@@ramptonarsecandle It doesn’t matter what its labeled, what we really should be focusing on is if the arguments Behe he makes are rational or not and they 100% are. Every one of his claims have never been refuted and never will be.
Sassy Not a scientist I would refer to : “ Creation science presented the theological argument from design with assertions that evolution could not explain complex molecular mechanisms, and in 1993 Michael Behe, a professor of biochemistry at Lehigh University, presented these arguments in a revised version of the school textbook Of Pandas and People.[4] In his 1996 book Darwin's Black Box he called this concept irreducible complexity and said it made evolution through natural selection of random mutations impossible.[5][need quotation to verify] This was based on the mistaken assumption that evolution relies on improvement of existing functions, ignoring how complex adaptations originate from changes in function, and disregarding published research.[4] Evolutionary biologists have published rebuttals showing how systems discussed by Behe can evolve,[6][7] and examples documented through comparative genomics show that complex molecular systems are formed by the addition of components as revealed by different temporal origins of their proteins.[8][9]” In the 2005 Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District trial, Behe gave testimony on the subject of irreducible complexity. The court found that "Professor Behe's claim for irreducible complexity has been refuted in peer-reviewed research papers and has been rejected by the scientific community at large."
@@MartTLS Sir, Behe looked at the published research and he was astounded to find nothing to explain how information was placed into the genetic code to begin with. Have you read his book? He explains this carefully and quite convincingly. Only people that fear the truth that God may exist are deniers of these findings. And what's worse, the disagreements among scientists are being kept away from the public. They will not tell students that the facade of evolutionary theory has cracked. And this is why schools are dangerous.
Sassy Evolutionary theory hasn’t cracked . Citation required. Intelligent design is an hypothesis at best . Show me what its proponents are intending to teach us other than “god did it “ .
@@MartTLS Your ears are open but you aren't listening. Isn't that the problem? You want your worldview to be true, so you are not objectively listening to anything that doesn't support that worldview. I too once accepted that evolution was true because I trusted my professors in college. It takes great scientific minds like Behe, not Bible thumpers, to explain the science that brings into question the false claims of evolution today. If you're honest, "the truth truly does set you free." Follow the truth and don't fear that it may take you to an Intelligent Designer.
Sassy Nope because evolution isn’t a worldview it’s science and nothing in science invokes a god . You need to come up with some convincing evidence of a god or intelligent designer first you can’t just infer that one exists in order to explain everything you don’t understand. And which false claims in evolution are you referring to ? If something is incorrect it’s thrown out out . Scientists are competitive and try to disprove things as well as trying to find an explanation . If the truth led to a designer we’d all want to know but it doesn’t. Intelligent design proponents are very transparent although they try not to be . They are looking for a way of getting creationism into the science class under the guise of intelligent design and so far they’ve failed miserably thank god .
To illustrate the honesty of most creationists and ID proponents this is a statement from Kurt Wise basically saying he's quite happy to lie if it comes to it, and it would appear it has. "Although there are scientific reasons for accepting a young earth, I am a young-age creationist because that is my understanding of the Scripture. As I shared with my professors years ago when I was in college, if all the evidence in the universe turns against creationism, I would be the first to admit it, but I would still be a creationist because that is what the Word of God seems to indicate. Here I must stand." Dr K. Wise from In Six Days. News for you Kurt, all the evidence has turned against creationism.
David Weeks, aka Van Smack, wrote, "To illustrate the honesty of most creationists and ID proponents this is a statement from Kurt Wise basically saying he's quite happy to lie if it comes to it, and it would appear it has." -- "Although there are scientific reasons for accepting a young earth, I am a young-age creationist because that is my understanding of the Scripture. As I shared with my professors years ago when I was in college, if all the evidence in the universe turns against creationism, I would be the first to admit it, but I would still be a creationist because that is what the Word of God seems to indicate. Here I must stand." Dr K. Wise from In Six Days. Where did Kurt Wise say he would be happy to lie, bonehead? Wise said what any rational person would say, that he believes the truth of God's Word over the instability of scientific so-called "evidence," which changes like the wind. Remember, it was not too many centuries ago that the leadership of your cult was burning people at the stake for denying the pagan doctrine of Aristotle. Today's leaders of your cult would be happy to burn at the stake those who deny the pagan doctrine of Charlie Darwin, if they could get away with it. Quit lying, bonehead. =========================== David Weeks, aka Van Smack, wrote, "News for you Kurt, all the evidence has turned against creationism." News for you, bonehead. All scientific evidence has turned against evolutionism. Dan
HomicideHenry - Yep, keep repeating the same falsehoods that were debunked decades ago. Behe is wasting his time. He'll never find anything that can't be explained as having an evolutionary cause. That's because everything evolved from slime, simple as that.
@@TyrellWellickEcorp - The assertion stems from the clear interrelatedness of all living things. That's written in the Fossil and Geological record and now in the Genes. Pick Behe's best argument of one specific case, and let's see how it stands up to scrutiny. Everything he's ever claimed has had a better and simpler Evolutionary explanation. First it was the Eye, then the Flagellum. both of which have Evolutionary roots. What's IDs explanation of the merging of Chromosome 2? You probably haven't even heard of that if all you do is visit Creationist sites and listen to the echo of your own voice, telling you what you want to hear.
"ZERO DESIGN in our bodies and within nature." This phrase wonderfully sums up the whole of atheistic thought on existence. These people are not on the same page as...thinking people. You simply are not. "And the light shineth in darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it."
@@joefriday2275 No, that's all a creationist LIE!! Crick had NO doubt about it Evolving, he brought up panspermia merely because organic molecule signatures had been found in deep space by radio-telescopes. He had the thought that if we didn't know where the nucleobases came from, it might have been that they form in space. He did NOT think that "little green men" must have sent them! Avi Loeb is laughed at, and not an atheist. No, there is NO evidence that the universal constants even COULD have different values than they do, so fine-tuning is dead. And no, no atheists I know believe such crap. This kind of crap is made-up by creationists. And fully 99.9% of ALL life scientists accept Evolution by Natural Selection with Common Descent and Ancestry. It is more accepted than even a decade ago by actual polling.
@@rstevewarmorycom You ate up every morsel of the bait from fake-ass propaganda spewers. They sit here and tell you that straight white conservatives are the greatest threat while communists spend ALL OF 2020 burning this country down.
"If Behe's formulation of intelligent design as science is illogical, his mechanism for how the work of the designer was inserted into living systems is almost laughable." "Creationists who believe that Behe is on their side should proceed with caution - he states very clearly that evolution can produce new species, and that human beings are one of those species."~National Council for Science Education ncse.com/library-resource/review-michael-behes-darwins-black-box
@@lrvogt1257 well I for one would not be so quick to trust the words or Kennith Miller for his blatant attempts to not awnsers any questions directly live. He's a back stabber that loves the make videos trying to discredit people who are not there to defend themselves. And Behe's latest books and articles suggest nothing about evolution making new species, he is still behind devolution and so am I.
@@blade5819 70% of Evangelicals have been taken in by Trump's lie of election fraud, and would vote for him again. Creationism is never going to have any clout in science, but that's not the point anyway. The point is to soften up the brains of people like you so you'll ignore any distinction between truth and falsehood.
Dr. Will Provine was an outspoken evolutionist and professor of the history of human biology at Cornell University. He stated the following: • "No gods, no life after death, no ultimate foundation for ethics, no ultimate meaning in life and no human free will, are all deeply connected to an evolutionary perspective. You’re here today and you’re gone tomorrow, and that’s all there is to it." • "If you believe in evolution you can’t hope for there being any free will. There’s no hope whatsoever of there being any deep meaning in human life. We live, we die, and we’re gone, we’re absolutely gone when we die."
Thank you for all your videos; at the very least it's thought provoking stuff. And for not disabling comments. (Sadly this can't be taken for granted these days.) However, the actually interesting thing for me is missing: How do Mr Behe's views compare to those of the audience in an open Q&A? (But then again, maybe that wasn't even held or recorded.)
I am so excited to find this video. In 1999, while living briefly in London, I Lund His Black Box book on a garbage heap and read it cover to cover. I was so thrilled that he based his book on his scientific discovery only and hoped that it would somehow be accepted by the scientific community that distrusted Christians. Zinsendorf was instrumental in supporting the Neudietendorf Moravian community in East Germany. Where I visited. There is a seminary there now.
@@ideasmatter4737 Ah ok, so you didn't think a creator existed before you read it and now you do. Is that what you're saying? Remember, I won't know if you're lying but god will, right?
Why courageous? He hasn't suffered for his beliefs has he, In fact he has probably made a few bob from his publications and appearances. I don't say that his beliefs aren't genuinely held but lets not elevate him to a sainthood yet.
@@01MeuCanal The scientific community is far more open minded and tolerant than the Discovery Institute likes to pretend. Though his theories are dismissed by the vast majority of people with a good knowledge of Biology this is more than compensated for by the adulation accorded to him by people who know didily-squat about evolution.
Van Smack, you wrote, "i can address what I've heard and read Meyer say because he's been saying the same things for at least 15 years. He never gets tired of repeating the same mistakes over and over again. Never gets tired of mentioning Charles Darwin or saying Darwinist or Darwinian or Darwinism. No real scientists do that." This fellow uses the word Darwinism, and he seems to think he is a real scientist: _"Generally, however, the misunderstandings and hostilities among evolutionists are frightening. Many if not most Christian evolutionists, following in the tradition of Teilhard de Chardin, reject twentieth-century biology or strive desperately to supplement or replace Darwinism. Few are quite as candid as Keith Ward, but one finds it hard not to suspect similar motives at work among people like Rolston. In part, this stems from an understandable dislike of the strident and intentionally hurtful atheism of Dawkins and his kind. Who would want to agree with such a person, even about science? In part, discomfort with modern science comes because Christians find Darwinism itself too challenging. But at least the Christian evolutionists strike a civil tone in their critiques." [Michael Ruse, "The Evolution-Creation Struggle." Harvard University Press, 2005, Conclusion, pp.273-74]_ I'll bet this fellow thinks he is a real scientist, as well: _"So life may have begun with something comparatively simple - a population of small replicating molecules, say. Perhaps these molecules are simple enough to form spontaneously in many environments; they may even be forming on Earth today. Once the initial molecular replicators get going then Darwinian evolution can kick in, driving the complexity higher and higher, until something approaching the familiar living cell eventually emerges. The important point is that Darwinism doesn't have to wait for cellular life to arise before it can work its spell; it could be equally effective at the molecular level." [Paul Davies, "The Eerie Silence: Are We Alone in the Universe?". Penguin Books Limited, 2011, Chap.2]_ I'll bet this fellow does, too (but whether he is a scientist or not is debatable): _"So what is "Darwinism"? This simple and profoundly beautiful theory, the theory of evolution by natural selection, has been so often misunderstood, and even on occasion maliciously misstated, that it is worth pausing for a moment to set out its essential points and claims. We'll be coming back to these repeatedly as we consider the evidence for each." [Jerry A. Coyne, "Why Evolution is True." Oxford University Press, 2009, Chap.1, p.3]_ This fellow does, too: _"The foundations for the critically important synthesis of Darwinism and genetics were set in the late 1920s and early 1930s by the trio of outstanding theoretical geneticists: Ronald Fisher, Sewall Wright, and J. B. S. Haldane. They applied rigorous mathematics and statistics to develop an idealized description of the evolution of biological populations. The great statistician Fisher apparently was the first to see that, far from damning Darwinism, genetics provided a natural, solid foundation for Darwinian evolution. Fisher summarized his conclusions in the seminal 1930 book The Genetical Theory of Natural Selection (Fisher, 1930), a tome second perhaps only to Darwin's Origin in its importance for evolutionary biology.5 This was the beginning of a spectacular revival of Darwinism that later became known as Modern Synthesis" [Eugene V. Koonin, "The Logic of Chance: The Nature and Origin of Biological Evolution." FT Press Science, 2012, p.7]_ Trolls are always spouting off about things they know nothing about. BTW, Stephen Meyer is a genius. That is why you cannot understand him. Dan
Van Smack, you wrote, "Reverend Meyer is simply trotting out the "random accident" strawman fallacy again mixed with the same old worn out Argument from Ignorance to preach the extreme unlikelihood of cellular evolution." Cellular evolution is beyond "extremely unlikely." A more accurate description is "impossible". ================= Van Smack, you wrote, "He not so carefully details the complex structure and inner workings of a single cell with all of its DNA, RNA and various organelles, "information," that perform so efficiently (most of the time) their complicated, intricate tasks." The cell is, by far, the most complicated thing on the planet, not to mention being a living, robotic manufacturing facility that repairs and maintains itself.
================= Van Smack, you wrote, "Creationists aren't the only people who wonder how a cell could form naturally." Creationists do not wonder about that. We know exactly how cells form, which is from other cells of the same kind, the first of which was created by God. ================= Van Smack, you wrote, "Even those who accept evolutionary theory in its entirety will say that the first cells could not have benefited from the accumulated advantages of previous natural selection." I couldn't help but notice that you used the words "accept evolutionary theory," which is an admission that you have faith that evolution is true -- that evolution is your religion. ================= Van Smack, you wrote, "So the question is how could such intricate structures originate without a designer's intervention? The answer should be easy for everyone but thanks to the failure of science education especially here in the U.S. coupled with confusing religious propaganda disguised as science from various creationist ministries like the Discovery Institute, it isn't." Science education went downhill when the pseudoscientific doctrines of Charlie Darwin and Charlie Lyell infiltrated the education system. ================= Van Smack, you wrote, "Of course ancient cellular life didn't contain the complex DNA, nucleic acids and organelles or "information" found inside modern cells." You know nothing about ancient cellular life. All major phyla that exists today showed up in the Cambrian, and there is no scientific evidence that any organism preceded them. ================= Van Smack, you wrote, "As they do with the complexity of the eye argument, creationists cite a modern example that is the result of four billion years of cellular evolution and wonder how such a complex structure could just randomly pop into existence. Of course it couldn't and no origins of life researcher would claim that it did or could." The human eye is an engineering marvel, with it's own molecular form of fiber optics, that could have came into existence only by a supernatural being. If you want to hear something really funny, listen to any evolutionist try to explain eye evolution. ================= Van Smack, you wrote, "The first cells contained no nucleus at all, no "information" and were bare structures that consisted of mostly just an exterior membrane." You don't know that. ================= Van Smack, you wrote, "Biological membranes form quite easily and spontaneously from simple lipids and water. Experiments have repeatedly shown that amino acids which are the building blocks of cell proteins easily form from a mixture of ammonia, methane, water and hydrogen gas. The molecules of life naturally assemble themselves from a few basic, easily available ingredients. The origin of life required only organic molecules, water and, millions of years to develop." You should listen to this lecture by organic chemist, Dr. James Tour, unless you enjoy making a fool out of yourself: ruclips.net/video/zU7Lww-sBPg/видео.html ================= Van Smack, you wrote, "Reverend Meyer's argument demands a lottery-like instant winner, rather than a gradual accumulation of adaptations through natural selection." Natural selection doesn't select anything, since it has no creative power. Rather it is a meaningless term for "whatever survives, survives." ================= Van Smack, you wrote, "We know that life can occur and actually thrive in conditions scientists previously thought would be completely inhospitable to biological systems, such as in near-boiling hydrothermal vents on the ocean floor and even in poison methane ice." Craig Venter discusses that here: ruclips.net/video/xIHMnD2FDeY/видео.htmlm43s Venter is just as clueless as everyone else about how life formed. Dan
The point of this discussion is not to supplant evolution with creationism. Rather, I think the more important point is that scientists who hold on to their dogma of evolution have become unscientific in their thinking. They would rather ignore the problems of the evolutionary theory because it just may lead to an "archaic" notion of a Creator. If scientists will be true to themselves, they must acknowledge those problems and try to work through them using the scientific method, instead of just sweeping them under the rug.
Ink Black You aren’t even close to being close. You may want to go back to the beginning and start over. Throw away the garbage that you were taught and think for yourself of how evidence says nothing and you are listening to fallible people’s interpretations of evidence. Not meant to be offensive. I’ve studied evolution for decades. It’s wrong. There’s absolutely no facts presented. Just fantasy. A very good sci-fi fantasy. Don’t listen to the people, look at the evidence for yourself. Go to the Smithsonian and ask to see the non-public exhibits. I dunno if they still have them. But actually look yourself and make your own mind up. Nobody wants to be told what to do, especially by an invisible being that made up all the rules, but he came here and suffered for real went through all kinds of crap that we have to go through and then died the worst death imaginable. The word excruciating came from being crucified. Ever hear the phrase “sacrifices HAVE to be made”? Truth.
Ferdinand Nicolas We are a product of the Cosmos, that can not denied. Is the Cosmos an entity with Intelligence? A memory? A moral code? That's the BIG question, now isn't it. Science might just discovery one day that a god exists, but I don't think preaching ID, with evidence that science does not have ALL the answers, is honest. We all know science does not have all the answers. God being so big, shouldn't be too had YOU to find and prove, right? So prove God exits by using the scientific method and you might convince skeptics like me.
Junelle Salmon Janelle, another one that believes that ID proves that Jesus was the son of the creator. ID proves no such thing. That is a giant leap religious people take. ID doesn't prove legitimacy of the many varieties of Christianity, Islam, or Judaism.
If my phone is not waterproof, does that mean it is as useful as a rock or a twig for communicating? In other words, if you find, in your infinite wisdom, a shortcoming in a particular quality, does that negate the totality of identified function? Obviously not. But that seems to be the totality of the argument against design.
@@thomasaskew1985 do u consider yourself wise? Hmm can you heal the blind raise the dead cleanse lepers forgive sin , conquer death convert billions to follow you though never laid eyes on you simply upon the basis of your word.You aint no match for Jesus...and proof he makes fools outa people like you
@@thomasaskew1985it all boils down to who do I believe God or man...now unlike u I did research , claims that evolution is science ...very strong ,convincing ..as a child I believed it was proven , for the men in white coats carrying clipboards with PHDs said it was fact...just one problem God revealed his word to me , I negan to do what he said , shock it worked...my life started to be productive and worthwhile...but what about evolution.? The answer was a choice ..who do I believe ...those men in the whitecoats with PHDs or God...I went with God...our science has to be wrong I concluded...38 yrs later I have tested what those PHDs claimed and found they were indeed wrong , not by sincere error but by bias belief , anti God bias, so all there work was tainted...they attacked villified denigrated any who exposed their falsified proof , as do you. I know my redeemer lives and long after this body is eaten by worms I shall stand again upon the earth and in my body I shall behold Him with my own eyes He that rescued me by laying down his life for my sin...repemt Tommy trust in Jesus
The factory, bcstractor, resides within the designed product, itself - the biologic cell. The cells, equipped with the design code contained in DNA, routinely go about the business of both building biologic components, like human eyes, and maintaining them. The more that microbiologists explore the profound complexity and operational elegance of human cells, in particular, the more it becomes reasonable to conclude that life forms have been designed. That is to say, the mathematical probability that the complexity of biologic forms has randomly become manifest, over ANY amount of time, is inversely proportional to the immensity of that complexity, which continually increases with ever more deeply probing scientific observations. And, inescapably, nothing that transpires on the cellular level could even be possible without the underlying order of molecular, atomic and subatomic structures which represent even more cohesive complexity. There may very well be a God who, metaphorically speaking, created the sandbox and put the toys in it. But he didn't instruct us to break the toys and poop in the sandbox. That's on us.
So are you saying that eyes evolved in gradual steps by mutation and other evolutionary mechanisms but these steps are directed rather than random? I agree with you, that we are responsible for not pooping in the sandbox and it is regrettable that the Discovery Institute is now campaigning against Climate Change Science ( but that is another subject). I know I am being pedantic but Microbiologists don’t study human cells.
@@neilthompson8668 You missed the obvious point that life and the universe were designed and not a result of random chance. The odds that the universe happened without predetermined design parameters/random chance is so low it is zero. Like winning the lottery a trillion times in a row using the same numbers. NOT POSSIBLE by scientific standards!
@@neilthompson8668 Merriam-Webster microbiology definition: a branch of biology dealing with microscopic forms of life. A human cell is a life form, is it not?
@@rstevewarmorycom If you're talkin' to me, pea brain, I'm happy to report that I hold a BS in Electrical Engineering with a minor in philosophy. I also compose music and write books, as opposed to burning them like a militant Creation-denying fascist.
Changes or mutations plus entropy equals devolution. Granted a very bright one, but a twelve year old could figure that out, but we’ve only figured this out in the last twenty years. This in itself is the best argument for devolution.
I looked up the significant backlash from the scientific community against Behe and he is to be commended for his courage and integrity. God will reward those who take a stand for Truth! "If you deny Me before men, I will deny YOU when I stand before My Father in heaven..."
The backlash against Behe is because he wants to teach pseudoscience along with real science. It opens the door to creationist nonsense being taught as well. That’s why the judge in the Dover trial was asked if ID passed the Lemon tests. If a religious belief is the same as a scientific fact the USA government will allow it to be taught in the public schools. Behe said that he could prove that his beliefs were scientific and he and the rest of the IDers failed miserably . Evidence came to light during the trial and afterwards that ID was going to be used as a sneaky way to get creationist pseudoscience ideas taught as science which is illegal in the USA. The scientific backlash against ID (and Behe )is well deserved.
Keep in mind that Behe is not a traditional creationist . He accepts common descent evolution and the old age of the earth and thinks that YECs are ignorant. He’s not been very vocal about them lately because they buy his books
If you look closely, ALL evolutionists, when presented with alternative theory, fall back on one of 4 known options as a starting point for rebuttal: A. Name-calling. B. Derision (i.e., mockery) c. Prevarication D. Truthful discussion. And, of course, the vast majority fall back on the pillow of repetition as well (advocating for the truthfulness of a lie on the grounds that lots of people believe it) -- whilst incorporating an admixture of the first 3 options as their main point. It took David Weeks (commenting below) just a few sentences of blustering outrage at discovering an elephant in the room before he descended into the safety of options A. , B, and C. Then he cites a number of like-minded sources as a bolster for his child-like outrage that anyone question his gods (atheism and its proponents). Since evolution is a theory -- need I repeat that -- A THEORY, not a fact. Not a proven scientifically repeatable fact -- I do not see the problem with conflicting theories standing or falling on their own merit. Lots of people believing, for example: life on our planet originated when seeded by space aliens from another universe who sprinkled our oceans with pixie dust containing viable spores of living stuff, has been postulated by atheists such as Richard Dawkins (who now wishes his tongue had been cut out before he semi-advocated for this theory). However, both he and Darwin share common ground on the key issue: They both wanted GOD out of the discussion. "I am determined to escape from GOD at all costs," was stated by Darwin in his Origin of The Species masterpiece. This was his driving force throughout his wretched life. (You can read all about him, if you like, and decide for yourselves whether or not "wretched" is a proper adjective to inject -- I read enough to convince me it is.) In fact, an escape from GOD is the focal point for every theory that runs counter to creationism. I believe THAT is perfectly alright! But counter-theorists should admit it up front because NO ONE KNOWS for sure what happened in the beginning; but eliminating GOD as a starting point is just one option to be accepted or rejected on faith.
Sorry but you just look very incompetent as you clearly don't understand the difference between "theory" and "scientific theory". Maybe look at it before making silly comments. And if you look through these comments and are honest then you'll see that it is in fact the ID and creationist proponents that start with the name calling. You're correct that we don't know what happened in the beginning but the default option is definitely not a god, yours or anybody else's.
@@ramptonarsecandle ,,,"silly^ -- *incompetent" ...? Why David, methinks thou protesth too much. I'm pleased to have struck a chord. And thank you for the last sentence of your disappointingly weak retort ...it absolutely validated the gist of my entire point.
