Debate on Intelligent Design | Dr. Michael Behe vs. Dr. Joshua Swamidass

Pat Flynn hosts a discussion/debate on the topic of Intelligent Design Theory between Dr. Michael Behe and Dr. Joshua Swamidass. Dr. Behe (an advocate of ID) is the author of Darwin Devolves and Darwin’s Black Box and Dr. Swamidas (a critic of ID) is the author of The Genealogical Adam and Eve.
CORDIAL discussion, challenges, and questions are welcome in the comment section.
Please like, share, comment, and subscribe.
As well, visit our new website at www.philosophyf...

[@PhilosophyforthePeople]

Who do you think made the better points in this debate? What do you agree (or disagree) with? And what aspects of this debate would you like to see explored further? Drop a comment!

[@VACatholic]

Id love to see if we can find a partner for Dr. Behe who actually takes the arguments seriously, rather than play the politics game mocking Dr. Behe rather than engaging with the data. Not sure such a man exists, unfortunately.

[@PhilosophyforthePeople]

@@VACatholic yes, I hope for more interaction on this subject, as well. In the meantime, if you haven’t seen it, Jim and I had Behe on a couple months back to confront objections. Jim brought up some interesting philosophical concerns.

[@carolbakerrevc]

Very interesting debate, I think it would be interesting to discuss the gap between scientific knowledge and the general public's knowledge of science. Dr Bede continues to insist on empirical proof, but doesn't seem to have any solutions, Dr. Swamidass admits that science can't answer all the questions, perhaps one point of contention needs to be analyzed at a time versus the many discussed.

[@KenJackson_US]

@@carolbakerrevc: _"Dr Behe continues to insist on empirical proof, but doesn't seem to have any solutions, ..."_ Solutions? He concludes life had to have been designed. He's right. What more solution do we need?

[@carolbakerrevc]

@@KenJackson_US I understand what you are saying, God designed life, I agree with that faith statement; except for, I don't think Dr. Behe made it clear he was talking about God, nor how God designed life. Dr. Swamidas was trying to find mutual agreement by which to build upon, Dr. Behe refused any attempt to meet him on common ground, Dr. Behe has concluded that he is 100% correct, & refused to engage in a scientific discussion.

[@southpaw7426]

Swamidas like many others focus on semantics and the structure of Behe’s argument rather than the content. It’s a trivial way to address a big question Ironically, nobody has a problem with “the Origin of Species”, which the author doesn’t actually address, but its supporters clearly claim it does.

[@3luckydog]

Nice👍

[@kevconn441]

Variation, inheritance, selection and time. That is Darwin's origin of species, that is what he addresses. Please don't confuse that with the origin of life. Descent from a common ancestor is the crux of evolution, not abiogenesis or anything like it.

[@escalonajes]

This is the second conversation where I listen to Dr. Joshua Swamidass, the first was with William Lane Craig, and in both conversations I find that he does not know how to listen and frequently interrupts his interlocutor, and many times to say trivial things.

[@TheProdigalMeowMeowMeowReturns]

He did this to JP Moreland. Moreland was not happy

[@ElliotMuddify]

having someone talk over JP Moorland would be a blessing.

[@escalonajes]

wow! @@TheProdigalMeowMeowMeowReturns

[@hekskey]

Swamidass: "That's a great question. Let me not answer it and instead vaguely drone on about something else so that it sounds like I've responded to you when I actually haven't said anything meaningful."

[@MarthaRowen]

It was frustrating to sit through drawn-out word salad handwaving from Dr Swamidass. I became increasingly impatient at wasting my time listening to him and I can only imagine how Dr Behe must have felt.

[@NoOne-uh9vu]

Swamidass is rambling without saying anything. Total cringe debate. Behe should have brought up the spliceosome

[@PhilosophyforthePeople]

BTW, this video is a re-upload from my previous channel, and originally took place a little over a year ago (in case anybody was wondering if I grew my hair back out ; ). Since enough people have requested it, I'll continue re-uploading discussions, debates, and interviews from my previous podcast that are relevant to this channel.

