Just recently, someone found a stainless steel monolith in the middle of nowhere in the Utah desert. No one thinks it is a natural outcropping. It is a perfect example of identifying design.
@@abashedsanctimony154 Of course, which is what he's saying. No one suspected it happened on its own. You can take one look at it and tell it didn't assemble itself. It had a designer.
@@78LedHead I think the negative comments are implying that it was obvious it had design because it was of poor design. It about denying the possibility of design and when that fails try to denigrate the design and thins the designer.
Evolution is a fact and "Darwinism" simply describes it. How Behe is still pushing the mousetrap analogy is a mystery since it got burried at the Dover trial.
You draw a straight line from Darwin to the atheistic tyrants Hitler, Stalin and Mao who slaughtered over 200 million in the 20 century - survival of the fittest at its most obvious.
It's funny that I look in nature and I can see design everywhere and then on the other hand I have friends who looking nature and just see nature I don't understand that
Perhaps they look more deeply than you do. Looking deeply into any complex system in the natural world they observe that the complexity is built bottom up from much simpler components and these in turn from still more simple parts. Looking at the history of living things reveals their development from simpler ancestral forms. This does not happen by chance, it is driven by a powerful directed mechanism - survival. The best survive to pass on their success. This is the power of natural selection as dear old Charles Darwin revealed. No evidence of a designer, in fact lots of evidence against. Am I spiritually dead because I think this? No. Just realistic accepting the evidence and revelling in the amazing variety, intricacy and indeed beauty of a natural world brought about by such a simple process. The corona viruses are beautifully "designed" to do precisely what they do do. I prefer not to blame God for the mahem they let loose. Time to develop a more subtle and flexible theology capable of embracing good science than to promote Behe's nonsense.
@@mikealcock4034 Thanks for your post Mike. But design is always a feasible explanation. Design is the axiom of the origin of complex systems. Dawkins admitted it when he said that all biology has the appearance of design. And Darwin admitted it in his first chapter of "On the Origin of Species". Dawkins and Darwin went on to provide possible alternatives to the design hypothesis...and that's ok to do so...but still, naturalistic alternatives will be just that...alternatives. Design will still be a plausible and fully comprehensive explanation. To your point, about seeking simplicity...that's a good approach in general...but Einstein taught that we should not make things too simple. There is a limit to simplicity that you aren't aware of. There is a basic complexity...and ultimately you will not be able to break through that barrier. Naturalism is a failed philosophy because of that limitation. And anyone who trusts in a naturalistic explanation is fooling themselves. Let me give you an example...the ATP Synthase module...one of the key subsystems of a living cell...without ATP generation, the cell is dead. All things are dead if we don't produce ATP. But the mechanical module that creates ATP is astonishingly complex...it's composed of 18 specific and long-chain proteins. All of these proteins depend on one another to give the mechanism the ability to produce ATP. So how many proteins are the minimum number needed to create ATP? Perhaps we can get rid of 2 or 3 of those proteins (again, this is just a thought experiment...we really don't know how such a module would actually work). But if we could...get rid of 3 of the 18 proteins...that's great....but then you're left trying to explain how the remaining 15 long-chain proteins came about. Ok...so how about we get rid of 10 proteins total...so now we're really being fanciful! We found a way to get ATP from merely 8 remaining proteins! Wow...well, that's still not enough! How do we explain 8 long-chain proteins? Where did they come from? Ok...lets find a way to get rid of 17 of the 18! Wow...now we're further into fantasy land. We can make ATP from merely 1 protein!!! LOL. No, we can't. We can't make ATP from a single unit. ATP is formed by a mechanical process which works on 18 proteins (plus a number of other enzymes and hydrogen protons and a diffusion layer). But all that aside...even 1 protein is still unexplainable, naturalistically speaking. The chances of a long-chain protein just happening are one in 10^-40000. But now...lets consider photosynthesis! Did you know photosynthesis requires 50 proteins? 50! What's the possibilities there? Can you develop a photocell based on 25 proteins? 10-proteins? Again, these are fictional items...there is no demonstration of such a system. Photosynthesis is required for the first living cell...and also ATP Synthase is required...so now you have 2 systems required, and neither of them are explained naturalistically. They are simple...but you cannot achieve ultimate simplicity on either of them, let alone both of them together. Naturalism is failed...and it's about time we face the music.
Design is the axiom for the origin of complex systems...it's the most evident and the most experienced explanation for complex systems. In just a few months of life, children learn the difference between a designed thing and a naturalistic thing. Between a plastic toy and a mud puddle. Darwin reminded us in the first chapter of his 1859 book that "intelligent selection" is a feasible and effective explanation for species...of course he went on to propose a "possible" alternative to that design hypothesis. Richard Dawkins admits that all biology is the study of things that give the appearance of design. Of course he also goes on to propose an alternative to design. So if your friends cannot see design, they are simply being dishonest. They are fooling themselves. They certainly haven't been taught to think critically about the situation...or perhaps they are unwilling to. Certainly the social pressure to conform to an atheistic, evolutionary worldview isn't helping matters...but in the end, no one will have an effective excuse when they stand before God and give an account.
IMO, the interview is not the best vehicle for Dr. Behe to respond to critics, though he does a good job of it here. He seems much more comfortable and compelling when making a presentation such as seen on "The Complexity of Life (Secrets of the Cell with Michael Behe, Ep. 2)." In any case, thank you for your work Dr. Behe!
I enjoyed reading Darwin's Black Box. I heard Behe in person years ago at George Mason University. I recall him saying his move to ID was not based on what he didn't know but what he knew. Excellent.