Al Anton let's be honest until you can prove the existence of your god you have no case, this why your friends here resort to name calling, they have nothing else. I've tried my best to understand ID but nobody can explain it to me which, as you can imagine I find a bit odd especially as you all claim to be experts. So if you can start with evidence for your particular god, actually don't bother as we both know you can't so it's pointless you trying. Therefore your whole dogma is shot through with holes so I see little point in continuing this. You have nothing but empty rhetoric and I suspect you realise that 99% on scientists agree with me. Even Behe's son has given him up as a nutter which I found amusing, Behe made him live in the cellar when he found out, nice person. If none of you know how ID works what future has it? None is the only answer especially if you can't prove the existence of the key piece of the puzzle. Sad but true. Good luck, you're going to need it
@@davidweeks3981 Honesty? You want honesty? Try wearing some for yourself. "God" is simply a designated word for a "First Cause" or "Prime Mover." Evolutionists will not acknowledge Him (or It) or anything at all as "That which was (and is) in the beginning!" They then are forced to believe that NOTHING created the universe and everything in it. They do away with the "Prime Mover." This begs a question: If ever there was a time when nothing existed, what could there possibly be now? The answer -- figured out a long, long time ago, by the way -- is: Ex nihilo, nihilo fit." In other words, NOTHING! There was Nobody to do everything. And so, the evolutionists' equation is: Nobody times Nothing equals Everything. See a problem with that? Once embraced, that equation is a HUGE problem -- bigger even than creation or evolution combined -- because it is absurd. And since there is no answer to absurdity, evolutionists have danced around that issue for over 150 years. Now, when they are being pressured to answer for their own absurdity, they implement the options I named above to deal with the issue -- with the exception of option #4 (truthful discussion) because that option has been obviated by their embracement of absurdity. However, I have a few other ideas worth some ink. You mentioned a slew of supposedly damning facts about Michael Behe -- that his colleagues think he's a kook, he was mean to his kid, etc. I don't doubt these are wonderful proofs for validating the theory of evolution, but let's be equal-minded with the "ad hominum" attacks. Tit for tat, so to speak. Are you aware that Darwin brought his own guns aboard the Beagle because he hoped he would have an opportunity to kill cannibals? (That is called "murder", by the way.) Did you know he also enjoyed (as a young man) torturing puppies to death? And birds also? His torture instrument of preference is said to have been a small hammer. Perhaps he opined that continually beating a caged puppy on the head would eventually cause it to mutate into a porcupine or a seahorse before it mercifully bled to death. Unfortunately, we'll never know for sure. I for one, have always assumed that he just enjoyed hearing animals squeal with pain. Perhaps he had more altruistic motives ...but I doubt it. Now do you want to continue with the useless AD HOMINUM attacks? Or would you rather stick to the argument? Wait. That's right ...I almost forgot ...you have no argument; hence, the employment of A and B with a few "ad hominums" thrown in as an extra attraction. In the past, my discussion with evolutionists regarding "proof" has been much briefer. For example: ME: I believe in a Creator-God. EVOLUTIONIST: You're an idiot. (end of discussion) And then the evolutionist abandons the arena, quite confident he has won the day for Darwinism and the theory of evolution. However, there was a time when I resented such a terse argument because it lacked clarity. But then one day that simplistic answer was expanded: ME: I believe in a Creator God. EVOLUSIONIST: You're a FUCKIN' idiot. (end of discussion) In the face of such overwhelming proof, I have been, at times, close to capitulation. Nonetheless, I have stayed my ground. Logic, after all, NOT science, is at the root of all substantive beliefs. And with that thought on which to ruminate, I must now say, "Good night" -- until next time.
@@davidweeks3981 "I've tried my best to understand ID but nobody can explain it to me" I'll explain ID. Intelligent Design 1) Design is a scientifically observable cause. 2) All things are either ordered by nature or designed 3) ID is the process of developing the scientific tools necessary to distinguish the order created by nature and that created by design A simple question to highlight ID: How can we know, using scientific methods, that a particular pattern of rock is a statue created by an artist and another pattern is simply erosion of stone by nature? ID is the theory creating the tools to answers questions like this. The irony for evolutionists is that ID is developing the very tools needed to prove evolution. If everything is either formed naturally or designed, and you want to claim that something is formed naturally, then you would need a scientific method for distinguishing these two causes. Evolutionists are afraid of what that might reveal so they fight the advancement of tools of science when it would conflict with their presuppositions.
I read through many of the comments here, and it is clear to me that nearly all of the negative comments are from people who have not yet read Behe's books.
Bandog Bone - Behe's position is well known, his books just perpetuate the same failed claims that were debunked decades ago. He's never found anything that can't be explained by Evolution. The eye, was one claim, then the flagellum. Both have Evolutionary explanations and he well knows that. He's simply not being honest by repeating the same falsehoods.
He's a known creationist kook. RationalWiki AND Wikipedia. He misquoted Kimura and doesn't want to deal with it in peer-review. He's barely employed as a retired associate professor. His book sells only to other creationists.
rstevewarmorycom, you wrote, "[Dr. John Sanford is] a known creationist kook. RationalWiki AND Wikipedia. He misquoted Kimura and doesn't want to deal with it in peer-review. He's barely employed as a retired associate professor." Only a loony evolutionism quack would rely on Wikipedia for anything other than science fiction. ================== rstevewarmorycom, you wrote, "His book sells only to other creationists." Only a fool would believe you, Steve. This is the same Dr. John Sanford giving a Lecture at the National Institute of Health: ruclips.net/video/2Mfn2upw-O8/видео.html And, NO, Dr. Sanford did not misquote Kimura.
dancingnature, you wrote, "You’d have to be seriously ignorant of even elementary school science or geology to claim that the earth is young" You have to be seriously brainwashed by the scientific orthodoxy to believe the earth is old. Dan
I’ve never met a creationist yet who has actual evidence for their claims . I’ve been asking for 35 years now. They’ll insult or bluster and misuse science terminology . But they don’t have evidence. Scientists do have evidence of an old earth . James Hutton had evidence of the old earth and that was back in the 1700s .
May the Lord bless you and keep you. May the Lord make his face to shine upon you, and be gracious to you. May the Lord lift up his countenance upon you, and give you peace.
I've tried to get a question answered by the Discovery Institute guys, for whom I have great respect (I've read all their books), but to my disappointment, have never gotten an answer. I now suspect that the question bothers them. Here it is (as submitted to a webinar): First, my question is not combative; quite the contrary. The crew at the Discovery Institute has enlightened me to a vital aspect of How The World Really Works and I'll forever be grateful. My question relates to the base cause of speciation, but for a clear answer I'll have to pose it a certain way (Note: there may be very different answers, depending on who you ask. Michael Behe, for example, believes in common descent (as do I), the idea of which is at the root of my question. I am especially interested in the answers from those who do NOT believe in common descent): You have a photograph of your parents, right? Your father? How about your grandfather? Good chance. How about your great grandfather? If not, you can imagine one, a full body shot, say… of a man, a Caucasian, with basic ‘family features.’ Now take it further and imagine a photo of your great great grandfather, imagining the full body shot, possibly with clothes appropriate to the mid 19th century. Now do this going back to your great grandfather to the 100,000th ‘degree,’ which would be somewhere around two million years ago (20 years for each generation). Please describe the being in general appearance. Now please do the same for 5 million years ago. And so forth, going back in the huge stack of photos to the first one. What do you see? Are there ‘moments’ (photographs!) that are particularly evocative of your worldview? Is there an ‘Adam’ where the stack ends? One reason I ask this is that it seems to me that we have two and only two choices regarding the subject of speciation. Either macro-evolution (with the causal mechanism known or unknown, but almost certainly via an 'intelligent designer' of some sort) brings us back to a one-celled organism (common descent) or we have a sort of ‘Beam me down, Scotty!’ scenario, wherein species poof into existence, presumably via the will of God (or other intelligent designer). There would be many millions of these ‘miracles,’ one for each species that ever existed. (I believe in common descent because I do not believe in this scenario.) If you see a third possibility, I’m all ears. And feel free to use the thought experiment to make any point you care to about life and its development. (I pose the question this way because it forces a clear, unequivocal answer. In other forms the question can be tip-toed around.) The above is from my 'Open Letter to Michael Behe, Stephen Meyer, and Douglas Ax', which you can access here: blog.banditobooks.com/an-open-letter-to-michael-behe-stephen-meyer-and-douglas-axe/ Again, many thanks to all at the Discovery Institute. I've read all the books and look forward to those upcoming. Allan Weisbecker Note; Drs Meyer, Ax, Wells, and Nelson are a good ones to ask as they apparently believe in the Poof! Beam me down, Scotty explanation, although I doubt they would agree with my phraseology. (Maybe Dr. Behe can enlighten me, although he agrees with common descent.)
I read your comment a few days ago and did not reply sooner as you were specifically interested in comments from those who reject common descent. So far a deafening silence I also have been puzzled about how Behe can belief in common descent but reject macro-evolution. He believes that all life is descended from a common ancestor or as he puts it one kind of living organism in the ancient earth gave rise to whole bunches of other organisms (ruclips.net/video/zvS7t-Buwik/видео.html ). So he believes that elephants, geraniums and E.coli have a common ancestor but in this video he goes along with Metaxis in ridiculing the idea that whales are descended from land mammals and states categorically that dogs cannot evolve into anything else. I can only assume that he means that that such evolutionary processes cannot happen without intervention from an intelligent agency. In other words by accepting that evolution up to the level of a taxonomic order, progresses in steps via mutation, natural selection, hybridisation, genetic drift, epigenic inheritance etc. but believes that every step is directed by an intelligent agency and is part of a master plan rather than a naturalistic process. Since he believe in micro-evolution he presumably thinks that once a new taxonomic order is produced the intelligent designer then leaves everything to chance.
I became an atheist after processing evolution and comparing it to what I believed growing up. Although I was somewhat familiar with the idea of evolution and believed in it (thanks to the marginalization campaign against opposition), it wasn't until I enrolled in a human origins course in college that I really pondered what it meant. For 17 years I considered myself atheist. It wasn't until I reinvestigated evolution that I realized that I didn't give up religion. I just changed mine. One after another, the fallacies, hoaxes, projections and deceptions came to the forefront. I saw evolution/atheism as a manufactured alternative to God, not a scientific study. From its inception, one can see the 'evolution' of the idea. The more it was investigated, the more time was required because of complexity. You can see this progression in the so called increase in the Earth's age as it was required. From hundreds of thousands of years to millions, hundreds of millions to billions -enter the Big Bang. Now, opposition was easier to quiet because 'in time' this change could happen, allegedly. The hypothesis requires time, and a lot of it. Even still, probability shows more is required because the complexity of a single cell (at least what we currently know of it) is beyond even an unfathomable chance. When one looks into time and how radiometric dating is not at all what is advertised, you can go down that rabbit hole with purpose. There are so many anomalies, assumptions and circular logic, that one can only conclude that it is inconsistent, at the very best. So, where does that leave us? Well, we have what we had before, historic record, archaeological discoveries and cross referencing. That's much more reliable than diamonds that test to be older than the Earth, coal that has carbon which is impossible considering it's reported age and living seal blood that tested thousands of years old. Once I realized that evolution and much more were "lies, damned lies and statistics", I finally turned to the Bible for answers, which led be to Christ Jesus. I now am confident that creation happened EXACTLY like the Bible says. 6 days of creation for everything. Animals were created to adapt according to their "kind" or family. Equine beget equine, feline beget feline and so on. There is no common descent. Evolution is an excuse to reject God and His expectations. One can live in sin and not have anyone to tell them they are wrong. For most of us, it was subconscious. God is all powerful and could have easily directed evolution if it were true. However, He does not lie and He told us exactly how He created everything. It wasn't in a billion, million or thousand years. It was 6 days, period. I know it's not advantageous in this world to be a 'young earth creationist', but I am and I don't care if that causes me indignation or persecution. Truth is truth. So, you wanting clarity on your hypothesis of common descent is futile. The only common descent happens at a 'family' level. Anything else is vanity.
@@neilthompson8668 yes, I think that's what he believes. I know, I'm pondering the same question. I think the idea is "poof" a physical life form flies out of a portal a long time ago and just evolves at a micro level. These events happened a long time ago, prior to humans becoming conscious. For example. God flings whales and sea creatures out of the portal, has fun watching them micro evolve. Then a billion years later creates walking land animals in his super lab, flings them out of the portal and has fun watching them micro evolve. But this time he equipped the apes with all the right ingredients, opposable thumbs, primitive voice box for speech, eyes infront, robust skulls....he wanted to see how far micro evolution would take the apes.... so here we are, he's impressed and terrified....just a theory :P
Hi - what a novel question - I have not heard it framed this way before. But as you say it seems to me that how a person views this is really a world view issue anyway. Evolutionists will think of a degeneration back to lesser individuals (which is perhaps easy given previous generations have worse photos and diet lol!) and creationists will do the opposite (for example in my own case, my father was a very physical man - and I am not quite what he was - so backwards is an elevation (2nd law lol!)). However the whole idea here is to create some parity. And that starts with speech. You say "beam me down" and it seems already derogatory, but not "double-boom" from nothing, something and then something living! Each case is as incredible as the other, which I think is the point...We all gloss over the uncomfortable bits of our own narrative. And how we frame our questions pushes the narrative. In answer though - I see Adam, and I see degeneration from him. But I am an engineer lol and everything is getting worse and looks like an engine to me. (even in an open system there is failure eventually ;) Who wrote the code? I see a big engineer. Also I do not think ID is saying the bible is true, it is saying there is evidence of design. These not the same thing, and this is exactly the sort extrapolation everyone needs to get away from, so I am guessing this is why Dr Behe refers to times etc that he does. He is transitioning lol!!! But to his credit he is leading with the evidence, not the sticking to the mantra. He is becoming a science apostate lol!! He will need to be shunned...
3 года назад
@@DTK5689 excellent point. Even if we stuck with the old earth hypothesis, evolution above family level cannot happen. It is not a matter of probabilities that need more time, but a matter of metaphysics. What were the evidences that convinced you that the earth is young?
Intelligence doesn't have to be a "person" it is simply information. Morphic resonance suggests that the universe layout is much like the octaves of music, and that specific frequencies render specific field interactions, which give rise to the shape and nature of what we call "matter"
"ntelligence doesn't have to be a "person" it is simply information. "" Information does not equal intelligence. "Morphic resonance suggests that the universe layout is much like the octaves of music" You should at least mention what is in regards to. I suspect that you are referring to the CMB. The rest was just fuzzy nonsense. If you were trying to talk about emergent properties of matter you did not do a good job.
@@nojvaz2392 No. But matter can be treated as a wave. I don't think he understands the concepts he trying to talk about. Perhaps he is trying to use the Schrodinger model of Quantum Mechanics.
@mtman2 Well then there is not god and you are as imaginary as your long disproved god. You just plain refuse to think about anything that might upset your long disproved fantasy world. In our universe there is no such thing as nothing. Get an education.
If your argument against 'design' relies on demonstrating 'poor design' in living creatures, you demonstrate an understanding of neither. Sour grapes is never a dignified response.
*If your argument against 'design'............* Surely then the inverse would be true, that an argument for "design" that relies on demonstrating "good design" also demonstrates an understanding of neither, as it's the exact same argument from the opposing subjectivity.
@@zoeytrejo9747 You're very welcome. Happy Christmas I'm not sure I "proved" your point, "good" and "bad" are entirely subjective without an agreed definition, but i certainly don't disagree with it in principle. Have a great christmas.
@@ukcadjockey Merry Christmas to you too! The point is literally objective as it pertains to the object. In this case the object is a living organism. If we cannot agree that the living organism is objectively more specialized, complex or rare than inert or non-living matter, then we miss the forest for the trees. The "poor design" in a living organism, as I originally stated, misses the fact..."It's a freaking giraffe!" People pay to see them.
Berlinski asked Dawkins if he would really want to live with the metaphysical and moral ramifications of the darwinian worldview. Dawkins said no the end result could be fascism. Some say seeing is believing yet you can breath air but you can't see it. May the peace and blessings of God be upon you all... yes even to you who do not believe. The father sent His son not condemn but to save the world. My love and prayers to you all
@demigodzilla My friend I've used rationatillty and reason time and time again and I've concluded the Gospel of Jesus Christ is the only thing that has true value and meaning. It's the only thing absolute. Through my personal experiences as well. I've seen God do things that nothing you nor I or anyone can do period. There's nothing that can ever change my mind. I shouldn't be alive but I am and I'm eternally grateful to my Father in heaven. Thank you for your response. God bless you
Yup. Evolution only works if one assumes the magical mutation faerie arrives just in time every time. Or Emergence of the Gaps works its supersorcery. Now, teleology, that has some explanatory power.
Genetic mutation occurs every time replication takes place, adding variety to the genome that allows species to adapt to new and changing environments through natural selection. After many generations, variant populations are different enough from distant ancestors to require a new species classification. 99% of all species that have ever lived are now extinct. There's nothing magical about the process. Read some science before your next post.
@@MrDominex Mutations, even if they occurred every time replication took place, do not add information, they may subtract information and cause a change, usually non-beneifical, or scramble the information that's already there, but they do not add information in the process of mutating. How could they? Adaptations can occur and cause changes, but that stays within the species, it acts on the genetic information that's already there. But there has been no process observed that adds information into the genome.
@@BillMurrey Genes can become either more or less complex with each mutation, they are only made of molecules of which there is an ample supply.. You've been misled by Creationist con artists into thinking that genetic "information" is like a bank account that you can't "add" to without making something out of nothing. DNA is more like letters that change a little with each replication, resulting in slight shifts in the traits expressed. Depending on how they interact with the environment these changes may promote or inhibit further reproduction, causing some traits to become more prevalent than others in subsequent generations. Can you follow what I just wrote? Now if you repeat the phony "mutations don't add information" argument again you will have no excuse.
We must pull down every deception that is in opposition to the glory of our maker. Creation has scientific validity to be taught in schools, colleges and universities..
I disagree. It is not for us to pull down every deception. It is for everyone to tell the truth. They are not the same thing. Some people are willfully blind and we know God allows this. Maintain your convictions with humility and charity. We don't drag people to heaven as hostages.
@@zoeytrejo9747 pulling down strongholds, casting down arguments and every high thing that exalts itself against the knowledge of God, bringing every thought into captivity to the obedience of Christ”
@@rstevewarmorycom Here's something. Two basic ways to sterilize are, water, and fire. If there's something dead, we either bury it, or burn it. At the world flood, God used water to FLOOD and bury the human garbage at that time. Only 8 souls weren't counted garbage. 10 yrs from now, God is going to use fire to MELT and dissolve the human garbage. There may be a thousand souls who will not be counted garbage at that time. After the elements melt, - the Dreaded Day of the Lord. all will stand in front of the one whose eyes are as flaming fire. "Depart from me, I never knew you." Jesus hung on nails so that he could know you. He loves me. How shall we escape if we neglect so great salvation?
@@stevewiddows There was NO noah or flood, I'm a physicist, and everything you just blabbered is pure unadulterated garbage. The bible is 100% fiction, cover to cover. If you believe the bible you are an utter ignorant uneducated moron.
@@eddyeldridge7427 no he would have devowed Darwinism, because he said that if Transitional fossils are not discovered then his hypothesis would have to be discarded, and 150 years later no transitional fossils have been found.
@@domcomfermi609 Anyone who thinks transitional fossils haven't been discovered has a gross idea of what a transitional fossil is. What are you expecting? Something along the lines of a croco-duck? Or, let me guess: a "half-human, half-ape?"
@@eddyeldridge7427 Anyone who thinks that extinct animal's fossils which are similar to other present animals, are transitional, is a religious adherent. The fact that the evolutionists have been grinding and whittling fossil bones to meet their criterion is apt proof that evolution is a joke. The Nebraska man for example, only a tooth had been found, and magically the evolutionists have constructed a proto man and also his spouse, according to their "image and likeness". Only later to have been caught, that the tooth found was belonging to a pecarry. This is only one example of the hoaxes perpetrated by "honest" Darwinists. Apparently all that is needed is a rotary power tool, in the hands of a fool, presto even the " Billions of years" makes sense. Isn't it peculiar that only the evolution theory is not applicable, as science namely observable, demonstrable and reproducible ?
@@domcomfermi609 You still don't know what a transitional fossil is, yet you're still certain you do. You think Nebraska man helps your case, rather than hurts it. And you're completely convinced evolution isn't demonstrable. We not only reproduce it regularly, we use evolution daily. Not that you really care.
I'm surprised the idea of the "second code" isn't brought up more often. It used to be discarded as "junk DNA". 2% was accredited to protein design and the rest was considered junk. Now it's been proven 90 some percent of DNA is essential for life. There is a second, wholistic code that organises the proteins into a whole. The second code does not use 3 digit codons, but there is much more extensive multi-digit instruction beyond the 3 lettered system.
@@ozowen5961 DNA/ RNA often works by turning information on or off. Skin, hair and fingernail material all rely on information being turned off. Turn off hair and fingernail info and it becomes skin. 400 new switches have been discovered by ENCODE. They claim 80% of DNA is functional. I've read 90% elsewhere. It's true there's debate over the word "functional". Whatever the case the idea that only the 2% of protein coding and the rest useless remnants is untrue. In the 21st century we've learned there is much more to learn about DNA.
You confuse complexity with perfection. Many things are extraordinarily complex, but that doesn’t mean that they are the result of a guiding hand. What could be more complex than utter chaos? Intelligent designs are streamlined and simple because they are intended for a specific purpose, they either work for their purpose or they do not. Natural designs are messy and work in many different ways to one degree or another depending on changing conditions because they have no particular goal. Life evolves with each cycle, adapts and forms new species in a meandering fashion as it interacts with changing environments.
I'm atheist and i agree, and i admire his resolve in the face of so much opposition. Darwin Devolves is very interesting, although I haven't corresponded with him.
@@ukcadjockey There's a fine line between "resolve" and "ignorance". As a "scientist" he's clearly on the ignorant/denial side. FUN FACT: 97% of scientists accepts evolution as FACT, including some deeply evangelical ones: "As someone who's had the privilege of leading the human genome project, I've had the opportunity to study our own DNA instruction book at a level of detail that was never really possible before. It's also now been possible to compare our DNA with that of many other species. The evidence supporting the idea that all living things are descended from a common ancestor is truly overwhelming. I would not necessarily wish that to be so, as a Bible-believing Christian. But it is so. It does not serve faith well to try to deny that." ~~~ Francis Collins Even MORE FUN is that 51% of those very same scientists poll as being Religious. That means DESPITE their beliefs, they have either seen, or actually contributed to the literally millions (at this point) of data points that support and explain minutia of the Theory of Evolution. As Hume famously said, "the wise man apportions his beliefs to the evidence."
@@brianmi40 I would suggest the line is between his resolve to maintain his theism and his cognitive dissonance resulting from his scientific knowledge, which conflicts with that theism. In order to maintain it, he has constructed his own theory that allows him wriggle room to accept most of darwinian natural selection whilst at the same time arguing for a creator. Whilst I can see why he's attempted to do so, I think he's failed for a number of reasons. Whilst he agrees that evolutionary speciation occurs, and agrees that all apes for instance have a single common ancestor, he claims it doesn't occur beyond the class of family. In effect he draws an invisible line in the genetic tree of life that he calls "the edge of evolution", and depending on what side of this line he decides to stand he can argue for science or theism as he so chooses. The problem is that this line has no specific definition or evidence for its existence, it's purely a construct of his own personal dichotomy, to which he applies an argument from incredulity I.e. "irreducible complexity" when called upon to support his narrative. It's interesting that he uses his scientific credentials as an argument from authority to support his belief that the science is incorrect. In effect he's undermining his own argument. If science doesn't know, then how as a scientist can he know? I always ask people that support his theory that if as he claims, genes are only ever broken and "darwin devolves", but also apes share a common ancestor, are humans devolved apes? Or are apes devolved humans? Theists usually stop replying at that point , and it's easy to see why. The only theist that ever got into that discussion with me eventually agreed with me that behes ideas simply don't work, and I have the greatest respect for her for doing so publicly. Long post, sorry, I'll stop there.
Thank you for your work. I really appreciate listening to other Christians. Romans 1:20-25 20 For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities-his eternal power and divine nature-have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse. 21 For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22 Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools 23 and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like a mortal human being and birds and animals and reptiles. 24 Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. 25 They exchanged the truth about God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator-who is forever praised. Amen.
@@ukcadjockey WROTE: " Why just appreciate listening to christians? " Nice straw-man attempt at an argument. Your rewording of his comment implies that he "only" appreciates listening to Christians but that's not what he said. I like to listen to Christians too because they have the truth but we obviously don't only listen to Christians because we both responded to you.
