From Lehigh University Department position on evolution and "intelligent design" The faculty in the Department of Biological Sciences is committed to the highest standards of scientific integrity and academic function. This commitment carries with it unwavering support for academic freedom and the free exchange of ideas. It also demands the utmost respect for the scientific method, integrity in the conduct of research, and recognition that the validity of any scientific model comes only as a result of rational hypothesis testing, sound experimentation, and findings that can be replicated by others. The department faculty, then, are unequivocal in their support of evolutionary theory, which has its roots in the seminal work of Charles Darwin and has been supported by findings accumulated over 140 years. The sole dissenter from this position, Prof. Michael Behe, is a well-known proponent of "intelligent design." While we respect Prof. Behe's right to express his views, they are his alone and are in no way endorsed by the department. It is our collective position that intelligent design has no basis in science, has not been tested experimentally, and should not be regarded as scientific.
@@garywalker447 It doesn't help just to say "there is no evidence". Your statement would be appropriate if prof. Behe said "there is evidence" and you just replied "there is none". But Michael Behe actually goes to great lengths to provide an argument, and the counterargument should address the argument and not just proclaim "it doesn't work". Regarding your second point that there is no evidence for the Intellegint designer. There are independent scientific and philosophical arguments for such a being viz: cosmological arguments, contingency argument, ontological arguments, arguments from consciousness, arguments from teleology, fine tuning, transcendetal arguments, arguments for the immateriality of the mind (based on intentionality and noncomputational activites regarding direct intelectual intuition (see Roger Penrose - The Emperor's New Mind ) and much more.
@@Sol_Invictus77 Sorry but Intelligent Design is pseudoscience nonsense and is nothing more than creation science trying to hide it's creationist roots. It is NOT valid science, Behe is a trained scientist and knows this so his continued support of this is nothing more than intellectual fraud.
Bunk. Do you realize that us humans are only capable of intelligently designing the things that we do because of our highly complex nervous system and musculoskeletal system? Our sensory organs, our brain, our arms, and our fingers, all of these things play a fundamental role in our ability to intelligently design things so perfectly. Nothing simple is ever observed to intelligently design anything, nor can anyone logically explain at all whatsoever how something simple could intelligently design something. Not to mention that in spite of the fact that humans have sensory organs, a brain, arms, and fingers, no single human could ever design a single organism all on their own, let alone all of life on Earth. It took BILLIONS of us collectively before we were able to create synthetic life. And I’ll repeat that that’s in spite of the fact that us humans have sensory organs, a brain, arms, and fingers. So if the intelligent designer (presumably “God”) doesn’t have sensory organs, a brain, arms, or fingers then you have no alternative explanation whatsoever. And if he does have those things, then it is highly improbable that he would exist by chance with no explanation as to how he himself came to be set up so perfectly.
"behe is willing to say what scientist know but unwilling to stand up for" Reply - B/s that is what you want to be true to justify your faith. Lie for jesus in his holy name to support the cause of fundamentalism. LIe for jesus
@@Cuffsmaster You are definitely open-minded. You are the ones that require taxpayer money (you little thief) for your belief, called evolution. So maybe stop talking about fundamentalism.
@@garywalker447 "Biological Evolution is a FACT" - "people will believe a big lie sooner than a little one; and if you repeat it frequently enough people will sooner or later believe it." - Joseph Goebbels. He was a big supporter of evolution. Same as you. And you follow his advice.
Thank you for sharing with me the Idea of Intelligent Design... I watch you about 10 years ago and I have been a seeker of truth ever since... Love Light and Cosmic Energy.. We Are One
Behe's grasp of how two sets of 3 billion nucleotides each could possibly flit from major feature to major feature is non-existent. Evolution is real, and it's so slow your stop watch's smallest unit of time would be N thousand generations. Think "team creep" where every single complexity, be it chemical messengers, the complex eye, and so forth progresses by tiny degrees through a huge number of small forward ratchets. The idea that there isn't any way to reach the final ingeniously complex state, no way at all, means that Behe has never spent much time reflecting on the above. Rather, he's too busy inventing roadblocks - hardly what a PhD learns to do. Science teaches its stars that failure to comprehend is also failure to do science - and BeHe is the exception that proves the rule.
@@Jim-mn7yq "Darwin says" puts too heavy a weight on a thinker. But you're correct, if a change isn't naturally selectable, it doesn't get selected. On the other hand changes can accumulate if they have an ambiguous effect. Genes turn up in multiples from time to time, freeing the other copy to wander. Evolution isn't like tinker-toys. It's a numbers game, where tiny differences over a thousand generations and a huge breeding population can act like toothpaste coming out of the tube onto your brush, i.e. they behave like fluid. Think of evolution as a "team creep" where set of interacting genes can all change together, but very slowly. What does a billion years do, when your organism shares genes with its co-breeders and has only one cell?
@@joelhinrichs979 So let's say you have a functional unit in an organism -- we'll go with the proverbial eye. And let's say for the sake of discussion the unit is composed of 14 subunits. That would mean that each one of those subunits, as they evolved, had to give an immediate advantage to the organism towards survival. Isn't it likely that many of those subunits would not individually give a survival advantage? Yet when the entire unit was assembled, clearly an eye would give a tremendous survival advantage to the organism. I don't see how neo-darwinism can account for that.
@@Jim-mn7yq Not in the least! As long as you imagine the progress of a subunit as one large step from early to perfect, yes that is a dead idea. It's also a straw man. Initially there was a neuron sensitive to light. When it sat closer and closer to the skin, it began to make a difference. Finally the skin itself went defective (transparent), and that stuck too. Next the early eye became a cup, then a cup with a narrow opening, then a lens occurred, - - The short form of the story is that eyesight has evolved *in just this way* over half a dozen different times. The filaments that connect the lens in front of the retinal? Stock parts. The muscle fibers that tug on the filaments? Stock parts. Building pieces of the body? There is a highly condensed "planning section" called the homeobox and in it are HOX genes. Look up what those are; wikipedia is a good place. Evolution is actually the reverse of a cyclone turning a 747 into a junkyard of reusable parts. Nobody believes the cyclone will produce a 747. That is another absurdist, Straw Man argument. But if you film a "cyclone hits a 747 and munches it" story, then run it in reverse, you can get a vague notion of how evolution really works.
Don't question evolution.....why? Is it reasonable to say that inorganic matter randomly formed life and it's the blue print of life? Or is it reasonable to believe that an intelligent agent could've created DNA for all the living things? Evolutionist seems to suggest that specie can jump from one to another which violates mendels laws of genetics....evolution is just as speculative as intelligent design. To me intelligent design is far more reasonable than random chance.
mbot48 its not inorganic mater that formed life, its organic. Organic matter is the matter made of carbon. Also evolution doesnt have anythung to do with the origin or life, thats abiogenesis.
The theory of evolution is not intended to explain the origin of life. And what is your evidence for these supposed laws which forbid the evolution of new species? Are you aware that the evolution of new species is observed to occur? And what do you mean by “intelligent agent”? Does this “intelligent agent” have sensory organs, a brain, arms, and fingers like everything that we ever observe to intelligently design something? If not, how could it create life? You realize you’re idea isn’t explaining anything?
As far as science and ID is concerned, Behe himself acknowledged under oath that he or anyone has no peer reviewed publications that support ID by pertinent experiments or calculations . Here is an extract from his cross examination - Kitzmiller v. Dover Q. Now you have never argued for intelligent design in a peer reviewed scientific journal, correct? Behe - No, I argued for it in my book. Q. Not in a peer reviewed scientific journal? Behe - That's correct.
In a long paragraph, Behe's grasp of how two sets of 3 billion nucleotides each could possibly flit from major feature to major feature is non-existent. Evolution is real, and so slow your stop watch's smallest unit of time would be N thousand generations. Think "team creep" where every single complexity, be it chemical messengers, the complex eye, and so forth progresses by tiny degrees through a huge number of small forward ratchets. The idea that there isn't any way to reach the final ingeniously complex state, no way at all, means that Behe has never spent much time reflecting on the above. Rather, he's too busy inventing roadblocks - hardly what a PhD learns to do. Science teaches its stars that failure to comprehend is also failure to do science - and Behe is the exception that proves the rule.
I hear you, but consider this: Behe's grasp of how two sets of 3 billion nucleotides each could possibly flit from major feature to major feature is non-existent. Evolution is real, and so slow your stop watch's smallest unit of time would be N thousand generations. Think "team creep" where every single complexity, be it chemical messengers, the complex eye, and so forth progresses by tiny degrees through a huge number of small forward ratchets. The idea that there isn't any way to reach the final ingeniously complex state, no way at all, means that Behe has never spent much time reflecting on the above. Rather, he's too busy inventing roadblocks - hardly what a PhD learns to do. Science teaches its stars that failure to comprehend is also failure to do science - and Behe is the exception that proves the rule.
by "demonstrably just gradual adaptation to new functions" I think you really meant "possibly plausible in speculative imaginings". Demonstrations would be a rather long ways off (were there any there there to demonstrate).
OK this is 9 years ago. Behe's grasp of how two sets of 3 billion nucleotides each could possibly flit from major feature to major feature is non-existent. Evolution is real, and so slow your stop watch's smallest unit of time would be N thousand generations. Think "team creep" where every single complexity, be it chemical messengers, the complex eye, and so forth progresses by tiny degrees through a huge number of small forward ratchets. The idea that there isn't any way to reach the final ingeniously complex state, no way at all, means that Behe has never spent much time reflecting on the above. Rather, he's too busy inventing roadblocks - hardly what a PhD learns to do. Science teaches its stars that failure to comprehend is also failure to do science - and BeHe is the exception that proves the rule.
@@joelhinrichs979 he has never claimed that Evolution is not real. In fact he believes in it. You have obviously never read any of his books or researched papers that have been respectfullly peered reviewed, and all his answers to all the questions and criticisms from other peers. He states that the current theory as we understand it is outdated and has many critical flaws. Many top scientists agree with this concern of his, in fact years ago not sure the year right now, top scientists around the world met in private and discussed this topic among others and agreed that the current theory of Evolution as we know it needed to be revised, and updated, of course this will take years of research for this to happen. But that brings up another problem. Because the way that Evolution is being taught to students of all levels, which many of its topics are outdated, are being misinformed. Behe states that all students should be taught that currently, this is what we understand as in the theory of Evolution, and not as presented as it is now, as pure fact without room for criticism, because Evolution as many other fields of science are updated and changed over time to better ourselves and benefit from it. Including the most important one, our medical field. For some reason Evolution gets treated as a dogmatic religion without fault. This needs to change to better our understanding of our origins and life as we know it now
@@bryan2316 Behe utterly denies evolution, *except* by major leaps with no intervening steps. He calls it Intelligent Design. IC and ID rest on one deeply flawed axiom: all genes arrive fully fit and functional by design. They were designed first, then (have to guess here! - Behe and Meyer don't say how) introduced into the nucleus of a zygote to make a new species. Multiple times, in fact, so that there will be enough to breed without encouraging the bad effects of inbreeding. Their logic is circular: "Minor stepwise evolution is visible within a species. But it is impossible to do more than minor tuning and local adapting to a new environmental challenge. In other words, stepwise evolution is impossible. BUT BECAUSE stepwise evolution is impossible, only an intelligent designer can bring any new species into being." See what's going on? Construct an axiom that forces your conclusion. Stepwise evolution, to Behe, is not capable of gradual addition of new genes, tuning them to each other, etc. until you reach what we see now. The modern eukaryotic cell is a protein driven protein factory where clusters of proteins, each with their own perfectly tuned gene, interact with perfect co-ordination to do very complex things. The "You can't get there from here" argument is unsupported by data, by logic, or by material evidence. It is an axiom. And it's wrong.