I was born in 1948. Despite Darwinism, I have never believed that evolution is true. It has always seemed absurd to me. As I consider the world and the universe, my common sense yields to the Creator.
This is an excellent book! Well worth reading, even for seasoned participants in the debate who may think we've already read everything on the topic. Thanks for taking time to put together this webinar to share more about this book and the important topics Dr. Behe covers in his responses to critics.
Good science shows truth! Thank you Michael Behe for searching for the truth which will last forvever. Hopefully this will be the begining of a new paradigm.
This topic is so compeling, thank you for your work, courage and honesty! If only more of our colleagues would dare to see the arguments in front of them...
I finished reading the Darwin black box by Dr. Behe. The book details Darwin’s contradictions in his theory of evolution which is a materialist view of the world. Great book.
With the last question, if we saw cells producing modular parts that could be and are used in multiple applications, that would be an indicator of design. When we do something like repurposing a tool, for example using a screwdriver as a lever similar to a crow bar, that's not independent design, thigh it does show a type of intelligence. As a side note, I'd like to add that it's easier to take something apart and repurpose the parts you get from ding do than it is to take parts not intentionally ment to go together and build them into some sort of functional thing. When you take a part from something and repurpose it, it's functionality is almost always several orders more crude than what it was originally part of, and when you actually manage to make something functional from stuff that wasn't intentionally designed to go together, that thing is almost always very crude and very inefficient. Often inventors do such things when coming up with an idea, but once they have a working prototype they then put some serious design effort in, and try to come up with ways of designing and creating a much more useful version by getting custom parts crafted for it to work as best it can. That's not something Darwinian evolution can manage.
*Milton:* _"When you take a part from something and repurpose it, it's functionality is almost always several orders more crude than what it was originally part of, ..."_ Good point. Though analogies with man-made designs also tend to become less convincing the further you extend them. I think it's better to stick with the facts that damn Darwinism. They _never_ want to discuss _permutations of amino acids_ in a protein because they are *effectively infinite.* When you try a little back-of-the-envelope math, it looks like it might take trillions of trillions of years to evolve even a small protein.
I'm just a guy who had been curious on subjects such as Evolution, Creation science, to support my belief or to challenge it. The implication of the intelligent design is something greater than these awesome studies that there is a designer who is capable of creating the irreducible complex from a blank page, that the designer has a purpose of every details of our being, that we have a irreducible purpose, if I may.
I hope that Mr. Behe is continually blessed, can spread his knowledge and gifts to whomever can hold onto it, and will own his crown of salvation forever.
I like Micheal Behe! No joke. I really do! Apart from the obvious fact that he is smarter than the average bear. He has other good qualities like the courage to rock the boat of neo- Darwinian. Another thing I like is that he smiles a lot and he has a happy disposition. He is courteous even to his opponents. I like Mike and I present him as an prime example of the kind of person that a Christian should be. Finally, Micheal Behe knows what it means to have faith.
Even if somehow a successful combination of amino acids would come about there should have been a system already in place to register, memorize and REPRODUCE such a combination.
As a Christian I met many Profs in college that essentially called me a “heretic” because I asked questions about Darwin and other philosophical/religions positions we were supposed to accept. For example, there is a lot of research indicating that prayer, even at a distance, actually has a positive impact on the sick person. One of my psychology profs said, “You Christians talk about prayers and the supernatural but it is just ‘Mind over matter’”. However, we were studying all the psychological theories promoting their attempts to change the minds of depressed and anxious people. I replied to one of my teachers; “If Psychologists could take what we believe and sell it they would do it in a millisecond.”
What's the expression? Something like NeoDarwinisn only explains the survival of the fittest not the arrival of the fittest. Several scientists have made that observation and some were materialists. Lynn Margulis (Carl Sagan's ex-wife) stated it back in the 70s I think it was and she was an agnostic.
If we consider evolution from degradation of complexity, and the extinction of various species, the conclusions is simply a count down to an ending. If life is NOT evolving by adding information rather taking information away, eventually you run out of information.
It seems that in today’s world if you want to go against the grain in most subjects you almost have to be financially independent. Not just Evolution but the virus as well and man made global warming and well, many subjects including modern day justice warriorship .. To go against most things in this world may mean the sack from your job... Tough times for people who try to actually think....
a-Theism : denying something that exists. A intelligence : The existence of intelligence that is Produced by a Intelligent Omniscient Being, a-theists do not qualify for the position of that intelligent Being
My chief question concerns transmission of information. Let’s say you have a remarkable change in one generation of a species, but wouldn’t that have to occur simultaneously within every breeding group in that generation and then be preserved from those breeding groups to subsequent generations? It’s hard to articulate.
The (mainstream) definition of life, with the 7 characteristics of life, itself exhibits irreducible complexity. Without one of the 7 characteristics the object in question is no longer defined as life. Likewise the first proto-cell surely requires all the minimum set of components to be in place in order to function. Therefore irreducible complexity is a perfectly logical, observationally verifiable idea. For example even if there was a efficiently self replicating RNA molecule it would need to be protected inside a lipid membrane. If it fell into a lipid membrane by accident, it would no longer be able to accumulate material to self replicate because homogeneous lipid membranes do not allow nucleotides to enter. So it needs a gate-machine embedded in the membrane to allow appropriate monomers to enter and 'waste' to leave. Mechanism for dividing, and many others. Irreducible complexity right at the start. No way to reduce, minimum number of parts required is > 1
Your critics realized you responded to their arguments , but chose to ignore them for lack of reply. I could be wrong , but didn't hear anything about a trio of scientists critiquing this book in the Journal Science 3 weeks before it was released. You would think this book would be an even greater interest to these critics since it directly readdresses their arguments for a second time. Huh , wonder what their excuses , sorry , arguments will be this time around other then the same nonsensical speculations ?