@@rickdavis2235 *Nice straw-man attempt at an argument* I followed his insinuation, and given his subsequent answer, it appears my inference was correct. All he had to say was that he didn't just listen to christians and i would have been wrong, but he didn't, so apparently i wasn't. Therefore no strawman. *I like to listen to Christians too because they have the truth but we obviously don't only listen to Christians because we both responded to you.* What you like has no correlation whatsoever with what he likes, so my answer to you would be "nice association fallacy attempt at an argument"
The problem is that Dr Behe does not really understand how evolution works and has not supported his claim that thing that he calls irreducibly complex cannot evolve to reach the alleged state. Indeed he claimed the clotting cascade was irreducibly complex, OK MAYBE not really in this case, but that does not mean it could not evolve but he DEFINES irreducible complexity to be something that cannot evolve. Defines as opposed to proves. Its a fact free claim. Oh in the clotting cascade he claimed that that there are seven steps and they must ALL be there. Well we have seven, but whales have SIX of those seven and they do just fine with six. Clearly it was NOT irreducibly complex. So while you might like the discussion it was a two people that agree with a false claim. Dr Behe has not done so well with people that don't agree with him. Ethelred Hardrede
@@antirnator8194 " Nobody understands how evolution works yet " Who told you that silly lie. I am not the only person that understands it. LOTS of people do. " Evolutionary theory keeps mutating. And who you that lie? Its pretty well understood and has been since genetics was added. If you mean we don't know every detail of every species over billions of years that is silly because that is not theory. Its the specific history over time. Here, you TOO can learn how it works. I will tell you how it works. Then you won't be arguing from ignorance for ignorance. I think that Dr. Behe does sort of understand what I will post, its the historical details that simply refuses to think out. In Darwin's Black Box the chapter on clotting cascade implies that he thought that there was some larger animal directly competing with the first species to evolve blood and that somehow it had something equivelant to blood and clotting. No. I bet you have not any of his stuff. I have. Let me get you started in your journey to reality. How evolution works: First step in the process. Mutations happen - There are many kinds of them from single hit changes to the duplication of entire genomes, the last happens in plants not vertebrates. The most interesting kind is duplication of genes which allows one duplicate to do the old job and the new to change to take on a different job. There is ample evidence that this occurs and this is the main way that information is added to the genome. This can occur much more easily in sexually reproducing organisms due their having two copies of every gene in the first place. Second step in the process, the one Creationist pretend doesn't happen when they claim evolution is only random. Mutations are the raw change in the DNA. Natural selection carves the information from the environment into the DNA. Much like a sculptor carves an shape into the raw mass of rock. Selection is what makes it information in the sense Creationists use. The selection is by the environment. ALL the evidence supports this. Natural Selection - mutations that decrease the chances of reproduction are removed by this. It is inherent in reproduction that a decrease in the rate of successful reproduction due to a gene that isn't doing the job adequately will be lost from the gene pool. This is something that cannot not happen. Some genes INCREASE the rate of successful reproduction. Those are inherently conserved. This selection is by the environment, which also includes other members of the species, no outside intelligence is required for the environment to select out bad mutations or conserve useful mutations. The two steps of the process is all that is needed for evolution to occur. Add in geographical or reproductive isolation and speciation will occur. This is a natural process. No intelligence is needed for it occur. It occurs according to strictly local, both in space and in time, laws of chemistry and reproduction. There is no magic in it. It is as inevitable as hydrogen fusing in the Sun. If there is reproduction and there is variation then there will be evolution. Some books to get you started: Why evolution is true - Jerry A. Coyne THIS BOOK IN PARTICULAR to see just how messy and undesigned the chemistry of life is. Herding Hemingway's Cats: Understanding how Our Genes Work Book by Kat Arney This shows new organs evolving from previous organs. Limbs from fins. Your Inner Fish Book by Neil Shubin Wonderful life : the Burgess Shale and nature of history / Stephen Jay Gould Life on a Young Planet: The First Three Billions Years of Evolution on Earth Andrew H, Knoll The Dragons of Eden: Speculations on the Evolution of Human Intelligence by Carl Sagan Ethelred Hardrede
Why is it so hard for some people see or believe in an eternal an all powerful God? It’s is obvious to some. Not sure why some people deny it no matter what.
What I see is both sides have right and wrong behaviors, which as well as mocking the other side for things that they have but can't see they have as well. they both accusing each other of not listening and understand their side and not knowing or realize they are not making enough effort for the other side themself. "You should listen to those who annoy you for the off chance that you see things you cauldn't see in yourself" IF YOU DIDN't UNDERSTAND THAT'S OK, I DIDN't UNDERSTAND WHAT I HAVE WRITTEN EATHER. (～￣▽￣)～
@@ghostghost514 In charity, we need to be careful. Wise as serpents, peaceful as doves. There is one question. Is God or not. If God "is," we are bound to honor and serve Him. If there is no God, we are our own masters. The claim to naturalism precludes the possibility of God. The claim to God does not preclude naturalistic origins. The 'both sides' statement assumes the positions are equal. They are not.
Calling it "obvious" is NOT EVIDENCE. Do you have EVIDENCE beyond "calling it"? Because the evidence, especially against the GOD OF THE BIBLE, is pretty obvious, simply by an honest read of the bible itself.
@@brianmi40 sure……..we all use the obvious evidence all the time, solving crimes, when we do science, or in our day to day lives. The only time some people have a problem with it is when it is in regards to God. And it is usually the people that hate him or don’t want it to be true and are angry. Hard to see the evidence when anger or hate is your starting point.
The conversation continues with the April 16, 2019 SITC interview with physicist Stephen Meyer. Great follow up to biochemist Michael Behe interview shown here. Many will undoubtedly conclude after watching these interviews "Wow, we've been lied to!."
Stephen Meyer isn't a physicist. He got a general earth science degree, and later got a PhD in science philosophy. He's never probably taken anything more than single variable calculus.
@@davidbutler1857 Even if being a geophysicist doesn't mean anything to you, can you argue with his logic? If a housewife made the same points wouldn't the stark truth stand out for what it is? It's time to declare that the Emperor has no clothes with regards to Darwinian macroevolution as the driving force behind complex life formation. We've outgrown this myth and its time to stop lying to children about it.
David Butler Yep you can tell when he waffles in front of his congregation whenever anyone asks any probing questions he always defers to someone else some other “expert”.
Sassy No it means nothing because we know he’s bullshitting .No one in the science community takes him or intelligent design seriously. There is nothing to teach . God or some creator did it isn’t science . The best they can come up with is “irreducible complexity “ unfortunately for them we know how complex organs evolved which they continue to ignore and just keep pumping out their nonsense.
I think there is some confusion here as evidenced by comments that don't seem to be based upon the video or what would be known from by reading or following Behe. Behe doesn't, nor has as far I have read or heard from him in several years, argue on behalf of any particular source for the first state information in the cells. Actually, Stephen Myers doesn't make that argument either. Myers has, several times, explained that it's the implications that intelligent design presents that causes the push back. It's important to note that these same implications caused push back when the "big bang" was being proposed. Now that we are seeing that the top level organisms hold all of the genetic code and that the more we see actual modification, those modification are due to a degrading of the code not adding to it, we are left with the necessary question of "OK, if the first body types that existed came into existence, necessarily according to the latest research, with the most advanced and complete genetic code, where did all of this 1st stage code originate? The implication to this question are huge and it's the world view that prevents people from considering the same source that would answer all of the other big questions as well. Probably the biggest case of Occam's razor in the history of the universe.
@Joshua Opell I can see your point. In the context of my comment, which perhaps should have been expanded upon, my use of Occam's razor would reduce a near infinite number of speculations to one.
Positing evolution vs. devolution or degradation of original more complete genetic systems implies we know the purpose or goal or ultimate objective state of the organism. The change in functioning due to a mutation may simply be a discard of a no longer necessary or excessively burdensome part of the entity, allowing redirection to the entity's original or changed goal or endpoint of life. An analogy could be discard of the original tanks holding fuel for lift-off of a rocket after liftoff.
@May Ling - i once heard a old timer say this: "son you can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drink". Anyhow thanks for the funny video link and God bless you my very attractive Asian friend, in Jesus name.
@May Ling - ok so you're an American, don't know why you had to say that since that still doesn't change the fact that you're Asian. i wasn't trying to insult you or anything Sweetie by pointing out your distinct biological characteristics (Race). oh and whoever originally said that "old saying" was crazy as hell, that's like saying "you can sleep with my wife, just don't try to tell me that she tripped, fell, and landed on your D!@%."
@May Ling - Find, find woman you win.... oh and don't deny your roots Professor Ling, you should know by that the Name/Title American is a National Status, not a Race. So Sugar whether you acknowledge it or not you're a Asian American, just like I'm a Hispanic American. that's nothing to a shame about nor deny. Take care Professor May Ling..... yeah that name doesn't sound Asian at all.
@@smb123211 - Really ??? Go outside mate and look up, the Firmament stops at the Earth's atmosphere. Our God is a mighty God indeed. Here check this out, hope you learn something: ruclips.net/video/nbqtPqnOA_c/видео.html
The Human Genome Project showed that humans have as many genes as a worm basically. What makes more proteins able to be expressed in cells is epigenetic control. And interestingly there is also epigenetic evolution which is more like Lamarckism than Darwinism. Still it seems to me that creationism is also needed. I even suspect that protein folding inside cells is intelligently guided on subatomic levels, and that explains the difficulty of simulating much of protein folding even with today's most powerful supercomputers.
Epigenetics does not play the extent of the role of adaption and variation you say , more research needs to be done , though it is clear it plays some role. But nothing to do with macro evo.
Epigenetics and evolution are oxymoron. . . epigentics indicates the modifications within the coded strand. . .not variations of the mechanism genome/strand itself. . .! This very fact in the death or making a faith of Darwinian evolution. . .science has proven that to them a long time!! Genetic science has made a monkey of evolution theory. . .and any honest open minded intellectual would not be caught dead hanging on to that monkey doo doo! As far as making a choice for the other faith. . .intelligent design. . .science will inform both. . .a high probability factor is all that is left!! Lamarckism is basic Darwinian evolution. . .epigentics is British Botanist Conrad Weddington in 1905!!
@@sterlinggardiner4389 Intelligent Design is not faith. It's a logical deduction from empirical evidence......like when I find a cake baking in my oven and deduce that an intelligent agent has been in my kitchen.
@@walkergarya Highlighted reply. walkergarya. . 1 hour ago. . Nope. Religion is an empty lie.. . . So you consider the Catholics owning and operating 600+ licensed hospitals and thousands of schools ..... an empty lie?
"Irreducible Complexity" The argument: At the sub-microscopic level, biochemical systems are extremely complex, relying on elaborate interactions and feedback loops between organic enzymes, molecules of water and carbon dioxide, and the energy provided by sunlight or thermal vents. If, for example, you remove even one component of a ribosome (the giant molecule that converts the genetic information contained in DNA into the instructions to build proteins), the entire structure ceases to function. Clearly, intelligent design advocates say, such a system could not have evolved gradually, by Darwinian means, since it is "irreducibly complex" and therefore must have been created in toto as a functioning whole. Why it's flawed: The "irreducible complexity" argument makes two basic mistakes. First, it assumes that evolution is always a linear process; it's possible that the first primordial ribosome only began functioning when a random molecular component was removed, rather than added (which is an extremely improbable event in itself, but one with a high probability over hundreds of millions of years of trial and error). Second, it's often the case that the components of a biological system evolve for one reason (or for no reason at all), and then are later "exapted" for another purpose. A (previously useless) protein in a complex biological system may "discover" its true function only when another protein is randomly added-which eliminates the need for an Intelligent Designer. By Bob Strauss
All of that is just baseless assumption. Like a lot of science is. Just look at the evolutionary tree of humanity. All the bones they’ve found never create a full skeletal structure of what they claim. Like Lucy and Ardi. Once you look into what they have for “proof” of our ancient ancestors you realize it’s conjecture and assumption and almost all of it is imagined. Like Lucy. The bones they have of her actually suggest that she didn’t walk up right and was just a regular ape. CNN even showed how Lucy died; by falling out of a tree. Why would Lucy be in a tree if she was able to walk up right. Even her hands suggest that she’s just an ape. You can go through every ancestor and what we have and see many many many problems and it’s all imagined assumptions. We even found in the last decade Neanderthals mated with Humans and lived with them. By definition that makes them the same species if they can mate with humans. So Neanderthals were just humans and their assumptions are just imagined into the evolutionary tree. We can see the biggest of assumptions in science with dark matter and energy. So Occam’s razor for life suggest that a super intelligence created information, DNA the book of life. Science has not shown with a definitive answer that nature doesn’t need a creator. It just hasn’t yet and people believe, their faith in a no God is quite astounding and it’s contrary to what we actually do know and have evidence on that isn’t based on assumption. Like the whole human evolutionary tree. It’s one of the biggest scams there is.
@@treytilley333 If you think that "a super intelligence created" anything then you need to show evidence for such otherwise your comment is a baseless assertion and nothing more, if on the other hand you have evidence then I for one would like to see it. Your knowledge of the fossil record is pretty limited so I would suggest you do more research before posting comments as you run the risk of looking silly. How Lucy died is irrelevant the fact is we have a skeleton and have subsequently found more complete examples and thus proven that this transitional specie existed just as we have with every other one.
David Weeks, aka Van Smack, wrote, "Irreducible Complexity" You are an amazingly annoying troll, bonehead. =========================== David Weeks, aka Van Smack, wrote, "Why it's flawed: The "irreducible complexity" argument makes two basic mistakes. First, it assumes that evolution is always a linear process; it's possible that the first primordial ribosome only began functioning when a random molecular component was removed, rather than added (which is an extremely improbable event in itself, but one with a high probability over hundreds of millions of years of trial and error)." Why is that argument flawed? There is absolutly ZERO evidence that evolution has ever occurred. =========================== David Weeks, aka Van Smack, wrote, "Second, it's often the case that the components of a biological system evolve for one reason (or for no reason at all), and then are later "exapted" for another purpose. A (previously useless) protein in a complex biological system may "discover" its true function only when another protein is randomly added-which eliminates the need for an Intelligent Designer. By Bob Strauss" That is what is known as a just-so story. Bob Strauss has to be one of the dumbest people on the planet, smarter only than those poor souls who believe him, like you, bonehead. When are you going to refrain from copy/pasting unscientific nonsense, bonehead? Dan
The irony of arguing with someone who copies and pastes is lost on 'honest' atheists. Ha. It is not Behe who states evolution is a linear process. Imagine (if you could) the claim that it isn't. Eugenie Scott tried to talk that issue away with Dembski and failed stupendously. A small evolutionary step in the wrong direction is usually rewarded with death in utero. Bravo. As for the "components" and reason...this avoids the premise of Irreducible complexity. The target function cannot proceed the planning for it. This is Behe's point. You and your ilk, dismiss the function and attribute random assembly (if that was ever a thing) followed by brilliant functionality. Yeah, that's science...not.
@@zoeytrejo9747 can you point to where I said Behe says that evolution is linear? The problem you have is pretty well all of Behe’s work has been debunked at some point and so nobody really takes him seriously, I’m sure you’ve seen the statement made by his university? You can cry conspiracy but it doesn’t alter the fact that Behe has been proven wrong on everything he’s done. The fact I have copy and pasted some evidence is irrelevant and I obviously do that to show the comments are coming from people in authority. The fact you don’t understand is glaringly obvious as is your lack of peer reviewed evidence to back your case.
@@yakovmatityahu The fact you think evolution is a "fallacy" means you're either a creationist halfwit or just very gullible, you choose. All of Behe's "evidence" essentially boils down to irreducible complexity and god of the gap arguments (negative evidence)- which has been continuously debunked and is not evidence at all. But you keep believing and sending in your cash.
@@yakovmatityahu You don't need to be an atheist to understand evolution you just have to use your brain. The book is utter nonsense, ask yourself this - why has he not published any of his research for peer review? Watch this video " The Collapse of Intelligent Design: Kenneth R Miller Lecture" and go to 40mins in to see Behe's argument comprehensively dismantled I bet you don't.
To illustrate the (lack of) honesty of most creationists and ID proponents this is a statement from Kurt Wise basically saying he's quite happy to lie if it comes to it, and it would appear it has. "Although there are scientific reasons for accepting a young earth, I am a young-age creationist because that is my understanding of the Scripture. As I shared with my professors years ago when I was in college, if all the evidence in the universe turns against creationism, I would be the first to admit it, but I would still be a creationist because that is what the Word of God seems to indicate. Here I must stand." Dr K. Wise from In Six Days. News for you Kurt, all the evidence has turned against creationism.
David Weeks, aka Van Smack, aka Gary Walker, wrote, " News for you Kurt, all the evidence has turned against creationism." News for you, bonehead. All evidence -- in life, in the geologic column, and in the fossil record -- screams special creation. However, if you can explain how those incredibly thick, homogeneous, uneroded, unbioturbated, marine-fossil-laden, world-wide sedimentary rock layers were deposited by any means other than by a global flood, please submit your evidence. Please include in your evidence the means by which marine (ocean) fossils are found in virtually every layer, including the top-most layers. Also explain how these sedimentary rock layers folded without fracturing: mjfimages.files.wordpress.com/2014/11/folded_mountain.jpg Dan
So who was first credited as the author of the Book of Life? (A. The Creator) The highest scientific achievements are the signature of the Most High Intelligence we can name.
As a Christian I can accept that as a dogma . As someone with a science degree it’s not proven . Creationists never understand that science only deals with natural phenomena and has nothing to say about actual supernatural phenomena . Science simply cannot answer the question of whether God exists or not and since its unanswerable we don’t bother . Since we can’t say that any deity exists or not , that any deity creating anything is also a big question mark . Scientists are honest and say they can’t answer the question. Some people take that idea of methodological naturalism which is what science uses to get answers and become philosophical naturalists or atheists/agnostics even though they’re about different subjects - scientific methods and theology. Mixing theology with science just makes your answers into pseudoscience . Which is what S Meyers and M Behe do.
@@dancingnature There is NO "supernatural", it has never been seen, there is NO evidence for it!! Claiming a god exists with no evidence for it is sophistry, it is bald-faced LYING!! From the evidence we in Science CAN say whether a god exists or not, and it does NOT! There is NO evidence of any effect on reality by such a supernatural god, NOR do we have ANY foundational information as to where this god originated in history EXCEPT as a fable, a fairy tale that grew. We see NO magic, NO miracles, we see NO effects from prayer, and even the origin of the universe never points to anything like a god, the latest theories say the universe may be eternal and bouncing new versions of itself every trillion trillion years or so. Theology is a fantasy, it doesn't really exist. It is NOT that they are non-overlapping magisteria, but that the supernatural is a FAKE magisterium, it doesn't exist! Saying that someone may discover some supernatural someday is just being polite to total retards.
If only the intellectuals that populate the comment section with their profound knowledge could put into print their wisdom, they could surely take the place of Hawking, Newton, Pascal, and the likes. But no. They'd rather waste their time commenting here rather than enlightening the world with their profound and exquisite knowledge of the ways the universe works. This is sad. I beg you, comment section intellectual, write something, debate someone, please teach us! Instead of rebutting the works of those silly guys in the videos, who supposedly "researched" and know what they're talking about, why not just debunk their ideas with a very well thought out and researched work? Why waste neurons here in the comment section with these other stupid guys who oppose your unparalleled knowledge? What do they know about anything, uh?
May Ling Well case closed then! Your appeal to authority has clearly shut all mouths! What need for an actual point when you can merely say “I’m a university professor, bend your knee to me! I am your clergy and your sole arbiter of truth!”? I’ve spent just as much time in higher education as you, and that was far more than enough time to realize that “I’m a university professor” is hardly a sentence that should immediately garner my respect or my admiration, much less shut down my own reason and cause me to blindly accept anything you say.
@May Ling Oh, I'm so, so very sorry!! Forgive me your majesty! I never meant to challenge you or disrespect you! Please, have mercy on my soul! I have no idea you were a university professor, if I had known, I would've never, ever, ever, EVA, even attempted to engage with your majesty in intellectual matters. But, in the end, since the power and authority belongs to you, do with my life as your infinite wisdom, intelligence and powers sees fit. I'm your humble servant.
@May Ling my lady, you're either a top of the line troll, or your self esteem needs some hard work. No one cares about your degrees or educational achievements. But carry on if showing off makes you feel good. It is all about feelings, I know.
Thom Vogan - Behe has nothing new to say that he hasn't already said a thousand times and had rebutted just as many. It amazes me that he's still playing the same old record as the one played in the 'Dover trial' where he was humiliated. Here's a primer on 'Intelligent design'... ruclips.net/video/Ohd5uqzlwsU/видео.html
@@rogerfroud300 what a joke. The Dover trial was a sham with a Judge who plagiarized incorrect information and was thrust into the spotlight leaving him anything but impartial. The "science"has been verifiably proven false in regard to the type 3 secretion complex. Behe was right all along. If it ain't broke, then don't fix it
@@SailingTheologicalSeas - Wrong, the Dover trial exposed the falsehoods and unscientific nature of ID. Behe was forced to admit that Astrology had the same level of credibility. Read the transcript and weep. The Judge was a Christian for goodness sake. Even he could see that there simply wasn't a case for teaching ID. The excellent documentary tells the story brilliantly.
@@rogerfroud300 wow. You are so incredibly misinformed. I suggest you go back and review the lazy work done by judge Jones. Literally copied and pasted verifiably incorrect information into his ruling statement. Not only that, but the "dagger" against ID has been proven to be false. Type 3 secretion complex came after the bacterial flagellum.
@@freeinhabitant2422 Some Jewish Creationists pander to fundamentalist Christians by pretending to be impartial about religion, but their bias is clear-- they are peddling religion and don't care about science.
Creationists consider science to be the enemy and try to undermine its credibility like a defense attorney tries to smear the reputation of a witness. Science is never corrected by religion, it corrects itself because scientists are always ready to reconsider a theory in light of new data and have organized institutional procedures in place to do so.. Religious fundamentalists do not, they cling to old dogmas out of pride and spite.
Nice video - here's a thought Eric: What about a concept or an idea I can share with 1000 people or 1 person? - thats not matter - or a brain - or magnetism or electricity - its not even a thought! I can convey a concept in multiple ways - on paper - with words - down a phone - along a glass fibre - with signs - concepts or information can ride on materials but they themselves are immaterial period. The Word is what holds all together.
Behe is a tenured professor at Lehigh University. Here is the disclaimer that he posts on his web page at the university "My arguments about irreducible complexity and intelligent design are my own, and are not endorsed either by Lehigh University in general or by the Department of Biological Sciences in particular."
According to Genesis God didn't so much "create" as He "commanded" to create - the earth and the oceans. "God commanded the seas to bring forth life .... birds that flew in the sky." A strict creation would mean God is creating new species every day. Soon He will have to create a brown polar bear.
If you were a scientist and said the rain come from God then you need go no further in understanding rainfall. You wouldn't understand the wonderful systems which operate in the atmosphere, you wouldn't be able to control them and you wouldn't be able to make predictions. Maybe God does, ultimately made the rain and the animals, but that's at a hugely abstracted level. Bebe ultimately might be right and wrong. Einstein didn't disprove Newton, but Newton's view of gravity and time were incomplete. I suspect Darwin is incomplete, but it certainly explains a huge lot.
@@pruephillip1338 Your getting ahead of yourself GOD created the wonderful systems that operate in the atmosphere. DARWIN is a theory not FACT BIG BANG is a theory not FACT EVOLUTION is a theory not FACT. Gravity is a law but nobody knows for a fact what it is. I dare you to look it up. scientists dont know what gravity is and its under their nose and then they want to prove that the universe is 13.8 billion years old. and why is it that they all believe that our solar system is in the middle. GO FIGURE. If you rid GOD you are free to do say and act as you please. this is what they want. Richard Dawkins and his gang of liers Said quote" if all the evidence we have on the universe and the origin of life points to A GOD we will dismiss it coz its just not science." these liers are changing the rules of science to siut there agenda not proof or fact. this is why only 13% of scientist believe in evolution big bang theory totally. technology and science is disproving them. trust me I believed in evolution big bang etc up until I researched it 3 years ago and found out there are no facts in it. JUST THEORIES
People say we can put a man on the moon but can't cure cancer. That's a false comparison because cancer is a tougher nut to crack. Same with gravity - we understand the electron and photon, but gravity is a tougher nut. So yes, "evolution is a theory" with qualifications. The 'history of evolution' is not a theory because its well documented - legs on whales, fish with legs, birds with hand claws and early humans with small brains. But how it happens is not fully explained. But then, gravity isn't fully explained and I accept it.
I remember reading in the book Darwin’s Blackbox, Behe saying origination of life is impossible without some sort of intelligent design, but that he believes in the evolutionary biology that every organisms has a common descent. Am I sensing a radical change in his belief (of macro evolution) that he no longer holds to that?
