A German Scientist Speaks Out about Intelligent Design
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 12 ก.พ. 2017
- Distinguished scientist Günter Bechly tells how he came to doubt Darwin and become intrigued by the evidence for intelligent design. Excerpted from the documentary "Revolutionary: Michael Behe and the Mystery of Molecular Machines." For more information visit the Revolutionary website at www.revolutionarybehe.com.
=====================================================
The Discovery Science News Channel is the official TH-cam channel of Discovery Institute’s Center for Science & Culture. The CSC is the institutional hub for scientists, educators, and inquiring minds who think that nature supplies compelling evidence of intelligent design. The CSC supports research, sponsors educational programs, defends free speech, and produce articles, books, and multimedia content. For more information visit
-- www.discovery.org/id/
-- www.evolutionnews.org/
-- www.intelligentdesign.org/
Follow the CSC on Facebook and Twitter:
Twitter: @discoverycsc
Facebook: / discoverycsc
Visit other TH-cam channels connected to the Center for Science & Culture
Discovery Institute: / discoveryinstitute
Dr. Stephen C. Meyer: / drstephenmeyer
The Magician's Twin - CS Lewis & Evolution: / cslewisweb
Darwin's Heretic - Alfred Russel Wallce: / alfredrwallaceid - วิทยาศาสตร์และเทคโนโลยี
Imagine that..A scientist open minded enough and willing to go where the evidence leads..
You're just describing a real scientist, the ones not taking this path are at best career academics.
Bravo Dr. Bechly. Too bad more scientists can't be open-minded like you.
Abiogenesis remains Unobserved! Just to produce simple RNA chains requires manipulated conditions in labs with donor cells, designed synthesis machines and Intelligent chemists!
There's open-minded and then there's vapid.
Right or wrong, you got to admire this man. It takes guts to stand up for what you believe.
No, no I don't. He's obviously doing this for attention. Ignoring him is the best course.
It takes real guts to accept that something you believed for so long could be wrong. Sometimes, ego is the one thing that hinders oneself from finding the truth. Kudos to Dr. Bechly. A true warrior of science.
Do you know that after he spoke out against this, his Wikipedia article was NOMINATED for deletion? My experience on Wikipedia's community is that many of them generally reject everything that is non-mainstream, and a good portion are also agnostic / atheists.
Good for you Dr. Bechly. An open mind is indeed a sign of intelligence.
Open mind? Like turning every little thing into something that fits your religion, especially if there's money in it? An open mind realizes there's more in Heaven and on Earth than can be explained by science OR religion alone.
2:21
Same thing that happened to me.
Good for you Dr. Bechly.
Had the similar experience as Dr. Gunter Bechly. Took 4 years for me to finally made the decision.
Three things keep people from following where the evidence leads: (1) fear of finding out you were wrong. (2) Fear of finding out your authorities were wrong. (3) Fear of what other people will say about you.
If you do not confront these three fears you will never find the truth.
It takes courage to admit that we are wrong or simply our beliefs may be wrong.
It take a special person to be able to so radically shift their world view, even when faced with new evidence. And to also declare it publicly, even against the mainstream belief of Neo-darwinism.
The best advocates are the ones who initially try to disprove a concept.
Applaud this man. Especially now he's probably no longer allowed at the "cool kids table".
Who we all know, aren't always the brightest or necessarily correct.
I glad this German scientist opened his eyes and honestly saw some truth. Some of ours are starting too but dare not say anything.
I still don't have enough faith to be atheist.
God works in mysterious ways
True
I honour and respect your objectivity Dr. Benchly for your digging deep enough in pursuit for the truth. Following evidence where it leads as it were, takes a lot of courage and guts.
I had an axe to grind against Christianity. I set out to use science to prove evolution and disprove intelligent design. That didn't go the way I expected, nor at the time, wanted.
Thank you, and bless you, Dr. Bechly for your intellectual integrity. Truth will always win out in the end.
An atheist would say "Yeah I know these stories. He probably never was a real evolutionist".
I feel like dancing for joy!
Stay curious and open-minded! Avoid dogma. Thanks for that.
Interestingly the Darwinists can't see the irony where they have to use a fixed set of scales to make Darwins books outweigh the books that question Darwin.
53 people need to read Darwin's Black Box.
"In the absence of any other proof, the thumb alone would convince me of God's existence." -Sir Isaac Newton
How telling of the typical approach of evolutionists to physically place unread books with unknown points of view on an actual scale and then alter the scale to place more "weight" on the desired point of view. The fact that he took the time to educate himself on the ideas he had already decided were bunk is the exception not the rule. Props to this man for being big enough read them.