You will ever debate according to their ouroboros systematic ideology. They so not create valid response, but rather rehashed old tactics. Take the new terminology and redefine it to make it more complicated than need be. To them information is easily twisted. Find it is the same tactics found in religion. Catholicism is still in control of all denominations of every religion on the planet. Start questioning everything and you'll usually find the truth.
Behe's critics have never once addressed any of his arguments. They simply claim he's wrong, then they misrepresent his arguments, and then they inadequately address those misrepresentations. People like Dawkins are professional liars and shills.
Are the Type III Secretion System and the Bacterial Flagellum made of different proteins? If so, how many are the same? If none, then how can one be derived from the other? Wouldn’t you just have 2 irreducibly complex molecular machines? Type III Secretion System: 1. YscF 2. YscC 3. YscJ 4. YscT 5. YscS 6. YscD 7. YscV 8. YscN 9. YscL 10. YscQ 11. YscR 12. YscU Bacterial Flagellum: 1. FliD 2. FliC 3. FlgL 4. FlgE 5. FlgG 6. FlgK 7. FlgH 8. FlgF 9. FlgI 10. MotB 11. MotA 12. FlgBC 13. FliM 14. FliN 15. FliF 16. FlhAB 17. FliHIOPQR 18. FliG
Even if _all_ of the secretion system's proteins were _exactly_ the same as proteins contained in the flagellum, Darwinist would have to explain what *benefit* or *advantage* caused each of the next 30 individual proteins to be selected once it was accidentally added. They made _no attempt_ to offer such an explanation. By their own admission, natural selection *can't look ahead* to what will be needed.
Is there a way to ask Dr Behe a question? I do not do facebook/twitter/etc. I would like to know what he thinks of gene duplication (Haldane, Ohno), ORF, and de novo genes as they might apply to evolution, micro or macro. And if he can point us to resources that might help non-biologists get an overview of the main ideas in these topics.
37:18 Mount Rushmore is an elegant example of design in which no one today ever witnessed its creation, yet design its observed in its final form. /In the Newtonian World
What's your hypothesis on how guidance of evolutionary processes takes place? What are possible mechanisms used, and what parts of the molecular structures do they affect?
@Discovery Science, Would Michael Behe please comment on the new variant coronavirus which contains 23 differences that appear to make it more transmissible, according to UK scientists who have examined it?
3 года назад
Great interview. great idea for the book especially because the first was such well placed blow. So a few more blows. In the small circles of those whi carefully investigation origins and so evaluate evolutionism claims it really is folks like Behe who are correcting the too quick old ideas of evolutionism and in our time. Indeed daring mutationism to prove itself. As a YEC I think mutationism never earned its spurs for changing bodyplans and so populations . It never proved itself as a option along any lineage. however its good to go to the very beginning and how they fail to work to start anything off. mutationism was always just a line of reasoning and not a observed mechanism that ever created a new species that was given a new name. Or name one.
So with the works of douglas axe in mind on how un propable it is to get 2 successive beneficial mutations, how does evolution through mutations in small scale adaptation works ? In other words if an organism is put in an unfavorable environment and it does adapt , and therefore we conclude that it had indeed undergone a molecular change in its DNA, this small scale adaptation / evolution how did it come to be seeing as the probability of a beneficial mutations is so small ?
Precisely what JT stated. Mutations and adaptive ability comes from the DNA information already included in the microorganism. It was stated in the newest disc science animated video, organism share plasmids with each other all the time, they do not adapt, they share the information that already exists. They simply have to come across a pre-existing condition or environment where the plasmid needed is found to adapt into what they need to survive. Human did not evolve, our DNA has always existed humans can survive on every part of the globe, provided sustainance and resources exist.
Why human being not to agree about designer? IF AFTER THIS LIFE WE'RE FOUND CREATOR EXISTS AND HE QUESTION WHY YOU ARE NOT BELIEVING ME?? WORSHIP ME AND FOLLOW MY GUIDANCE. What is answer for none believers? Believers doesn't lose anything because promise of creator eternal paradise. And none believers going opposite sides eternal hellfire ( suffering) Find out truth and guide lines. Before too late.
Dr Randy Guliuzza has discovered some brilliant explanations about how "natural selection" works: The Creator has front-loaded into creatures the sorts of adaptive changes that organisms will need to make to survive when their environment changes: for instance the changing beaks of Darwin's finches as the climate changes. So, such changes have nothing to do with random mutations.
I cannot understand how it is “unreasonable or impossible” to disallow parts to be interchangeable. The ability to substitute parts in no way refutes intelligent design. In fact, the opposite is logical. Sanjosemike (no longer in CA)
Regarding ID and it's mechanistic approach, ID doesn't claim that that's all there is, it doesn't exclude spiritual aspects, it just didn't bother to get into them. The idea is to fall with the atheistic complaint that belief in God is unscientific with a specific interest in the problems of evolution.