Hailemariam Mitiku m, you wrote, "I remember reading in the book Darwin’s Blackbox, Behe saying origination of life is impossible without some sort of intelligent design, but that he believes in the evolutionary biology that every organisms has a common descent. Am I sensing a radical change in his belief (of macro evolution) that he no longer holds to that?" This is a more recent statement by Behe on common descent: _"Because design is not about common descent, the existence of fossils or even living organisms that seem intermediate between categories higher than family does not affect the argument. The design argument here is not that one higher category cannot descend from another through intermediates. Rather, the argument is that one higher category cannot descend from another by means of an unplanned process such as Darwin's mechanism. To cast doubt on design, then, it would be necessary for a critic to positively demonstrate that random, unguided processes could indeed lead to profound constructive biological change. Since that is precisely what proponents of Darwin's theory claim it can do, it seems only fair to ask them to demonstrate it to us skeptics, if they want to be taken seriously." [Chapter 6, The Family Line, in Behe, Michael J., "Darwin Devolves." HarperOne, 2019]_ Dan
You are firm of honest scientists? Take it from one of your own: Dr. Francis Collins, the head of the Human Genome Project, is also a devout evangelical Christian. Perhaps the only respectable one in the entire world. Here's what he says. 'Yes, evolution by descent from a common ancestor is clearly true. If there was any lingering doubt about the evidence from the fossil record, the study of DNA provides the strongest possible proof of our relatedness to all other living things. It's also now been possible to compare our DNA with that of many other species. The evidence supporting the idea that all living things are descended from a common ancestor is truly overwhelming. I would not necessarily wish that to be so, as a Bible-believing Christian but it is so. It does not serve faith well to try to deny that.'
@@derhafi So, we have some evolution scientists who say that from what they see that evolution by descent is impossible and there is no evidence for it, and we have some on the other side...Pretty good dilemma we have lol
It's unfortunate that the interviewer talks much more than the one who knows and should. I expected Behe talking more but it didn't happen. Such a disappointment.
So what we know is that truth is hard to come by, even the brightest mind will skew their opinion only to ease the minds or appease the weak minded. Well good luck to humanity, hope we figure it out in my life time.
"So what we know is that truth is hard to come by, even the brightest mind will skew their opinion only to ease the minds or appease the weak minded"" Good description of Dr Behe. Did you mean to do that. Your post is ambiguous. " hope we figure it out in my life time." Even that is ambiguous, WHAT in your lifetime. We have figured out how life has changed over time. Evolution by natural selection. Dr Behe has failed to support his claims and lost at the Dover Trial. Ethelred Hardrede
@mtman2 Done it. Unlike you I have even read Dr. Behe. He is completely ignorant about how evolution works. Well not quite as ignorant as you are. Here try this again. THIS time read it and then the books. Let me get you started in your journey to reality. How evolution works: First step in the process. Mutations happen - There are many kinds of them from single hit changes to the duplication of entire genomes, the last happens in plants not vertebrates. The most interesting kind is duplication of genes which allows one duplicate to do the old job and the new to change to take on a different job. There is ample evidence that this occurs and this is the main way that information is added to the genome. This can occur much more easily in sexually reproducing organisms due their having two copies of every gene in the first place. Second step in the process, the one Creationist pretend doesn't happen when they claim evolution is only random. Mutations are the raw change in the DNA. Natural selection carves the information from the environment into the DNA. Much like a sculptor carves an shape into the raw mass of rock. Selection is what makes it information in the sense Creationists use. The selection is by the environment. ALL the evidence supports this. Natural Selection - mutations that decrease the chances of reproduction are removed by this. It is inherent in reproduction that a decrease in the rate of successful reproduction due to a gene that isn't doing the job adequately will be lost from the gene pool. This is something that cannot not happen. Some genes INCREASE the rate of successful reproduction. Those are inherently conserved. This selection is by the environment, which also includes other members of the species, no outside intelligence is required for the environment to select out bad mutations or conserve useful mutations. The two steps of the process is all that is needed for evolution to occur. Add in geographical or reproductive isolation and speciation will occur. This is a natural process. No intelligence is needed for it occur. It occurs according to strictly local, both in space and in time, laws of chemistry and reproduction. There is no magic in it. It is as inevitable as hydrogen fusing in the Sun. If there is reproduction and there is variation then there will be evolution. Some books to get you started: Why evolution is true - Jerry A. Coyne THIS BOOK IN PARTICULAR to see just how messy and undesigned the chemistry of life is. Herding Hemingway's Cats: Understanding how Our Genes Work Book by Kat Arney This shows new organs evolving from previous organs. Limbs from fins. Your Inner Fish Book by Neil Shubin Wonderful life : the Burgess Shale and nature of history / Stephen Jay Gould Life on a Young Planet: The First Three Billions Years of Evolution on Earth Andrew H, Knoll The Dragons of Eden: Speculations on the Evolution of Human Intelligence by Carl Sagan Ethelred Hardrede
Very dishonest thing to do. He peddles a pseudoscience and world not have got tenure had he started before he got tenure. ruclips.net/video/-RAKW6XHCOY/видео.html
Nick Nack “you’re part of a dwindling group”, you know, at one point in time I would have actually believed that statement but the fact of the matter is that it is objectively false. Either you don’t know of the continuous shift in the scholarly communities of cosmology, astrophysics, quantum mechanics, biochemistry and biology to name a few, or your cognitive dissonance is causing you to suppress the evidence itself - such is the same as fundamentalist Evangelicals. You refuse to acknowledge a crumbling worldview and those dogmatics won’t last long.
@Nick Nack Such a careless bunch of comments. The very evidence for design is all around you. Nothing comes of nothing, and there isn't a single bit of empirical evidence proving the forward thrust of evolution that is required for anything to complicate itself beyond the most basic of structures - nothing! As for design, you wouldn't know a "good" design from a 'bad" design unless you also comprehended the nature of thing designed, which you don't!
I don't know if the subject in discussion is very scientifically serious and sensitive, it's OK that the host talks much more than the interviewed guest, with addition of throwing humorous commentaries by the host.Anyway,it's a great interview with a great and modest personality.
Can we simply get ID proponents to recall that the SUN GIVES US CANCER? Or that 125,000 people DIE annually worldwide due to CHOKING TO DEATH, merely due to DESIGN?
Irreducible complexity asserts that certain biochemical systems in nature contain parts that are too well matched to be products of evolution. Every part of an irreducibly complex system is necessary: take away even one, and the entire system will no longer work. Because their parts are so intricate and so interdependent, such systems could not possibly have been the result of evolution, ID supporters argue. Irreducible complexity's main proponent is Michael Behe, a biochemist at Lehigh University in Pennsylvania. Among the systems that Behe claims are irreducibly complex are the bacterial flagellum, a microscopic whip-like structure that some bacteria use to swim, and the cascade of proteins that make up the human blood-clotting system. Darwin himself admitted that if an example of irreducible complexity were ever found, his theory of natural selection would crumble. "If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down," Darwin wrote. Yet no true examples of irreducible complexity have ever been found. The concept is rejected by the majority of the scientific community.
Robert Williams, you wrote, "Yet no true examples of irreducible complexity have ever been found. The concept is rejected by the majority of the scientific community." Irreducible complexity is found in every living organism, Robert. It is also known as symbiosis. Besides, consensus is NOT science. Rather, consensus is the "first refuge of scoundrels," according to Michael Crichton [WSJ, 2003.] He added, _"The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus."_
Science is always based on data, not consensus. The "scientific community" tends to be like a church, rejecting as heresy anything that falls outside the doctrine of the orthodoxy. The only thing that has changed in the scientific orthodoxy since the days of Galileo is the method of punishment for the heretics. In Galileo's day you could lose your life; these days you can only lose your career. Dan
Van Smack, you wrote, "@Bible Research Tools "In Galileo's day you could lose your life; these days you can only lose your career." Name 'em and claim 'em. Your Holy Father Michael Behe still has a job even though the faculty disagrees with him and his students make fun of him. So name the scientists who have gotten fired for spouting creationist bullshit." I can name a few who were publicly fired for contradicting the religion of evolution, potty mouth, but all were attempting to teach real science, not evolutionism. So, my question is, child, have you been living in a cave, or are you trying to hide the fact that evolutionists are so insecure about their religion of evolution that they feel they must blacklist anyone who questions it? I choose the latter. Your cult could be a forerunner of the fascist cult named Antifa.
For the rest of you, this 2005 article lists some who were fired or persecuted from a couple of decades ago: evolutionnews.org/2005/12/academic_persecution_of_scient_1/ This article adds a few more: evolutionnews.org/2009/02/expelled_exposed_exposed_your/ This website adds a few more: freescience.today/ Those are only a few. Most who oppose Darwin's nonsense do not do it openly for fear of retribution. Michael Behe briefly mentions it, here: ruclips.net/video/QNe-syuDJBg/видео.htmlm10s This article explains why the evolutionism cult is scared silly that the truth about Darwin's silly theory will get out (hint: evolution is not science, but metaphysics.)
evolutionnews.org/2020/09/darwinism-as-hegelian-dialectics-applied-to-biology/ Dan
55:08 This is reminiscent of the situation in physics: Darwin's theory is a bit like Newtonian mechanics which makes the entire universe into a sort of giant clockwork with no room for free will. This became a philosophical conundrum at the time and it was only possible to change that view with the arrival of quantum mechanics. An interesting theorem was proved in 2006 along these lines (the Conway-Kochen theorem) which says (under certain very minimal assumptions, most of which were verified experimentally) that if the human experimenter testing an elementary particle in a certain way has free will, so does the particle. Here "free will" is defined as an observable action which is not causally linked to any event in the past (literally, in the past light cones of the experimenter and the particle). So, for example, the experimenter takes the action of pushing one of several buttons on the apparatus, and the particle responds with something like being in the state "spin up" or "spin down". According to that theorem if one assumes the experimenter's decision to choose the button to push is coming "out of blue", the particle's response is necessarily "out of blue" also, they are both a result of free will. So let's hope that there will be a new theory in biology which will play a role analogous to quantum mechanics in physics.
I looked up the Conway-Kochen theorem and must admit I could not understand most of it. The idea that an elemental particle has free will sound very anthropomorphic, are we not just taking about randomness? I would have thought that evolution which relies on random events is the exact opposite of clockwork. If we use the term free will as most of us would, we have the free will to make decisions about how we treat our planet and thus we effect the course of evolution. I suspect I may well have missed the point altogether here,
The comment section here is so replete with various and sundry fedoras that I thought I was strolling through the aisle of an old time haberdashery. The only thing you people believe in more fiercely than your all righteous demigod Darwin is your own intellectually superiority.
Gary Walker lol why do you think that only religious people don’t believe in evolution? Check out stevebee92653. He’s not religious or an evolutionist. He just wants evonauts like you to stop spreading your fables across the world.
Gary Walker They can’t explain how we got here? Why must we be 100% of what that answer is? The correct answer is that we do not know and we do not have the intelligence to know yet. We are far from it. It’s disappointing because evonauts like to push forward their fables. Like I said. Check out the Stevebee guy.
Gary Walker Like I said. Fables... You have proven nothing and nothing you refer me to proves anything about evolution. Have you ever researched with an open mind besides basing your bias off of disliking religion? Get with reality. Evolution is a fable.
@@thomasaskew1985 "Stephen Hawking proved the big bang. In 1995, Pope John Paul II gave Hawking a medal for his mathematical proof of the big bang" ha ha ha. That is so funny, but of course not true at all.
Early on Behe stated that he believed the physicists stating the world is millions of years old. I thought that was based on chemistry with decay rates. Would that actually be considered physics, or is there other evidence within the realm of physics?
Professor Behe. I like your argument about removing genes and not getting any other subset than the same species. How did you determine that the species is still the same? If you did: did you try removing the part of DNA that would make the individual different species according to your own definition?
I imagine some modifications did result in an early death or in lesser calamity. But did you actually run a substantial enough number of experiments to draw scientific conclusion? Give us some idea about the number of trials, please.
Michael Behe has been honoured for his contribution to science by a team who have named a fossilised giant Lepidopteran species which they discovered after him. Pilafloor behei also known as the Behe moth had a wingspan of about 20 feet,
@@Herzeleydt_Diesentrueb No he has repeatedly said that ID has nothing to do with any religion. I hope you aren't suggesting that he is being economica with the truth.
I have to confess that my post was an April Fool, congratulations to those of you who spotted that Pilafloor is an anagram. Behemoth is of course a gigantic mythological creature in the bible and it turns out also the name of a satanic Polish death metal band.
Sadly most of the comments add little to the discussion. Intelligent design simply says science cannot explain why we are here and how we got here. That Darwin's theory is seriously flawed and science does reveal his flaws. We are left searching. To dismiss something like christianity or any belief system outright without digging deep and apply science is a bias that fails under the weight of it's own belief system.
"Intelligent design simply says science cannot explain why we are here and how we got here." No it does not. It says that evolution by natural selection isn't real and that some sort of god is needed. Behe just repackaged old nonsense to support his religion. His book, Darwin's Black Box shows that he does not understand evolution. "hat Darwin's theory is seriously flawed and science does reveal his flaws. " Science has not done that. It has supported it by adding in genetics. Darwin was a not a prophet. He was a scientist and is long dead. His ideas have been considerably extended but the key of natural selection remains and is supported by the evidence. "We are left searching. " You are searching for an excuse to ignore to ignore real science. "To dismiss something like christianity or any belief system outright without digging deep and apply science is a bias that fails under the weight of it's own belief system."" To go on belief without evidence is a bias that fails under its own system as that religion contains many internal contradictions and is based on book that has Flood that never happened. Jesus treated that myth as real so he had no special knowledge. So I have dug more than deep enough. YOU have not. You are simply pretending that Atheists and us Agnostics have not looked. That is false. YOUR comment added nothing to the discussion. You did not produce any evidence to support ID or your religion. You simply whined about people that have done the contrary. There is no evidence for ID, unless you mean IDIOT designer, and ample evidence against it. There is NOTHING intelligent about the laryngeal nerve as it goes from the brain, down the neck RIGHT PAST THE LARYNX without interacting in any way with it, to the heart, around a coronary artery and THEN back up the larynx. This makes complete sense in terms of evolution from an ancient fish ancestor. Only a complete idiot would design things that way. Now get an education on the subject. Let me get you started in your journey to reality. How evolution works: First step in the process. Mutations happen - There are many kinds of them from single hit changes to the duplication of entire genomes, the last happens in plants not vertebrates. The most interesting kind is duplication of genes which allows one duplicate to do the old job and the new to change to take on a different job. There is ample evidence that this occurs and this is the main way that information is added to the genome. This can occur much more easily in sexually reproducing organisms due their having two copies of every gene in the first place. Second step in the process, the one Creationist pretend doesn't happen when they claim evolution is only random. Mutations are the raw change in the DNA. Natural selection carves the information from the environment into the DNA. Much like a sculptor carves an shape into the raw mass of rock. Selection is what makes it information in the sense Creationists use. The selection is by the environment. ALL the evidence supports this. Natural Selection - mutations that decrease the chances of reproduction are removed by this. It is inherent in reproduction that a decrease in the rate of successful reproduction due to a gene that isn't doing the job adequately will be lost from the gene pool. This is something that cannot not happen. Some genes INCREASE the rate of successful reproduction. Those are inherently conserved. This selection is by the environment, which also includes other members of the species, no outside intelligence is required for the environment to select out bad mutations or conserve useful mutations. The two steps of the process is all that is needed for evolution to occur. Add in geographical or reproductive isolation and speciation will occur. This is a natural process. No intelligence is needed for it occur. It occurs according to strictly local, both in space and in time, laws of chemistry and reproduction. There is no magic in it. It is as inevitable as hydrogen fusing in the Sun. If there is reproduction and there is variation then there will be evolution. Some books to get you started: Why evolution is true - Jerry A. Coyne THIS BOOK IN PARTICULAR to see just how messy and undesigned the chemistry of life is. Herding Hemingway's Cats: Understanding how Our Genes Work Book by Kat Arney This shows new organs evolving from previous organs. Limbs from fins. Your Inner Fish Book by Neil Shubin Wonderful life : the Burgess Shale and nature of history / Stephen Jay Gould Life on a Young Planet: The First Three Billions Years of Evolution on Earth Andrew H, Knoll The Dragons of Eden: Speculations on the Evolution of Human Intelligence by Carl Sagan Ethelred Hardrede
@@osfordford8181 "You that understand evolutio" Yes I do. "where are your publications sir?" Where are yours? Dr Behe has not one single peer reviewed paper on the subject. I just explained how it works. It is not hard to understand. And whining about publications will not make anything I wrote wrong in any way. The very first person to demand my credentials was a crank and a child abuser with a PhD. You are not in good company. Deal with what I wrote and stop whining. Ethelred Hardrede
@@EthelredHardrede-nz8yv I don't have any that's why I don't go around criticizing people's work. If he has one and you have zero, who do you think we should listen to?
@@osfordford8181 "I don't have any t" Then we are even with Dr Behe. " I don't go around criticizing people's work. " You don't any publications to notice when a person is ignorant on the subject. "If he has one " Not a one that is peer reviewed on this subject. Even if he did he would still be subject to criticism. " who do you think we should listen to?" The people that understand the subject, until you learn it yourself as I have done. He got his ass whipped at the Dover Trial because of his ignorance on the subject. Perhaps you would prefer to listen to those that do know the subject, besides me. Nearly none of them are fans of ID. "Some books to get you started: Why evolution is true - Jerry A. Coyne THIS BOOK IN PARTICULAR to see just how messy and undesigned the chemistry of life is. Herding Hemingway's Cats: Understanding how Our Genes Work Book by Kat Arney This shows new organs evolving from previous organs. Limbs from fins. Your Inner Fish Book by Neil Shubin Wonderful life : the Burgess Shale and nature of history / Stephen Jay Gould Life on a Young Planet: The First Three Billions Years of Evolution on Earth Andrew H, Knoll " I don't have to have publications of my own to know the subject. I have THEIR books and many more. Get started learning. Its a good thing to do. Ethelred Hardrede
For what it's worth, this is my thank you to Dr. Behe (and his colleagues): blog.banditobooks.com/an-open-letter-to-michael-behe-stephen-meyer-and-douglas-axe/
Gary Walker Lol you think he’s lying? How indoctrinated can you be! Out of all the comments I’ve read from you they all pass the indoctrinated test. Sorry you believe in a myth. Get with the times. It’s changing and evolution is going to go down. Sooner or later this myth will be brought forth. Then we can teach real science and try to find however we were created or designed. I’m sorry you can’t see design in nature. It’s disappointing but not a surprise because your an evonaut and like I said many times before your indoctrinated.
Развлечения
To my brothers, it's nice to upload the Arabic translation please, so i get the most from this discussion 🙏🙏🙏🙏
Dr. Behe is a humble man while at the same time he is a powerful force in the field of objective biological research.
Behe has zero influence in biology. Scientists pay no attention to him, he's dismissed as a kook.
Michael J. Behe is an American biochemist, author, and advocate of the pseudoscientific principle of intelligent design.
From Wikipedia
Enough said
@@ramptonarsecandle Everything that Wikipedia states is true.
@@akashverma4280 I quite often don't agree but think they're spot on this time.
What Behe does is nothing more than pseudoscience.
@@ramptonarsecandle It doesn’t matter what its labeled, what we really should be focusing on is if the arguments Behe he makes are rational or not and they 100% are. Every one of his claims have never been refuted and never will be.
What a breath of fresh air for science. Thank you Dr. Behe.
Sassy
Not a scientist I would refer to :
“ Creation science presented the theological argument from design with assertions that evolution could not explain complex molecular mechanisms, and in 1993 Michael Behe, a professor of biochemistry at Lehigh University, presented these arguments in a revised version of the school textbook Of Pandas and People.[4] In his 1996 book Darwin's Black Box he called this concept irreducible complexity and said it made evolution through natural selection of random mutations impossible.[5][need quotation to verify] This was based on the mistaken assumption that evolution relies on improvement of existing functions, ignoring how complex adaptations originate from changes in function, and disregarding published research.[4] Evolutionary biologists have published rebuttals showing how systems discussed by Behe can evolve,[6][7] and examples documented through comparative genomics show that complex molecular systems are formed by the addition of components as revealed by different temporal origins of their proteins.[8][9]”
In the 2005 Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District trial, Behe gave testimony on the subject of irreducible complexity. The court found that "Professor Behe's claim for irreducible complexity has been refuted in peer-reviewed research papers and has been rejected by the scientific community at large."
@@MartTLS Sir, Behe looked at the published research and he was astounded to find nothing to explain how information was placed into the genetic code to begin with. Have you read his book? He explains this carefully and quite convincingly. Only people that fear the truth that God may exist are deniers of these findings. And what's worse, the disagreements among scientists are being kept away from the public. They will not tell students that the facade of evolutionary theory has cracked. And this is why schools are dangerous.
Sassy
Evolutionary theory hasn’t cracked . Citation required.
Intelligent design is an hypothesis at best . Show me what its proponents are intending to teach us other than “god did it “ .
@@MartTLS Your ears are open but you aren't listening. Isn't that the problem? You want your worldview to be true, so you are not objectively listening to anything that doesn't support that worldview. I too once accepted that evolution was true because I trusted my professors in college. It takes great scientific minds like Behe, not Bible thumpers, to explain the science that brings into question the false claims of evolution today. If you're honest, "the truth truly does set you free." Follow the truth and don't fear that it may take you to an Intelligent Designer.
Sassy
Nope because evolution isn’t a worldview it’s science and nothing in science invokes a god . You need to come up with some convincing evidence of a god or intelligent designer first you can’t just infer that one exists in order to explain everything you don’t understand.
And which false claims in evolution are you referring to ? If something is incorrect it’s thrown out out . Scientists are competitive and try to disprove things as well as trying to find an explanation .
If the truth led to a designer we’d all want to know but it doesn’t. Intelligent design proponents are very transparent although they try not to be . They are looking for a way of getting creationism into the science class under the guise of intelligent design and so far they’ve failed miserably thank god .
This is really great stuff! Thank you so much for putting this up!
The video quality is excellent in these talks. Thanks so much to the sound/video team behind the event
To illustrate the honesty of most creationists and ID proponents this is a statement from Kurt Wise basically saying he's quite happy to lie if it comes to it, and it would appear it has.
"Although there are scientific reasons for accepting a young earth, I am a young-age creationist because that is my understanding of the Scripture. As I shared with my professors years ago when I was in college, if all the evidence in the universe turns against creationism, I would be the first to admit it, but I would still be a creationist because that is what the Word of God seems to indicate. Here I must stand." Dr K. Wise from In Six Days.
News for you Kurt, all the evidence has turned against creationism.
Excellent mate, good call.
David Weeks, aka Van Smack, wrote, "To illustrate the honesty of most creationists and ID proponents this is a statement from Kurt Wise basically saying he's quite happy to lie if it comes to it, and it would appear it has." -- "Although there are scientific reasons for accepting a young earth, I am a young-age creationist because that is my understanding of the Scripture. As I shared with my professors years ago when I was in college, if all the evidence in the universe turns against creationism, I would be the first to admit it, but I would still be a creationist because that is what the Word of God seems to indicate. Here I must stand." Dr K. Wise from In Six Days.
Where did Kurt Wise say he would be happy to lie, bonehead? Wise said what any rational person would say, that he believes the truth of God's Word over the instability of scientific so-called "evidence," which changes like the wind.
Remember, it was not too many centuries ago that the leadership of your cult was burning people at the stake for denying the pagan doctrine of Aristotle. Today's leaders of your cult would be happy to burn at the stake those who deny the pagan doctrine of Charlie Darwin, if they could get away with it.
Quit lying, bonehead.
===========================
David Weeks, aka Van Smack, wrote, "News for you Kurt, all the evidence has turned against creationism."
News for you, bonehead. All scientific evidence has turned against evolutionism.
Dan
One of the best justifications for tenure I've seen.
Just tuned in today. Watched this and one with Stephen Meyer. Enjoyed them so much. The humor is great too.
Thank you, Dr. Behe and Eric, for making these complex ideas accessible to the average person. Beautifully presented!
Keep on keeping on Michael Behe 😊 Jesus bless you and your family
HomicideHenry - Yep, keep repeating the same falsehoods that were debunked decades ago. Behe is wasting his time. He'll never find anything that can't be explained as having an evolutionary cause. That's because everything evolved from slime, simple as that.
@@rogerfroud300 Proof for that empty assertion? None of behe’s arguments have ever been refuted.
@@TyrellWellickEcorp - The assertion stems from the clear interrelatedness of all living things. That's written in the Fossil and Geological record and now in the Genes.