Atheist and evolutionist will be against anything that disagrees with their stance of God not existing. God is totally real.
It's encouraging to see scientist(s) that take an honest look at the what the actual
science discloses and make a proper evaluation of the evidence to draw an
accurate conclusion from.
Unfortunately , scientists like Gunter are a rarity and we'll continue to have to
endure statements like: Were living in a computer simulation by Neil de Grasse or
Space Octopi by 33 of the top evolutionery researches .
These are the types of explanations that many have come to expect as evolutionary
explanations to counter the scientific evidence against it.
No Darwin no paycheck for many scientist got it ? Okay ...
Ausgezeichnet, Hoffentlich gibt es noch genug vernünftige Menschen die sich das ohne Vorurteile überdenken können.
How it "could have evolved". In other words, evolution all boils down to "I can imagine how it could have happened". That's not science. That's imagination.
Wow! He was deleted on Wikipedia
Thanks you for doing this awesome video
Intelligent design must point to an intelligent mind .
A truly intellectually honest person.
A true HERO!!!
BRAVO Herr Doktor!!!
Thank you for your COURAGE!
Praise to our Creator!!!
Thanks, very well put. The most irreducible complex system is self replicating RNA where matter begins to manage information.
To try to define life with physics alone and not metaphysics, creates a limited, small perspective. Einstein said it best with his library parabel-
“Your question is the most difficult in the world. It is not a question I can answer simply with yes or no. I am not an Atheist. I do not know if I can define myself as a Pantheist. The problem involved is too vast for our limited minds. May I not reply with a parable? The human mind, no matter how highly trained, cannot grasp the universe. We are in the position of a little child, entering a huge library whose walls are covered to the ceiling with books in many different tongues. The child knows that someone must have written those books. It does not know who or how. It does not understand the languages in which they are written. The child notes a definite plan in the arrangement of the books, a mysterious order, which it does not comprehend, but only dimly suspects. That, it seems to me, is the attitude of the human mind, even the greatest and most cultured, toward God. We see a universe marvelously arranged, obeying certain laws, but we understand the laws only dimly. Our limited minds cannot grasp the mysterious force that sways the constellations. I am fascinated by Spinoza's Pantheism. I admire even more his contributions to modern thought. Spinoza is the greatest of modern philosophers, because he is the first philosopher who deals with the soul and the body as one, not as two separate things.”
The math of the universe is a miracle
We don’t understand or deserve.
Eugene Wigner
Nobel prize winning Scientist
I enjoyed this sparkling account first on a podcast from 'ID the Future'. Good to see the actual museum display showing the 'Ikone der Anti-Darwinisten"
Gunter, thank you.
It is a waste of time discussing anything with evolutionists because they are people of profound and unshakable faith, not curious scientists.
Interesting video!
So to the Darwinists the lesson is: “Books are BAD”!
The theory of "Evolution" and its allied hypotheses of "Abiogenesis" are the most fiendishly elaborate lies ever perpetrated on mankind.
I'm also totally amazed by the complexity of life on this planet and find it hard to imagine how seemingly random process over the last 10 billion year or so is enough to give us the wealth of diversity that we see - at the same time I'm agnostic .... The main sticking point for me is that if there is some form of intelligent designer that had a part in this wonderful Universe then it begs the question who or what created the intelligent designer??? The way I see it is that that leads to an infinite number of intelligent designers with each one being more amazing than the one before.
SO it leaves me stuck.
1) How can the world just be, there must have been a God/designer of some description
2) Then how can God just be? There must have been a more amazing entity to create God.
The only way I can possibly reconcile this is well yes the world is so amazing, can't see how it was made by random chance even over 10 billion years.
God just is and has always been - but then we can't observe the world of the Gods to try and put their development down to natural selection and we also don't have the time constraints to worry about there.
Let be scientifically honest. Nothing comes from nothing. Life cannot come from non life. Intelligent outcomes are not the result of mindless steps. The spirit realm exists and so does the King of Kings, Jesus CHRIST. HE FULLFILLED over 330 scriptures of the old testament. He is returning as he said and he warned that great deception would arise before he returns.
Intelligent design =GOD
a computer!
No it doesn't, many I.D. people are agnostics. ID simply uses science to critique science and point out that if you find something like a code there is always a code writer. It has nothing to do with God although God is the most plausible explanation for natural complicated systems. As for life just appearing from dead things, that is very hard to believe when you look at the immense complexity of the simplest cell.