[@TheBrunarr]

I was literally thinking wait when did his hair get long again, lol

[@datacipher]

Disappointing. Josh constantly avoids getting into t the substantive detailed response and instead relies on vague rambling and flippant replies. He makes a few good points regarding legalistic minutia… and that’s important… but that’s all he does instead of getting into the content of the issues.

[@markchampneys]

Swarmidass says nothing of substance to counter Behe's points. Just redirection, and excessively tries to be agreeable, despite the clear differences of opinion.

[@chris_connelly_channel]

Disappointed by Dr Swamidass lack of engagement and responses to Dr Behe questions for clarification of their criticisms. As a non-biologist even I could see flaws in Dr Swamidass criticism of Dr Behe’s proposal.

[@EndoftheTownProductions]

Joshua rhetorically plays the Dean Smith four corner offense and just runs out of the clock.

[@fraktalv]

Dr. Swamidas came to the debate unprepared. This is a simple conclusion.

[@fraktalv]

@Gordon Freeman I don't see any thoughts in your reply

[@southpaw7426]

What I got out of Swamidas’s incoherent babbling was “you can’t prove it didn’t evolve, so you’re wrong”. What’s obvious to anyone is the other side of the argument is they haven’t proved a complex structure DID evolve, but they’ve proposed a sophomoric theory that the things may have preexisted. They freely admit they don’t know what those things might have done, but their existence is proof they did something. The burden of proof is placed on the new theory, while the old theory is assumed to be proven. If it were, it wouldn’t still be a theory.

[@ScienceFaithReasoning]

Great debate! I read Darwin’s Black Box also when I was in college and it lit a fire inside of me for investigating more deeply into science and evidence for a Creator. This debate could have easily gone on for 4 hours and I would have loved every second of the dialogue.

[@scottjensen7555]

This discussion was frustrating. Dr. Swamidass waisted a lot of our time bringing his religion into the discussion, I presume to assure us he was a good Christian. This added nothing to challenge Dr. Behe's points criticizing the various naturalistic evolutionary mechanisms like "exaptation." Behe’s challenge is basically, show me (us) the details rather than the usual hand waiving generalities. Swamidass seems to want to take the safe approach and continue with the usual hand waiving. I could see the frustration in Behe’s face as he patiently endured Swamidass blathering.

[@przemek3556]

kzbin.info/www/bejne/g4e0eISwYpWLm9E&si=fZMsV9DuyPNNejuU

[@r00kiepilot]

Joshua just waffles vaguely desperately avoiding the point. Irreducible complexity is a concept which already exists in human designs. To show it exists in living systems simply consider the first living organism. Even evolutionists agree the first organism had to have a large number of parts and essential functions. It is therefore irreducibly complex. You have to have all those components and functions in place and co-ordinated all at once from the very start. Origins is where evolution falls apart.

[@lizd2943]

No, "evolutionists" do not agree on that.

[@ja31472]