Pick Behe's best argument of one specific case, and let's see how it stands up to scrutiny. Everything he's ever claimed has had a better and simpler Evolutionary explanation. First it was the Eye, then the Flagellum. both of which have Evolutionary roots.
What's IDs explanation of the merging of Chromosome 2? You probably haven't even heard of that if all you do is visit Creationist sites and listen to the echo of your own voice, telling you what you want to hear.
"ZERO DESIGN in our bodies and within nature." This phrase wonderfully sums up the whole of atheistic thought on existence. These people are not on the same page as...thinking people. You simply are not. "And the light shineth in darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it."
@@joefriday2275 It always boils down to a hatred of self...never lucid introspection. These goofs always end up denigrating life itself. Very sad.
I recently read about the 100k rpm motor in flagellum bacteria and couldn't get my get around it. Wow...
@@joefriday2275
No, that's all a creationist LIE!! Crick had NO doubt about it Evolving, he brought up panspermia merely because organic molecule signatures had been found in deep space by radio-telescopes. He had the thought that if we didn't know where the nucleobases came from, it might have been that they form in space. He did NOT think that "little green men" must have sent them! Avi Loeb is laughed at, and not an atheist. No, there is NO evidence that the universal constants even COULD have different values than they do, so fine-tuning is dead. And no, no atheists I know believe such crap. This kind of crap is made-up by creationists. And fully 99.9% of ALL life scientists accept Evolution by Natural Selection with Common Descent and Ancestry. It is more accepted than even a decade ago by actual polling.
@@joefriday2275
All school shooters are right-wing.
@@rstevewarmorycom You ate up every morsel of the bait from fake-ass propaganda spewers. They sit here and tell you that straight white conservatives are the greatest threat while communists spend ALL OF 2020 burning this country down.
almost done reading this book. Got it the other day. Quite good! Thanks, Dr. Behe.
"If Behe's formulation of intelligent design as science is illogical, his mechanism for how the work of the designer was inserted into living systems is almost laughable." "Creationists who believe that Behe is on their side should proceed with caution - he states very clearly that evolution can produce new species, and that human beings are one of those species."~National Council for Science Education
ncse.com/library-resource/review-michael-behes-darwins-black-box
@@lrvogt1257 well I for one would not be so quick to trust the words or Kennith Miller for his blatant attempts to not awnsers any questions directly live. He's a back stabber that loves the make videos trying to discredit people who are not there to defend themselves. And Behe's latest books and articles suggest nothing about evolution making new species, he is still behind devolution and so am I.
If you allow yourself to be taken in by Behe's deceptive arguments you are capable of believing any lie.
@@vitus.verdegast that's rich.
@@blade5819 70% of Evangelicals have been taken in by Trump's lie of election fraud, and would vote for him again. Creationism is never going to have any clout in science, but that's not the point anyway. The point is to soften up the brains of people like you so you'll ignore any distinction between truth and falsehood.
Dr. Will Provine was an outspoken evolutionist and professor of the history of human biology at Cornell University. He stated the following:
• "No gods, no life after death, no ultimate foundation for ethics, no ultimate meaning in life and no human free will, are all deeply connected to an evolutionary perspective. You’re here today and you’re gone tomorrow, and that’s all there is to it."
• "If you believe in evolution you can’t hope for there being any free will. There’s no hope whatsoever of there being any deep meaning in human life. We live, we die, and we’re gone, we’re absolutely gone when we die."
Sounds about right. Why does that bother you?
@@ukcadjockey You assume to much and know to little.
@@cusoon9908
Says the guy who thinks ghosts and godmonsters are real
false dichotomy. bam.
@@marieindia8116
_false dichotomy_
As an answer to an argument from authority.
garbage in, garbage out.
Very thoughtful and intellectual discussion. Thank you
Thank you for all your videos; at the very least it's thought provoking stuff.
And for not disabling comments. (Sadly this can't be taken for granted these days.)
However, the actually interesting thing for me is missing:
How do Mr Behe's views compare to those of the audience in an open Q&A?
(But then again, maybe that wasn't even held or recorded.)
Really wish Metaxas would let Behe speak for more than 15 seconds before cutting him off to interject
Me too. Nine minutes of Metaxas before we even get to Behe.
Excellent interview. The tide is turning on Evolution. Well done Michael and Eric.
Like Mark Twain, rumors of the death of unguided evolution have been greatly exaggerated.
@@Cuffsmaster What do you expect from people who get their history from 3500 years ago- when the earth was known to be flat.
Skip to 09:00. That's where the interview starts.
I am so excited to find this video. In 1999, while living briefly in London, I Lund His Black Box book on a garbage heap and read it cover to cover. I was so thrilled that he based his book on his scientific discovery only and hoped that it would somehow be accepted by the scientific community that distrusted Christians. Zinsendorf was instrumental in supporting the Neudietendorf Moravian community in East Germany. Where I visited. There is a seminary there now.
Eric Metaxas cracks me up, brilliant. very nice interview with Behe.
Darwin’s Black Box is one of my lifetime favorite books!
It's nice when you read a book that agrees with what you already believe
@@ukcadjockey what a presumptuous comment
@@ideasmatter4737
True though, right?
@@ukcadjockey actually not. I saw things from a new perspective after reading the book
@@ideasmatter4737
Ah ok, so you didn't think a creator existed before you read it and now you do. Is that what you're saying? Remember, I won't know if you're lying but god will, right?
This interview was so amaing! Michael Behe is such a great and courageous man!
@@walkergarya Behe is purely logical, wherever this leads.
@@walkergarya Nope.
Why courageous? He hasn't suffered for his beliefs has he, In fact he has probably made a few bob from his publications and appearances. I don't say that his beliefs aren't genuinely held but lets not elevate him to a sainthood yet.
@@neilthompson8668 Only couragous men can go againt the flow.
@@01MeuCanal The scientific community is far more open minded and tolerant than the Discovery Institute likes to pretend. Though his theories are dismissed by the vast majority of people with a good knowledge of Biology this is more than compensated for by the adulation accorded to him by people who know didily-squat about evolution.
Eric Metaxes is just straight up funny. He’s a great interview and could be a standup comedian.
Van Smack, you wrote, "i can address what I've heard and read Meyer say because he's been saying the same things for at least 15 years. He never gets tired of repeating the same mistakes over and over again. Never gets tired of mentioning Charles Darwin or saying Darwinist or Darwinian or Darwinism. No real scientists do that."
This fellow uses the word Darwinism, and he seems to think he is a real scientist:
_"Generally, however, the misunderstandings and hostilities among evolutionists are frightening. Many if not most Christian evolutionists, following in the tradition of Teilhard de Chardin, reject twentieth-century biology or strive desperately to supplement or replace Darwinism. Few are quite as candid as Keith Ward, but one finds it hard not to suspect similar motives at work among people like Rolston. In part, this stems from an understandable dislike of the strident and intentionally hurtful atheism of Dawkins and his kind. Who would want to agree with such a person, even about science? In part, discomfort with modern science comes because Christians find Darwinism itself too challenging. But at least the Christian evolutionists strike a civil tone in their critiques." [Michael Ruse, "The Evolution-Creation Struggle." Harvard University Press, 2005, Conclusion, pp.273-74]_
I'll bet this fellow thinks he is a real scientist, as well:
_"So life may have begun with something comparatively simple - a population of small replicating molecules, say. Perhaps these molecules are simple enough to form spontaneously in many environments; they may even be forming on Earth today. Once the initial molecular replicators get going then Darwinian evolution can kick in, driving the complexity higher and higher, until something approaching the familiar living cell eventually emerges. The important point is that Darwinism doesn't have to wait for cellular life to arise before it can work its spell; it could be equally effective at the molecular level." [Paul Davies, "The Eerie Silence: Are We Alone in the Universe?". Penguin Books Limited, 2011, Chap.2]_
I'll bet this fellow does, too (but whether he is a scientist or not is debatable):
_"So what is "Darwinism"? This simple and profoundly beautiful theory, the theory of evolution by natural selection, has been so often misunderstood, and even on occasion maliciously misstated, that it is worth pausing for a moment to set out its essential points and claims. We'll be coming back to these repeatedly as we consider the evidence for each." [Jerry A. Coyne, "Why Evolution is True." Oxford University Press, 2009, Chap.1, p.3]_
This fellow does, too:
_"The foundations for the critically important synthesis of Darwinism and genetics were set in the late 1920s and early 1930s by the trio of outstanding theoretical geneticists: Ronald Fisher, Sewall Wright, and J. B. S. Haldane. They applied rigorous mathematics and statistics to develop an idealized description of the evolution of biological populations. The great statistician Fisher apparently was the first to see that, far from damning Darwinism, genetics provided a natural, solid foundation for Darwinian evolution. Fisher summarized his conclusions in the seminal 1930 book The Genetical Theory of Natural Selection (Fisher, 1930), a tome second perhaps only to Darwin's Origin in its importance for evolutionary biology.5 This was the beginning of a spectacular revival of Darwinism that later became known as Modern Synthesis" [Eugene V. Koonin, "The Logic of Chance: The Nature and Origin of Biological Evolution." FT Press Science, 2012, p.7]_
Trolls are always spouting off about things they know nothing about.
BTW, Stephen Meyer is a genius. That is why you cannot understand him.
Dan
Van Smack, you wrote, "Reverend Meyer is simply trotting out the "random accident" strawman fallacy again mixed with the same old worn out Argument from Ignorance to preach the extreme unlikelihood of cellular evolution."
Cellular evolution is beyond "extremely unlikely." A more accurate description is "impossible".
=================
Van Smack, you wrote, "He not so carefully details the complex structure and inner workings of a single cell with all of its DNA, RNA and various organelles, "information," that perform so efficiently (most of the time) their complicated, intricate tasks."
The cell is, by far, the most complicated thing on the planet, not to mention being a living, robotic manufacturing facility that repairs and maintains itself.
=================
Van Smack, you wrote, "Creationists aren't the only people who wonder how a cell could form naturally."
Creationists do not wonder about that. We know exactly how cells form, which is from other cells of the same kind, the first of which was created by God.
=================
Van Smack, you wrote, "Even those who accept evolutionary theory in its entirety will say that the first cells could not have benefited from the accumulated advantages of previous natural selection."
I couldn't help but notice that you used the words "accept evolutionary theory," which is an admission that you have faith that evolution is true -- that evolution is your religion.
=================
Van Smack, you wrote, "So the question is how could such intricate structures originate without a designer's intervention? The answer should be easy for everyone but thanks to the failure of science education especially here in the U.S. coupled with confusing religious propaganda disguised as science from various creationist ministries like the Discovery Institute, it isn't."
Science education went downhill when the pseudoscientific doctrines of Charlie Darwin and Charlie Lyell infiltrated the education system.
=================
Van Smack, you wrote, "Of course ancient cellular life didn't contain the complex DNA, nucleic acids and organelles or "information" found inside modern cells."
You know nothing about ancient cellular life. All major phyla that exists today showed up in the Cambrian, and there is no scientific evidence that any organism preceded them.
=================
Van Smack, you wrote, "As they do with the complexity of the eye argument, creationists cite a modern example that is the result of four billion years of cellular evolution and wonder how such a complex structure could just randomly pop into existence. Of course it couldn't and no origins of life researcher would claim that it did or could."
The human eye is an engineering marvel, with it's own molecular form of fiber optics, that could have came into existence only by a supernatural being.
If you want to hear something really funny, listen to any evolutionist try to explain eye evolution.
=================
Van Smack, you wrote, "The first cells contained no nucleus at all, no "information" and were bare structures that consisted of mostly just an exterior membrane."
You don't know that.
=================
Van Smack, you wrote, "Biological membranes form quite easily and spontaneously from simple lipids and water. Experiments have repeatedly shown that amino acids which are the building blocks of cell proteins easily form from a mixture of ammonia, methane, water and hydrogen gas. The molecules of life naturally assemble themselves from a few basic, easily available ingredients. The origin of life required only organic molecules, water and, millions of years to develop."
You should listen to this lecture by organic chemist, Dr. James Tour, unless you enjoy making a fool out of yourself:
ruclips.net/video/zU7Lww-sBPg/видео.html
=================
Van Smack, you wrote, "Reverend Meyer's argument demands a lottery-like instant winner, rather than a gradual accumulation of adaptations through natural selection."
Natural selection doesn't select anything, since it has no creative power. Rather it is a meaningless term for "whatever survives, survives."
=================
Van Smack, you wrote, "We know that life can occur and actually thrive in conditions scientists previously thought would be completely inhospitable to biological systems, such as in near-boiling hydrothermal vents on the ocean floor and even in poison methane ice."
Craig Venter discusses that here:
ruclips.net/video/xIHMnD2FDeY/видео.htmlm43s
Venter is just as clueless as everyone else about how life formed.
Dan
Bible Research Tools amen Brother. Thanks for the point by point rebuttal.
I enjoyed the interactive interviewing. He is educated, funny and right on target. He eliciting intelligent design in Michael Behe.
The point of this discussion is not to supplant evolution with creationism. Rather, I think the more important point is that scientists who hold on to their dogma of evolution have become unscientific in their thinking. They would rather ignore the problems of the evolutionary theory because it just may lead to an "archaic" notion of a Creator.
If scientists will be true to themselves, they must acknowledge those problems and try to work through them using the scientific method, instead of just sweeping them under the rug.
yet the problem is 1 evolution 2 creation 3 what?
@@inkblack6256 Even the evolutionist S.J.Gould admitted evolution is based on just so stories.
Ink Black You aren’t even close to being close. You may want to go back to the beginning and start over. Throw away the garbage that you were taught and think for yourself of how evidence says nothing and you are listening to fallible people’s interpretations of evidence. Not meant to be offensive. I’ve studied evolution for decades. It’s wrong. There’s absolutely no facts presented. Just fantasy. A very good sci-fi fantasy. Don’t listen to the people, look at the evidence for yourself. Go to the Smithsonian and ask to see the non-public exhibits. I dunno if they still have them. But actually look yourself and make your own mind up. Nobody wants to be told what to do, especially by an invisible being that made up all the rules, but he came here and suffered for real went through all kinds of crap that we have to go through and then died the worst death imaginable. The word excruciating came from being crucified. Ever hear the phrase “sacrifices HAVE to be made”? Truth.
Ferdinand Nicolas
We are a product of the Cosmos, that can not denied. Is the Cosmos an entity with Intelligence? A memory? A moral code?
That's the BIG question, now isn't it. Science might just discovery one day that a god exists, but I don't think preaching ID, with evidence that science does not have ALL the answers, is honest. We all know science does not have all the answers.
God being so big, shouldn't be too had YOU to find and prove, right? So prove God exits by using the scientific method and you might convince skeptics like me.
Junelle Salmon Janelle, another one that believes that ID proves that Jesus was the son of the creator. ID proves no such thing.
That is a giant leap religious people take.
ID doesn't prove legitimacy of the many varieties of Christianity, Islam, or Judaism.
I'm about to give up, because the moderator won't shut up. It would be interesting to time this and see how much time each of them speaks.
Agree, he's continually trying to manoeuvre the direction of the conversation towards creationist rubbish.
I think he consideres himself the lion tamer even though the audience comes to see the lion.
Thank you Eric great show I’m with you brother I’ve never seen you so reserved must have been an awesome guest
Interesting interview Eric Metaxas did of himself. Would have loved to hear Behe talk
If my phone is not waterproof, does that mean it is as useful as a rock or a twig for communicating? In other words, if you find, in your infinite wisdom, a shortcoming in a particular quality, does that negate the totality of identified function? Obviously not. But that seems to be the totality of the argument against design.
No, you missed the point entirely. Re-study it.
I will make fools out of the wise....God
@@thomasaskew1985 do u consider yourself wise? Hmm can you heal the blind raise the dead cleanse lepers forgive sin , conquer death convert billions to follow you though never laid eyes on you simply upon the basis of your word.You aint no match for Jesus...and proof he makes fools outa people like you
@@thomasaskew1985it all boils down to who do I believe God or man...now unlike u I did research ,
claims that evolution is science ...very strong ,convincing ..as a child I believed it was proven , for the men in white coats carrying clipboards with PHDs said it was fact...just one problem God revealed his word to me , I negan to do what he said , shock it worked...my life started to be productive and worthwhile...but what about evolution.? The answer was a choice ..who do I believe ...those men in the whitecoats with PHDs or God...I went with God...our science has to be wrong I concluded...38 yrs later I have tested what those PHDs claimed and found they were indeed wrong , not by sincere error but by bias belief , anti God bias, so all there work was tainted...they attacked villified denigrated any who exposed their falsified proof , as do you. I know my redeemer lives and long after this body is eaten by worms I shall stand again upon the earth and in my body I shall behold Him with my own eyes He that rescued me by laying down his life for my sin...repemt Tommy trust in Jesus
@@Exodus--bx3dd
I Agree
AMEN!
@@Exodus--bx3dd love this brother! well put!
The factory, bcstractor, resides within the designed product, itself - the biologic cell. The cells, equipped with the design code contained in DNA, routinely go about the business of both building biologic components, like human eyes, and maintaining them. The more that microbiologists explore the profound complexity and operational elegance of human cells, in particular, the more it becomes reasonable to conclude that life forms have been designed. That is to say, the mathematical probability that the complexity of biologic forms has randomly become manifest, over ANY amount of time, is inversely proportional to the immensity of that complexity, which continually increases with ever more deeply probing scientific observations. And, inescapably, nothing that transpires on the cellular level could even be possible without the underlying order of molecular, atomic and subatomic structures which represent even more cohesive complexity.
There may very well be a God who, metaphorically speaking, created the sandbox and put the toys in it. But he didn't instruct us to break the toys and poop in the sandbox. That's on us.
So are you saying that eyes evolved in gradual steps by mutation and other evolutionary mechanisms but these steps are directed rather than random?
I agree with you, that we are responsible for not pooping in the sandbox and it is regrettable that the Discovery Institute is now campaigning against Climate Change Science ( but that is another subject).
I know I am being pedantic but Microbiologists don’t study human cells.
@@neilthompson8668 You missed the obvious point that life and the universe were designed and not a result of random chance. The odds that the universe happened without predetermined design parameters/random chance is so low it is zero. Like winning the lottery a trillion times in a row using the same numbers. NOT POSSIBLE by scientific standards!
You're stupid and uneducated, aren't you? Thought so.
@@neilthompson8668 Merriam-Webster microbiology definition: a branch of biology dealing with microscopic forms of life. A human cell is a life form, is it not?
@@rstevewarmorycom If you're talkin' to me, pea brain, I'm happy to report that I hold a BS in Electrical Engineering with a minor in philosophy. I also compose music and write books, as opposed to burning them like a militant Creation-denying fascist.
Changes or mutations plus entropy equals devolution. Granted a very bright one, but a twelve year old could figure that out, but we’ve only figured this out in the last twenty years. This in itself is the best argument for devolution.
"devolution"
derp
Gary Walker
And you should take your meds before sitting down to a keyboard.
I looked up the significant backlash from the scientific community against Behe and he is to be commended for his courage and integrity. God will reward those who take a stand for Truth! "If you deny Me before men, I will deny YOU when I stand before My Father in heaven..."
The backlash against Behe is because he wants to teach pseudoscience along with real science. It opens the door to creationist nonsense being taught as well. That’s why the judge in the Dover trial was asked if ID passed the Lemon tests. If a religious belief is the same as a scientific fact the USA government will allow it to be taught in the public schools. Behe said that he could prove that his beliefs were scientific and he and the rest of the IDers failed miserably . Evidence came to light during the trial and afterwards that ID was going to be used as a sneaky way to get creationist pseudoscience ideas taught as science which is illegal in the USA. The scientific backlash against ID (and Behe )is well deserved.
Keep in mind that Behe is not a traditional creationist . He accepts common descent evolution and the old age of the earth and thinks that YECs are ignorant. He’s not been very vocal about them lately because they buy his books
Behe is a moron. His university wants to get rid of him, he hid his proclivities till he had tenure, He was shown to be a fool at the Dover trial.
@@rstevewarmorycom Nice ad hominem
@@michaelportaloo1981
thank you
If you look closely, ALL evolutionists, when presented with alternative theory, fall back on one of 4 known options as a starting point for rebuttal: A. Name-calling. B. Derision (i.e., mockery) c. Prevarication D. Truthful discussion. And, of course, the vast majority fall back on the pillow of repetition as well (advocating for the truthfulness of a lie on the grounds that lots of people believe it) -- whilst incorporating an admixture of the first 3 options as their main point. It took David Weeks (commenting below) just a few sentences of blustering outrage at discovering an elephant in the room before he descended into the safety of options A. , B, and C. Then he cites a number of like-minded sources as a bolster for his child-like outrage that anyone question his gods (atheism and its proponents).
Since evolution is a theory -- need I repeat that -- A THEORY, not a fact. Not a proven scientifically repeatable fact -- I do not see the problem with conflicting theories standing or falling on their own merit. Lots of people believing, for example: life on our planet originated when seeded by space aliens from another universe who sprinkled our oceans with pixie dust containing viable spores of living stuff, has been postulated by atheists such as Richard Dawkins (who now wishes his tongue had been cut out before he semi-advocated for this theory). However, both he and Darwin share common ground on the key issue: They both wanted GOD out of the discussion.
"I am determined to escape from GOD at all costs," was stated by Darwin in his Origin of The Species masterpiece. This was his driving force throughout his wretched life. (You can read all about him, if you like, and decide for yourselves whether or not "wretched" is a proper adjective to inject -- I read enough to convince me it is.) In fact, an escape from GOD is the focal point for every theory that runs counter to creationism. I believe THAT is perfectly alright! But counter-theorists should admit it up front because NO ONE KNOWS for sure what happened in the beginning; but eliminating GOD as a starting point is just one option to be accepted or rejected on faith.
Sorry but you just look very incompetent as you clearly don't understand the difference between "theory" and "scientific theory".
Maybe look at it before making silly comments.
And if you look through these comments and are honest then you'll see that it is in fact the ID and creationist proponents that start with the name calling.
You're correct that we don't know what happened in the beginning but the default option is definitely not a god, yours or anybody else's.
@@ramptonarsecandle ,,,"silly^ -- *incompetent" ...? Why David, methinks thou protesth too much. I'm pleased to have struck a chord. And thank you for the last sentence of your disappointingly weak retort ...it absolutely validated the gist of my entire point.
Al Anton let's be honest until you can prove the existence of your god you have no case, this why your friends here resort to name calling, they have nothing else. I've tried my best to understand ID but nobody can explain it to me which, as you can imagine I find a bit odd especially as you all claim to be experts.
So if you can start with evidence for your particular god, actually don't bother as we both know you can't so it's pointless you trying. Therefore your whole dogma is shot through with holes so I see little point in continuing this. You have nothing but empty rhetoric and I suspect you realise that 99% on scientists agree with me. Even Behe's son has given him up as a nutter which I found amusing, Behe made him live in the cellar when he found out, nice person.
If none of you know how ID works what future has it? None is the only answer especially if you can't prove the existence of the key piece of the puzzle. Sad but true. Good luck, you're going to need it
@@davidweeks3981 Honesty? You want honesty? Try wearing some for yourself. "God" is simply a designated word for a "First Cause" or "Prime Mover." Evolutionists will not acknowledge Him (or It) or anything at all as "That which was (and is) in the beginning!" They then are forced to believe that NOTHING created the universe and everything in it. They do away with the "Prime Mover." This begs a question: If ever there was a time when nothing existed, what could there possibly be now? The answer -- figured out a long, long time ago, by the way -- is: Ex nihilo, nihilo fit." In other words, NOTHING! There was Nobody to do everything.
And so, the evolutionists' equation is: Nobody times Nothing equals Everything. See a problem with that?
Once embraced, that equation is a HUGE problem -- bigger even than creation or evolution combined -- because it is absurd. And since there is no answer to absurdity, evolutionists have danced around that issue for over 150 years. Now, when they are being pressured to answer for their own absurdity, they implement the options I named above to deal with the issue -- with the exception of option #4 (truthful discussion) because that option has been obviated by their embracement of absurdity.