I just ran into a video of a mantis shrimps punch and it instantly reminded me of Michael Behe. The way the shrimps punching arm works seems to be irreducibly complex. I hope they look into this
Usually people do not have proper intuition on probability. Let's take life sciences: organisms developed major mechanisms (problem solving and learning as well) at single cell evolution time period. At a single person lifetime, 2 to the power 10,000+ bacteria divisions happen (if all survive. It is 1000 to the power 1000, and people hardly comprehend 1000 to the power 4 which is trillion). So bacteria time (combined, for all relatives) and probability is incomprehensible to us. And almost at same rate killing of unfortunate is going on actually - all presented solutions ruthlessly validated. Our live analogy: I worked with financial guys who have better intuition on probability than many scientists have. Some of them even passed this interview: Having $10K and one hour, find a person who gets all heads on 10 coin tosses in row. The result should be reproducible, meaning with another $10K you will find another person who gets all heads on 10 coin tosses in row. Trick is in "one hour" - having many participants, one hour resolves into "10,000+ hours" - same time hack bacteria uses for problem solving.
what argument is strongest for evolution (53:25)? how about there is evidence of many wonderful types of animals and plants that lived long ago in amber, fossils etc., and modern animals and plants are not found among them. In the present there are animals and plants not found in fossils and the animals and plants seen in fossils are not to be found alive. How is it that the population of animals and plants found on earth has changed so dramatically over time? The theory of evolution provides a cohesive explanation for these observations. Biology, and radio-isotope data, developed long after Darwin, fully support this theory.
Many modern insects had been found in amber. The problem with your argument is is that when modern animals are found in the fossil record e.g crocodile or coelacanth you say well they didn't evolve. The fact is there are many species not fossilized, the fossil record is not this uniform thing that text books show. The extinction of plant or animal species does not prove evolution but might simply mean those extinct species were dominant at one time but now extinct but it doesn't mean that the species that are now dominant evolved from previous ones it might just mean that their quantities before the extinction of the ones that dominated them were so low that the odds of finding fossils are very low or zero. Someone that are studying the Australian fossil record in the far future without knowing the context of what really happened might think that the Tasmanian devil evolved into a fox because at one stage he find the Tasmanian devil and later only foxes, however what he doesn't know is that the Tasmanian devil went extinct around the time that European settlers brought foxes to Australia. Radio isotope dating is far from an exact science, now I am an analytical chemist and I can tell you that quantifying the isotopes are exact however nobody knows what the ratios was and which daughter elements was there from the start or were contaminants for example fresh lawa might test millions of years because the age calculatotions are speculation except with carbon 14 where we in the first place had artifacts of known age that we can verify and secondly we know that there is only one way carbon 14 ends up in a living specimen. Interestingly Namibian diamonds that were supposed to be millions of years had significant quantities of carbon 14 in them which would prove that they can't be that old however such data are just ignored.
53:00 Do not be misled by the assertions of people who deny that there is a Creator. Concerning the imperfections in the creation or those who say they could do it better. Does it really make sense to you that life got here simply by chance or blind force? As Michael J. Behe, said “staggeringly complicated biochemical processes” that govern life make that idea totally unreasonable. The evidence of biochemistry, he says, leads to the inescapable conclusion that “life on earth at its most fundamental level . . . is the product of intelligent activity.”-Darwin’s Black Box-The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution. The Bible tells us that life on earth at all levels is the product of intelligent activity. And it tells us that the Source of all this intelligent activity is Jehovah God, the Creator of the universe.-Psalm 36:9; Revelation 4:11. Do not let the fact that we have to endure in a world filled with pain and suffering dissuade you from believing that there is a Creator and Designer of the earth and all life on it. *Keep in mind two fundamental truths.* One is that God did not design the imperfection that exists all around us. The other is that our Creator has good reasons for temporarily permitting it. Jehovah God has permitted evil to exist for a limited time only in order to settle once and for all the moral issues that were raised at the time when humans first rejected his sovereignty.-Genesis 3:1-7; Deuteronomy 32:4, 5; Ecclesiastes 7:29; 2 Peter 3:8, 9.
Just recently, someone found a stainless steel monolith in the middle of nowhere in the Utah desert. No one thinks it is a natural outcropping. It is a perfect example of identifying design.
That's an *excellent* point.
Bone head, it was made by an artist.. its now been moved to europe to scare the hell out of the reality challenged..
It was shown have drill holes and poorly fabricated, hidden fasteners. It's clearly man-made.
@@abashedsanctimony154 Of course, which is what he's saying. No one suspected it happened on its own. You can take one look at it and tell it didn't assemble itself. It had a designer.
@@78LedHead I think the negative comments are implying that it was obvious it had design because it was of poor design. It about denying the possibility of design and when that fails try to denigrate the design and thins the designer.
A great comment from Dr Behe, Darwinism is sociology not science.
Evolution is a fact and "Darwinism" simply describes it. How Behe is still pushing the mousetrap analogy is a mystery since it got burried at the Dover trial.
You draw a straight line from Darwin to the atheistic tyrants Hitler, Stalin and Mao who slaughtered over 200 million in the 20 century - survival of the fittest at its most obvious.
It's funny that I look in nature and I can see design everywhere and then on the other hand I have friends who looking nature and just see nature I don't understand that
Because they are spiritually dead
Perhaps they look more deeply than you do. Looking deeply into any complex system in the natural world they observe that the complexity is built bottom up from much simpler components and these in turn from still more simple parts. Looking at the history of living things reveals their development from simpler ancestral forms. This does not happen by chance, it is driven by a powerful directed mechanism - survival. The best survive to pass on their success. This is the power of natural selection as dear old Charles Darwin revealed.
No evidence of a designer, in fact lots of evidence against. Am I spiritually dead because I think this? No. Just realistic accepting the evidence and revelling in the amazing variety, intricacy and indeed beauty of a natural world brought about by such a simple process.