@@joelhinrichs979 While you are explaining about eukaryotic cell.. you use the words "FACTORY".. then "PERFECTLY TUNED" and then again "PERFECT CO-ORDINATOON". This choice of words itself suggest an intelligent design rather than the idea of coming from nothing.
Most surely in the creation of the heavens and the earth and the alternation of the night and the day, and the ships that run in the sea with that which profits men, and the water that Allah sends down from the cloud, then gives life with it to the earth after its death and spreads in it all (kinds of) animals, and the changing of the winds and the clouds made subservient between the heaven and the earth, there are signs for a people who understand. Al-Bakara verse2 chapter 164
You revere your Hadith, which were explanatory passages which made your Scripture easier to comprehend. That, my friend, has absolutely nothing to do with science. Consider that the Maker of All Things will not deceive his human creatures. The Maker will not lie; if yours does, then you trust a liar. The Creation, produced by the uncaused first cause, tells us its age (billions of years) its size (trillions of galaxies) and its methods, which include evolution. Creation does not lie; if you need to make what it tells us into lies, then again your religious basis includes lies. That would be most foul. Be well; but understand what the Maker has made, and adore the Maker through the awesome, mysterious, and majestic Creation.
This ground breaking approach to the subject of biology reminds me of the work of Benjamin Franklin and the phenomenon of lightening. Franklin was ignorant of the world's subsequent research into electricity, and even today we don't know all there is to know of the subject. Therefore, deep thinking meteorologists in the style of Behe, are will assert the fact that 'Thor' makes thunder and lightening. *Tut* Silly mainstream scientists with their silly (but beneficial) research.
In a large paragraph, Behe's grasp of how two sets of 3 billion nucleotides each could possibly flit from major feature to major feature is non-existent. Evolution is real, and so slow your stop watch's smallest unit of time would be N thousand generations. Think "team creep" where every single complexity, be it chemical messengers, the complex eye, and so forth progresses by tiny degrees through a huge number of small forward ratchets. The idea that there isn't any way to reach the final ingeniously complex state, no way at all, means that Behe has never spent much time reflecting on the above. Rather, he's too busy inventing roadblocks - hardly what a PhD learns to do. Science teaches its stars that failure to comprehend is also failure to do science - and Behe is the exception that proves the rule.
When I listen to this video, I remember what god said in Quran:We will show them Our signs in all the horizons and in themselves, until it is clear to them that it is the truth.
@jay jay 86 Until, when he reached the setting of the sun, he found it [as if] setting in a spring of dark mud, and he found near it a people. Allah said, "O Dhul-Qarnayn, either you punish [them] or else adopt among them [a way of] goodness." The verse said he found it so from the point of view of the man that is what he saw.Its like saying he found the sun setting behind trees. No one would ever understand that as a sun leaving its orbit everyday to come and set behind trees. Plus,we have a lot of clear cut verses in the quran that tell us the sun is in orbit. So when we find a verse that is ambiguous we look at the clear cut verse and then know that it means the he from his point of view found the sun setting in a spring of muddy water which is not wrong.because from peoples point of view of view they could see the sun setting into the sea but its really not.
I believe in the field of intelligent design. I also believe in the Creator of the universe (God), as I do believe in the concept of the soul. I do, however, not believe in any religion whatsoever. A belief in God does not imply belief in religion; there is a difference. In a similar vein, a belief in God does not imply, in principle, a disbelief in biological evolution: a belief in God and a belief in biological evolution can co-exist. With that being said, I do not believe in biological evolution; I believe the Creator made all animals separately; sans any development of species from one common progenitor form.
It would seem that the tie clip is certainly a poor man's tie clip. What you do is, you take a mouse trap and degrade its construction, remove a few key parts which are central to its functioning as a mouse trap. And as a result you get a "tie clip". Mouse trap first. "Tie clip" second.
No problem with the idea of God, even as a creator. What explains the life we see today cannot be explained through the Bible though neither old earth or new earth creationism. There are several good points that point to a creator but there are hundreds that support evolution. Protein folds, irreducible complexity, how the first cell came about etc - all very interesting areas to research, but in no way does creationism Bible style explain the fossil record, geology, anthropology, biology or any of the sciences. Read genesis 1-11 and tell me how that even comes close to fitting into the world we see today or the world we can observe from before?
@@maxmudxareed1345 Your definition of "everybody" consists of a school of innocents lost in a sea of real information. Behe's grasp of how two sets of 3 billion nucleotides each could possibly flit from major feature to major feature is non-existent. Evolution is real, and so slow your stop watch's smallest unit of time would be N thousand generations. Think "team creep" where every single complexity, be it chemical messengers, the complex eye, and so forth progresses by tiny degrees through a huge number of small forward ratchets. The idea that there isn't any way to reach the final ingeniously complex state, no way at all, means that Behe has never spent much time reflecting on the above. Rather, he's too busy inventing roadblocks - hardly what a PhD learns to do. Science teaches its stars that failure to comprehend is also failure to do science - and Behe is the exception that proves the rule.
If Loose Change was a "series" why did they call is Loose Change Second Edition, and Loose Change Second edition recut, and also Loose Change Final cut? LMAO! You don't even know your own magical theories! 911 TRUTH = STRAWMAN
You just said a whole lot of nothing. Do you suggest that the notion of T3SS ancestry of flagellum is more than just plausibility thought experiment / speculation? Are you aware of any evidence contrary to such a theory? Are you aware of any evidence for the theory, other than the fact that it fits plausibly within the pre-conceived narrative? (The same narrative for which it is usually used in an attempt to buttress incidentally)
What complexity? We humans attribute complexity accordi g to out limitations...i kid would find the motions of the planet's orbit very complex...but to a scientist it isn't.. .we marvel at our lack of understanding...as soon as we don't understand...then it's the handling of a god...when we understand how it happens we never say that...smh
if anyone wants to debate evolution with me(I personally find it an adequate scientific theory), feel free to reply to this comment and we'll set something up on my yt channel
Professor Behe did a great job in his lecture and defended his ideas, now lets wait maybe someone will respond or not. ID should be taught in the classroom. Thanks Dr. Behe.
@L Ron Cupboard Yes Dr. Behe accepts most of the Evolution theory features and discards the outdated features, but he agrees that Ok first you must understand what the errors in the evolution theory is. Undirect process 1 ) certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause and not an undirected process such as natural selection. 2) the Cambrian Explosion: This Means if it’s proved that it existed then it's possible to prove that was a beginning of the universe and of living things. 3)The human genome shows that a cell is formed through systems. When Darwin wrote the origin of the species, he had a very small knowledge of the Cell. Therefore, his theory of evolution is outdated. 4) DNA and information in the cell. Since Darwin's discovery of his theory of evolution and his trip to the Galapagos Island has passed 187 years and no one talked about DNA or CSI at that time. But now there is vast information coming from the DNA. So, evolution is outdated. Again, the proponent of Intelligent design is not challenging the whole evolution theory just the errors and outdated features in it. so, when you study about metaphysics and fact and reality there are things that are invisible things that are not counted or not included in an empirical study. But that doesn’t mean that it does not exist. It just can’t be proved through physical eyes. That is sometimes explained through philosophy. So, some philosophers and scientists like Marx and Darwin developed a material view of life. Some of the features of the material view of life is wrong and miscalculate the result. The argument from ID is not an argument from ignorance. It’s different of course. But ID is misunderstood you need to read more books on ID to understand it better.
@@garywalker447 ID should be allowed to be taught in the classroom along with evolution. You are worshiping the wrong theory and wrong features, today with DNA, the human genome project, and irreducible complexity. If you don’t learn to update yourself then you will be left behind. Lamentable.
The only reason anyone would propose a supernatural explanation is because they think a natural explanation cannot exist in principle. How many supernatural explanations do you have for things that are also fully understood under natural explanations? I think you're missing the difference between speculation and explanations. Supernatural "explanations" are really just speculations based on ignorance. They have no merit because they rely on ignorance to exist.
Lehigh University Department position on evolution and "intelligent design" The faculty in the Department of Biological Sciences is committed to the highest standards of scientific integrity and academic function. This commitment carries with it unwavering support for academic freedom and the free exchange of ideas. It also demands the utmost respect for the scientific method, integrity in the conduct of research, and recognition that the validity of any scientific model comes only as a result of rational hypothesis testing, sound experimentation, and findings that can be replicated by others. The department faculty, then, are unequivocal in their support of evolutionary theory, which has its roots in the seminal work of Charles Darwin and has been supported by findings accumulated over 140 years. The sole dissenter from this position, Prof. Michael Behe, is a well-known proponent of "intelligent design." While we respect Prof. Behe's right to express his views, they are his alone and are in no way endorsed by the department. It is our collective position that intelligent design has no basis in science, has not been tested experimentally, and should not be regarded as scientific.
That's sad for you and your university. As more and more data are coming out in question of that theory, your inability to let it go demonstrates it is your religion, not science. And, as a religion, it leads to hopelessness. Sometimes, people think they are smart, but they are really fools who think they are smart. In some ways I feel sorry for you; but I feel more sorry for the vast majority of people you and yours are leading down a dead-end road. Just don't confuse what you believe with science. It isn't.
@@freshstartboys3581 That's sad for you and your university. As more and more data are coming out in question of that theory, your inability to let it go demonstrates it is your religion, not science. And, as a religion, it leads to hopelessness. Sometimes, people think they are smart, but they are really fools who think they are smart. In some ways I feel sorry for you; but I feel more sorry for the vast majority of people you and yours are leading down a dead-end road. Just don't confuse what you believe with science. It isn't.