However, I have a few other ideas worth some ink. You mentioned a slew of supposedly damning facts about Michael Behe -- that his colleagues think he's a kook, he was mean to his kid, etc. I don't doubt these are wonderful proofs for validating the theory of evolution, but let's be equal-minded with the "ad hominum" attacks. Tit for tat, so to speak. Are you aware that Darwin brought his own guns aboard the Beagle because he hoped he would have an opportunity to kill cannibals? (That is called "murder", by the way.) Did you know he also enjoyed (as a young man) torturing puppies to death? And birds also? His torture instrument of preference is said to have been a small hammer. Perhaps he opined that continually beating a caged puppy on the head would eventually cause it to mutate into a porcupine or a seahorse before it mercifully bled to death. Unfortunately, we'll never know for sure. I for one, have always assumed that he just enjoyed hearing animals squeal with pain. Perhaps he had more altruistic motives ...but I doubt it. Now do you want to continue with the useless AD HOMINUM attacks? Or would you rather stick to the argument? Wait. That's right ...I almost forgot ...you have no argument; hence, the employment of A and B with a few "ad hominums" thrown in as an extra attraction.
In the past, my discussion with evolutionists regarding "proof" has been much briefer. For example:
ME: I believe in a Creator-God.
EVOLUTIONIST: You're an idiot. (end of discussion)
And then the evolutionist abandons the arena, quite confident he has won the day for Darwinism and the theory of evolution.
However, there was a time when I resented such a terse argument because it lacked clarity. But then one day that simplistic answer was expanded:
ME: I believe in a Creator God.
EVOLUSIONIST: You're a FUCKIN' idiot. (end of discussion)
In the face of such overwhelming proof, I have been, at times, close to capitulation. Nonetheless, I have stayed my ground.
Logic, after all, NOT science, is at the root of all substantive beliefs. And with that thought on which to ruminate, I must now say, "Good night" -- until next time.
@@davidweeks3981 "I've tried my best to understand ID but nobody can explain it to me" I'll explain ID.
Intelligent Design
1) Design is a scientifically observable cause.
2) All things are either ordered by nature or designed
3) ID is the process of developing the scientific tools necessary to distinguish the order created by nature and that created by design
A simple question to highlight ID: How can we know, using scientific methods, that a particular pattern of rock is a statue created by an artist and another pattern is simply erosion of stone by nature? ID is the theory creating the tools to answers questions like this.
The irony for evolutionists is that ID is developing the very tools needed to prove evolution. If everything is either formed naturally or designed, and you want to claim that something is formed naturally, then you would need a scientific method for distinguishing these two causes. Evolutionists are afraid of what that might reveal so they fight the advancement of tools of science when it would conflict with their presuppositions.
I read through many of the comments here, and it is clear to me that nearly all of the negative comments are from people who have not yet read Behe's books.
Bandog Bone May be a fair assessment. Can you tell me which books supporting evolution you have read?
Bandog Bone - Behe's position is well known, his books just perpetuate the same failed claims that were debunked decades ago. He's never found anything that can't be explained by Evolution. The eye, was one claim, then the flagellum. Both have Evolutionary explanations and he well knows that. He's simply not being honest by repeating the same falsehoods.
Dr. John Sanford has just written a book entitled Genetic Entropy. He shows that there is no time for millions of years. It is worth reading.
You’d have to be seriously ignorant of even elementary school science or geology to claim that the earth is young
He's a known creationist kook. RationalWiki AND Wikipedia. He misquoted Kimura and doesn't want to deal with it in peer-review. He's barely employed as a retired associate professor. His book sells only to other creationists.
rstevewarmorycom, you wrote, "[Dr. John Sanford is] a known creationist kook. RationalWiki AND Wikipedia. He misquoted Kimura and doesn't want to deal with it in peer-review. He's barely employed as a retired associate professor."
Only a loony evolutionism quack would rely on Wikipedia for anything other than science fiction.
==================
rstevewarmorycom, you wrote, "His book sells only to other creationists."
Only a fool would believe you, Steve. This is the same Dr. John Sanford giving a Lecture at the National Institute of Health:
ruclips.net/video/2Mfn2upw-O8/видео.html
And, NO, Dr. Sanford did not misquote Kimura.
Dan
dancingnature, you wrote, "You’d have to be seriously ignorant of even elementary school science or geology to claim that the earth is young"
You have to be seriously brainwashed by the scientific orthodoxy to believe the earth is old.
Dan
I’ve never met a creationist yet who has actual evidence for their claims . I’ve been asking for 35 years now. They’ll insult or bluster and misuse science terminology . But they don’t have evidence. Scientists do have evidence of an old earth . James Hutton had evidence of the old earth and that was back in the 1700s .
My mama did not raise no idiot!
Loved the talk!
May the Lord bless you and keep you. May the Lord make his face to shine upon you, and be gracious to you. May the Lord lift up his countenance upon you, and give you peace.
Hail Satan!
You too!
Thanks for addressing the fundamental problem of our time.
"Thanks for addressing the fundamental problem of our time"
Retarded white males fighting for liberalism and thinking that is conservative?
I've tried to get a question answered by the Discovery Institute guys, for whom I have great respect (I've read all their books), but to my disappointment, have never gotten an answer. I now suspect that the question bothers them. Here it is (as submitted to a webinar):
First, my question is not combative; quite the contrary. The crew at the Discovery Institute has enlightened me to a vital aspect of How The World Really Works and I'll forever be grateful.
My question relates to the base cause of speciation, but for a clear answer I'll have to pose it a certain way (Note: there may be very different answers, depending on who you ask. Michael Behe, for example, believes in common descent (as do I), the idea of which is at the root of my question. I am especially interested in the answers from those who do NOT believe in common descent):
You have a photograph of your parents, right? Your father? How about your grandfather? Good chance. How about your great grandfather? If not, you can imagine one, a full body shot, say… of a man, a Caucasian, with basic ‘family features.’ Now take it further and imagine a photo of your great great grandfather, imagining the full body shot, possibly with clothes appropriate to the mid 19th century.
Now do this going back to your great grandfather to the 100,000th ‘degree,’ which would be somewhere around two million years ago (20 years for each generation). Please describe the being in general appearance. Now please do the same for 5 million years ago. And so forth, going back in the huge stack of photos to the first one. What do you see?
Are there ‘moments’ (photographs!) that are particularly evocative of your worldview? Is there an ‘Adam’ where the stack ends?
One reason I ask this is that it seems to me that we have two and only two choices regarding the subject of speciation. Either macro-evolution (with the causal mechanism known or unknown, but almost certainly via an 'intelligent designer' of some sort) brings us back to a one-celled organism (common descent) or we have a sort of ‘Beam me down, Scotty!’ scenario, wherein species poof into existence, presumably via the will of God (or other intelligent designer). There would be many millions of these ‘miracles,’ one for each species that ever existed. (I believe in common descent because I do not believe in this scenario.)
If you see a third possibility, I’m all ears. And feel free to use the thought experiment to make any point you care to about life and its development.
(I pose the question this way because it forces a clear, unequivocal answer. In other forms the question can be tip-toed around.)
The above is from my 'Open Letter to Michael Behe, Stephen Meyer, and Douglas Ax', which you can access here:
blog.banditobooks.com/an-open-letter-to-michael-behe-stephen-meyer-and-douglas-axe/
Again, many thanks to all at the Discovery Institute. I've read all the books and look forward to those upcoming.
Allan Weisbecker
Note; Drs Meyer, Ax, Wells, and Nelson are a good ones to ask as they apparently believe in the Poof! Beam me down, Scotty explanation, although I doubt they would agree with my phraseology. (Maybe Dr. Behe can enlighten me, although he agrees with common descent.)
I read your comment a few days ago and did not reply sooner as you were specifically interested in comments from those who reject common descent. So far a deafening silence
I also have been puzzled about how Behe can belief in common descent but reject macro-evolution.
He believes that all life is descended from a common ancestor or as he puts it one kind of living organism in the ancient earth gave rise to whole bunches of other organisms (ruclips.net/video/zvS7t-Buwik/видео.html ). So he believes that elephants, geraniums and E.coli have a common ancestor but in this video he goes along with Metaxis in ridiculing the idea that whales are descended from land mammals and states categorically that dogs cannot evolve into anything else.
I can only assume that he means that that such evolutionary processes cannot happen without intervention from an intelligent agency. In other words by accepting that evolution up to the level of a taxonomic order, progresses in steps via mutation, natural selection, hybridisation, genetic drift, epigenic inheritance etc. but believes that every step is directed by an intelligent agency and is part of a master plan rather than a naturalistic process.
Since he believe in micro-evolution he presumably thinks that once a new taxonomic order is produced the intelligent designer then leaves everything to chance.
I became an atheist after processing evolution and comparing it to what I believed growing up. Although I was somewhat familiar with the idea of evolution and believed in it (thanks to the marginalization campaign against opposition), it wasn't until I enrolled in a human origins course in college that I really pondered what it meant. For 17 years I considered myself atheist. It wasn't until I reinvestigated evolution that I realized that I didn't give up religion. I just changed mine. One after another, the fallacies, hoaxes, projections and deceptions came to the forefront. I saw evolution/atheism as a manufactured alternative to God, not a scientific study. From its inception, one can see the 'evolution' of the idea. The more it was investigated, the more time was required because of complexity. You can see this progression in the so called increase in the Earth's age as it was required. From hundreds of thousands of years to millions, hundreds of millions to billions -enter the Big Bang. Now, opposition was easier to quiet because 'in time' this change could happen, allegedly.
The hypothesis requires time, and a lot of it. Even still, probability shows more is required because the complexity of a single cell (at least what we currently know of it) is beyond even an unfathomable chance. When one looks into time and how radiometric dating is not at all what is advertised, you can go down that rabbit hole with purpose. There are so many anomalies, assumptions and circular logic, that one can only conclude that it is inconsistent, at the very best. So, where does that leave us? Well, we have what we had before, historic record, archaeological discoveries and cross referencing. That's much more reliable than diamonds that test to be older than the Earth, coal that has carbon which is impossible considering it's reported age and living seal blood that tested thousands of years old.
Once I realized that evolution and much more were "lies, damned lies and statistics", I finally turned to the Bible for answers, which led be to Christ Jesus. I now am confident that creation happened EXACTLY like the Bible says. 6 days of creation for everything. Animals were created to adapt according to their "kind" or family. Equine beget equine, feline beget feline and so on. There is no common descent.
Evolution is an excuse to reject God and His expectations. One can live in sin and not have anyone to tell them they are wrong. For most of us, it was subconscious. God is all powerful and could have easily directed evolution if it were true. However, He does not lie and He told us exactly how He created everything. It wasn't in a billion, million or thousand years. It was 6 days, period. I know it's not advantageous in this world to be a 'young earth creationist', but I am and I don't care if that causes me indignation or persecution. Truth is truth.
So, you wanting clarity on your hypothesis of common descent is futile. The only common descent happens at a 'family' level. Anything else is vanity.
@@neilthompson8668 yes, I think that's what he believes. I know, I'm pondering the same question. I think the idea is "poof" a physical life form flies out of a portal a long time ago and just evolves at a micro level. These events happened a long time ago, prior to humans becoming conscious. For example. God flings whales and sea creatures out of the portal, has fun watching them micro evolve. Then a billion years later creates walking land animals in his super lab, flings them out of the portal and has fun watching them micro evolve. But this time he equipped the apes with all the right ingredients, opposable thumbs, primitive voice box for speech, eyes infront, robust skulls....he wanted to see how far micro evolution would take the apes.... so here we are, he's impressed and terrified....just a theory :P
Hi - what a novel question - I have not heard it framed this way before. But as you say it seems to me that how a person views this is really a world view issue anyway. Evolutionists will think of a degeneration back to lesser individuals (which is perhaps easy given previous generations have worse photos and diet lol!) and creationists will do the opposite (for example in my own case, my father was a very physical man - and I am not quite what he was - so backwards is an elevation (2nd law lol!)). However the whole idea here is to create some parity. And that starts with speech. You say "beam me down" and it seems already derogatory, but not "double-boom" from nothing, something and then something living! Each case is as incredible as the other, which I think is the point...We all gloss over the uncomfortable bits of our own narrative. And how we frame our questions pushes the narrative.
In answer though - I see Adam, and I see degeneration from him. But I am an engineer lol and everything is getting worse and looks like an engine to me. (even in an open system there is failure eventually ;) Who wrote the code? I see a big engineer.
Also I do not think ID is saying the bible is true, it is saying there is evidence of design. These not the same thing, and this is exactly the sort extrapolation everyone needs to get away from, so I am guessing this is why Dr Behe refers to times etc that he does. He is transitioning lol!!! But to his credit he is leading with the evidence, not the sticking to the mantra. He is becoming a science apostate lol!! He will need to be shunned...
@@DTK5689 excellent point. Even if we stuck with the old earth hypothesis, evolution above family level cannot happen. It is not a matter of probabilities that need more time, but a matter of metaphysics. What were the evidences that convinced you that the earth is young?
Intelligence doesn't have to be a "person" it is simply information. Morphic resonance suggests that the universe layout is much like the octaves of music, and that specific frequencies render specific field interactions, which give rise to the shape and nature of what we call "matter"
Frequencies forms matter?
"ntelligence doesn't have to be a "person" it is simply information. ""
Information does not equal intelligence.
"Morphic resonance suggests that the universe layout is much like the octaves of music"
You should at least mention what is in regards to. I suspect that you are referring to the CMB. The rest was just fuzzy nonsense. If you were trying to talk about emergent properties of matter you did not do a good job.
@@nojvaz2392
No. But matter can be treated as a wave. I don't think he understands the concepts he trying to talk about. Perhaps he is trying to use the Schrodinger model of Quantum Mechanics.
@mtman2
Well then there is not god and you are as imaginary as your long disproved god.
You just plain refuse to think about anything that might upset your long disproved fantasy world.
In our universe there is no such thing as nothing. Get an education.
This is quite the fun comment section!
If your argument against 'design' relies on demonstrating 'poor design' in living creatures, you demonstrate an understanding of neither. Sour grapes is never a dignified response.
*If your argument against 'design'............*
Surely then the inverse would be true, that an argument for "design" that relies on demonstrating "good design" also demonstrates an understanding of neither, as it's the exact same argument from the opposing subjectivity.
@@joefriday2275 Ha. Really busy! Merry Christmas! Christ our Savior is born!
@@ukcadjockey A Christmas gift. You prove my point. Thank-you Santa.
@@zoeytrejo9747
You're very welcome. Happy Christmas
I'm not sure I "proved" your point, "good" and "bad" are entirely subjective without an agreed definition, but i certainly don't disagree with it in principle.
Have a great christmas.
@@ukcadjockey Merry Christmas to you too! The point is literally objective as it pertains to the object. In this case the object is a living organism. If we cannot agree that the living organism is objectively more specialized, complex or rare than inert or non-living matter, then we miss the forest for the trees. The "poor design" in a living organism, as I originally stated, misses the fact..."It's a freaking giraffe!" People pay to see them.
Berlinski asked Dawkins if he would really want to live with the metaphysical and moral ramifications of the darwinian worldview. Dawkins said no the end result could be fascism.
Some say seeing is believing yet you can breath air but you can't see it. May the peace and blessings of God be upon you all... yes even to you who do not believe. The father sent His son not condemn but to save the world. My love and prayers to you all
There's not really a "Darwinian worldview", natural selection remains valid regardless of the ramifications, and your preference for it.
@demigodzilla agreed
@@benjaminschooley3108 Thank you for your response. I respectful disagree. God bless you and your family brother. I send my love and prayers too
I urge you all to watch Ravi Zacharias or Abdu Murray. God bless you guys
@demigodzilla My friend I've used rationatillty and reason time and time again and I've concluded the Gospel of Jesus Christ is the only thing that has true value and meaning. It's the only thing absolute. Through my personal experiences as well. I've seen God do things that nothing you nor I or anyone can do period. There's nothing that can ever change my mind. I shouldn't be alive but I am and I'm eternally grateful to my Father in heaven. Thank you for your response. God bless you
Yup. Evolution only works if one assumes the magical mutation faerie arrives just in time every time. Or Emergence of the Gaps works its supersorcery. Now, teleology, that has some explanatory power.
*Now, teleology, that has some explanatory power*
Whats the teleology of humans?
Lol, theology has explanatory power, that is hilarious. Either you are a troll or an ignorant creationist.
Genetic mutation occurs every time replication takes place, adding variety to the genome that allows species to adapt to new and changing environments through natural selection. After many generations, variant populations are different enough from distant ancestors to require a new species classification. 99% of all species that have ever lived are now extinct. There's nothing magical about the process. Read some science before your next post.
@@MrDominex Mutations, even if they occurred every time replication took place, do not add information, they may subtract information and cause a change, usually non-beneifical, or scramble the information that's already there, but they do not add information in the process of mutating. How could they? Adaptations can occur and cause changes, but that stays within the species, it acts on the genetic information that's already there. But there has been no process observed that adds information into the genome.
@@BillMurrey Genes can become either more or less complex with each mutation, they are only made of molecules of which there is an ample supply.. You've been misled by Creationist con artists into thinking that genetic "information" is like a bank account that you can't "add" to without making something out of nothing. DNA is more like letters that change a little with each replication, resulting in slight shifts in the traits expressed. Depending on how they interact with the environment these changes may promote or inhibit further reproduction, causing some traits to become more prevalent than others in subsequent generations. Can you follow what I just wrote? Now if you repeat the phony "mutations don't add information" argument again you will have no excuse.
We must pull down every deception that is in opposition to the glory of our maker. Creation has scientific validity to be taught in schools, colleges and universities..
I disagree. It is not for us to pull down every deception. It is for everyone to tell the truth. They are not the same thing. Some people are willfully blind and we know God allows this. Maintain your convictions with humility and charity. We don't drag people to heaven as hostages.
@@zoeytrejo9747 pulling down strongholds, casting down arguments and every high thing that exalts itself against the knowledge of God, bringing every thought into captivity to the obedience of Christ”
No, it's utter garbage.
@@rstevewarmorycom Here's something. Two basic ways to sterilize are, water, and fire. If there's something dead, we either bury it, or burn it. At the world flood, God used water to FLOOD and bury the human garbage at that time. Only 8 souls weren't counted garbage. 10 yrs from now, God is going to use fire to MELT and dissolve the human garbage. There may be a thousand souls who will not be counted garbage at that time.
After the elements melt, - the Dreaded Day of the Lord. all will stand in front of the one whose eyes are as flaming fire. "Depart from me, I never knew you." Jesus hung on nails so that he could know you. He loves me. How shall we escape if we neglect so great salvation?
@@stevewiddows
There was NO noah or flood, I'm a physicist, and everything you just blabbered is pure unadulterated garbage. The bible is 100% fiction, cover to cover. If you believe the bible you are an utter ignorant uneducated moron.
Great interview
Bought the book....loved it.
Fascinating interview! Thank you!
Look at automotive service manuals. They used to show how to rebuild the engine.
Today, DONT DRINK FLUID IN BATTERY.
If Darwin were alive today he would not be a Darwinist. Historical irony at its finest.
Correct. He'd accept the current model of evolution, as it involves DNA, which was discovered after hed presented his model.
@@eddyeldridge7427 no he would have devowed Darwinism, because he said that if Transitional fossils are not discovered then his hypothesis would have to be discarded, and 150 years later no transitional fossils have been found.
@@domcomfermi609
Anyone who thinks transitional fossils haven't been discovered has a gross idea of what a transitional fossil is.
What are you expecting? Something along the lines of a croco-duck?
Or, let me guess: a "half-human, half-ape?"
@@eddyeldridge7427 Anyone who thinks that extinct animal's fossils which are similar to other present animals, are transitional, is a religious adherent.
The fact that the evolutionists have been grinding and whittling fossil bones to meet their criterion is apt proof that evolution is a joke.
The Nebraska man for example, only a tooth had been found, and magically the evolutionists have constructed a proto man and also his spouse, according to their "image and likeness". Only later to have been caught, that the tooth found was belonging to a pecarry.
This is only one example of the hoaxes perpetrated by "honest" Darwinists.
Apparently all that is needed is a rotary power tool, in the hands of a fool, presto even the " Billions of years" makes sense.
Isn't it peculiar that only the evolution theory is not applicable, as science namely observable, demonstrable and reproducible ?
@@domcomfermi609
You still don't know what a transitional fossil is, yet you're still certain you do.
You think Nebraska man helps your case, rather than hurts it.
And you're completely convinced evolution isn't demonstrable. We not only reproduce it regularly, we use evolution daily.
Not that you really care.
I'm surprised the idea of the "second code" isn't brought up more often. It used to be discarded as "junk DNA". 2% was accredited to protein design and the rest was considered junk. Now it's been proven 90 some percent of DNA is essential for life. There is a second, wholistic code that organises the proteins into a whole. The second code does not use 3 digit codons, but there is much more extensive multi-digit instruction beyond the 3 lettered system.
@@ozowen5961 DNA/ RNA often works by turning information on or off. Skin, hair and fingernail material all rely on information being turned off. Turn off hair and fingernail info and it becomes skin. 400 new switches have been discovered by ENCODE. They claim 80% of DNA is functional. I've read 90% elsewhere. It's true there's debate over the word "functional". Whatever the case the idea that only the 2% of protein coding and the rest useless remnants is untrue. In the 21st century we've learned there is much more to learn about DNA.
@@ozowen5961 The human body has 60 zetabytes bits of information mostly working holistically. There is a lot I did not address.
You confuse complexity with perfection. Many things are extraordinarily complex, but that doesn’t mean that they are the result of a guiding hand. What could be more complex than utter chaos? Intelligent designs are streamlined and simple because they are intended for a specific purpose, they either work for their purpose or they do not. Natural designs are messy and work in many different ways to one degree or another depending on changing conditions because they have no particular goal. Life evolves with each cycle, adapts and forms new species in a meandering fashion as it interacts with changing environments.
Mike is such a nice guy. I have corresponded with him quite a few times and he is great. And his books are amazing
I'm atheist and i agree, and i admire his resolve in the face of so much opposition. Darwin Devolves is very interesting, although I haven't corresponded with him.
@@ukcadjockey There's a fine line between "resolve" and "ignorance". As a "scientist" he's clearly on the ignorant/denial side.
FUN FACT: 97% of scientists accepts evolution as FACT, including some deeply evangelical ones:
"As someone who's had the privilege of leading the human genome project, I've had the opportunity to study our own DNA instruction book at a level of detail that was never really possible before. It's also now been possible to compare our DNA with that of many other species. The evidence supporting the idea that all living things are descended from a common ancestor is truly overwhelming. I would not necessarily wish that to be so, as a Bible-believing Christian. But it is so. It does not serve faith well to try to deny that."
~~~ Francis Collins
Even MORE FUN is that 51% of those very same scientists poll as being Religious. That means DESPITE their beliefs, they have either seen, or actually contributed to the literally millions (at this point) of data points that support and explain minutia of the Theory of Evolution.
As Hume famously said, "the wise man apportions his beliefs to the evidence."
@@brianmi40
I would suggest the line is between his resolve to maintain his theism and his cognitive dissonance resulting from his scientific knowledge, which conflicts with that theism. In order to maintain it, he has constructed his own theory that allows him wriggle room to accept most of darwinian natural selection whilst at the same time arguing for a creator.
Whilst I can see why he's attempted to do so, I think he's failed for a number of reasons.
Whilst he agrees that evolutionary speciation occurs, and agrees that all apes for instance have a single common ancestor, he claims it doesn't occur beyond the class of family. In effect he draws an invisible line in the genetic tree of life that he calls "the edge of evolution", and depending on what side of this line he decides to stand he can argue for science or theism as he so chooses.
The problem is that this line has no specific definition or evidence for its existence, it's purely a construct of his own personal dichotomy, to which he applies an argument from incredulity I.e. "irreducible complexity" when called upon to support his narrative.
It's interesting that he uses his scientific credentials as an argument from authority to support his belief that the science is incorrect. In effect he's undermining his own argument. If science doesn't know, then how as a scientist can he know?
I always ask people that support his theory that if as he claims, genes are only ever broken and "darwin devolves", but also apes share a common ancestor, are humans devolved apes? Or are apes devolved humans?
Theists usually stop replying at that point , and it's easy to see why.
The only theist that ever got into that discussion with me eventually agreed with me that behes ideas simply don't work, and I have the greatest respect for her for doing so publicly.
Long post, sorry, I'll stop there.
Thank you for your work. I really appreciate listening to other Christians.
Romans 1:20-25
20 For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities-his eternal power and divine nature-have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse.
21 For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22 Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools 23 and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like a mortal human being and birds and animals and reptiles.
24 Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. 25 They exchanged the truth about God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator-who is forever praised. Amen.
Why just appreciate listening to christians?
@@ukcadjockey I also Love God and Jesus Christ. I read the bible and pray to know and love God more. Thank God!
