logan Gage)
http://www.academia.edu/5188876/St._Thomas_Aquinas_on_Intelligent_Design_with_Logan_Gage_
The Essential Titus Burckhardt–chapter “The Theory of Evolution”
http://mir.cr/RRSUU4WQ
Reactions to the Theory of Evolution by Michael Negus
http://www.studiesincomparativereligion.com/public/articles/Reactions_to_the_Theory_of_Evolution-by_Michael_Negus.aspx
http://www.studiesincomparativereligion.com/uploads/ArticlePDFs/326.pdf
The Nature and Extent of Criticism of Evolutionary Theory by Osman Bakr
http://www.worldwisdom.com/public/viewpdf/default.aspx?article-title=Nature_and_Extent_of_Criticism_of_Evolutionary_Theory_by_O_Bakr.pdf
Edward Feser’s rebuttal (and much more) of Logan Gage’s critique:
Thomism versus the design argument
http://edwardfeser.blogspot.mx/2011/03/thomism-versus-design-argument.html
Also see:
http://edwardfeser.blogspot.mx/search?q=intelligent+design+roundup
The Last Superstition, St. Ausgustine’s Press, 2008.