The fossil record shows that two different types of cells just appeared in the fossil record 3 billion years ago. They can tell by their fossil stromatolites that they were different and for 2 billion years they made oxygen in our atmosphere so they could photosynthesize, a very complicated action. It is like they knew we were coming.
Or simulation, or several Gods. I don't understand y u just push in the idea that one God did it. U have a better chance of creation of living things if many gods exist don't u think?
It's certainly illuminating how a well recognized paleontologist and a museum curator like Gunter Bechly
himself could have such a degree of misunderstanding on how lacking scientifically the main tenets of Abiogenesis and Evolution actually are. Unfortunately , there's likely 10's of thousands like him that make
these same assumptions that the evolution theory is much more supported by the evidence then what it actually is. Many also make the mistake that their own impiety is somehow evidence that supports their own beliefs of these extremely limited tenets of the theory. Gunter obviously made an effort and consciousness decision based on his own evaluation of the arguments and evidence to reach the conclusion that he did.
The science continues to widen the void between evolutionary speculation and scientific fact of which hopefully many more researchers will have the courage to stand up and question this facade .
2:30The best scientists always check TH-cam videos. You can't do scientific research without TH-cam.
Denial is not just a river in Egypt.
If it exist it must have a creator,,, period !!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Good for this guy , he has realised that projecting to know that which you do not is not a good idea , if only more scientists would do the same
Also it takes slot of faith to believe life is spontaneous and can be explained by science
In 50 years scientists will look back on us and say, "All these idiots thought that no super-intelligence created all these millions of amazing things?"
Double Ghod the scientists and world knew the world was created ..only recently did people start to think it popped up frm no where....around the 17/18 century
Could it be that perhaps, just _perhaps_ that had to do with a more in depth understanding behind the functioning of the universe ?
We no longer consider floods or thunder to have supernatural origins for example, nor do we seriously claim mice are born without parentage by being generated in the Nile mudbanks.
But we used to, until we learned otherwise.
The organic motor cannot be built without a blueprint, assembly plan, making carefully formed parts, means of transporting all the parts to the location, instructions for delivery ( DNA), and it must be built in a timely manner. Only a computer generating the universe can make it.
His humility seems to be guiding him to truth.
Why evaloutionists are so active in defending and promoting Darwin theory!! It is weired!! It looks as if they have agenda to do that!!!
Whose name is mentioned at 4:00?
Michael Behe, biochemist and author of the books Darwin's Black Box, The Edge of Evolution, and Darwin Devolves. Thanks for watching!
Intelligent design is evident by many facts, complexity in biological systems is proof of intelligent design. The complexity of DNA is great evidence. The biological code is very complex and functions work together.
Darwinian fanatics are seriously annoying. I respect this man for being open minded in the end 🙉👍🏻😁
So, nothing intelligent in this universe? ... and everything is created by random? ... and no one created this universe? ... and this insanely complex and amazingly fine-tuned world is created without any reason whatsoever?! ... even, if I refuse all the religions in the world, I can never deny the existence of the infinite intelligence and the infinite power who created this world! Sorry!
My open mind on this requires that Richard Dawkins comment on this piece. I would trust his analysis of the argument in favor of ID.
I "sadly" only own "Theistic Evolution: a Scientific,Philosophical and Theological critique",but certainly,I would like to own any of those books and read them,I got kinda fed up with classical literature,at least for a time
There must be a Creator of life forms because living cells did not emerge from non life materials.
Life is made up of non-life.
Where is the dividing line between non-life and life?
And remember to define it you must show two almost identical things where one is non-life and one is life.
Bravo!
Bravo Dr. Bechly, another brave person with free-will
It's interesting when a scientist is open minded enough to review some of the scientific arguments against evolution and has not only the scientific merits of the argument , but also the common sense of it.
When you look at the the massive amounts of money that's been spent in both direct and indirect research into evolution over the period of it's conception , there is very little research that supports it.
In fact , there's much more evidence showing such a diverse complexity that evolution
lacks the foundation to support any of it.
My understanding is that Dr Bechly , a recognized paleontologist was ostracized for
his decision pursue his field under Intelligent Design.
Unfortunately , there's a small group of Evolutionatics that condescendingly insult anyone
that questions their hypothesis.
I applaud the stands taken by the Bechly's , Behe's , Myers , Wells, Dembski and many others
that try and to present the science in such a logical manner.