@@des711
So just more christians then. You haven't answered my question really, have you.
@@ukcadjockey
WROTE: " Why just appreciate listening to christians? "
Nice straw-man attempt at an argument. Your rewording of his comment implies that he "only" appreciates listening to Christians but that's not what he said.
I like to listen to Christians too because they have the truth but we obviously don't only listen to Christians because we both responded to you.
@@rickdavis2235
*Nice straw-man attempt at an argument*
I followed his insinuation, and given his subsequent answer, it appears my inference was correct. All he had to say was that he didn't just listen to christians and i would have been wrong, but he didn't, so apparently i wasn't.
Therefore no strawman.
*I like to listen to Christians too because they have the truth but we obviously don't only listen to Christians because we both responded to you.*
What you like has no correlation whatsoever with what he likes, so my answer to you would be "nice association fallacy attempt at an argument"
Great discussion.
The problem is that Dr Behe does not really understand how evolution works and has not supported his claim that thing that he calls irreducibly complex cannot evolve to reach the alleged state. Indeed he claimed the clotting cascade was irreducibly complex, OK MAYBE not really in this case, but that does not mean it could not evolve but he DEFINES irreducible complexity to be something that cannot evolve. Defines as opposed to proves. Its a fact free claim.
Oh in the clotting cascade he claimed that that there are seven steps and they must ALL be there. Well we have seven, but whales have SIX of those seven and they do just fine with six. Clearly it was NOT irreducibly complex.
So while you might like the discussion it was a two people that agree with a false claim. Dr Behe has not done so well with people that don't agree with him.
Ethelred Hardrede
@@EthelredHardrede-nz8yv LOL!! Sure glad we have you to clear that up for us.
@@wade5941
Hey its not fault that it went over your head. Ignorance on evolution is how he lost at the Dover Trial.
@@EthelredHardrede-nz8yv Nobody understands how evolution works yet bc it is not settled science. Evolutionary theory keeps mutating.
@@antirnator8194
" Nobody understands how evolution works yet "
Who told you that silly lie. I am not the only person that understands it. LOTS of people do.
" Evolutionary theory keeps mutating.
And who you that lie? Its pretty well understood and has been since genetics was added. If you mean we don't know every detail of every species over billions of years that is silly because that is not theory. Its the specific history over time.
Here, you TOO can learn how it works. I will tell you how it works. Then you won't be arguing from ignorance for ignorance. I think that Dr. Behe does sort of understand what I will post, its the historical details that simply refuses to think out. In Darwin's Black Box the chapter on clotting cascade implies that he thought that there was some larger animal directly competing with the first species to evolve blood and that somehow it had something equivelant to blood and clotting. No. I bet you have not any of his stuff. I have.
Let me get you started in your journey to reality.
How evolution works:
First step in the process.
Mutations happen - There are many kinds of them from single hit changes to the duplication of entire genomes, the last happens in plants not vertebrates. The most interesting kind is duplication of genes which allows one duplicate to do the old job and the new to change to take on a different job. There is ample evidence that this occurs and this is the main way that information is added to the genome. This can occur much more easily in sexually reproducing organisms due their having two copies of every gene in the first place.
Second step in the process, the one Creationist pretend doesn't happen when they claim evolution is only random.
Mutations are the raw change in the DNA. Natural selection carves the information from the environment into the DNA. Much like a sculptor carves an shape into the raw mass of rock. Selection is what makes it information in the sense Creationists use. The selection is by the environment. ALL the evidence supports this.
Natural Selection - mutations that decrease the chances of reproduction are removed by this. It is inherent in reproduction that a decrease in the rate of successful reproduction due to a gene that isn't doing the job adequately will be lost from the gene pool. This is something that cannot not happen. Some genes INCREASE the rate of successful reproduction. Those are inherently conserved. This selection is by the environment, which also includes other members of the species, no outside intelligence is required for the environment to select out bad mutations or conserve useful mutations.
The two steps of the process is all that is needed for evolution to occur. Add in geographical or reproductive isolation and speciation will occur.
This is a natural process. No intelligence is needed for it occur. It occurs according to strictly local, both in space and in time, laws of chemistry and reproduction.
There is no magic in it. It is as inevitable as hydrogen fusing in the Sun. If there is reproduction and there is variation then there will be evolution.
Some books to get you started:
Why evolution is true - Jerry A. Coyne
THIS BOOK IN PARTICULAR to see just how messy and undesigned the chemistry of life is.
Herding Hemingway's Cats: Understanding how Our Genes Work
Book by Kat Arney
This shows new organs evolving from previous organs. Limbs from fins.
Your Inner Fish
Book by Neil Shubin
Wonderful life : the Burgess Shale and nature of history / Stephen Jay Gould
Life on a Young Planet: The First Three Billions Years of Evolution on Earth Andrew H, Knoll
The Dragons of Eden: Speculations on the Evolution of Human Intelligence by Carl Sagan
Ethelred Hardrede
Why is it so hard for some people see or believe in an eternal an all powerful God? It’s is obvious to some. Not sure why some people deny it no matter what.
Pride
What I see is both sides have right and wrong behaviors, which as well as mocking the other side for things that they have but can't see they have as well. they both accusing each other of not listening and understand their side and not knowing or realize they are not making enough effort for the other side themself. "You should listen to those who annoy you for the off chance that you see things you cauldn't see in yourself"
IF YOU DIDN't UNDERSTAND THAT'S OK, I DIDN't UNDERSTAND WHAT I HAVE WRITTEN EATHER. (～￣▽￣)～
@@ghostghost514 In charity, we need to be careful. Wise as serpents, peaceful as doves. There is one question. Is God or not. If God "is," we are bound to honor and serve Him. If there is no God, we are our own masters. The claim to naturalism precludes the possibility of God. The claim to God does not preclude naturalistic origins. The 'both sides' statement assumes the positions are equal. They are not.
Calling it "obvious" is NOT EVIDENCE. Do you have EVIDENCE beyond "calling it"?
Because the evidence, especially against the GOD OF THE BIBLE, is pretty obvious, simply by an honest read of the bible itself.
@@brianmi40 sure……..we all use the obvious evidence all the time, solving crimes, when we do science, or in our day to day lives.
The only time some people have a problem with it is when it is in regards to God. And it is usually the people that hate him or don’t want it to be true and are angry. Hard to see the evidence when anger or hate is your starting point.
Dr. Michael Behe is a hero. A true scuentist standing up against the thought police.
It's not a conspiracy just because virtually no other scientists agree with him. It's just that virtually no other scientists agree with him.
The conversation continues with the April 16, 2019 SITC interview with physicist Stephen Meyer. Great follow up to biochemist Michael Behe interview shown here. Many will undoubtedly conclude after watching these interviews "Wow, we've been lied to!."
Sassy
By creationists
Stephen Meyer isn't a physicist. He got a general earth science degree, and later got a PhD in science philosophy. He's never probably taken anything more than single variable calculus.
@@davidbutler1857
Even if being a geophysicist doesn't mean anything to you, can you argue with his logic? If a housewife made the same points wouldn't the stark truth stand out for what it is? It's time to declare that the Emperor has no clothes with regards to Darwinian macroevolution as the driving force behind complex life formation. We've outgrown this myth and its time to stop lying to children about it.
David Butler
Yep you can tell when he waffles in front of his congregation whenever anyone asks any probing questions he always defers to someone else some other “expert”.
Sassy
No it means nothing because we know he’s bullshitting .No one in the science community takes him or intelligent design seriously. There is nothing to teach . God or some creator did it isn’t science .
The best they can come up with is “irreducible complexity “ unfortunately for them we know how complex organs evolved which they continue to ignore and just keep pumping out their nonsense.
I think there is some confusion here as evidenced by comments that don't seem to be based upon the video or what would be known from by reading or following Behe. Behe doesn't, nor has as far I have read or heard from him in several years, argue on behalf of any particular source for the first state information in the cells. Actually, Stephen Myers doesn't make that argument either. Myers has, several times, explained that it's the implications that intelligent design presents that causes the push back. It's important to note that these same implications caused push back when the "big bang" was being proposed. Now that we are seeing that the top level organisms hold all of the genetic code and that the more we see actual modification, those modification are due to a degrading of the code not adding to it, we are left with the necessary question of "OK, if the first body types that existed came into existence, necessarily according to the latest research, with the most advanced and complete genetic code, where did all of this 1st stage code originate? The implication to this question are huge and it's the world view that prevents people from considering the same source that would answer all of the other big questions as well. Probably the biggest case of Occam's razor in the history of the universe.
@Joshua Opell I can see your point. In the context of my comment, which perhaps should have been expanded upon, my use of Occam's razor would reduce a near infinite number of speculations to one.
Positing evolution vs. devolution or degradation of original more complete genetic systems implies we know the purpose or goal or ultimate objective state of the organism. The change in functioning due to a mutation may simply be a discard of a no longer necessary or excessively burdensome part of the entity, allowing redirection to the entity's original or changed goal or endpoint of life. An analogy could be discard of the original tanks holding fuel for lift-off of a rocket after liftoff.
Spot on
Behe looks small in that chair but his words make him 6'10".
Did he say "that's cor-right" at 33.36? He just devolved the words correct and right into one.
I love this show
Psalm 19:1 The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament sheweth his handywork.
@May Ling - i once heard a old timer say this: "son you can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drink". Anyhow thanks for the funny video link and God bless you my very attractive Asian friend, in Jesus name.
@May Ling - ok so you're an American, don't know why you had to say that since that still doesn't change the fact that you're Asian. i wasn't trying to insult you or anything Sweetie by pointing out your distinct biological characteristics (Race). oh and whoever originally said that "old saying" was crazy as hell, that's like saying "you can sleep with my wife, just don't try to tell me that she tripped, fell, and landed on your D!@%."
@May Ling - Find, find woman you win.... oh and don't deny your roots Professor Ling, you should know by that the Name/Title American is a National Status, not a Race. So Sugar whether you acknowledge it or not you're a Asian American, just like I'm a Hispanic American. that's nothing to a shame about nor deny. Take care Professor May Ling..... yeah that name doesn't sound Asian at all.
Hate to break it to you but there is no firmament.
@@smb123211 - Really ??? Go outside mate and look up, the Firmament stops at the Earth's atmosphere. Our God is a mighty God indeed. Here check this out, hope you learn something: ruclips.net/video/nbqtPqnOA_c/видео.html
The Human Genome Project showed that humans have as many genes as a worm basically. What makes more proteins able to be expressed in cells is epigenetic control. And interestingly there is also epigenetic evolution which is more like Lamarckism than Darwinism. Still it seems to me that creationism is also needed. I even suspect that protein folding inside cells is intelligently guided on subatomic levels, and that explains the difficulty of simulating much of protein folding even with today's most powerful supercomputers.
Epigenetics does not play the extent of the role of adaption and variation you say , more research needs to be done , though it is clear it plays some role. But nothing to do with macro evo.
Epigenetics and evolution are oxymoron. . . epigentics indicates the modifications within the coded strand. . .not variations of the mechanism genome/strand itself. . .! This very fact in the death or making a faith of Darwinian evolution. . .science has proven that to them a long time!! Genetic science has made a monkey of evolution theory. . .and any honest open minded intellectual would not be caught dead hanging on to that monkey doo doo!
As far as making a choice for the other faith. . .intelligent design. . .science will inform both. . .a high probability factor is all that is left!! Lamarckism is basic Darwinian evolution. . .epigentics is British Botanist Conrad Weddington in 1905!!
@@sterlinggardiner4389 Intelligent Design is not faith. It's a logical deduction from empirical evidence......like when I find a cake baking in my oven and deduce that an intelligent agent has been in my kitchen.
I Love the interviewer, behe and his mother. great great interview.
Love this guy
Science is an empty shell without God at center
@@walkergarya
Highlighted reply. walkergarya. . 1 hour ago. . Nope. Religion is an empty lie.. . .
So you consider the Catholics owning and operating 600+ licensed hospitals and thousands of schools
..... an empty lie?
Life is an empty shell without God at the center
"Irreducible Complexity"
The argument: At the sub-microscopic level, biochemical systems are extremely complex, relying on elaborate interactions and feedback loops between organic enzymes, molecules of water and carbon dioxide, and the energy provided by sunlight or thermal vents. If, for example, you remove even one component of a ribosome (the giant molecule that converts the genetic information contained in DNA into the instructions to build proteins), the entire structure ceases to function. Clearly, intelligent design advocates say, such a system could not have evolved gradually, by Darwinian means, since it is "irreducibly complex" and therefore must have been created in toto as a functioning whole.
Why it's flawed: The "irreducible complexity" argument makes two basic mistakes. First, it assumes that evolution is always a linear process; it's possible that the first primordial ribosome only began functioning when a random molecular component was removed, rather than added (which is an extremely improbable event in itself, but one with a high probability over hundreds of millions of years of trial and error). Second, it's often the case that the components of a biological system evolve for one reason (or for no reason at all), and then are later "exapted" for another purpose. A (previously useless) protein in a complex biological system may "discover" its true function only when another protein is randomly added-which eliminates the need for an Intelligent Designer.
By Bob Strauss
All of that is just baseless assumption. Like a lot of science is. Just look at the evolutionary tree of humanity. All the bones they’ve found never create a full skeletal structure of what they claim. Like Lucy and Ardi. Once you look into what they have for “proof” of our ancient ancestors you realize it’s conjecture and assumption and almost all of it is imagined. Like Lucy. The bones they have of her actually suggest that she didn’t walk up right and was just a regular ape. CNN even showed how Lucy died; by falling out of a tree. Why would Lucy be in a tree if she was able to walk up right. Even her hands suggest that she’s just an ape. You can go through every ancestor and what we have and see many many many problems and it’s all imagined assumptions. We even found in the last decade Neanderthals mated with Humans and lived with them. By definition that makes them the same species if they can mate with humans. So Neanderthals were just humans and their assumptions are just imagined into the evolutionary tree. We can see the biggest of assumptions in science with dark matter and energy. So Occam’s razor for life suggest that a super intelligence created information, DNA the book of life. Science has not shown with a definitive answer that nature doesn’t need a creator. It just hasn’t yet and people believe, their faith in a no God is quite astounding and it’s contrary to what we actually do know and have evidence on that isn’t based on assumption. Like the whole human evolutionary tree. It’s one of the biggest scams there is.
@@treytilley333 If you think that "a super intelligence created" anything then you need to show evidence for such otherwise your comment is a baseless assertion and nothing more, if on the other hand you have evidence then I for one would like to see it.
Your knowledge of the fossil record is pretty limited so I would suggest you do more research before posting comments as you run the risk of looking silly. How Lucy died is irrelevant the fact is we have a skeleton and have subsequently found more complete examples and thus proven that this transitional specie existed just as we have with every other one.
David Weeks, aka Van Smack, wrote, "Irreducible Complexity"
You are an amazingly annoying troll, bonehead.
===========================
David Weeks, aka Van Smack, wrote, "Why it's flawed: The "irreducible complexity" argument makes two basic mistakes. First, it assumes that evolution is always a linear process; it's possible that the first primordial ribosome only began functioning when a random molecular component was removed, rather than added (which is an extremely improbable event in itself, but one with a high probability over hundreds of millions of years of trial and error)."
Why is that argument flawed? There is absolutly ZERO evidence that evolution has ever occurred.
===========================
David Weeks, aka Van Smack, wrote, "Second, it's often the case that the components of a biological system evolve for one reason (or for no reason at all), and then are later "exapted" for another purpose. A (previously useless) protein in a complex biological system may "discover" its true function only when another protein is randomly added-which eliminates the need for an Intelligent Designer. By Bob Strauss"
That is what is known as a just-so story. Bob Strauss has to be one of the dumbest people on the planet, smarter only than those poor souls who believe him, like you, bonehead.
When are you going to refrain from copy/pasting unscientific nonsense, bonehead?
Dan
The irony of arguing with someone who copies and pastes is lost on 'honest' atheists. Ha.
It is not Behe who states evolution is a linear process. Imagine (if you could) the claim that it isn't. Eugenie Scott tried to talk that issue away with Dembski and failed stupendously. A small evolutionary step in the wrong direction is usually rewarded with death in utero. Bravo. As for the "components" and reason...this avoids the premise of Irreducible complexity. The target function cannot proceed the planning for it. This is Behe's point. You and your ilk, dismiss the function and attribute random assembly (if that was ever a thing) followed by brilliant functionality. Yeah, that's science...not.
@@zoeytrejo9747 can you point to where I said Behe says that evolution is linear?
The problem you have is pretty well all of Behe’s work has been debunked at some point and so nobody really takes him seriously, I’m sure you’ve seen the statement made by his university?
You can cry conspiracy but it doesn’t alter the fact that Behe has been proven wrong on everything he’s done.
The fact I have copy and pasted some evidence is irrelevant and I obviously do that to show the comments are coming from people in authority.
The fact you don’t understand is glaringly obvious as is your lack of peer reviewed evidence to back your case.
I am going to purchase the book "Darwin Devolves" from Dr Michael soon...and read it from first to last page.
You'll then realise it utter rubbish without a shred of evidence, see if you can get your money back.
@@ramptonarsecandle i am reading the books and its intresting it exposes the fallacy of evolution
@@yakovmatityahu The fact you think evolution is a "fallacy" means you're either a creationist halfwit or just very gullible, you choose.
All of Behe's "evidence" essentially boils down to irreducible complexity and god of the gap arguments (negative evidence)- which has been continuously debunked and is not evidence at all. But you keep believing and sending in your cash.
@@ramptonarsecandle read the book I dont have enough faith to be an atheist
@@yakovmatityahu You don't need to be an atheist to understand evolution you just have to use your brain.
The book is utter nonsense, ask yourself this - why has he not published any of his research for peer review?
Watch this video " The Collapse of Intelligent Design: Kenneth R Miller Lecture" and go to 40mins in to see Behe's argument comprehensively dismantled
I bet you don't.
To illustrate the (lack of) honesty of most creationists and ID proponents this is a statement from Kurt Wise basically saying he's quite happy to lie if it comes to it, and it would appear it has.
"Although there are scientific reasons for accepting a young earth, I am a young-age creationist because that is my understanding of the Scripture. As I shared with my professors years ago when I was in college, if all the evidence in the universe turns against creationism, I would be the first to admit it, but I would still be a creationist because that is what the Word of God seems to indicate. Here I must stand." Dr K. Wise from In Six Days.
News for you Kurt, all the evidence has turned against creationism.
David Weeks, aka Van Smack, aka Gary Walker, wrote, "
News for you Kurt, all the evidence has turned against creationism."
News for you, bonehead. All evidence -- in life, in the geologic column, and in the fossil record -- screams special creation.
However, if you can explain how those incredibly thick, homogeneous, uneroded, unbioturbated, marine-fossil-laden, world-wide sedimentary rock layers were deposited by any means other than by a global flood, please submit your evidence. Please include in your evidence the means by which marine (ocean) fossils are found in virtually every layer, including the top-most layers. Also explain how these sedimentary rock layers folded without fracturing:
mjfimages.files.wordpress.com/2014/11/folded_mountain.jpg
Dan
So who was first credited as the author of the Book of Life? (A. The Creator) The highest scientific achievements are the signature of the Most High Intelligence we can name.
Blabber blabber blabber, nonsense.
Ain't any.
Fantasy.
As a Christian I can accept that as a dogma . As someone with a science degree it’s not proven . Creationists never understand that science only deals with natural phenomena and has nothing to say about actual supernatural phenomena . Science simply cannot answer the question of whether God exists or not and since its unanswerable we don’t bother . Since we can’t say that any deity exists or not , that any deity creating anything is also a big question mark . Scientists are honest and say they can’t answer the question. Some people take that idea of methodological naturalism which is what science uses to get answers and become philosophical naturalists or atheists/agnostics even though they’re about different subjects - scientific methods and theology.
Mixing theology with science just makes your answers into pseudoscience . Which is what S Meyers and M Behe do.
@@dancingnature
There is NO "supernatural", it has never been seen, there is NO evidence for it!! Claiming a god exists with no evidence for it is sophistry, it is bald-faced LYING!! From the evidence we in Science CAN say whether a god exists or not, and it does NOT! There is NO evidence of any effect on reality by such a supernatural god, NOR do we have ANY foundational information as to where this god originated in history EXCEPT as a fable, a fairy tale that grew. We see NO magic, NO miracles, we see NO effects from prayer, and even the origin of the universe never points to anything like a god, the latest theories say the universe may be eternal and bouncing new versions of itself every trillion trillion years or so. Theology is a fantasy, it doesn't really exist. It is NOT that they are non-overlapping magisteria, but that the supernatural is a FAKE magisterium, it doesn't exist! Saying that someone may discover some supernatural someday is just being polite to total retards.
If only the intellectuals that populate the comment section with their profound knowledge could put into print their wisdom, they could surely take the place of Hawking, Newton, Pascal, and the likes. But no. They'd rather waste their time commenting here rather than enlightening the world with their profound and exquisite knowledge of the ways the universe works. This is sad. I beg you, comment section intellectual, write something, debate someone, please teach us!
Instead of rebutting the works of those silly guys in the videos, who supposedly "researched" and know what they're talking about, why not just debunk their ideas with a very well thought out and researched work? Why waste neurons here in the comment section with these other stupid guys who oppose your unparalleled knowledge? What do they know about anything, uh?
@May Ling A prayer? wut?
Because you're no doing the same? How do I know "you" are the real you?
@May Ling We're even then. Have a nice day.
May Ling
Well case closed then! Your appeal to authority has clearly shut all mouths! What need for an actual point when you can merely say “I’m a university professor, bend your knee to me! I am your clergy and your sole arbiter of truth!”?
I’ve spent just as much time in higher education as you, and that was far more than enough time to realize that “I’m a university professor” is hardly a sentence that should immediately garner my respect or my admiration, much less shut down my own reason and cause me to blindly accept anything you say.
@May Ling Oh, I'm so, so very sorry!! Forgive me your majesty! I never meant to challenge you or disrespect you! Please, have mercy on my soul! I have no idea you were a university professor, if I had known, I would've never, ever, ever, EVA, even attempted to engage with your majesty in intellectual matters. But, in the end, since the power and authority belongs to you, do with my life as your infinite wisdom, intelligence and powers sees fit. I'm your humble servant.
@May Ling my lady, you're either a top of the line troll, or your self esteem needs some hard work. No one cares about your degrees or educational achievements. But carry on if showing off makes you feel good. It is all about feelings, I know.
Too long in between vids for my liking
My brain is starved of your content
Thank you
Wow
The host Eric Metaxas certainly loves the sound of his own voice. He barely let Dr. Behe speak
Thom Vogan - Behe has nothing new to say that he hasn't already said a thousand times and had rebutted just as many. It amazes me that he's still playing the same old record as the one played in the 'Dover trial' where he was humiliated.
Here's a primer on 'Intelligent design'...
ruclips.net/video/Ohd5uqzlwsU/видео.html
Eric Metastasis
@@rogerfroud300 what a joke. The Dover trial was a sham with a Judge who plagiarized incorrect information and was thrust into the spotlight leaving him anything but impartial.
The "science"has been verifiably proven false in regard to the type 3 secretion complex. Behe was right all along.
If it ain't broke, then don't fix it
@@SailingTheologicalSeas - Wrong, the Dover trial exposed the falsehoods and unscientific nature of ID. Behe was forced to admit that Astrology had the same level of credibility. Read the transcript and weep.
The Judge was a Christian for goodness sake. Even he could see that there simply wasn't a case for teaching ID.
The excellent documentary tells the story brilliantly.
@@rogerfroud300 wow.
You are so incredibly misinformed. I suggest you go back and review the lazy work done by judge Jones. Literally copied and pasted verifiably incorrect information into his ruling statement. Not only that, but the "dagger" against ID has been proven to be false. Type 3 secretion complex came after the bacterial flagellum.
David Berlinski is right about the bold absurdity of science-ism.
He is a very interesting fellow. Its kind of weird that he hasn't accepted Christianity.
The epithet "science-sim" is used only by people who feel threatened by science because they are too mentally lazy to understand it.
Scientists are honest, Creationists are liars.
@@freeinhabitant2422 Some Jewish Creationists pander to fundamentalist Christians by pretending to be impartial about religion, but their bias is clear-- they are peddling religion and don't care about science.
Creationists consider science to be the enemy and try to undermine its credibility like a defense attorney tries to smear the reputation of a witness. Science is never corrected by religion, it corrects itself because scientists are always ready to reconsider a theory in light of new data and have organized institutional procedures in place to do so.. Religious fundamentalists do not, they cling to old dogmas out of pride and spite.