@@garywalker447, you obviously don't listen to yourself. Maybe, I'm not really talking to a professor who can think for himself, but one of the brainwashed who can't. You are free to believe what you want to believe and you are free to judge something you know absolutely nothing about; but, like the Apostle Paul, I am first generation Christian that God woke up despite what you and yours brainwashed into me for over 30 years of my life. When new evidence was introduced, I was willing to change. Your "experts" now have to believe in the science fiction of infinite multiverses, inflation, inflatons, dark matter, dark energy, and that information and the appearance of design came from nowhere--none of which they can or ever will be able to see just to avoid the possibility that there was an intelligent designer--and you think someone like me believes in fairy tales????? If you really are a professor, you really aught to re-examine what your belief leads to. People like richard dawkins have at least been able to truthfully acknowledge that. I would encourage you to be willing to diligently seek to see if the evidence could in fact lead to a different conclusion. If you actually examine the evidence without assuming the theory is true, you might actually come to some startling conclusions. But, if you can't do that, don't say what you are doing is practicing science. Because, if you aren't willing to challenge your own presuppositions, then you aren't practicing science. You are supporting your religion. At least be honest about that. My eyes have been opened. I am no longer under the brainwashing/indoctrination you and yours silently pushed into me. May you diligently seek the One who can free you as well. You don't have experience with fairy tales you don't believe.
@@walkergarya coming from someone systematically brainwashed, I will consider your assessment a compliment. If you thought I wasn't, THEN, I would have a big problem, since you can't see the Truth.
The inability of science to explain the origin of the natural world DOES NOT require that we use supernatural explanations. That's an argument from ignorance. This is how it goes: "I can't explain how the universe came into existence, therefore I CAN explain how it came into existence: it was magic. What if you took that approach to every other thing you don't understand?
A plausible mechanism for the origin of nature can be explained naturalistically. That is the only example where, in principle, a natural explanation for a phenomenon can't be deduced. Even so, the origin of nature can't be explained supernaturalistically either. I have a question though. Why are you trying to defend supernatural explanations when your only course of doing so is to attack natural explanations? Do supernatural explanations not stand up on their own?
"The cell is perhaps the most sophisticated piece of machinery that has existed anywhere in this world." SPOT ON - however, First Life began to crawl baby-like, about three billion years before complex life arose. Three giga-years of evolution gave cells, with reproduction rates in the once-per-day range, and in quantities with too many powers of ten to ignore, plenty of time to refine, compete, evolve, etc. We've taken ten thousand years with far slower "reproduction" rates and vastly fewer iterations, to go from hewn stone to the giga-transistor CPU chip. Guided by intelligence - *ours* - ?? Consider the scale of differences in time, iteration rate and population, and consider whether or not the kind of astounding sophistication in the common cell may or may not have evolved. Natural Selection is a harsh mistress - - just the sort to produce a tough bunch of species. "But that hardly fits with the common mode of evolution" - strongly disagree. Behe here is waving his arms at the above and skipping past the innovation *built into* DNA copy errors and Natural Selection. One in (insert your own huge number) stays in the gene pool because it has augmented the cell's overall performance. That is, evolution ratchets forward. Alleging that "can only adjust things already there" is foolishly simple minded. Change *is* innovation and *does* across time introduce novelties. "Irreducible Complexity" - the mouse trap consists of very simple parts and Behe wants to denude the species called mousetrap of one of its highly evolved parts, all at once. Can anyone smell the problem here? Every one of those parts has been improved on for ages, and earlier versions actually worked with fewer parts. Yet Behe's entire premise rests on a supposed impossibility of any prior version with fewer or differently made parts. I call I C childish twaddle.
You can call childish twaddle all you want, that's not an argument let alone a refutation. More and more "scientists" are admitting that macro evolution is impossible, but only admitting such AFTER they retire. Intelligent design is the only theory that fits the evidence available to us.
@@vistuscaine You can allege more and more retirement-age scientists, saying whatever you wan them to say. But your claim rests on so-called scientists who neither had nor have any background in the fine print of how evolution actually operates. Science's stars look at a matter they can't figure out, and study it. Behe and Meyer are the exception to that rule; their approach is basically "Since it's indecipherable [to me] it's impossible. Scientists aren't that eager to promote an answer based in ignorance not fact. Evolution is a matter of many parts (a few at the start, then adding as time goes on) - where all the parts inch forward together. A very *very* long series of tiny changes, to all the parts, is what builds the synergies and interactions. Today these are astounding, so complex as to challenge science's ability to understand, - - - and the result of two billion (with a b) years of agonizingly slow progress just to reach the point where multi-celled organisms could escape their metabolic prison (the key that opened that jailhouse door was mitochondria.) Have fun - learning this stuff is a real rush once you know how much the world has learned since 1859.
@@stephanusghibellino Back at you - prove, by experiment, that it isn't possible. But here's the catch: you need a hundred thousand (minimum) generations, one after the other. Evidence: Complex life has complex DNA, every single cell division, to make two cells from one, requires a complete and exact copy of all that complex DNA - every cell, every time. The problem here is that the copying process isn't quite perfect. In humans, with 6 billion nucleotides in 46 chromosomes (two sets of 23) only four in ten cell divisions get there error-free. The other six get one nucleotide (on average) wrong. Consequence: while dogs make dogs, THE DOG GENOME SLIDES DOWN A ONE-WAY STREET. There is no going back. Each generation acquires its own infinitesimal number of copy errors, and every single member of the species acquires its own. After a hundred thousand generations (or pick your own number) the simple down-stream drift has made it impossible for DOG number 100,000 to produce viable offspring with DOG number 1. That, Belisario, is speciation. At ever single step from grandparent to parent to pup to grandpup, every single organism breeds as true as is possible. You'll never see the difference, But one hundred thousand generations of dog from now, you won't have a dog. Illustration: a computer screen with pure red all the way across on the bottom line, and pure blue all the way across on the top line. There are 1,024 lines, and each line is just a smidge different so that the one in the middle will be purple. Just like the dogs, every line will "breed as true as possible" such that (1) you'll have the dickens of a time telling neighboring lines apart, (2) you'll be at a loss to point (no compasses or rulers allowed) to true purple, and (c) you'll also be at a loss to point the the line that meets your criteria for red. So, you stop talking nonsense. The way not to talk nonsense is to deepen your knowledge of the actual world.
@@vistuscaine Your allegation: "More and more "scientists" are admitting that macro evolution is impossible, but only admitting such AFTER they retire." My take: They retired from unaffiliated fields of study, and/or were courted after retirement to state something. All of them are quite wrong.
Shall we have a look at this "challange" of this supposed dogmas? He served as an expert witness for the defense in the Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District trial Under cross examination, he was obliged to admit: -That no peer-reviewed scientific journal has published research supportive of intelligent design's claims. -That Behe's own book was not, as he had claimed, peer reviewed. -That Behe himself criticizes the science presented as supporting intelligent design in instructional material created for that purpose. -That intelligent design seems plausible and reasonable to inquirers in direct proportion to their belief or nonbelief in God. -That the basic arguments for evidence of purposeful design in nature are essentially the same as those adduced by the Christian apologist Rev. William Paley (1743-1805) in his 1802 Natural Theology: or, Evidences of the Existence and Attributes of the Deity, Collected From the Appearances of Nature, where he sums up his observations of the complexity of life in the ringing words, "The marks of design are too strong to be got over. Design must have had a designer. That designer must have been a person. That person is GOD.” -That the definition of "theory" supplied by the US National Academy of Sciences did not encompass ID, and that his broader definition would allow astrology to be included as a scientific theory. -That he had claimed in his book that evolution could not explain immunology without even investigating the subject. When presented with 58 peer reviewed articles, nine books, and several textbook chapters on the subject, he insisted they were "not good enough. If he wants to challenge a, well proven, 160 years spanning body of solid scientific work, he has to do waaaaay better than this. Thia is not a "challange" this is embarrasing.
Well, demonstrate to us then that the laws of nature i.e. just constraints are sufficient to spontaneously produce by way of an undirected non-teleologic process: - functionality - cybernetic control - formalism - semiotic systems
Behe's grasp of how two sets of 3 billion nucleotides each could possibly flit from major feature to major feature is non-existent. Evolution is real, and so slow your stop watch's smallest unit of time would be N thousand generations. Think "team creep" where every single complexity, be it chemical messengers, the complex eye, and so forth progresses by tiny degrees through a huge number of small forward ratchets. The idea that there isn't any way to reach the final ingeniously complex state, no way at all, means that Behe has never spent much time reflecting on the above. Rather, he's too busy inventing roadblocks - hardly what a PhD learns to do. Science teaches its stars that failure to comprehend is also failure to do science - and Behe is the exception that proves the rule.
Its amazing how many generalizations in 11 minutes. "Scientists don't write books" or "the cell is most amazing piece of machinery in the universe". Yea right ..He has been to every corner of universe.
Then it's probably a good thing we don't use Darwin's theory. Modern evolutionary theory is so far advanced from the knowledge of Darwin's day as to be nearly unrecognizable, and no there no problems with it.
Whoever wants to learn something about this guy's credibility regarding this topic may check "Dover trial" - f.e., he admitted that the "theory" of Intelligent Design is as solid as star divination (aka astrology)...
It's easier to dismiss God than it is to fundamentally not to believe in Him. Yes, the God of the Bible. Isaiah 1:18 Come now, and let us reason together, sayeth the Lord, Millions of species, and only one has 'developed' even a rudimentary sense of reason. No symbolic language systems, no formalities or sense of purpose that isn't driven by instinct or training. If you want to believe that you evolved from something other than what God created you as, then I don't want to take anything away from you, but most of us know better, even the ones who won't admit it. For God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten son
The fact that the bible is self contradictory, has no scientific value, no value for history and no moral value prove that the bible was written by men, not any all knowing god.
@@walkergarya the fact that the four Gospels are not verbatim tells me that they were written by four different men. I am of the opinion that that in no way detracts from the fact that Jesus Christ, the son of God, was crucified for the purpose of granting me salvation. Please don't let what you see as a contradiction cost you eternity.
@@ingeniousmechanic I can accept that the accounts are not all the same but I also point out that there was NEVER a Roman custom to release a condemned prisoner at Passover. There are two different and mutually exclusive accounts of Judas's death. There is NO other account of the "Star of Bethelhem". One of the gospels says there was an earthquake in Jeruselem when Jesus died, but this is not recorded by the Romans who made careful note of such events. I also note that the "miracles" of Jesus were done previously by other older pagan gods. I have read the gospels and I do not believe them for these reasons and more. I have NO belief in Original Sin, it is immoral to assign guilt to the children of the guilty when they could not have influenced that action. I do not accept Salvation. I do not accept any of the tenants of christianity as being valid and moral.
The plausible natural mechanism for the origin of nature is that the universe came into existence on its own, uncaused. Why is this plausible? Because we know that particles can come into existence on their own since we've indirectly measured that to be the case (virtual particles). That is part of nature, so it is natural.