"Irreducible complexity is a concept which already exists in human designs." Which would make its application to biology valid IF biology and other parts of nature were like humans, but it isn't and never was. In general, nothing else in the universe works like humans, and both ID and religions assume it does, purely based on faith and contrary to 99.999% of science that proves it doesn't. Look at any part of physics and chemistry, and you will see how totally different nature works, compared to you. You are NOT a model of any other part of the universe, except other humans and maybe some primates. You are unique and very special, but unfortunately nothing else works like you do. Not the cause of rain that feeds crops that grows your food (see physics and chemistry for how that works), not the cause of the sun that warms the earth keeping everything alive (see nuclear fusion and gravity for how that works), and not the cause of life. "Even evolutionists agree the first organism had to have a large number of parts" Yes, about 10^20.... atoms. See physics for how incredibly complex a single atom is. Don't thing so? Take quantum mechanics at the graduate level or get your PhD in physics in a week. " and essential functions." Function is subjective and relative, to human observes and to environment. A lungs function in air but not in water. Function is not fundamental or inherent. "It is therefore irreducibly complex." No, because 1) function is relative to environment, and 2) There is this thing called multi-functionality, where something has multiple functions/purposes. For example, everything is made of atoms. Atoms have billions of function. 3) Things change function. Something can become function or non-functional, again depending on the surrounding environment. IC is bogus because it assumes: 1) function can't change, 2) there is nothing else that can be substituted, and 3) function is objective, when it isn't. "You have to have all those components and functions in place and co-ordinated all at once from the very start." No, you don't. A molecular replicator doesn't need lungs, a heart, brains, a liver, or any of the things an animal needs. It also doesn't need most of the things the simplest modern cell needs. This is yet another false assumption if IC, and why it is not science or scientific, or usefull for anything but tricking rubes into believing in a punisher-god.

[@CarapaceClavicle]

@@ja31472if you don’t mind, can you elaborate on a few things? I’d like to understand your objections a bit better. Are you talking about exaptation?

[@ja31472]

​@@CarapaceClavicle No, my objections are basic philosophy and facts that undo I.C., which can't even get to the starting line of empiricism or science, because as I explained, it makes false assumptions and uses invalid logic. It relies on or misuses concepts that aren't even valid logically, let alone measurable, and which are relative to both environment. For example, it denies that ALL things have function as food, so function can't be destroyed, and because it doesn't really exist. *Function, purpose and information are human-created concepts used to aid understanding, not a substance or conserved.* Creationists "materialize" or "literalize" purpose and information, thinking that when we create purpose (inside our minds) for a protein, for example, or observe something and _use it as information_ (as I use a rock as a hammer, paperweight or weapon), that purpose and information somehow instantly, magically, manifests inside the object being observed, and stays there after humans cease to exist, ready for some other observer to discover. Or they think that because scientists _use_ DNA molecules _as information_ (as any observable can), that means some other mind must have existed before humans, used it as information or created the matter being used by humans as information, and we came upon the information in the same form it was left. Quite bizarre, I know. All of those cases are obviously false nonsense, because *the information/purpose never leaves the mind of the observer* and *use of something as something doesn't transfer or imbue it with any permanent "stuff" that remains after the observation.*

[@CarapaceClavicle]

@@ja31472 am I understanding correctly that your objection is simply a denial of teleology?

[@axisofbeginning]

Overall, I respect how unpretentiously Michael Behe describes his work. But, as I understand, instead of irreducible complexity, Behe now prefers the phrase "Purposeful arrangement of parts." Also, in peer-reviewed journals, the scientific community rejects Behe's theory as pseudo-scientific. A collaboration of peer pressure. So either publicly negate Behe's work, or we will eliminate your funding, and you can forget about tenure.

[@KenJackson_US]

The phrase _"purposeful arrangement of parts"_ is a general description that's widely observed in the designs of life. It's sometimes used in the definition of intelligent design. But _"irreducible complexity"_ is a very small subset of that. Dr.Behe only uses that phrase for a very few molecular machines or chemical processes that he's analyzed and found to meet his definition. It's shocking how intensely he has been attacked for calling out "irreducibly complexity". Antagonists routinely *redefine* it and attack the strawman of their own making.

[@naturfagstoff]

Yeah. By the way, have the evolutionists solved his little mouse trap challenge yet?

[@hekskey]

​@@KenJackson_UScorrect

[@gilsonrocks4740]

I was not impressed with Swamidass. Having read a fair amount intelligent design material it doesn’t seem like Swamidass really read and understood the material.

[@hekskey]

He hasn't. I talked to him a decade ago and exposed repeatedly he didn't know or understand ID arguments in spite of claiming to have an expert understanding. He has made no progress in the 10+ years since.