Nice video - here's a thought Eric: What about a concept or an idea I can share with 1000 people or 1 person? - thats not matter - or a brain - or magnetism or electricity - its not even a thought! I can convey a concept in multiple ways - on paper - with words - down a phone - along a glass fibre - with signs - concepts or information can ride on materials but they themselves are immaterial period. The Word is what holds all together.
Behe is a tenured professor at Lehigh University. Here is the disclaimer that he posts on his web page at the university "My arguments about irreducible complexity and intelligent design are my own, and are not endorsed either by Lehigh University in general or by the Department of Biological Sciences in particular."
@@Itsatz0 micro evolution, yes. macro evolution, hardly
Crickets. Nobody here can refute a claim by Behe. Crickets. Now use the fact that Darwinism is dead to improve your outlook.
OK, now you're just in denial. Pretty much every major biologist refuted Behe's claims and even people down here in the comments.
@@matteomastrodomenico1231 Don't think you are actually saying something. You will have to think for yourself someday.
@@zoeytrejo9747 OK, but you're still in denial.
@@joefriday2275 We will have to take the "OK" as a sign of some significance.
@@joefriday2275 I wasn't offering a counter argument, I just said that many more did, while Zoey claimed no one did.
more and more scientists are moving towards a creator.
According to Genesis God didn't so much "create" as He "commanded"
to create - the earth and the oceans. "God commanded the seas to
bring forth life .... birds that flew in the sky."
A strict creation would mean God is creating new species every day.
Soon He will have to create a brown polar bear.
Who are those "scientists"?
If you were a scientist and said the rain come from God then you need go no further in
understanding rainfall. You wouldn't understand the wonderful systems which operate
in the atmosphere, you wouldn't be able to control them and you wouldn't be able to
make predictions. Maybe God does, ultimately made the rain and the animals, but that's
at a hugely abstracted level.
Bebe ultimately might be right and wrong. Einstein didn't disprove Newton, but Newton's
view of gravity and time were incomplete. I suspect Darwin is incomplete, but it certainly
explains a huge lot.
@@pruephillip1338 Your getting ahead of yourself GOD created the wonderful systems that operate in the atmosphere. DARWIN is a theory not FACT
BIG BANG is a theory not FACT
EVOLUTION is a theory not FACT.
Gravity is a law but nobody knows for a fact what it is. I dare you to look it up.
scientists dont know what gravity is and its under their nose and then they want to prove that the universe is 13.8 billion years old. and why is it that they all believe that our solar system is in the middle.
GO FIGURE.
If you rid GOD you are free to do say and act as you please. this is what they want.
Richard Dawkins and his gang of liers Said quote" if all the evidence we have on the universe and the origin of life points to A GOD we will dismiss it coz its just not science."
these liers are changing the rules of science to siut there agenda not proof or fact.
this is why only 13% of scientist believe in evolution big bang theory totally. technology and science is disproving them.
trust me I believed in evolution big bang etc up until I researched it 3 years ago and found out there are no facts in it. JUST THEORIES
People say we can put a man on the moon but can't cure cancer. That's a false comparison because
cancer is a tougher nut to crack. Same with gravity - we understand the electron and photon, but
gravity is a tougher nut.
So yes, "evolution is a theory" with qualifications. The 'history of evolution' is not a theory because
its well documented - legs on whales, fish with legs, birds with hand claws and early humans with
small brains. But how it happens is not fully explained. But then, gravity isn't fully explained and I
accept it.
I remember reading in the book Darwin’s Blackbox, Behe saying origination of life is impossible without some sort of intelligent design, but that he believes in the evolutionary biology that every organisms has a common descent. Am I sensing a radical change in his belief (of macro evolution) that he no longer holds to that?
what do you mean by common descent exactly? Care to elaborate further, because there may be different ways at describing that. Care to share?
Hailemariam Mitiku
m, you wrote, "I remember reading in the book Darwin’s Blackbox, Behe saying origination of life is impossible without some sort of intelligent design, but that he believes in the evolutionary biology that every organisms has a common descent. Am I sensing a radical change in his belief (of macro evolution) that he no longer holds to that?"
This is a more recent statement by Behe on common descent:
_"Because design is not about common descent, the existence of fossils or even living organisms that seem intermediate between categories higher than family does not affect the argument. The design argument here is not that one higher category cannot descend from another through intermediates. Rather, the argument is that one higher category cannot descend from another by means of an unplanned process such as Darwin's mechanism. To cast doubt on design, then, it would be necessary for a critic to positively demonstrate that random, unguided processes could indeed lead to profound constructive biological change. Since that is precisely what proponents of Darwin's theory claim it can do, it seems only fair to ask them to demonstrate it to us skeptics, if they want to be taken seriously." [Chapter 6, The Family Line, in Behe, Michael J., "Darwin Devolves." HarperOne, 2019]_
Dan
Thank God for honest scientists
james ellis
Intelligent Design isn’t science .
@@MartTLS neither is macro evolution
james ellis
Define macroevolution .
You are firm of honest scientists?
Take it from one of your own: Dr. Francis Collins, the head of the Human Genome Project, is also a devout
evangelical Christian. Perhaps the only respectable one in the entire world.
Here's what he says. 'Yes, evolution by descent from a common ancestor is
clearly true. If there was any lingering doubt about the evidence from the
fossil record, the study of DNA provides the strongest possible proof of our
relatedness to all other living things. It's also now been possible to compare
our DNA with that of many other species. The evidence supporting the idea that
all living things are descended from a common ancestor is truly overwhelming. I
would not necessarily wish that to be so, as a Bible-believing Christian but it
is so. It does not serve faith well to try to deny that.'
@@derhafi So, we have some evolution scientists who say that from what they see that evolution by descent is impossible and there is no evidence for it, and we have some on the other side...Pretty good dilemma we have lol
It's unfortunate that the interviewer talks much more than the one who knows and should. I expected Behe talking more but it didn't happen. Such a disappointment.
Interesting they don't show the likes/dislikes, I wonder why..............🤔
Google "Algorithm" at work, making sure the video is NOT suggested to others.
So what we know is that truth is hard to come by, even the brightest mind will skew their opinion only to ease the minds or appease the weak minded. Well good luck to humanity, hope we figure it out in my life time.
"So what we know is that truth is hard to come by, even the brightest mind will skew their opinion only to ease the minds or appease the weak minded""
Good description of Dr Behe. Did you mean to do that. Your post is ambiguous.
" hope we figure it out in my life time."
Even that is ambiguous, WHAT in your lifetime. We have figured out how life has changed over time. Evolution by natural selection. Dr Behe has failed to support his claims and lost at the Dover Trial.
Ethelred Hardrede
@mtman2
Done it. Unlike you I have even read Dr. Behe. He is completely ignorant about how evolution works. Well not quite as ignorant as you are.
Here try this again. THIS time read it and then the books.
Let me get you started in your journey to reality.
How evolution works:
First step in the process.
Mutations happen - There are many kinds of them from single hit changes to the duplication of entire genomes, the last happens in plants not vertebrates. The most interesting kind is duplication of genes which allows one duplicate to do the old job and the new to change to take on a different job. There is ample evidence that this occurs and this is the main way that information is added to the genome. This can occur much more easily in sexually reproducing organisms due their having two copies of every gene in the first place.
Second step in the process, the one Creationist pretend doesn't happen when they claim evolution is only random.
Mutations are the raw change in the DNA. Natural selection carves the information from the environment into the DNA. Much like a sculptor carves an shape into the raw mass of rock. Selection is what makes it information in the sense Creationists use. The selection is by the environment. ALL the evidence supports this.
Natural Selection - mutations that decrease the chances of reproduction are removed by this. It is inherent in reproduction that a decrease in the rate of successful reproduction due to a gene that isn't doing the job adequately will be lost from the gene pool. This is something that cannot not happen. Some genes INCREASE the rate of successful reproduction. Those are inherently conserved. This selection is by the environment, which also includes other members of the species, no outside intelligence is required for the environment to select out bad mutations or conserve useful mutations.
The two steps of the process is all that is needed for evolution to occur. Add in geographical or reproductive isolation and speciation will occur.
This is a natural process. No intelligence is needed for it occur. It occurs according to strictly local, both in space and in time, laws of chemistry and reproduction.
There is no magic in it. It is as inevitable as hydrogen fusing in the Sun. If there is reproduction and there is variation then there will be evolution.
Some books to get you started:
Why evolution is true - Jerry A. Coyne
THIS BOOK IN PARTICULAR to see just how messy and undesigned the chemistry of life is.
Herding Hemingway's Cats: Understanding how Our Genes Work
Book by Kat Arney
This shows new organs evolving from previous organs. Limbs from fins.
Your Inner Fish
Book by Neil Shubin
Wonderful life : the Burgess Shale and nature of history / Stephen Jay Gould
Life on a Young Planet: The First Three Billions Years of Evolution on Earth Andrew H, Knoll
The Dragons of Eden: Speculations on the Evolution of Human Intelligence by Carl Sagan
Ethelred Hardrede
Greatest question if he opened up after getting tenure and very honest.
Very dishonest thing to do. He peddles a pseudoscience and world not have got tenure had he started before he got tenure.
ruclips.net/video/-RAKW6XHCOY/видео.html
Why don’t ppl like Eric? He’s so comically tuned
How do ID and Creationism inhibit the ability to do reasonable methods for dealing with physical things (science)?
They don't unless you simply can't accept the very great likelihood that life is designed.
@@tonyjames1953 They DO if you accept that there is as yet no reason whatsoever to suppose life is designed by anything other than natural processes.
Nick Nack “you’re part of a dwindling group”, you know, at one point in time I would have actually believed that statement but the fact of the matter is that it is objectively false. Either you don’t know of the continuous shift in the scholarly communities of cosmology, astrophysics, quantum mechanics, biochemistry and biology to name a few, or your cognitive dissonance is causing you to suppress the evidence itself - such is the same as fundamentalist Evangelicals. You refuse to acknowledge a crumbling worldview and those dogmatics won’t last long.
@Nick Nack Such a careless bunch of comments. The very evidence for design is all around you. Nothing comes of nothing, and there isn't a single bit of empirical evidence proving the forward thrust of evolution that is required for anything to complicate itself beyond the most basic of structures - nothing! As for design, you wouldn't know a "good" design from a 'bad" design unless you also comprehended the nature of thing designed, which you don't!
@@pleasesubscribe7659 Actually, it is religious societies that have developed the very math you are using, so try again, genius!!
I don't know if the subject in discussion is very scientifically serious and sensitive, it's OK that the host talks much more than the interviewed guest, with addition of throwing humorous commentaries by the host.Anyway,it's a great interview with a great and modest personality.
14:50 Yes but can we also look at all of the old, archaic creation models that ID proponents transparently ignore?
Can we simply get ID proponents to recall that the SUN GIVES US CANCER? Or that 125,000 people DIE annually worldwide due to CHOKING TO DEATH, merely due to DESIGN?
Irreducible complexity asserts that certain biochemical systems in nature contain parts that are too well matched to be products of evolution.
Every part of an irreducibly complex system is necessary: take away even one, and the entire system will no longer work. Because their parts are so intricate and so interdependent, such systems could not possibly have been the result of evolution, ID supporters argue.
Irreducible complexity's main proponent is Michael Behe, a biochemist at Lehigh University in Pennsylvania. Among the systems that Behe claims are irreducibly complex are the bacterial flagellum, a microscopic whip-like structure that some bacteria use to swim, and the cascade of proteins that make up the human blood-clotting system.
Darwin himself admitted that if an example of irreducible complexity were ever found, his theory of natural selection would crumble.
"If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down," Darwin wrote.
Yet no true examples of irreducible complexity have ever been found. The concept is rejected by the majority of the scientific community.
Robert Williams, you wrote, "Yet no true examples of irreducible complexity have ever been found. The concept is rejected by the majority of the scientific community."
Irreducible complexity is found in every living organism, Robert. It is also known as symbiosis.
Besides, consensus is NOT science. Rather, consensus is the "first refuge of scoundrels," according to Michael Crichton [WSJ, 2003.] He added,
_"The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus."_
Science is always based on data, not consensus.
The "scientific community" tends to be like a church, rejecting as heresy anything that falls outside the doctrine of the orthodoxy. The only thing that has changed in the scientific orthodoxy since the days of Galileo is the method of punishment for the heretics.
In Galileo's day you could lose your life; these days you can only lose your career.
Dan
@@BibleResearchTools No it's not, show me some examples please.
Chester Parsnip, you wrote, "@Bible Research Tools No it's not, show me some examples please."
No it's not, what, Robert?
Dan
@@BibleResearchTools No evidence then Dan? So funny with all your bollocks. What a twat.
Van Smack, you wrote, "@Bible Research Tools "In Galileo's day you could lose your life; these days you can only lose your career." Name 'em and claim 'em. Your Holy Father Michael Behe still has a job even though the faculty disagrees with him and his students make fun of him. So name the scientists who have gotten fired for spouting creationist bullshit."
I can name a few who were publicly fired for contradicting the religion of evolution, potty mouth, but all were attempting to teach real science, not evolutionism.
So, my question is, child, have you been living in a cave, or are you trying to hide the fact that evolutionists are so insecure about their religion of evolution that they feel they must blacklist anyone who questions it? I choose the latter. Your cult could be a forerunner of the fascist cult named Antifa.
For the rest of you, this 2005 article lists some who were fired or persecuted from a couple of decades ago:
evolutionnews.org/2005/12/academic_persecution_of_scient_1/
This article adds a few more:
evolutionnews.org/2009/02/expelled_exposed_exposed_your/
This website adds a few more:
freescience.today/
Those are only a few. Most who oppose Darwin's nonsense do not do it openly for fear of retribution. Michael Behe briefly mentions it, here:
ruclips.net/video/QNe-syuDJBg/видео.htmlm10s
This article explains why the evolutionism cult is scared silly that the truth about Darwin's silly theory will get out (hint: evolution is not science, but metaphysics.)
evolutionnews.org/2020/09/darwinism-as-hegelian-dialectics-applied-to-biology/
Dan
The distinguished lady next to Behe is wearing a lovely pin.
55:08 This is reminiscent of the situation in physics: Darwin's theory is a bit like Newtonian mechanics which makes the entire universe into a sort of giant clockwork with no room for free will. This became a philosophical conundrum at the time and it was only possible to change that view with the arrival of quantum mechanics. An interesting theorem was proved in 2006 along these lines (the Conway-Kochen theorem) which says (under certain very minimal assumptions, most of which were verified experimentally) that if the human experimenter testing an elementary particle in a certain way has free will, so does the particle. Here "free will" is defined as an observable action which is not causally linked to any event in the past (literally, in the past light cones of the experimenter and the particle). So, for example, the experimenter takes the action of pushing one of several buttons on the apparatus, and the particle responds with something like being in the state "spin up" or "spin down". According to that theorem if one assumes the experimenter's decision to choose the button to push is coming "out of blue", the particle's response is necessarily "out of blue" also, they are both a result of free will. So let's hope that there will be a new theory in biology which will play a role analogous to quantum mechanics in physics.
I looked up the Conway-Kochen theorem and must admit I could not understand most of it. The idea that an elemental particle has free will sound very anthropomorphic, are we not just taking about randomness? I would have thought that evolution which relies on random events is the exact opposite of clockwork. If we use the term free will as most of us would, we have the free will to make decisions about how we treat our planet and thus we effect the course of evolution. I suspect I may well have missed the point altogether here,
There is no such thing as free will, and QM will NOT get you there either.
@@rstevewarmorycom Yawn.
The comment section here is so replete with various and sundry fedoras that I thought I was strolling through the aisle of an old time haberdashery.
The only thing you people believe in more fiercely than your all righteous demigod Darwin is your own intellectually superiority.
Aye. Many such paradigms are propagated via the Dunning-Kruger mentality.
Gary Walker lol why do you think that only religious people don’t believe in evolution?
Check out stevebee92653. He’s not religious or an evolutionist. He just wants evonauts like you to stop spreading your fables across the world.
Gary Walker They can’t explain how we got here? Why must we be 100% of what that answer is? The correct answer is that we do not know and we do not have the intelligence to know yet. We are far from it. It’s disappointing because evonauts like to push forward their fables.
Like I said. Check out the Stevebee guy.
Gary Walker Like I said. Fables... You have proven nothing and nothing you refer me to proves anything about evolution. Have you ever researched with an open mind besides basing your bias off of disliking religion? Get with reality. Evolution is a fable.
Kobe Fan Dennis Noble is still searching for a 3rd way. He has a following but it will be in vain just as the" Multiverse'
The Big Bang theory is also an unproven hypothesis with many many “missing links”
@@thomasaskew1985 "Stephen Hawking proved the big bang. In 1995, Pope John Paul II gave Hawking a medal for his mathematical proof of the big bang" ha ha ha. That is so funny, but of course not true at all.
Early on Behe stated that he believed the physicists stating the world is millions of years old. I thought that was based on chemistry with decay rates. Would that actually be considered physics, or is there other evidence within the realm of physics?
Professor Behe. I like your argument about removing genes and not getting any other subset than the same species. How did you determine that the species is still the same? If you did: did you try removing the part of DNA that would make the individual different species according to your own definition?
I imagine some modifications did result in an early death or in lesser calamity. But did you actually run a substantial enough number of experiments to draw scientific conclusion? Give us some idea about the number of trials, please.
@@gregmontreal8456 archive.org/details/MichaelBeheDarwinsBlackBox
Michael Behe has been honoured for his contribution to science by a team who have named a fossilised giant Lepidopteran species which they discovered after him. Pilafloor behei also known as the Behe moth had a wingspan of about 20 feet,
"Michael Behe has been honoured for his contribution... " ... to anti xtian propaganda. Thx Mister !
@@Herzeleydt_Diesentrueb No he has repeatedly said that ID has nothing to do with any religion. I hope you aren't suggesting that he is being economica with the truth.
I have to confess that my post was an April Fool, congratulations to those of you who spotted that Pilafloor is an anagram. Behemoth is of course a gigantic mythological creature in the bible and it turns out also the name of a satanic Polish death metal band.
Sadly most of the comments add little to the discussion. Intelligent design simply says science cannot explain why we are here and how we got here. That Darwin's theory is seriously flawed and science does reveal his flaws. We are left searching. To dismiss something like christianity or any belief system outright without digging deep and apply science is a bias that fails under the weight of it's own belief system.
"Intelligent design simply says science cannot explain why we are here and how we got here."
No it does not. It says that evolution by natural selection isn't real and that some sort of god is needed. Behe just repackaged old nonsense to support his religion. His book, Darwin's Black Box shows that he does not understand evolution.
"hat Darwin's theory is seriously flawed and science does reveal his flaws. "
Science has not done that. It has supported it by adding in genetics. Darwin was a not a prophet. He was a scientist and is long dead. His ideas have been considerably extended but the key of natural selection remains and is supported by the evidence.
"We are left searching. "
You are searching for an excuse to ignore to ignore real science.
"To dismiss something like christianity or any belief system outright without digging deep and apply science is a bias that fails under the weight of it's own belief system.""
To go on belief without evidence is a bias that fails under its own system as that religion contains many internal contradictions and is based on book that has Flood that never happened. Jesus treated that myth as real so he had no special knowledge.
So I have dug more than deep enough. YOU have not. You are simply pretending that Atheists and us Agnostics have not looked. That is false. YOUR comment added nothing to the discussion. You did not produce any evidence to support ID or your religion. You simply whined about people that have done the contrary.
There is no evidence for ID, unless you mean IDIOT designer, and ample evidence against it. There is NOTHING intelligent about the laryngeal nerve as it goes from the brain, down the neck RIGHT PAST THE LARYNX without interacting in any way with it, to the heart, around a coronary artery and THEN back up the larynx. This makes complete sense in terms of evolution from an ancient fish ancestor. Only a complete idiot would design things that way.
Now get an education on the subject.
Let me get you started in your journey to reality.
How evolution works:
First step in the process.
Mutations happen - There are many kinds of them from single hit changes to the duplication of entire genomes, the last happens in plants not vertebrates. The most interesting kind is duplication of genes which allows one duplicate to do the old job and the new to change to take on a different job. There is ample evidence that this occurs and this is the main way that information is added to the genome. This can occur much more easily in sexually reproducing organisms due their having two copies of every gene in the first place.
Second step in the process, the one Creationist pretend doesn't happen when they claim evolution is only random.
Mutations are the raw change in the DNA. Natural selection carves the information from the environment into the DNA. Much like a sculptor carves an shape into the raw mass of rock. Selection is what makes it information in the sense Creationists use. The selection is by the environment. ALL the evidence supports this.
Natural Selection - mutations that decrease the chances of reproduction are removed by this. It is inherent in reproduction that a decrease in the rate of successful reproduction due to a gene that isn't doing the job adequately will be lost from the gene pool. This is something that cannot not happen. Some genes INCREASE the rate of successful reproduction. Those are inherently conserved. This selection is by the environment, which also includes other members of the species, no outside intelligence is required for the environment to select out bad mutations or conserve useful mutations.
The two steps of the process is all that is needed for evolution to occur. Add in geographical or reproductive isolation and speciation will occur.
This is a natural process. No intelligence is needed for it occur. It occurs according to strictly local, both in space and in time, laws of chemistry and reproduction.
There is no magic in it. It is as inevitable as hydrogen fusing in the Sun. If there is reproduction and there is variation then there will be evolution.
Some books to get you started:
Why evolution is true - Jerry A. Coyne
THIS BOOK IN PARTICULAR to see just how messy and undesigned the chemistry of life is.
Herding Hemingway's Cats: Understanding how Our Genes Work
Book by Kat Arney
This shows new organs evolving from previous organs. Limbs from fins.
Your Inner Fish
Book by Neil Shubin
Wonderful life : the Burgess Shale and nature of history / Stephen Jay Gould
Life on a Young Planet: The First Three Billions Years of Evolution on Earth Andrew H, Knoll
The Dragons of Eden: Speculations on the Evolution of Human Intelligence by Carl Sagan
Ethelred Hardrede
@@EthelredHardrede-nz8yv You that understand evolution where are your publications sir?
@@osfordford8181
"You that understand evolutio"
Yes I do.
"where are your publications sir?"
Where are yours?
Dr Behe has not one single peer reviewed paper on the subject. I just explained how it works. It is not hard to understand. And whining about publications will not make anything I wrote wrong in any way.
The very first person to demand my credentials was a crank and a child abuser with a PhD. You are not in good company. Deal with what I wrote and stop whining.
Ethelred Hardrede
@@EthelredHardrede-nz8yv I don't have any that's why I don't go around criticizing people's work.
If he has one and you have zero, who do you think we should listen to?
@@osfordford8181
"I don't have any t"
Then we are even with Dr Behe.
" I don't go around criticizing people's work. "
You don't any publications to notice when a person is ignorant on the subject.
"If he has one "
Not a one that is peer reviewed on this subject. Even if he did he would still be subject to criticism.
" who do you think we should listen to?"
The people that understand the subject, until you learn it yourself as I have done. He got his ass whipped at the Dover Trial because of his ignorance on the subject. Perhaps you would prefer to listen to those that do know the subject, besides me. Nearly none of them are fans of ID.
"Some books to get you started:
Why evolution is true - Jerry A. Coyne
THIS BOOK IN PARTICULAR to see just how messy and undesigned the chemistry of life is.
Herding Hemingway's Cats: Understanding how Our Genes Work
Book by Kat Arney
This shows new organs evolving from previous organs. Limbs from fins.
Your Inner Fish
Book by Neil Shubin
Wonderful life : the Burgess Shale and nature of history / Stephen Jay Gould
Life on a Young Planet: The First Three Billions Years of Evolution on Earth Andrew H, Knoll
"
I don't have to have publications of my own to know the subject. I have THEIR books and many more.
Get started learning. Its a good thing to do.
Ethelred Hardrede
For what it's worth, this is my thank you to Dr. Behe (and his colleagues):
blog.banditobooks.com/an-open-letter-to-michael-behe-stephen-meyer-and-douglas-axe/
Gary Walker Lol you think he’s lying? How indoctrinated can you be! Out of all the comments I’ve read from you they all pass the indoctrinated test. Sorry you believe in a myth. Get with the times. It’s changing and evolution is going to go down. Sooner or later this myth will be brought forth. Then we can teach real science and try to find however we were created or designed. I’m sorry you can’t see design in nature. It’s disappointing but not a surprise because your an evonaut and like I said many times before your indoctrinated.