There is information that is purported by many people to be evidence for God's existence, and that I have examined diligently. The problem is, like I said, is that it's a philosophical error to infer the existence of any supernatural being based on gathered information because you can never rule out a natural explanation of which you are ignorant. That's the mistake people have been making for thousands of years and continue to make today. They misunderstand a natural phenomenon and call it God.
Credible ID proponents are not putting forth an intelligent designer as a null hypothesis, but as an alternative hypothesis. Ideally, a good alternative hypothesis is one step upward in the hierarchy of alternative explanations. Admittedly, there is a lot of room between Darwin's randon mutations being acted upon by natural selection and an intelligent designer. That room, however, is filtered now by our ignorance. Continued experimentation, observation, and philosophizing that rejects more and more of the Modern Synthesis will support the ID alternative hypothesis, but only weakly as the ignorance is likely vast. I expect the efforts of the ID proponents will peel back parts of the filter on our ignorance, thus opening up future avenues of investigation. The Scientific Revolution and the Enlightenment were spurred by Christian natural philosophers who viewed science as the best way to understand God's creation. They were correct, as their work and that of those who followed has greatly increased our knowledge and improved the quality and quantity of human life. ID proponents who adhere to the scientific method will almost certainly expand our knowledge further.
Let's assume that I cannot demonstrate what you've asked of me. Now let's go through your logic: "I can't explain how just the laws of nature could produce various biological systems and functions, therefore they are intelligently designed." In other words... "I am ignorant, therefore conclusion." That's a contradiction. Your conclusion is based on your own ignorance. That's not how biology works. You started from a state of ignorance and went straight to a state of "knowledge".
@@pleasesubscribe7659 Behe's grasp of how two sets of 3 billion nucleotides each could possibly flit from major feature to major feature is non-existent. Evolution is real, and so slow your stop watch's smallest unit of time would be N thousand generations. Think "team creep" where every single complexity, be it chemical messengers, the complex eye, and so forth progresses by tiny degrees through a huge number of small forward ratchets. The idea that there isn't any way to reach the final ingeniously complex state, no way at all, means that Behe has never spent much time reflecting on the above. Rather, he's too busy inventing roadblocks - hardly what a PhD learns to do. Science teaches its stars that failure to comprehend is also failure to do science - and Behe is the exception that proves the rule.
@@Adam-bq2vw Behe's grasp of how two sets of 3 billion nucleotides each could possibly flit from major feature to major feature is non-existent. Evolution is real, and so slow your stop watch's smallest unit of time would be N thousand generations. Think "team creep" where every single complexity, be it chemical messengers, the complex eye, and so forth progresses by tiny degrees through a huge number of small forward ratchets. The idea that there isn't any way to reach the final ingeniously complex state, no way at all, means that Behe has never spent much time reflecting on the above. Rather, he's too busy inventing roadblocks - hardly what a PhD learns to do. Science teaches its stars that failure to comprehend is also failure to do science - and Behe is the exception that proves the rule.
Judge Jones got it exactly right when he ruled: While supernatural explanations may be important and have merit, they are not part of science. (3:103 (Miller); 9:19-20 (Haught)). This self-imposed convention of science, which limits inquiry to testable, natural explanations about the natural world, is referred to by philosophers as “methodological naturalism” and is sometimes known as the scientific method. (5:23, 29-30 (Pennock)). Methodological naturalism is a “ground rule” of science today which requires scientists to seek explanations in the world around us based upon what we can observe, test, replicate, and verify. (1:59-64, 2:41-43 (Miller); 5:8, 23-30 (Pennock)). …and… ID violates the centuries-old ground rules of science by invoking and permitting supernatural causation
@@cetepeter5431 "how much biology knows judge jones" He knows more than any fundamentalist Christian I ever met even if educated in biology because fundamentalist are not seeking truth but a coverup for the magic book
If scientists find information systems in the fossil record like hieroglyphs do they conclude that an intelligence made the hieroglyphs? How much more when we look at the super advanced DNA code!
@@sschmeckpeper2538 If I were at a fossil dig for dinosaurs and I found "War and Peace" in the rock layer, I would conclude that something very weird was happening, but that has not happened. Your hypothetical question is nonsense.
One of the greatest philosophical blunders one can make is to tell the universe what it cannot do. Absolutely no one knows the result of every possible combination of physical interactions of sub-atomic particles, atoms, and molecules. Given this ignorance, no one is in a position to declare that the universe could not have produced a certain physical product. Moreover, given this ignorance, no one is in a position to conclude a designer with magic powers. Ignorance cannot support a conclusion.
@@tomrogers5862 Strawman?? Behe's grasp of how two sets of 3 billion nucleotides each could possibly flit from major feature to major feature is non-existent. Evolution is real, and so slow your stop watch's smallest unit of time would be N thousand generations. Think "team creep" where every single complexity, be it chemical messengers, the complex eye, and so forth progresses by tiny degrees through a huge number of small forward ratchets. The idea that there isn't any way to reach the final ingeniously complex state, no way at all, means that Behe has never spent much time reflecting on the above. Rather, he's too busy inventing roadblocks - hardly what a PhD learns to do. Science teaches its stars that failure to comprehend is also failure to do science - and Behe is the exception that proves the rule.
Dan Eastwood "His proof is a duck? Seriously??" Dan, you look like a fairly intelligent person. No, his proof is not a duck. He flashes the duck on the screen to invoke the expression, "If it looks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck, then it probably is a duck." However, when scientists look at the exquisite design of a molecular machine, they say, "It looks like a machine, it has the parts of a machine, it functions like a machine. However, it must NOT be a machine."
>"However, when scientists look at the exquisite design of a molecular machine, they say, ..." Which scientists say that? Citation please, or you are just quacking.
Dan Eastwood As I said, Dan, you look like a fairly intelligent person. The point is that they recognize that it is DESIGNED, which implies intelligence, and that is what is denied. For a reference, see Dawkins' The Blind Watchmaker.
From Lehigh University Department position on evolution and "intelligent design" The faculty in the Department of Biological Sciences is committed to the highest standards of scientific integrity and academic function. This commitment carries with it unwavering support for academic freedom and the free exchange of ideas. It also demands the utmost respect for the scientific method, integrity in the conduct of research, and recognition that the validity of any scientific model comes only as a result of rational hypothesis testing, sound experimentation, and findings that can be replicated by others. The department faculty, then, are unequivocal in their support of evolutionary theory, which has its roots in the seminal work of Charles Darwin and has been supported by findings accumulated over 140 years. The sole dissenter from this position, Prof. Michael Behe, is a well-known proponent of "intelligent design." While we respect Prof. Behe's right to express his views, they are his alone and are in no way endorsed by the department. It is our collective position that intelligent design has no basis in science, has not been tested experimentally, and should not be regarded as scientific.
From Lehigh University Department position on evolution and "intelligent design" The faculty in the Department of Biological Sciences is committed to the highest standards of scientific integrity and academic function. This commitment carries with it unwavering support for academic freedom and the free exchange of ideas. It also demands the utmost respect for the scientific method, integrity in the conduct of research, and recognition that the validity of any scientific model comes only as a result of rational hypothesis testing, sound experimentation, and findings that can be replicated by others. The department faculty, then, are unequivocal in their support of evolutionary theory, which has its roots in the seminal work of Charles Darwin and has been supported by findings accumulated over 140 years. The sole dissenter from this position, Prof. Michael Behe, is a well-known proponent of "intelligent design." While we respect Prof. Behe's right to express his views, they are his alone and are in no way endorsed by the department. It is our collective position that intelligent design has no basis in science, has not been tested experimentally, and should not be regarded as scientific.
Gary, now that evolution is on a downhill course, professor Behe is ahead of those Darwin materialists who instead of having a civilized debate they call names and yells and jump hyped. This means this evolution theory is on its last breath. Our tax fed money need stop financing this materialist view of life. Enough of indoctrinating our kids in high schools. Let other theories compete in the classroom. ID is a better science theory.
Creationists keep up the Illusion that there is an actual ongoing debate of the factual nature of the Theory of Evolution. There is not. Furthermore they are selling the idea that proving evolution wrong would add any credibility to their idea of a God. If you’d think about that for a second, you’d know that this is not true either. You've been conned and put in front of cart, by right wing fundamentalists.
The theory of evolution got so many flaws please read a book “icons of evolution” the only Defense's of evolution still trying to defend evolution are the ones that are receiving federal grants from our tax $ money giving to them to indoctrinate our kids in high schools. Enough of this nonsense.
![[FULL EP.73] เปิดบ้าน 70 ล้าน "แป้ง Zbing" ยกมาทั้งญี่ปุ่น l เคหสถานบานปลาย l One Playground](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/YBnJhTt07Pg/mqdefault.jpg)
From Lehigh University
Department position on evolution and "intelligent design"
The faculty in the Department of Biological Sciences is committed to the highest standards of scientific integrity and academic function. This commitment carries with it unwavering support for academic freedom and the free exchange of ideas. It also demands the utmost respect for the scientific method, integrity in the conduct of research, and recognition that the validity of any scientific model comes only as a result of rational hypothesis testing, sound experimentation, and findings that can be replicated by others.
The department faculty, then, are unequivocal in their support of evolutionary theory, which has its roots in the seminal work of Charles Darwin and has been supported by findings accumulated over 140 years. The sole dissenter from this position, Prof. Michael Behe, is a well-known proponent of "intelligent design." While we respect Prof. Behe's right to express his views, they are his alone and are in no way endorsed by the department. It is our collective position that intelligent design has no basis in science, has not been tested experimentally, and should not be regarded as scientific.
Gary you look like a parrot huh.
And would you tell us why are prof. Michael Behe's views unscientific?
@@Sol_Invictus77 Intelligent Design has NEVER been supported with evidence and asserts a causal agent that has not been evidencened.
@@garywalker447 It doesn't help just to say "there is no evidence". Your statement would be appropriate if prof. Behe said "there is evidence" and you just replied "there is none". But Michael Behe actually goes to great lengths to provide an argument, and the counterargument should address the argument and not just proclaim "it doesn't work".
Regarding your second point that there is no evidence for the Intellegint designer. There are independent scientific and philosophical arguments for such a being viz: cosmological arguments, contingency argument, ontological arguments, arguments from consciousness, arguments from teleology, fine tuning, transcendetal arguments, arguments for the immateriality of the mind (based on intentionality and noncomputational activites regarding direct intelectual intuition (see Roger Penrose - The Emperor's New Mind ) and much more.
@@Sol_Invictus77 Sorry but Intelligent Design is pseudoscience nonsense and is nothing more than creation science trying to hide it's creationist roots. It is NOT valid science, Behe is a trained scientist and knows this so his continued support of this is nothing more than intellectual fraud.
I lack the faith to be an atheist.
Wow. You really do like to show off your ignorance.
@@walkergarya So educate me.
@@JLaw954 Are you going to pay me for my time?
Yawn - what a lazy cliche.