The corona viruses are beautifully "designed" to do precisely what they do do. I prefer not to blame God for the mahem they let loose. Time to develop a more subtle and flexible theology capable of embracing good science than to promote Behe's nonsense.
What do you actually understand of nature? nothing, that may be the difference, so magic seems plausible..
@@mikealcock4034 Thanks for your post Mike. But design is always a feasible explanation. Design is the axiom of the origin of complex systems. Dawkins admitted it when he said that all biology has the appearance of design. And Darwin admitted it in his first chapter of "On the Origin of Species". Dawkins and Darwin went on to provide possible alternatives to the design hypothesis...and that's ok to do so...but still, naturalistic alternatives will be just that...alternatives. Design will still be a plausible and fully comprehensive explanation.
To your point, about seeking simplicity...that's a good approach in general...but Einstein taught that we should not make things too simple. There is a limit to simplicity that you aren't aware of. There is a basic complexity...and ultimately you will not be able to break through that barrier. Naturalism is a failed philosophy because of that limitation. And anyone who trusts in a naturalistic explanation is fooling themselves.
Let me give you an example...the ATP Synthase module...one of the key subsystems of a living cell...without ATP generation, the cell is dead. All things are dead if we don't produce ATP. But the mechanical module that creates ATP is astonishingly complex...it's composed of 18 specific and long-chain proteins. All of these proteins depend on one another to give the mechanism the ability to produce ATP. So how many proteins are the minimum number needed to create ATP? Perhaps we can get rid of 2 or 3 of those proteins (again, this is just a thought experiment...we really don't know how such a module would actually work). But if we could...get rid of 3 of the 18 proteins...that's great....but then you're left trying to explain how the remaining 15 long-chain proteins came about. Ok...so how about we get rid of 10 proteins total...so now we're really being fanciful! We found a way to get ATP from merely 8 remaining proteins! Wow...well, that's still not enough! How do we explain 8 long-chain proteins? Where did they come from? Ok...lets find a way to get rid of 17 of the 18! Wow...now we're further into fantasy land. We can make ATP from merely 1 protein!!! LOL. No, we can't. We can't make ATP from a single unit. ATP is formed by a mechanical process which works on 18 proteins (plus a number of other enzymes and hydrogen protons and a diffusion layer). But all that aside...even 1 protein is still unexplainable, naturalistically speaking. The chances of a long-chain protein just happening are one in 10^-40000.
But now...lets consider photosynthesis! Did you know photosynthesis requires 50 proteins? 50! What's the possibilities there? Can you develop a photocell based on 25 proteins? 10-proteins? Again, these are fictional items...there is no demonstration of such a system. Photosynthesis is required for the first living cell...and also ATP Synthase is required...so now you have 2 systems required, and neither of them are explained naturalistically. They are simple...but you cannot achieve ultimate simplicity on either of them, let alone both of them together.
Naturalism is failed...and it's about time we face the music.
Design is the axiom for the origin of complex systems...it's the most evident and the most experienced explanation for complex systems. In just a few months of life, children learn the difference between a designed thing and a naturalistic thing. Between a plastic toy and a mud puddle. Darwin reminded us in the first chapter of his 1859 book that "intelligent selection" is a feasible and effective explanation for species...of course he went on to propose a "possible" alternative to that design hypothesis. Richard Dawkins admits that all biology is the study of things that give the appearance of design. Of course he also goes on to propose an alternative to design. So if your friends cannot see design, they are simply being dishonest. They are fooling themselves. They certainly haven't been taught to think critically about the situation...or perhaps they are unwilling to. Certainly the social pressure to conform to an atheistic, evolutionary worldview isn't helping matters...but in the end, no one will have an effective excuse when they stand before God and give an account.
IMO, the interview is not the best vehicle for Dr. Behe to respond to critics, though he does a good job of it here. He seems much more comfortable and compelling when making a presentation such as seen on "The Complexity of Life (Secrets of the Cell with Michael Behe, Ep. 2)." In any case, thank you for your work Dr. Behe!
I enjoyed reading Darwin's Black Box. I heard Behe in person years ago at George Mason University. I recall him saying his move to ID was not based on what he didn't know but what he knew. Excellent.
I was born in 1948. Despite Darwinism, I have never believed that evolution is true. It has always seemed absurd to me. As I consider the world and the universe, my common sense yields to the Creator.
This is an excellent book! Well worth reading, even for seasoned participants in the debate who may think we've already read everything on the topic. Thanks for taking time to put together this webinar to share more about this book and the important topics Dr. Behe covers in his responses to critics.
We Love You Mical Behe and your Efforts .
Good science shows truth! Thank you Michael Behe for searching for the truth which will last forvever. Hopefully this will be the begining of a new paradigm.
This topic is so compeling, thank you for your work, courage and honesty! If only more of our colleagues would dare to see the arguments in front of them...
Keep up the good work! I think ID will be much more appreciated over the next 20 years.
I finished reading the Darwin black box by Dr. Behe. The book details Darwin’s contradictions in his theory of evolution which is a materialist view of the world. Great book.
The greatest example of irreducible complexity is DNA/RNA replication of sequential information.
So glad Behe keeps going at it! You can't supress the truth.