On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life, everyone omits the second part of the title proving the theory was used to promote/justify/rationalize colonization, Darwin’s family also funded his trip to the Galapagos island. Dawin’s family is also responsible for Eugenics which used Darwin’s theory to rationalize sterilization programs targeting those with more melanin and the poor.
Is this family still around controlling science and politics?
It's interesting to witness a evolutionary scientist that believed that the evolution thesis had a lot more scientific data supporting it then it had and once he reviewed the mountains of evidence against evolution over the next 5 or 6 years realized how scientific lacking it is in all the scientific fields .
I'm pretty certain that any scientist that takes an honest look at the volume of scientific data that has been accumulated over the last 30 years which pertains to evolution , could not come to any other conclusion other then intelligence.
Do your homework!, evolution makes little sense
I can possibly see where macroevolution could occur and lead to speciation, but to think that a process based on the breakdown of genomes could somehow build up those same genomes in the first place seems logically absurd.
Darwin told people what they wanted to hear
Bring this shard to the Museum, Gunther might tell you something about it
I'm glad this German scientist was honest and opened his eyes to some truth. Some of ours are starting to but dare not say anything.
In reality the intelligent design lobby in the end will probably save our Scientific community from itself so we can all move on. I suspect Science is being held back in many fields, not just Biology, because of the obsession with this topic.
The 'only' real division I observe between evolutionists (atheists, etc) and creationists, is the latter insists on a literal interpretation of Genesis. Of which I, and many thinking christian's, find absurd. Where does Scripture ever tell the reader to take that approach?
Our argument ought not be against evolution; because who knows whether or not a supreme intelligence (ie God) guided it (ie theistic evolution or intelligent design).
Should we not thank science for the many discoveries within the cosmos? I appreciate and contemplate all the more how great Gods creation is, with every new discovery.
Additionally, why are we so divisive toward atheists or agnostics? Are they not loved by God, created in God's image and likeness?
There are no happy accidents. Trust me happy accidents don't happen. It never has, I've seen enough in my life to show a divine presence guiding my life. Maybe few humans are able to establish a connect with the higher realms to experience this, maybe over time other humans can also part-take in the Human-Divine relationship.
BOOOOOOMMMM!
where does all of the information in biology come from? was it in the original cell that evolved from rocks, water, and electricity?
It takes courage to be a disbeliever even the religion is Darwinism.
If intelligent design suggests anything, it is a creator with an extremely worrying sense of humour.
How can someone study a finite physical system in space and time like the nature without asking himself at least once about its origin, you have to be blind or dogmatic materialist to ignore this fundamental question.
As far as I know, this guy got his career affected after speaking out his ideas!!
How to study anything using Wikipedia: Investigate everything they leave out or claim as fact. Investigate their references; if published after 1990, simply ignore it. If published before 1990, read it for yourself and study any biases of the author.
sarge Hawks Everybody has biases, so you have to go with the evidence, all the evidence. God’s best
👏👏👏
Si quiere debatir Diseño Inteligente, que vaya a hablar con Berlinsky y con Stephen Meyer. Lo que pasa es que muchas veces se confunde " young earth" que es la teoría de que el universo tiene 6.000 años y que si es propugnada por fanáticos evangélicos; con la teoría de Diseño Inteligente de Behe y compañía, que es una teoría científica y con base sólida. Ya desde las matemáticas y la probabilística, se cuestionaba la selección natural aleatorio Darwiniana cómo explicación al origen y diversidad de la vida. En fin, esta teoría del Diseño Inteligente, es defendida por creyentes y agnósticos, y hasta el intolerante de Dawkins se declaró abierto a ésta. Investiguen y vean por sus propios ojos. De mi parte, creo que la existencia del Creador es innegable; y la teoría del multiverso es un manotazo de ahogado de parte del ateísmo fanático. Nadie quiere una teocracia, sino que queremos verdad y sinceridad, y sobre todo respeto para la gente creyente y para El Creador mismo. Me despido con una frase de Santo Tomás de Aquino, quien es un pilar del saber occidental : " Fides quaherens scientiam" ( La fe, busca el conocimiento). Gracias. :)
I believe in the bible
There's a huge difference between seeing Darwin's explanation for how life evolves as a general theory that needs to be further understood versus taking everything Darwin said verbatim as scientific fact. Darwin's theory predominantly revolves around natural selection and explaining how the most well adapted organisms succeed in their environment and pass on their traits to their offspring, it says little about how the very first life arose. It's fair to say that nearly all of the ideas critics associate with "Darwinists" arose long after he died and have literally nothing to do with him, but it doesn't stop them from arguing in bad faith anyway. If a scientific hypothesis put forth in the 1960s is falsified, how does that reflect upon Darwin in any way? It reflects entirely on the scientist who proposed the falsified theory, but people attempting to discredit Darwin's hypothesis act as if incorrect theories that came from completely different scientists somehow debunk Darwin simply because these scientists support Darwin's hypothesis on natural selection. That's the logic of a person with a smooth brain.