@@coffeeandbytes9854 a lazy response on your part.
Bunk. Do you realize that us humans are only capable of intelligently designing the things that we do because of our highly complex nervous system and musculoskeletal system? Our sensory organs, our brain, our arms, and our fingers, all of these things play a fundamental role in our ability to intelligently design things so perfectly. Nothing simple is ever observed to intelligently design anything, nor can anyone logically explain at all whatsoever how something simple could intelligently design something. Not to mention that in spite of the fact that humans have sensory organs, a brain, arms, and fingers, no single human could ever design a single organism all on their own, let alone all of life on Earth. It took BILLIONS of us collectively before we were able to create synthetic life. And I’ll repeat that that’s in spite of the fact that us humans have sensory organs, a brain, arms, and fingers. So if the intelligent designer (presumably “God”) doesn’t have sensory organs, a brain, arms, or fingers then you have no alternative explanation whatsoever. And if he does have those things, then it is highly improbable that he would exist by chance with no explanation as to how he himself came to be set up so perfectly.
Thanks for posting. Michael Behe is willing to say what many scientists know but are unwilling to stand up the way he has.
"behe is willing to say what scientist know but unwilling to stand up for"
Reply - B/s that is what you want to be true to justify your faith. Lie for jesus in his holy name to support the cause of fundamentalism. LIe for jesus
@@Cuffsmaster You are definitely open-minded. You are the ones that require taxpayer money (you little thief) for your belief, called evolution. So maybe stop talking about fundamentalism.
@@vesogry Biological Evolution is a FACT. Your creationism is pseudoscience and has no value.
@@garywalker447 "Biological Evolution is a FACT" - "people will believe a big lie sooner than a little one; and if you repeat it frequently enough people will sooner or later believe it." - Joseph Goebbels.
He was a big supporter of evolution. Same as you. And you follow his advice.
Gary Walker talk about an assertion. I’d rather have a question that can’t be answered than an answer that can’t be questioned lol
Thank you for sharing with me the Idea of Intelligent Design... I watch you about 10 years ago and I have been a seeker of truth ever since... Love Light and Cosmic Energy.. We Are One
Behe's grasp of how two sets of 3 billion nucleotides each could possibly flit from major feature to major feature is non-existent. Evolution is real, and it's so slow your stop watch's smallest unit of time would be N thousand generations. Think "team creep" where every single complexity, be it chemical messengers, the complex eye, and so forth progresses by tiny degrees through a huge number of small forward ratchets. The idea that there isn't any way to reach the final ingeniously complex state, no way at all, means that Behe has never spent much time reflecting on the above. Rather, he's too busy inventing roadblocks - hardly what a PhD learns to do. Science teaches its stars that failure to comprehend is also failure to do science - and BeHe is the exception that proves the rule.
@@joelhinrichs979 Doesn’t Darwin say that each of those incremental changes must provide a survival advantage to the organism?
@@Jim-mn7yq "Darwin says" puts too heavy a weight on a thinker. But you're correct, if a change isn't naturally selectable, it doesn't get selected.
On the other hand changes can accumulate if they have an ambiguous effect. Genes turn up in multiples from time to time, freeing the other copy to wander.
Evolution isn't like tinker-toys. It's a numbers game, where tiny differences over a thousand generations and a huge breeding population can act like toothpaste coming out of the tube onto your brush, i.e. they behave like fluid.
Think of evolution as a "team creep" where set of interacting genes can all change together, but very slowly. What does a billion years do, when your organism shares genes with its co-breeders and has only one cell?
@@joelhinrichs979 So let's say you have a functional unit in an organism -- we'll go with the proverbial eye.
And let's say for the sake of discussion the unit is composed of 14 subunits.
That would mean that each one of those subunits, as they evolved, had to give an immediate advantage to the organism towards survival. Isn't it likely that many of those subunits would not individually give a survival advantage? Yet when the entire unit was assembled, clearly an eye would give a tremendous survival advantage to the organism.
I don't see how neo-darwinism can account for that.
@@Jim-mn7yq Not in the least! As long as you imagine the progress of a subunit as one large step from early to perfect, yes that is a dead idea.
It's also a straw man.
Initially there was a neuron sensitive to light.
When it sat closer and closer to the skin, it began to make a difference.
Finally the skin itself went defective (transparent), and that stuck too.
Next the early eye became a cup, then a cup with a narrow opening, then a lens occurred, - -
The short form of the story is that eyesight has evolved *in just this way* over half a dozen different times. The filaments that connect the lens in front of the retinal? Stock parts. The muscle fibers that tug on the filaments? Stock parts.
Building pieces of the body? There is a highly condensed "planning section" called the homeobox and in it are HOX genes. Look up what those are; wikipedia is a good place.
Evolution is actually the reverse of a cyclone turning a 747 into a junkyard of reusable parts. Nobody believes the cyclone will produce a 747. That is another absurdist, Straw Man argument. But if you film a "cyclone hits a 747 and munches it" story, then run it in reverse, you can get a vague notion of how evolution really works.
Don't question evolution.....why? Is it reasonable to say that inorganic matter randomly formed life and it's the blue print of life? Or is it reasonable to believe that an intelligent agent could've created DNA for all the living things? Evolutionist seems to suggest that specie can jump from one to another which violates mendels laws of genetics....evolution is just as speculative as intelligent design. To me intelligent design is far more reasonable than random chance.
That is because you lack scientifiv literacy and seem to get all your "science Information" from the Discovery Institute
Yes,mbot48 I agree with your statement also makes sense. Evolution has been an monopoly in public ed.
@@derhafi stereotypical insult. Ok explain everything about the universe since you are scientifically literate!
mbot48 its not inorganic mater that formed life, its organic. Organic matter is the matter made of carbon. Also evolution doesnt have anythung to do with the origin or life, thats abiogenesis.
The theory of evolution is not intended to explain the origin of life. And what is your evidence for these supposed laws which forbid the evolution of new species? Are you aware that the evolution of new species is observed to occur? And what do you mean by “intelligent agent”? Does this “intelligent agent” have sensory organs, a brain, arms, and fingers like everything that we ever observe to intelligently design something? If not, how could it create life? You realize you’re idea isn’t explaining anything?
Such high quality audio!
Thank you for your honesty
As far as science and ID is concerned, Behe himself acknowledged under oath that he or anyone has no peer reviewed publications that support ID by pertinent experiments or calculations . Here is an extract from his cross examination - Kitzmiller v. Dover
Q. Now you have never argued for intelligent design in a peer reviewed scientific journal, correct?
Behe - No, I argued for it in my book.
Q. Not in a peer reviewed scientific journal?
Behe - That's correct.
In a long paragraph, Behe's grasp of how two sets of 3 billion nucleotides each could possibly flit from major feature to major feature is non-existent. Evolution is real, and so slow your stop watch's smallest unit of time would be N thousand generations. Think "team creep" where every single complexity, be it chemical messengers, the complex eye, and so forth progresses by tiny degrees through a huge number of small forward ratchets. The idea that there isn't any way to reach the final ingeniously complex state, no way at all, means that Behe has never spent much time reflecting on the above. Rather, he's too busy inventing roadblocks - hardly what a PhD learns to do. Science teaches its stars that failure to comprehend is also failure to do science - and Behe is the exception that proves the rule.
I have been reading Dr. Behe's material since I was 24. Love this guy
I hear you, but consider this: Behe's grasp of how two sets of 3 billion nucleotides each could possibly flit from major feature to major feature is non-existent. Evolution is real, and so slow your stop watch's smallest unit of time would be N thousand generations. Think "team creep" where every single complexity, be it chemical messengers, the complex eye, and so forth progresses by tiny degrees through a huge number of small forward ratchets. The idea that there isn't any way to reach the final ingeniously complex state, no way at all, means that Behe has never spent much time reflecting on the above. Rather, he's too busy inventing roadblocks - hardly what a PhD learns to do. Science teaches its stars that failure to comprehend is also failure to do science - and Behe is the exception that proves the rule.
He's a liar and a grifter.
by "demonstrably just gradual adaptation to new functions" I think you really meant "possibly plausible in speculative imaginings". Demonstrations would be a rather long ways off (were there any there there to demonstrate).
@sammetz it appears that if all he had said was, "Hello my name is Michael Behe" you would seek to find fault.
OK this is 9 years ago. Behe's grasp of how two sets of 3 billion nucleotides each could possibly flit from major feature to major feature is non-existent. Evolution is real, and so slow your stop watch's smallest unit of time would be N thousand generations. Think "team creep" where every single complexity, be it chemical messengers, the complex eye, and so forth progresses by tiny degrees through a huge number of small forward ratchets. The idea that there isn't any way to reach the final ingeniously complex state, no way at all, means that Behe has never spent much time reflecting on the above. Rather, he's too busy inventing roadblocks - hardly what a PhD learns to do. Science teaches its stars that failure to comprehend is also failure to do science - and BeHe is the exception that proves the rule.
@@joelhinrichs979 he has never claimed that Evolution is not real. In fact he believes in it. You have obviously never read any of his books or researched papers that have been respectfullly peered reviewed, and all his answers to all the questions and criticisms from other peers. He states that the current theory as we understand it is outdated and has many critical flaws. Many top scientists agree with this concern of his, in fact years ago not sure the year right now, top scientists around the world met in private and discussed this topic among others and agreed that the current theory of Evolution as we know it needed to be revised, and updated, of course this will take years of research for this to happen. But that brings up another problem. Because the way that Evolution is being taught to students of all levels, which many of its topics are outdated, are being misinformed. Behe states that all students should be taught that currently, this is what we understand as in the theory of Evolution, and not as presented as it is now, as pure fact without room for criticism, because Evolution as many other fields of science are updated and changed over time to better ourselves and benefit from it. Including the most important one, our medical field. For some reason Evolution gets treated as a dogmatic religion without fault. This needs to change to better our understanding of our origins and life as we know it now
@@bryan2316 Behe utterly denies evolution, *except* by major leaps with no intervening steps. He calls it Intelligent Design. IC and ID rest on one deeply flawed axiom: all genes arrive fully fit and functional by design. They were designed first, then (have to guess here! - Behe and Meyer don't say how) introduced into the nucleus of a zygote to make a new species. Multiple times, in fact, so that there will be enough to breed without encouraging the bad effects of inbreeding.
Their logic is circular: "Minor stepwise evolution is visible within a species. But it is impossible to do more than minor tuning and local adapting to a new environmental challenge. In other words, stepwise evolution is impossible. BUT BECAUSE stepwise evolution is impossible, only an intelligent designer can bring any new species into being."
See what's going on? Construct an axiom that forces your conclusion. Stepwise evolution, to Behe, is not capable of gradual addition of new genes, tuning them to each other, etc. until you reach what we see now. The modern eukaryotic cell is a protein driven protein factory where clusters of proteins, each with their own perfectly tuned gene, interact with perfect co-ordination to do very complex things.