With the last question, if we saw cells producing modular parts that could be and are used in multiple applications, that would be an indicator of design. When we do something like repurposing a tool, for example using a screwdriver as a lever similar to a crow bar, that's not independent design, thigh it does show a type of intelligence. As a side note, I'd like to add that it's easier to take something apart and repurpose the parts you get from ding do than it is to take parts not intentionally ment to go together and build them into some sort of functional thing. When you take a part from something and repurpose it, it's functionality is almost always several orders more crude than what it was originally part of, and when you actually manage to make something functional from stuff that wasn't intentionally designed to go together, that thing is almost always very crude and very inefficient. Often inventors do such things when coming up with an idea, but once they have a working prototype they then put some serious design effort in, and try to come up with ways of designing and creating a much more useful version by getting custom parts crafted for it to work as best it can. That's not something Darwinian evolution can manage.
*Milton:* _"When you take a part from something and repurpose it, it's functionality is almost always several orders more crude than what it was originally part of, ..."_
Good point. Though analogies with man-made designs also tend to become less convincing the further you extend them.
I think it's better to stick with the facts that damn Darwinism. They _never_ want to discuss _permutations of amino acids_ in a protein because they are *effectively infinite.* When you try a little back-of-the-envelope math, it looks like it might take trillions of trillions of years to evolve even a small protein.
Brilliant insight. Very nice.
fantastic interview. Thanks for hosting it and thanks to Dr.Behe for his work.
I'm just a guy who had been curious on subjects such as Evolution, Creation science, to support my belief or to challenge it. The implication of the intelligent design is something greater than these awesome studies that there is a designer who is capable of creating the irreducible complex from a blank page, that the designer has a purpose of every details of our being, that we have a irreducible purpose, if I may.
I hope that Mr. Behe is continually blessed, can spread his knowledge and gifts to whomever can hold onto it, and will own his crown of salvation forever.
I too have noticed that Darwinists love to redefine "irreducible complexity" and attack their own strawman.
They redefine everything. "Life." "Nothing." All kinds of simple things they have to twist to continue their narrative.
I like Micheal Behe! No joke. I really do! Apart from the obvious fact that he is smarter than the average bear. He has other good qualities like the courage to rock the boat of neo- Darwinian. Another thing I like is that he smiles a lot and he has a happy disposition. He is courteous even to his opponents. I like Mike and I present him as an prime example of the kind of person that a Christian should be. Finally, Micheal Behe knows what it means to have faith.
“Reality cannot be circumscribed by rules invented by people.” Exactly!
Even if somehow a successful combination of amino acids would come about there should have been a system already in place to register, memorize and REPRODUCE such a combination.
Exactly. Natural selection can only select systems which already exist. Natural selection can create nothing.
Good point. And they'd need a membrane to protect them from the environment.
As a Christian I met many Profs in college that essentially called me a “heretic” because I asked questions about Darwin and other philosophical/religions positions we were supposed to accept. For example, there is a lot of research indicating that prayer, even at a distance, actually has a positive impact on the sick person. One of my psychology profs said, “You Christians talk about prayers and the supernatural but it is just ‘Mind over matter’”. However, we were studying all the psychological theories promoting their attempts to change the minds of depressed and anxious people. I replied to one of my teachers; “If Psychologists could take what we believe and sell it they would do it in a millisecond.”
Crick was admitting that there had to be a Designer so he actually agrees with Behe.
What's the expression? Something like NeoDarwinisn only explains the survival of the fittest not the arrival of the fittest. Several scientists have made that observation and some were materialists. Lynn Margulis (Carl Sagan's ex-wife) stated it back in the 70s I think it was and she was an agnostic.
Prof. Behe is marvelous! Keep up the fabulous work. Ordering your book now.
I like how the picture on the cover of the book at 1:15 is basically the flagellum giving the middle finger to Behe's critics.
If we consider evolution from degradation of complexity, and the extinction of various species, the conclusions is simply a count down to an ending. If life is NOT evolving by adding information rather taking information away, eventually you run out of information.
God bless you both!
Thanks for the Upload good Video
It seems that in today’s world if you want to go against the grain in most subjects you almost have to be financially independent. Not just Evolution but the virus as well and man made global warming and well, many subjects including modern day justice warriorship .. To go against most things in this world may mean the sack from your job... Tough times for people who try to actually think....
The Devil has gained an amazing amount of influence the past hundred years.
Dr Behe thank you for having "the balls" to say the facts when I'm sure everyone in your profession has constantly criticized you since day one!
I'm certain that Dr Behe will have reproductive organs, not balls.
a-Theism : denying something that exists.
A intelligence : The existence of intelligence that is Produced by a Intelligent Omniscient Being,
a-theists do not qualify for the position of that intelligent Being
39:38 I had no idea that my throwaway question would get such an interesting answer
I’m so excited to see what you asked.
What was the trial about?
First. I love you mr. Behe. Don't mind the haters.
Apparently you're third.
Remarkable, great information
My chief question concerns transmission of information. Let’s say you have a remarkable change in one generation of a species, but wouldn’t that have to occur simultaneously within every breeding group in that generation and then be preserved from those breeding groups to subsequent generations?
It’s hard to articulate.
It starts at 6:20
"Darwinism is sustained mostly by sociology" absolutely nailed the problem!
The (mainstream) definition of life, with the 7 characteristics of life, itself exhibits irreducible complexity. Without one of the 7 characteristics the object in question is no longer defined as life. Likewise the first proto-cell surely requires all the minimum set of components to be in place in order to function. Therefore irreducible complexity is a perfectly logical, observationally verifiable idea.
For example even if there was a efficiently self replicating RNA molecule it would need to be protected inside a lipid membrane. If it fell into a lipid membrane by accident, it would no longer be able to accumulate material to self replicate because homogeneous lipid membranes do not allow nucleotides to enter. So it needs a gate-machine embedded in the membrane to allow appropriate monomers to enter and 'waste' to leave. Mechanism for dividing, and many others. Irreducible complexity right at the start. No way to reduce, minimum number of parts required is > 1
Your critics realized you responded to their arguments , but chose to ignore them for lack of reply.