[@david672orford]

His arguments in this debate make him sound like a lawyer rather than a scientist. He makes a show of giving ground, but does it only on nebulous metaphysical questions. On the scientific questions his approach is defense in depth.

[@awanderingman]

Thanks for reposting. I both found this conversation enjoyable and frustrating.

[@PhilosophyforthePeople]

Seems to be the general consensus.

[@kentclark9616]

Are there no other biologists willing to debate this topic?

[@kd6613]

🎯 Key Takeaways for quick navigation: 00:00 *📚 Dr. Swamidass and Dr. Behe introduction* - Dr. Swamidass introduces himself as a scientist, a medical doctor, a Christian, and a critic of intelligent design. - Dr. Behe introduces himself as a biochemistry professor, a Christian, and shares his journey into evolution skepticism. 04:37 *🕰️ Dover Trial anniversary discussion* - Dr. Swamidass discusses the historical background of the Dover Trial and its impact on the intelligent design movement. - Dr. Behe shares his critical perspective on the trial process and outcomes. 15:45 *📜 Intelligent design critique summary* - Dr. Behe outlines his core argument against Darwinian evolution and the basis for intelligent design. - Dr. Swamidass highlights the key disagreement with Dr. Behe's scientific evaluation in response to intelligent design criticisms. 23:13 *🔍 Debate setting and background* - Discussion on the asymmetry in the battle between proponents of intelligent design and Darwinian evolution. - Importance of informed dialogue on intelligent design within scientific circles. 25:07 *🧬 Scientific evaluation and critique* - Dr. Swamidass shares a critique on the empirical level of Dr. Behe's arguments, focusing on consistent application of scientific definitions. - Dr. Behe defends the principles of irreducible complexity using examples like the mousetrap and bacterial flagellum. 35:19 *💡 Evolutionary mechanisms and challenges* - Dr. Swamidass discusses non-Darwinian processes like neutral evolution, illustrating the complexity of evolutionary mechanisms. - Dr. Behe explains how existing mutations and rearrangements, rather than de novo creation, have been observed as the basis for complex biological systems. 45:45 *🧬 Evolutionary mechanisms and limits* - Discussion on laboratory evolution experiments showing no new molecular machines, primarily rearrangements of pre-existing genes. - Agreement that common descent is trivial and doesn't explain complex human features like rationality or intelligence. 01:02:16 *🧠 Scientific method and limitations* - Dr. Swamidass emphasizes the challenge of attributing directionality in biological processes scientifically. - Acknowledgment of gaps in biological knowledge and the significance of hypothesis testing in understanding creation. 01:03:40 *🌍 Interpretation of evidence and Evolutionary accounts* - Insights into different viewpoints on the origin of complex human traits and the evidential limitations in evolutionary science. - Balancing between the common ground and disagreements regarding the explanatory power of evolution in understanding human uniqueness. 01:06:54 *🗨️ Discussion on Public Engagements and Expert Opinions* - Acknowledgment of public debates and expert disagreements in the scientific community. - Emphasis on the importance of informed engagement and critical evaluation of arguments. 01:08:33 *🧬 Argument on Irreducible Complexity* - Dr. Behe discusses the concept of irreducible complexity in biological systems, focusing on the example of a disulfide bond. - Introduction of the principle of comparative difficulty to argue against the evolutionary explanation of complex molecular machinery. 01:11:22 *🔄 Misunderstanding on Mathematical Biology* - Dr. Swamidass explains the misunderstanding in mathematical biology regarding cooperative interactions. - Mention of the birthday paradox as an analogy highlighting the complexities that may be misunderstood in biological discussions. Made with HARPA AI

[@nelsonmenigi801]

I do respect Josh's professional integrity, however, regarding this dialogue, I can see dishonesty, given that he was unable to provide any comprehensive and sharp bullet argument to cancel out Behe's arguments. it is very frustrating to see kinds of this scientist who spoke of their expertise but present vague and invalid arguments. By listening to most of the arguments in Darwin's Black Box, and Darwin's Devolve, I see none, whatsoever argument that holds up to Behe's argument.