The "You can't get there from here" argument is unsupported by data, by logic, or by material evidence. It is an axiom.
And it's wrong.
@@joelhinrichs979 While you are explaining about eukaryotic cell.. you use the words "FACTORY".. then "PERFECTLY TUNED" and then again "PERFECT CO-ORDINATOON". This choice of words itself suggest an intelligent design rather than the idea of coming from nothing.
@@Act-mx7yf Spot on - but "suggest" carries no weight.
Most surely in the creation of the heavens and the earth and the alternation of the night and the day, and the ships that run in the sea with that which profits men, and the water that Allah sends down from the cloud, then gives life with it to the earth after its death and spreads in it all (kinds of) animals, and the changing of the winds and the clouds made subservient between the heaven and the earth, there are signs for a people who understand.
Al-Bakara verse2 chapter 164
You revere your Hadith, which were explanatory passages which made your Scripture easier to comprehend. That, my friend, has absolutely nothing to do with science. Consider that the Maker of All Things will not deceive his human creatures. The Maker will not lie; if yours does, then you trust a liar.
The Creation, produced by the uncaused first cause, tells us its age (billions of years) its size (trillions of galaxies) and its methods, which include evolution. Creation does not lie; if you need to make what it tells us into lies, then again your religious basis includes lies. That would be most foul.
Be well; but understand what the Maker has made, and adore the Maker through the awesome, mysterious, and majestic Creation.
This ground breaking approach to the subject of biology reminds me of the work of Benjamin Franklin and the phenomenon of lightening.
Franklin was ignorant of the world's subsequent research into electricity, and even today we don't know all there is to know of the subject. Therefore, deep thinking meteorologists in the style of Behe, are will assert the fact that 'Thor' makes thunder and lightening.
*Tut* Silly mainstream scientists with their silly (but beneficial) research.
None of his work has appeared in reputable scientific journals for a very good reason friend.
In a large paragraph, Behe's grasp of how two sets of 3 billion nucleotides each could possibly flit from major feature to major feature is non-existent. Evolution is real, and so slow your stop watch's smallest unit of time would be N thousand generations. Think "team creep" where every single complexity, be it chemical messengers, the complex eye, and so forth progresses by tiny degrees through a huge number of small forward ratchets. The idea that there isn't any way to reach the final ingeniously complex state, no way at all, means that Behe has never spent much time reflecting on the above. Rather, he's too busy inventing roadblocks - hardly what a PhD learns to do. Science teaches its stars that failure to comprehend is also failure to do science - and Behe is the exception that proves the rule.
When I listen to this video, I remember what god said in Quran:We will show them Our signs in all the horizons and in themselves, until it is clear to them that it is the truth.
@jay jay no at all
Not correctat all, if you don’t understand you can ask.
@jay jay
86
Until, when he reached the setting of the sun, he found it [as if] setting in a spring of dark mud, and he found near it a people. Allah said, "O Dhul-Qarnayn, either you punish [them] or else adopt among them [a way of] goodness."
The verse said he found it so from the point of view of the man that is what he saw.Its like saying he found the sun setting behind trees. No one would ever understand that as a sun leaving its orbit everyday to come and set behind trees.
Plus,we have a lot of clear cut verses in the quran that tell us the sun is in orbit. So when we find a verse that is ambiguous we look at the clear cut verse and then know that it means the he from his point of view found the sun setting in a spring of muddy water which is not wrong.because from peoples point of view of view they could see the sun setting into the sea but its really not.
God did not say anything in your quran. It is a book of fairy tales and lies like all the other holy books and was written by man.
@@faisalalharbi8774 Completely correct. Please don't change the text!
@@yishif1244 My believing friend, your sacred text, allegedly perfect from before Creation, argues with itself. Tsk Tsk
Sickel cell dezeaze can now have a visual by ottmicro mri microscope quatum diagnosesfor bett er treatment
Comment section here seem like a lovable bunch.
I believe in the field of intelligent design. I also believe in the Creator of the universe (God), as I do believe in the concept of the soul.
I do, however, not believe in any religion whatsoever.
A belief in God does not imply belief in religion; there is a difference.
In a similar vein, a belief in God does not imply, in principle, a disbelief in biological evolution: a belief in God and a belief in biological evolution can co-exist.
With that being said, I do not believe in biological evolution; I believe the Creator made all animals separately; sans any development of species from one common progenitor form.
It would seem that the tie clip is certainly a poor man's tie clip. What you do is, you take a mouse trap and degrade its construction, remove a few key parts which are central to its functioning as a mouse trap. And as a result you get a "tie clip". Mouse trap first. "Tie clip" second.
@buffboynick -- Her name is Jordan. She's the president of Alpha Chi Omega sorority.
No problem with the idea of God, even as a creator. What explains the life we see today cannot be explained through the Bible though neither old earth or new earth creationism. There are several good points that point to a creator but there are hundreds that support evolution. Protein folds, irreducible complexity, how the first cell came about etc - all very interesting areas to research, but in no way does creationism Bible style explain the fossil record, geology, anthropology, biology or any of the sciences.
Read genesis 1-11 and tell me how that even comes close to fitting into the world we see today or the world we can observe from before?
Evolution is a hoax and anybody who knows what is possible and what impossible knows it's false.
The fossil record is lacking don’t you think?
@@maxmudxareed1345 Your definition of "everybody" consists of a school of innocents lost in a sea of real information.
Behe's grasp of how two sets of 3 billion nucleotides each could possibly flit from major feature to major feature is non-existent. Evolution is real, and so slow your stop watch's smallest unit of time would be N thousand generations. Think "team creep" where every single complexity, be it chemical messengers, the complex eye, and so forth progresses by tiny degrees through a huge number of small forward ratchets. The idea that there isn't any way to reach the final ingeniously complex state, no way at all, means that Behe has never spent much time reflecting on the above. Rather, he's too busy inventing roadblocks - hardly what a PhD learns to do. Science teaches its stars that failure to comprehend is also failure to do science - and Behe is the exception that proves the rule.
@@genesis204 You must have your eyes shut.
If Loose Change was a "series" why did they call is Loose Change Second Edition, and Loose Change Second edition recut, and also Loose Change Final cut?
LMAO!
You don't even know your own magical theories!
911 TRUTH = STRAWMAN
You just said a whole lot of nothing. Do you suggest that the notion of T3SS ancestry of flagellum is more than just plausibility thought experiment / speculation? Are you aware of any evidence contrary to such a theory? Are you aware of any evidence for the theory, other than the fact that it fits plausibly within the pre-conceived narrative? (The same narrative for which it is usually used in an attempt to buttress incidentally)
Circular reasoning. Good catch.
What complexity? We humans attribute complexity accordi g to out limitations...i kid would find the motions of the planet's orbit very complex...but to a scientist it isn't.. .we marvel at our lack of understanding...as soon as we don't understand...then it's the handling of a god...when we understand how it happens we never say that...smh
if anyone wants to debate evolution with me(I personally find it an adequate scientific theory), feel free to reply to this comment and we'll set something up on my yt channel
Professor Behe did a great job in his lecture and defended his ideas, now lets wait maybe someone will respond or not. ID should be taught in the classroom. Thanks Dr. Behe.
@L Ron Cupboard Yes Dr. Behe accepts most of the Evolution theory features and discards the outdated features, but he agrees that Ok first you must understand what the errors in the evolution theory is. Undirect process 1 ) certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause and not an undirected process such as natural selection.
2) the Cambrian Explosion: This Means if it’s proved that it existed then it's possible to prove that was a beginning of the universe and of living things.
3)The human genome shows that a cell is formed through systems. When Darwin wrote the origin of the species, he had a very small knowledge of the Cell. Therefore, his theory of evolution is outdated.
4) DNA and information in the cell. Since Darwin's discovery of his theory of evolution and his trip to the Galapagos Island has passed 187 years and no one talked about DNA or CSI at that time. But now there is vast information coming from the DNA. So, evolution is outdated.
Again, the proponent of Intelligent design is not challenging the whole evolution theory just the errors and outdated features in it. so, when you study about metaphysics and fact and reality there are things that are invisible things that are not counted or not included in an empirical study. But that doesn’t mean that it does not exist. It just can’t be proved through physical eyes. That is sometimes explained through philosophy. So, some philosophers and scientists like Marx and Darwin developed a material view of life. Some of the features of the material view of life is wrong and miscalculate the result.
The argument from ID is not an argument from ignorance. It’s different of course. But ID is misunderstood you need to read more books on ID to understand it better.
Nope. ID is pseudoscience intellecual fraud and has NO place in any science classroom.
@@garywalker447 ID should be allowed to be taught in the classroom along with evolution. You are worshiping the wrong theory and wrong features,
today with DNA, the human genome project, and irreducible complexity. If you don’t learn to update yourself then you will be left behind. Lamentable.
@@bluejysm2007 ID is intellectual fraud. It is creationism pretending to be science. It has no legitimacy and should NEVER be taught as science.
The only reason anyone would propose a supernatural explanation is because they think a natural explanation cannot exist in principle. How many supernatural explanations do you have for things that are also fully understood under natural explanations?
I think you're missing the difference between speculation and explanations. Supernatural "explanations" are really just speculations based on ignorance. They have no merit because they rely on ignorance to exist.
Lehigh University
Department position on evolution and "intelligent design"
The faculty in the Department of Biological Sciences is committed to the highest standards of scientific integrity and academic function. This commitment carries with it unwavering support for academic freedom and the free exchange of ideas. It also demands the utmost respect for the scientific method, integrity in the conduct of research, and recognition that the validity of any scientific model comes only as a result of rational hypothesis testing, sound experimentation, and findings that can be replicated by others.
The department faculty, then, are unequivocal in their support of evolutionary theory, which has its roots in the seminal work of Charles Darwin and has been supported by findings accumulated over 140 years. The sole dissenter from this position, Prof. Michael Behe, is a well-known proponent of "intelligent design." While we respect Prof. Behe's right to express his views, they are his alone and are in no way endorsed by the department. It is our collective position that intelligent design has no basis in science, has not been tested experimentally, and should not be regarded as scientific.
That's sad for you and your university. As more and more data are coming out in question of that theory, your inability to let it go demonstrates it is your religion, not science. And, as a religion, it leads to hopelessness. Sometimes, people think they are smart, but they are really fools who think they are smart. In some ways I feel sorry for you; but I feel more sorry for the vast majority of people you and yours are leading down a dead-end road. Just don't confuse what you believe with science. It isn't.
@@freshstartboys3581 That's sad for you and your university.
As more and more data are coming out in question of that theory, your inability to let it go demonstrates it is your religion, not science.
And, as a religion,
it leads to hopelessness.
Sometimes, people think they are smart, but they are really fools who think they are smart.