I could be wrong , but didn't hear anything about a trio of scientists critiquing this book in the Journal
Science 3 weeks before it was released. You would think this book would be an even greater interest to these critics since it directly readdresses their arguments for a second time. Huh , wonder what their
excuses , sorry , arguments will be this time around other then the same nonsensical speculations ?
You will ever debate according to their ouroboros systematic ideology.
They so not create valid response, but rather rehashed old tactics. Take the new terminology and redefine it to make it more complicated than need be. To them information is easily twisted.
Find it is the same tactics found in religion. Catholicism is still in control of all denominations of every religion on the planet. Start questioning everything and you'll usually find the truth.
Behe's critics have never once addressed any of his arguments. They simply claim he's wrong, then they misrepresent his arguments, and then they inadequately address those misrepresentations.
People like Dawkins are professional liars and shills.
Are the Type III Secretion System and the Bacterial Flagellum made of different proteins? If so, how many are the same? If none, then how can one be derived from the other? Wouldn’t you just have 2 irreducibly complex molecular machines?
Type III Secretion System:
1. YscF
2. YscC
3. YscJ
4. YscT
5. YscS
6. YscD
7. YscV
8. YscN
9. YscL
10. YscQ
11. YscR
12. YscU
Bacterial Flagellum:
1. FliD
2. FliC
3. FlgL
4. FlgE
5. FlgG
6. FlgK
7. FlgH
8. FlgF
9. FlgI
10. MotB
11. MotA
12. FlgBC
13. FliM
14. FliN
15. FliF
16. FlhAB
17. FliHIOPQR
18. FliG
Even if _all_ of the secretion system's proteins were _exactly_ the same as proteins contained in the flagellum, Darwinist would have to explain what *benefit* or *advantage* caused each of the next 30 individual proteins to be selected once it was accidentally added. They made _no attempt_ to offer such an explanation. By their own admission, natural selection *can't look ahead* to what will be needed.
Is there a way to ask Dr Behe a question? I do not do facebook/twitter/etc. I would like to know what he thinks of gene duplication (Haldane, Ohno), ORF, and de novo genes as they might apply to evolution, micro or macro. And if he can point us to resources that might help non-biologists get an overview of the main ideas in these topics.
37:18 Mount Rushmore is an elegant example of design in which no one today ever witnessed its creation, yet design its observed in its final form.
/In the Newtonian World
Nice vid. Thanks so much for sharing! I want to buy these books soon now
What's your hypothesis on how guidance of evolutionary processes takes place? What are possible mechanisms used, and what parts of the molecular structures do they affect?
Bought A Mousetrap for Darwin and looking forward to digging in.
If Darwin saw the information we have now. Do you really think that he would even suggest some of his theories he formed with his new knowledge...
Fantastic, sounds like a very useful book.
Great video
@Discovery Science, Would Michael Behe please comment on the new variant coronavirus which contains 23 differences that appear to make it more transmissible, according to UK scientists who have examined it?
Great interview. great idea for the book especially because the first was such well placed blow. So a few more blows. In the small circles of those whi carefully investigation origins and so evaluate evolutionism claims it really is folks like Behe who are correcting the too quick old ideas of evolutionism and in our time. Indeed daring mutationism to prove itself. As a YEC I think mutationism never earned its spurs for changing bodyplans and so populations . It never proved itself as a option along any lineage. however its good to go to the very beginning and how they fail to work to start anything off. mutationism was always just a line of reasoning and not a observed mechanism that ever created a new species that was given a new name. Or name one.
So with the works of douglas axe in mind on how un propable it is to get 2 successive beneficial mutations, how does evolution through mutations in small scale adaptation works ?
In other words if an organism is put in an unfavorable environment and it does adapt , and therefore we conclude that it had indeed undergone a molecular change in its DNA, this small scale adaptation / evolution how did it come to be seeing as the probability of a beneficial mutations is so small ?
A species can select from its existing, created gene pool. Natural selection can not select what does not already exist.
Precisely what JT stated. Mutations and adaptive ability comes from the DNA information already included in the microorganism.
It was stated in the newest disc science animated video, organism share plasmids with each other all the time, they do not adapt, they share the information that already exists. They simply have to come across a pre-existing condition or environment where the plasmid needed is found to adapt into what they need to survive. Human did not evolve, our DNA has always existed humans can survive on every part of the globe, provided sustainance and resources exist.
Darwinism is a house of cards.
Why human being not to agree about designer?
IF AFTER THIS LIFE WE'RE FOUND CREATOR EXISTS AND HE QUESTION WHY YOU ARE NOT BELIEVING ME??
WORSHIP ME AND FOLLOW MY GUIDANCE.
What is answer for none believers?
Believers doesn't lose anything because promise of creator eternal paradise.
And none believers going opposite sides eternal hellfire ( suffering)
Find out truth and guide lines.
Before too late.
Dr Randy Guliuzza has discovered some brilliant explanations about how "natural selection" works: The Creator has front-loaded into creatures the sorts of adaptive changes that organisms will need to make to survive when their environment changes: for instance the changing beaks of Darwin's finches as the climate changes. So, such changes have nothing to do with random mutations.
This "brilliant explanation" is a load of crapola with no evidence for it, and mountains of evidence against it.
Way to hedge your bet. The creator created us with the ability to evolve. Really???