[@walkergarya]

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.

[@JohnWinters-on8jr]

Why don't they just use science and evidence to refute him? They can't. So, they have to write letters.

[@walkergarya]

@@JohnWinters-on8jr The Discovery Institute refuted ID all by themselves. cdesign proponentsists

[@JohnWinters-on8jr]

@@walkergarya You don't know what you are talking about. The Discovery Institute didn't have anything to do with the book of pandas and people. They did publish the Design.of Life. The Design of Life superceded of pandas and people. You are a little slow.

[@sincereflowers3218]

@@JohnWinters-on8jr you’ve never actually looked into the science behind what Behe is saying so you have no way to know that he is constantly lying. Irreducible complexity does not exist. We have seen e.coli evolve in the lab, so when people like Behe try to say evolution is impossible, they are liars. I can show you the evidence of that if you’re honest enough to actually look at it, and not just looking to deny everything because you and Behe believe in the same god. Intelligent design is creationist hokum. It was cast down in a court of law in the United States as a religious concept unfit to be taught in the classroom. Get over it.

[@JohnWinters-on8jr]

​@@sincereflowers3218Irreducible complexity is observed. You are either a liar or just willfully ignorant. No one has ever demonstrated that blind and mindless processes are capable of producing any bacterial flagellum.

[@ante3979]

Wow... nice debate

[@bradgiacona5582]

Josh didnt say a single word about how something like a flagellum could evolve piecemeal from pre-existing parts serving new functions. It wouldve been even better to see him try to explain the blood clotting mechanism evolving oiece by piece. No real support for anything disproving Behe's thesis.

[@designed84]

I have engaged with Swamidass several times. I try to be charitable, but I get the sense that he intentionally misrepresents you, and is vague in his objections because he really has no actual firepower.

[@atmanbrahman1872]

dr. Behe is a genius.

[@marculatour6229]

One of the turning-points is also, that the chimps DNA and our DNA are at 99 % equal. But it doesn't bother him, that Adam and Eve could only procreate by having sex with their children? I always thought God condemned something like that.

[@pleaseenteraname1103]

He does say some dumb things though.

[@HelloWorld-dq5pn]

Hes a creationist that works for christian fundamentalist institutions

[@erikpadilla4572]

@@HelloWorld-dq5pn fr everything he says is a lie basically

[@ja31472]

Behe is a genius at manipulation. He knows his audience, and that they are very weak in science. That is how he argues and convinces; by exploiting their ignorance. For example, the fundamental basis for ID is a scope violation, which is when an inference rule is applied to a place or time where it's assumptions fail to hold or no alternative is demonstrated. The inference ID uses is: "Codes/information/complexity requires intelligence", but science shows intelligence has necessary parts, one of which is DNA, the very same thing ID claims needs intelligence. Either ID is circular or faith-based, faith in intelligence without a naturally-grown brain, cells, and other parts humans need, again, with no validated, scientific alternative.

[@therevolutionsolution7560]

So glad behe called him out finally at 28:06 for his continual sly and deceptive tactic of "contributing things to me that I don't believe". Disgusting watching that attempt by Joshua the first twenty minutes

[@johnnelligan7093]

I'm not really sure what Josh disagrees with

[@tedgrant2]

I've just found out that male toads have a special pad on their feet. This allows them to keep a firm grip on the female toad. What a clever kind God to help the males.

[@fab03102]

Impressed by the subtle arrogance of Swamidass despite his complete inability to answer Behe's arguments. But then who isn't arrogant among these committed materialists all wearing the mask of neutrality?

[@JP-rf8rr]

Joshua looks so tired, hope he's doing all right.