In some ways I feel sorry for you; but I feel more sorry for the vast majority of people you and yours are leading down a dead-end road.
Just don't confuse what you believe with science. It isn't.
@@garywalker447, you obviously don't listen to yourself. Maybe, I'm not really talking to a professor who can think for himself, but one of the brainwashed who can't. You are free to believe what you want to believe and you are free to judge something you know absolutely nothing about; but, like the Apostle Paul, I am first generation Christian that God woke up despite what you and yours brainwashed into me for over 30 years of my life. When new evidence was introduced, I was willing to change. Your "experts" now have to believe in the science fiction of infinite multiverses, inflation, inflatons, dark matter, dark energy, and that information and the appearance of design came from nowhere--none of which they can or ever will be able to see just to avoid the possibility that there was an intelligent designer--and you think someone like me believes in fairy tales????? If you really are a professor, you really aught to re-examine what your belief leads to. People like richard dawkins have at least been able to truthfully acknowledge that.
I would encourage you to be willing to diligently seek to see if the evidence could in fact lead to a different conclusion. If you actually examine the evidence without assuming the theory is true, you might actually come to some startling conclusions. But, if you can't do that, don't say what you are doing is practicing science. Because, if you aren't willing to challenge your own presuppositions, then you aren't practicing science. You are supporting your religion. At least be honest about that.
My eyes have been opened. I am no longer under the brainwashing/indoctrination you and yours silently pushed into me. May you diligently seek the One who can free you as well. You don't have experience with fairy tales you don't believe.
@@freshstartboys3581 Just because you are deluded does not mean that I have to follow.
@@walkergarya coming from someone systematically brainwashed, I will consider your assessment a compliment. If you thought I wasn't, THEN, I would have a big problem, since you can't see the Truth.
The inability of science to explain the origin of the natural world DOES NOT require that we use supernatural explanations. That's an argument from ignorance. This is how it goes:
"I can't explain how the universe came into existence, therefore I CAN explain how it came into existence: it was magic. What if you took that approach to every other thing you don't understand?
A plausible mechanism for the origin of nature can be explained naturalistically. That is the only example where, in principle, a natural explanation for a phenomenon can't be deduced. Even so, the origin of nature can't be explained supernaturalistically either.
I have a question though. Why are you trying to defend supernatural explanations when your only course of doing so is to attack natural explanations? Do supernatural explanations not stand up on their own?
I don’t always side with the Catholic Church, but in this case, I do.
"The cell is perhaps the most sophisticated piece of machinery that has existed anywhere in this world."
SPOT ON - however, First Life began to crawl baby-like, about three billion years before complex life arose. Three giga-years of evolution gave cells, with reproduction rates in the once-per-day range, and in quantities with too many powers of ten to ignore, plenty of time to refine, compete, evolve, etc. We've taken ten thousand years with far slower "reproduction" rates and vastly fewer iterations, to go from hewn stone to the giga-transistor CPU chip. Guided by intelligence - *ours* - ?? Consider the scale of differences in time, iteration rate and population, and consider whether or not the kind of astounding sophistication in the common cell may or may not have evolved. Natural Selection is a harsh mistress - - just the sort to produce a tough bunch of species.
"But that hardly fits with the common mode of evolution" - strongly disagree. Behe here is waving his arms at the above and skipping past the innovation *built into* DNA copy errors and Natural Selection. One in (insert your own huge number) stays in the gene pool because it has augmented the cell's overall performance. That is, evolution ratchets forward. Alleging that "can only adjust things already there" is foolishly simple minded. Change *is* innovation and *does* across time introduce novelties.
"Irreducible Complexity" - the mouse trap consists of very simple parts and Behe wants to denude the species called mousetrap of one of its highly evolved parts, all at once. Can anyone smell the problem here? Every one of those parts has been improved on for ages, and earlier versions actually worked with fewer parts. Yet Behe's entire premise rests on a supposed impossibility of any prior version with fewer or differently made parts. I call I C childish twaddle.
You can call childish twaddle all you want, that's not an argument let alone a refutation. More and more "scientists" are admitting that macro evolution is impossible, but only admitting such AFTER they retire. Intelligent design is the only theory that fits the evidence available to us.
@@vistuscaine You can allege more and more retirement-age scientists, saying whatever you wan them to say.
But your claim rests on so-called scientists who neither had nor have any background in the fine print of how evolution actually operates. Science's stars look at a matter they can't figure out, and study it. Behe and Meyer are the exception to that rule; their approach is basically "Since it's indecipherable [to me] it's impossible. Scientists aren't that eager to promote an answer based in ignorance not fact.
Evolution is a matter of many parts (a few at the start, then adding as time goes on) - where all the parts inch forward together. A very *very* long series of tiny changes, to all the parts, is what builds the synergies and interactions. Today these are astounding, so complex as to challenge science's ability to understand, - - - and the result of two billion (with a b) years of agonizingly slow progress just to reach the point where multi-celled organisms could escape their metabolic prison (the key that opened that jailhouse door was mitochondria.)
Have fun - learning this stuff is a real rush once you know how much the world has learned since 1859.
@@stephanusghibellino Back at you - prove, by experiment, that it isn't possible. But here's the catch: you need a hundred thousand (minimum) generations, one after the other.
Evidence: Complex life has complex DNA, every single cell division, to make two cells from one, requires a complete and exact copy of all that complex DNA - every cell, every time. The problem here is that the copying process isn't quite perfect. In humans, with 6 billion nucleotides in 46 chromosomes (two sets of 23) only four in ten cell divisions get there error-free. The other six get one nucleotide (on average) wrong.
Consequence: while dogs make dogs, THE DOG GENOME SLIDES DOWN A ONE-WAY STREET. There is no going back. Each generation acquires its own infinitesimal number of copy errors, and every single member of the species acquires its own. After a hundred thousand generations (or pick your own number) the simple down-stream drift has made it impossible for DOG number 100,000 to produce viable offspring with DOG number 1.
That, Belisario, is speciation. At ever single step from grandparent to parent to pup to grandpup, every single organism breeds as true as is possible. You'll never see the difference, But one hundred thousand generations of dog from now, you won't have a dog.
Illustration: a computer screen with pure red all the way across on the bottom line, and pure blue all the way across on the top line. There are 1,024 lines, and each line is just a smidge different so that the one in the middle will be purple. Just like the dogs, every line will "breed as true as possible" such that (1) you'll have the dickens of a time telling neighboring lines apart, (2) you'll be at a loss to point (no compasses or rulers allowed) to true purple, and (c) you'll also be at a loss to point the the line that meets your criteria for red.
So, you stop talking nonsense. The way not to talk nonsense is to deepen your knowledge of the actual world.
@@stephanusghibellino A closed mind is a closed mind and there is nothing either of us can do about it. I led a horse to water, but it wasn't thirsty.
@@vistuscaine Your allegation: "More and more "scientists" are admitting that macro evolution is impossible, but only admitting such AFTER they retire."
My take: They retired from unaffiliated fields of study, and/or were courted after retirement to state something.
All of them are quite wrong.
My house has a "stench pipe" sticking out of the roof.
There is a good reason for having a stench pipe.
Intelligent Design.
Perhaps it's time to end the TEDx events before they destroy the value of TED.
Because you don't want your dogmas challenged.
Shall we have a look at this "challange" of this supposed dogmas?
He served as an expert witness for the defense in
the Kitzmiller v.
Dover Area School District trial Under cross
examination, he was obliged to admit:
-That no peer-reviewed scientific journal has published
research supportive of intelligent design's claims.
-That Behe's own book was not, as he had claimed, peer reviewed.
-That Behe himself criticizes the science presented as supporting intelligent design in instructional
material created for that purpose.
-That intelligent design seems plausible and reasonable to inquirers
in direct proportion to their belief or nonbelief in God.
-That the basic arguments for evidence of purposeful design in nature are essentially the same as those
adduced by the Christian apologist Rev. William Paley (1743-1805) in his
1802 Natural Theology: or, Evidences of the Existence and Attributes of
the Deity, Collected From the Appearances of Nature, where he sums up his
observations of the complexity of life in the ringing words, "The marks of design are too strong to
be got over. Design must have had a designer. That designer must have been
a person. That person is GOD.”
-That the definition of "theory" supplied by the US National Academy of Sciences did not
encompass ID, and that his broader definition would allow astrology to be included as a scientific theory.
-That he had claimed in his book that evolution could not explain
immunology without even investigating the subject. When presented with 58
peer reviewed articles, nine books, and several textbook chapters on the
subject, he insisted they were "not good enough.
If he wants to challenge a, well proven, 160 years spanning body of solid scientific work, he has to do waaaaay better than this. Thia is not a "challange" this is embarrasing.
@@maxmudxareed1345
Thanks paylastir for the great link.
Knowledge is so much more enlightening than willful ignorance in the name of superstition.
Well, demonstrate to us then that the laws of nature i.e. just constraints are sufficient to spontaneously produce by way of an undirected non-teleologic process:
- functionality
- cybernetic control
- formalism
- semiotic systems
Behe's grasp of how two sets of 3 billion nucleotides each could possibly flit from major feature to major feature is non-existent. Evolution is real, and so slow your stop watch's smallest unit of time would be N thousand generations. Think "team creep" where every single complexity, be it chemical messengers, the complex eye, and so forth progresses by tiny degrees through a huge number of small forward ratchets. The idea that there isn't any way to reach the final ingeniously complex state, no way at all, means that Behe has never spent much time reflecting on the above. Rather, he's too busy inventing roadblocks - hardly what a PhD learns to do. Science teaches its stars that failure to comprehend is also failure to do science - and Behe is the exception that proves the rule.
Its amazing how many generalizations in 11 minutes. "Scientists don't write books" or "the cell is most amazing piece of machinery in the universe". Yea right ..He has been to every corner of universe.
Then it's probably a good thing we don't use Darwin's theory. Modern evolutionary theory is so far advanced from the knowledge of Darwin's day as to be nearly unrecognizable, and no there no problems with it.
Why is this charlatan doing a TED talk
How is he a charlatan?
Bear in mind he's at a sorotity house on his own campus.
Whoever wants to learn something about this guy's credibility regarding this topic may check "Dover trial" - f.e., he admitted that the "theory" of Intelligent Design is as solid as star divination (aka astrology)...
And alchemy, and lysenkoism (look it up, it killed tens of millions).
It's easier to dismiss God than it is to fundamentally not to believe in Him.
Yes, the God of the Bible.
Isaiah 1:18 Come now, and let us reason together, sayeth the Lord,
Millions of species, and only one has 'developed' even a rudimentary sense of reason.
No symbolic language systems, no formalities or sense of purpose that isn't driven by instinct or training.
If you want to believe that you evolved from something other than what God created you as, then I don't want to take anything away from you, but most of us know better, even the ones who won't admit it.