Refuting Darwin is not an exercise in "proving atheists wrong", anyone who comes at it from that perspective is an utter fool who doesn't even understand what Darwin proposed. Truly refuting Darwin means someone does not believe that inherited adaptations or beneficial mutations increase reproductive fitness in any way. So what do they believe? That severe genetic abnormalities increase reproductive fitness or that the least environmentally fit individuals are the most reproductively successful within any given habitat? Like believing that fish that can't breathe air are the best suited to dominate a terrestrial environment? Or that women born without a womb will naturally produce the most children? These are all fairly easy to falsify.
Or do they believe that reproductive success is decided entirely by a deity or other extraterrestrial force? It seems that there's just as much evidence to support that idea as there is for a theory that reproductive success is determined by weather patterns, or witches, or how many times someone dances in a circle. Darwinian evolution is an attempt to understand the game theory of reproductive strategies and how this affects the morphology of different organisms, it's not a case for abiogenesis. What is so difficult to understand about this?
Darwin did speculate about a “warm little pond” where the life could have originated.
The difficulty is that everyone raises his name over the idea of abiogenesis and macroevolution. It all came to a head with that racist piece of literature. It's not just about adaptation, there's a cute drawing of a "tree of life" that illustrates the speculation on how everything comes from one thing. Wake up.
Günter's english is better than mine, i'm embarrassed to say.
👏👏👏👏
It slowly evolved into separate biological systems. None of the organs were co-independent of each other as it developed into their separate functioning systems; a developing embryo is an example of this process.
Scientists try to create something in their labs that will prove that life began spontaneously, without a creator. But the fact is, even if they create something meaningful, they provide proof against themselves because it shows that an intelligent mind is required to conduct an experiment, someone who knows what they're doing. If there's no scientist, there's no experiment. Open your eyes, you may even be a layman but you still have a mind to think, capable of reasoning.
1g of DNA can hold enuf info to fill
600,000,000 CDs
Info doesn’t come from chance
Nothing comes from nothing, the big bang only creates chaos. There IS a Creator! 🤲🇦🇺
Intelligent design is real and macro evolution is false. End the stupid debate and allow more debate to research on intelligent design.
Whoever comes up with an "intelligent designer" and thinks that has any explanatory power in science isn't a scientist anymore.
Find out more about Darwinism and pseudoscience from an independent writer at: www.lifewithoutevolution.uk
He'll now lose all his funding as a scientist because he spoke out against Darwinian evolution and is probably now working at a Burger King somewhere!
Interesting. I';m glad to hear about a scientist being open to intelligent design. However, I think evolution is a fact. I support Darwin and the evidence of evolution. However, I do believe in God as the mind behind it all. I recently got into intelligent design just this year. I have to say, I can see God's design in nature. My dad once told me a story, when he was younger he used to go to this diner. All the time, a rabbi used to go there to eat. The rabbi used to have religious discussions with people there. One thing he told my dad and others there is that you can see the beauty of God manifest itself all around you in nature. I got to say, I think he is right! Despite me accepting Darwin, I sort of believe in intelligent design to an extent. Like I said, I believe evolution is true. So away to reconcile evolution and intelligent design is possibly that God designed life to evolve over time with changing conditions, competition, extinction, etc. Or if God is all knowing, he would've known how life evolved. Or he of course planned it all out, so evolution could've been part of his plan to make life. So at the end of the day, God is the mind behind it all.
If you believe in the God of the Bible it would be in your interests to consider the creation account there. Because why accept one part and throw out another? It calls into question anything in it that you pick out to choose to believe. Btw Genesis does not support YEC.
WOW words I dont understand Fra*** what?? Just believe :D
Lets face it, either you believe in God, or you believe in Nothing that rolls lucky numbers like god
This Beckley guy made the mistake of having an open mind and listening to the other side. Let that be s lesson to all of you people of science.
I would believe in intelligent design without having ever heard of the Bible or beliefs in God's. I design things for a living and I know what it takes to go from a concept to a functional product out the door.