[@PhilosophyforthePeople]

This video was from a while ago, but yes, pray he is doing well!

[@DocReasonable]

Even Michael Behe accepts the fact of evolution, creatarded 0afs. In his book 'The Edge of Evolution' Behe states inside the dust jacket - 'There is little question that all species on Earth descended from a common ancestor.' And on page 12 'Evolution from a common ancestor is very well supported.' And on page 72 'The bottom line is this: common descent is true.' And again on page 72 'Despite some remaining puzzles, there's no reason to doubt that Darwin had this point right, that all creatures on Earth are biological relatives.'

[@JohnWinters-on8jr]

There aren't any naturalistic processes capable of producing the diversity of life.

[@DocReasonable]

@@JohnWinters-on8jr So the answer is supernatural magic? 0af.

[@JohnWinters-on8jr]

@@DocReasonable Intelligent Design doesn't require God or the supernatural. And only fools equate engineering and telic processes with magic.

[@DocReasonable]

@@JohnWinters-on8jr So now you're saying it IS natural... make your little mind up.

[@DocReasonable]

@@JohnWinters-on8jr So now you're saying it IS natural. Thanks for playing.

[@praxitelispraxitelous7061]

Dr Swamidass makes me confused when it comes to his views on evolution

[@HelloWorld-dq5pn]

Thats because hes an actual scientist

[@bradbrown2168]

Mouse trap illustration becomes even more difficult due to the need for kinetic energy to set the hammer and an ability to hold potential energy.

[@timothylawson1151]

What I got out of this is that even for biologists such a discussion is extremely difficult.

[@cl-fs6pt]

It's difficult because they are being blatantly lied to by the education system.

[@markchampneys]

Swarmidass never actually engages Behe's arguments. Just re-direction.

[@antoniopioavallone1137]

Apart from darwinian objections to the teleological argument are there any other objections?

[@hekskey]

I've talked to Swamidass in the past and showed repeatedly that while he claimed to be extremely knowledgeable about ID arguments and to have tried to figure out how to make them work but couldn't, he was bluffing. He got arguments from every ID proponent wrong, got concepts completely wrong, attributed arguments to ID people they'd never made, etc. When it comes to ID, he's a fraud. There's just no polite way to say it.

[@wolverinez2804]

It is frustrated to watch this “debate”. Really shows how logic is important to new generation of scientists when it come down to scientific arguments. Here is a few of my observations: Josh, while claimed himself a Christian, still has so many Darwinism influences. It lead himself jump into some extended flawed statement that misrepresented Behe’s theory. The early conversations about “god creating everything” argument is a good example. Intelligent design was never intended to explain “God creates”. Like Steve Meyer said in one of the talk (not in the exact same words) it would not be possible to prove the Christian god was the designer. The intelligent design is a scientific argument that will not solve WHO was the designer and when. That’s why Behe rebut Josh’s claim at the beginning about the “god creates” statement. Intentionally or not, this doesn’t look good for Josh, either he tried to trap Behe in a debate (intentionally in this case) or he didn’t study the scientific argument and logic of the intelligent design or simple words, like other commentators said, unprepared (unintentionally in this case). Second, I learned almost nothing from this debate, as Josh’s arguments was so unclear and not articulate well. I think the host has obligations to clarify the statement and he didn’t do enough or not capable to jump in. This make Josh’s argument just sputtered, I have no clue what his point was. Should have state his arguments in his first sentence, then layout his evident. You can see it from Behe’s uncomfortable face debating Josh. Lastly, I really hate Josh bring up himself being a Christian. Claiming to be a Christian doesn’t make your belief or worldview are the same as other Christians let alone being right. Nor does it help your argument. Stay on the course of a scientific debate, please. I have zero interest to read his book after watching this debate. I can see he is not a careful researcher and try to force his own worldview into someone else’s beliefs. Versus, Behe just layed out his statement and evidences, and let readers to make their own judgement. My critics to Josh seems harsh. But it is just my way to telling things as a ESL speaker.