A good video
I cannot understand how it is “unreasonable or impossible” to disallow parts to be interchangeable. The ability to substitute parts in no way refutes intelligent design. In fact, the opposite is logical.
Sanjosemike (no longer in CA)
You are correct. Dr Behe said it was his pet hate that opposers falsely used interchangability as an argument against ID.
Regarding ID and it's mechanistic approach, ID doesn't claim that that's all there is, it doesn't exclude spiritual aspects, it just didn't bother to get into them. The idea is to fall with the atheistic complaint that belief in God is unscientific with a specific interest in the problems of evolution.
I just ran into a video of a mantis shrimps punch and it instantly reminded me of Michael Behe. The way the shrimps punching arm works seems to be irreducibly complex. I hope they look into this
Usually people do not have proper intuition on probability.
Let's take life sciences: organisms developed major mechanisms (problem solving and learning as well) at single cell evolution time period.
At a single person lifetime, 2 to the power 10,000+ bacteria divisions happen (if all survive. It is 1000 to the power 1000, and people hardly comprehend 1000 to the power 4 which is trillion).
So bacteria time (combined, for all relatives) and probability is incomprehensible to us.
And almost at same rate killing of unfortunate is going on actually - all presented solutions ruthlessly validated.
Our live analogy: I worked with financial guys who have better intuition on probability than many scientists have.
Some of them even passed this interview:
Having $10K and one hour, find a person who gets all heads on 10 coin tosses in row.
The result should be reproducible, meaning with another $10K you will find another person who gets all heads on 10 coin tosses in row.
Trick is in "one hour" - having many participants, one hour resolves into "10,000+ hours" - same time hack bacteria uses for problem solving.
To think science had a rule that design can not be inferred. This just in, archeology is not science. You can't infer anything was man made.
Have baciera evolved into nonbaciera yet?
No and the covid19 virus will remain the covid19 virus no matter how many greek letters they are going to add.
what argument is strongest for evolution (53:25)? how about there is evidence of many wonderful types of animals and plants that lived long ago in amber, fossils etc., and modern animals and plants are not found among them. In the present there are animals and plants not found in fossils and the animals and plants seen in fossils are not to be found alive. How is it that the population of animals and plants found on earth has changed so dramatically over time? The theory of evolution provides a cohesive explanation for these observations. Biology, and radio-isotope data, developed long after Darwin, fully support this theory.
Many modern insects had been found in amber. The problem with your argument is is that when modern animals are found in the fossil record e.g crocodile or coelacanth you say well they didn't evolve. The fact is there are many species not fossilized, the fossil record is not this uniform thing that text books show. The extinction of plant or animal species does not prove evolution but might simply mean those extinct species were dominant at one time but now extinct but it doesn't mean that the species that are now dominant evolved from previous ones it might just mean that their quantities before the extinction of the ones that dominated them were so low that the odds of finding fossils are very low or zero.
Someone that are studying the Australian fossil record in the far future without knowing the context of what really happened might think that the Tasmanian devil evolved into a fox because at one stage he find the Tasmanian devil and later only foxes, however what he doesn't know is that the Tasmanian devil went extinct around the time that European settlers brought foxes to Australia.
Radio isotope dating is far from an exact science, now I am an analytical chemist and I can tell you that quantifying the isotopes are exact however nobody knows what the ratios was and which daughter elements was there from the start or were contaminants for example fresh lawa might test millions of years because the age calculatotions are speculation except with carbon 14 where we in the first place had artifacts of known age that we can verify and secondly we know that there is only one way carbon 14 ends up in a living specimen. Interestingly Namibian diamonds that were supposed to be millions of years had significant quantities of carbon 14 in them which would prove that they can't be that old however such data are just ignored.
53:00
Do not be misled by the assertions of people who deny that there is a Creator. Concerning the imperfections in the creation or those who say they could do it better.
Does it really make sense to you that life got here simply by chance or blind force? As Michael J. Behe, said “staggeringly complicated biochemical processes” that govern life make that idea totally unreasonable. The evidence of biochemistry, he says, leads to the inescapable conclusion that “life on earth at its most fundamental level . . . is the product of intelligent activity.”-Darwin’s Black Box-The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution.
The Bible tells us that life on earth at all levels is the product of intelligent activity. And it tells us that the Source of all this intelligent activity is Jehovah God, the Creator of the universe.-Psalm 36:9; Revelation 4:11.
Do not let the fact that we have to endure in a world filled with pain and suffering dissuade you from believing that there is a Creator and Designer of the earth and all life on it. *Keep in mind two fundamental truths.* One is that God did not design the imperfection that exists all around us. The other is that our Creator has good reasons for temporarily permitting it. Jehovah God has permitted evil to exist for a limited time only in order to settle once and for all the moral issues that were raised at the time when humans first rejected his sovereignty.-Genesis 3:1-7; Deuteronomy 32:4, 5; Ecclesiastes 7:29; 2 Peter 3:8, 9.
No such thing as
chance
Chance or odds need something to work with
So chance would have to CREATE chance
What are the odds of odds CREATING odds
Main quality of borg is collective consciousness. So we are machines, but not, strictly speaking, borg 😜☺
👍
wow me 1st comment ?
No. I count *31* comments before yours.
Science? This isn't it. So says the Law.
Science doesn't come from the law. Science isn't determined by the law.
That Spock cried was not "bad writing," Behe, it was great writing. You don't get it. Stick to biology.
Caught a Platypus in that mousetrap and that proved evolution and Darwin are true beyond doubt. and to think he wrote a book..face palm!