For God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten son
The fact that the bible is self contradictory, has no scientific value, no value for history and no moral value prove that the bible was written by men, not any all knowing god.
@@walkergarya the fact that the four Gospels are not verbatim tells me that they were written by four different men. I am of the opinion that that in no way detracts from the fact that Jesus Christ, the son of God, was crucified for the purpose of granting me salvation. Please don't let what you see as a contradiction cost you eternity.
@@ingeniousmechanic I can accept that the accounts are not all the same but I also point out that there was NEVER a Roman custom to release a condemned prisoner at Passover. There are two different and mutually exclusive accounts of Judas's death. There is NO other account of the "Star of Bethelhem". One of the gospels says there was an earthquake in Jeruselem when Jesus died, but this is not recorded by the Romans who made careful note of such events.
I also note that the "miracles" of Jesus were done previously by other older pagan gods.
I have read the gospels and I do not believe them for these reasons and more.
I have NO belief in Original Sin, it is immoral to assign guilt to the children of the guilty when they could not have influenced that action.
I do not accept Salvation.
I do not accept any of the tenants of christianity as being valid and moral.
I hate that for you
@@ingeniousmechanic That makes no sense.
What a crank..!
A crank. Yeah that’s Irreducible design
The plausible natural mechanism for the origin of nature is that the universe came into existence on its own, uncaused. Why is this plausible? Because we know that particles can come into existence on their own since we've indirectly measured that to be the case (virtual particles). That is part of nature, so it is natural.
Define "on it's own" and give the evidence.
There is information that is purported by many people to be evidence for God's existence, and that I have examined diligently. The problem is, like I said, is that it's a philosophical error to infer the existence of any supernatural being based on gathered information because you can never rule out a natural explanation of which you are ignorant. That's the mistake people have been making for thousands of years and continue to make today. They misunderstand a natural phenomenon and call it God.
Credible ID proponents are not putting forth an intelligent designer as a null hypothesis, but as an alternative hypothesis. Ideally, a good alternative hypothesis is one step upward in the hierarchy of alternative explanations. Admittedly, there is a lot of room between Darwin's randon mutations being acted upon by natural selection and an intelligent designer. That room, however, is filtered now by our ignorance. Continued experimentation, observation, and philosophizing that rejects more and more of the Modern Synthesis will support the ID alternative hypothesis, but only weakly as the ignorance is likely vast. I expect the efforts of the ID proponents will peel back parts of the filter on our ignorance, thus opening up future avenues of investigation.
The Scientific Revolution and the Enlightenment were spurred by Christian natural philosophers who viewed science as the best way to understand God's creation. They were correct, as their work and that of those who followed has greatly increased our knowledge and improved the quality and quantity of human life. ID proponents who adhere to the scientific method will almost certainly expand our knowledge further.
Let's assume that I cannot demonstrate what you've asked of me. Now let's go through your logic:
"I can't explain how just the laws of nature could produce various biological systems and functions, therefore they are intelligently designed."
In other words...
"I am ignorant, therefore conclusion."
That's a contradiction. Your conclusion is based on your own ignorance. That's not how biology works. You started from a state of ignorance and went straight to a state of "knowledge".
Your argument is flawed
Quit criticizing Darwin!
@@pleasesubscribe7659 Behe's grasp of how two sets of 3 billion nucleotides each could possibly flit from major feature to major feature is non-existent. Evolution is real, and so slow your stop watch's smallest unit of time would be N thousand generations. Think "team creep" where every single complexity, be it chemical messengers, the complex eye, and so forth progresses by tiny degrees through a huge number of small forward ratchets. The idea that there isn't any way to reach the final ingeniously complex state, no way at all, means that Behe has never spent much time reflecting on the above. Rather, he's too busy inventing roadblocks - hardly what a PhD learns to do. Science teaches its stars that failure to comprehend is also failure to do science - and Behe is the exception that proves the rule.
To scientifically literate people...if your thinking about it, don't. It is a wast of 11:13 of your life.
Could you be more specific? Maybe name just two or three things stated here which a scientifically literate person would know to be false. Thanks.
@@Adam-bq2vw Behe's grasp of how two sets of 3 billion nucleotides each could possibly flit from major feature to major feature is non-existent. Evolution is real, and so slow your stop watch's smallest unit of time would be N thousand generations. Think "team creep" where every single complexity, be it chemical messengers, the complex eye, and so forth progresses by tiny degrees through a huge number of small forward ratchets. The idea that there isn't any way to reach the final ingeniously complex state, no way at all, means that Behe has never spent much time reflecting on the above. Rather, he's too busy inventing roadblocks - hardly what a PhD learns to do. Science teaches its stars that failure to comprehend is also failure to do science - and Behe is the exception that proves the rule.
This is a waste of time.
... leaving a comment like this? Agreed.
Judge Jones got it exactly right when he ruled:
While supernatural explanations may be important and have merit, they are not part of science. (3:103 (Miller); 9:19-20 (Haught)). This self-imposed convention of science, which limits inquiry to testable, natural explanations about the natural world, is referred to by philosophers as “methodological naturalism” and is sometimes known as the scientific method. (5:23, 29-30 (Pennock)). Methodological naturalism is a “ground rule” of science today which requires scientists to seek explanations in the world around us based upon what we can observe, test, replicate, and verify. (1:59-64, 2:41-43 (Miller); 5:8, 23-30 (Pennock)).
…and…
ID violates the centuries-old ground rules of science by invoking and permitting supernatural causation
How much biology knows judge Jones?
@@cetepeter5431 Enough to know that "Intelligent Design" is intellectual fraud.
@@cetepeter5431 "how much biology knows judge jones" He knows more than any fundamentalist Christian I ever met even if educated in biology because fundamentalist are not seeking truth but a coverup for the magic book
If scientists find information systems in the fossil record like hieroglyphs do they conclude that an intelligence made the hieroglyphs? How much more when we look at the super advanced DNA code!
@@sschmeckpeper2538 If I were at a fossil dig for dinosaurs and I found "War and Peace" in the rock layer, I would conclude that something very weird was happening, but that has not happened.
Your hypothetical question is nonsense.
One of the greatest philosophical blunders one can make is to tell the universe what it cannot do. Absolutely no one knows the result of every possible combination of physical interactions of sub-atomic particles, atoms, and molecules. Given this ignorance, no one is in a position to declare that the universe could not have produced a certain physical product.
Moreover, given this ignorance, no one is in a position to conclude a designer with magic powers. Ignorance cannot support a conclusion.
No one but you is invoking magic. If you had a valid argument you wouldn't have spewed a strawman.
@@tomrogers5862 Strawman??
Behe's grasp of how two sets of 3 billion nucleotides each could possibly flit from major feature to major feature is non-existent. Evolution is real, and so slow your stop watch's smallest unit of time would be N thousand generations. Think "team creep" where every single complexity, be it chemical messengers, the complex eye, and so forth progresses by tiny degrees through a huge number of small forward ratchets. The idea that there isn't any way to reach the final ingeniously complex state, no way at all, means that Behe has never spent much time reflecting on the above. Rather, he's too busy inventing roadblocks - hardly what a PhD learns to do. Science teaches its stars that failure to comprehend is also failure to do science - and Behe is the exception that proves the rule.
His proof is a duck? Seriously??
Dan Eastwood "His proof is a duck? Seriously??" Dan, you look like a fairly intelligent person. No, his proof is not a duck. He flashes the duck on the screen to invoke the expression, "If it looks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck, then it probably is a duck." However, when scientists look at the exquisite design of a molecular machine, they say, "It looks like a machine, it has the parts of a machine, it functions like a machine. However, it must NOT be a machine."
>"However, when scientists look at the exquisite design of a molecular machine, they say, ..."
Which scientists say that? Citation please, or you are just quacking.
Dan Eastwood As I said, Dan, you look like a fairly intelligent person. The point is that they recognize that it is DESIGNED, which implies intelligence, and that is what is denied. For a reference, see Dawkins' The Blind Watchmaker.
So no scientists actually said that. We're cool.
Dan Eastwood he did actually refer you to Richard Dawkins
What on god’s flat earth is he talking about?
From Lehigh University
Department position on evolution and "intelligent design"
The faculty in the Department of Biological Sciences is committed to the highest standards of scientific integrity and academic function. This commitment carries with it unwavering support for academic freedom and the free exchange of ideas. It also demands the utmost respect for the scientific method, integrity in the conduct of research, and recognition that the validity of any scientific model comes only as a result of rational hypothesis testing, sound experimentation, and findings that can be replicated by others.
The department faculty, then, are unequivocal in their support of evolutionary theory, which has its roots in the seminal work of Charles Darwin and has been supported by findings accumulated over 140 years. The sole dissenter from this position, Prof. Michael Behe, is a well-known proponent of "intelligent design." While we respect Prof. Behe's right to express his views, they are his alone and are in no way endorsed by the department. It is our collective position that intelligent design has no basis in science, has not been tested experimentally, and should not be regarded as scientific.
From Lehigh University
Department position on evolution and "intelligent design"
The faculty in the Department of Biological Sciences is committed to the highest standards of scientific integrity and academic function. This commitment carries with it unwavering support for academic freedom and the free exchange of ideas. It also demands the utmost respect for the scientific method, integrity in the conduct of research, and recognition that the validity of any scientific model comes only as a result of rational hypothesis testing, sound experimentation, and findings that can be replicated by others.
The department faculty, then, are unequivocal in their support of evolutionary theory, which has its roots in the seminal work of Charles Darwin and has been supported by findings accumulated over 140 years. The sole dissenter from this position, Prof. Michael Behe, is a well-known proponent of "intelligent design." While we respect Prof. Behe's right to express his views, they are his alone and are in no way endorsed by the department. It is our collective position that intelligent design has no basis in science, has not been tested experimentally, and should not be regarded as scientific.
Imagine their faces when they realized what a nutjob Behe is.
@@derhafi Yup. Behe is an argument against Tenure.
Gary, now that evolution is on a downhill course, professor Behe is ahead of those Darwin materialists who instead of having a civilized debate they call names and yells and jump hyped. This means this evolution theory is on its last breath. Our tax fed money need stop financing this materialist view of life. Enough of indoctrinating our kids in high schools. Let other theories compete in the classroom. ID is a better science theory.
Creationists keep up the Illusion that there is an actual ongoing debate of the factual nature of the Theory of Evolution. There is not. Furthermore they are selling the idea that proving evolution wrong would add any credibility to their idea of a God. If you’d think about that for a
second, you’d know that this is not true either.
You've been conned and put in front of cart, by right wing fundamentalists.
The theory of evolution got so many flaws please read a book “icons of evolution” the only Defense's of evolution still trying to defend evolution are the ones that are receiving federal grants from our tax $ money giving to them to indoctrinate our kids in high schools. Enough of this nonsense.