[@ElliotMuddify]

“Josh … still has so many Darwinism influences” You mean he follows the evidence?

[@Melkor3001]

Ads on the video are insufferable. Trying to listen to it whilst working and have go back to my phone every 5 minutes to press skip! No other video is this bad.

[@williammcenaney1331]

The Discovery Institute seems right when it refuses to politicize ID. But maybe it would good for high schools and colleges to teach the controversy if that would help decrease the bias exposed in Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed.

[@jr8260]

Please read the wedge document and tell me if it isnt politicized

[@williammcenaney1331]

@@jr8260 I'll be happy to read it if you'll tell me where to find it. Maybe "politicized" was a poorly chosen word. If you've seen "Expelled," you know some biology professors got fired because they looked into ID theory. You'll hear many scientists insist that they must be humble and follow the argument where it leads. Besides that, they'll tell you that each scientific theory is provisional, even Darwin's theory of evolution. But some of them still persecute scientists who dare to doubt that theory. That's not scientific objectivity. It's self-evident bias. Sometimes it even reminds me of a cult where the the leader says, "If you disagree with anything I teach you, I'll punish or excommunicate you from our religion.' Richard Dawkins doesn't lead a cult. But his devoted fans sometimes don't think critically about what he say. Watch the KZbin video where he gives his "What if you're wrong?" speech. After a woman asks that question, Dawkins commits an obvious example of the genetic fallacy. He implies that the truth or falsehood of a belief depends on how you come to believe it. Few, if any, audience members noticed that blunder. But the clouds cheering could have embarrassed our humiliated the questioner. Dawkins may excel in his field. But theology and the philosophy of religion are too new to him for me to trust is philosophical and theological judgment. The same goes for Prof. Krauss and Dr. Harris.

[@vesuvandoppelganger]

Intelligent design is a fact. Most likely there were more than 2 people that were created in the beginning.

[@bradbrown2168]

2 dimensional world for a flatlined would be a dot or a line. They see in a flat world like an edge of a CD. To see a circle eyes need to be seeing from 3rd dimension. A spinning square with alternating colors to its sides would be viewed as a color changing line of a length of its side.

[@lorenzorossi4177]

Josh, simply provide a model for an evolutionary pathway to any complexity Mike has written about. Just one. Pick one. Stop skirting the challenge

[@escalonajes]

¿Cuál es el nmbre completo del biologo que defiende mecanismos evolutivos no darvinistas?

[@kentclark9616]

Swamiddas just want to agree

[@michaelgonzalez9058]

Dr u have done it

[@ErgoCogita]

Intelligent design isn't.

[@escalonajes]

What is the full name of the biologist who advocates non-Darwinian evolutionary mechanisms? Nathan?

[@TheBrunarr]

One thing is that I just don't know what "design" means because it's used equivocally by people. If design just consists in God providentially ordering the universe and the created effects within it, then sure I agree with design, but at that point it is not with the subject matter of physical science but rather of natural theology, and secondly I just think that design isn't an appropriate word to describe divine providence anyway. Some senses of the word "design" smack of nominalism insofar as God's act of "designing" is meant to solve the problem of denying realism about essence and substantial form and whatnot. Many times I wonder what design is supposed to solve that realism about essences and natural teleology can't solve, and _again_ this is still the subject matter of philosophy and not the physical sciences.

[@larscp]

If God created the world, we must find out how he did it

[@yourdedcat-qr7ln]

Alchemy

[@erikpadilla4572]

that's not how true science is done

[@leebennett1821]

No much of the Humanbody is poorly designed

[@lotophagi]

Behe got minced. great josh Josh.

[@JohnWinters-on8jr]

Swamidass is disingenuous at best.

[@SuperTonydd]

Purposeful arrangement of parts that even Aquinas would agree with

[@carsonwall2400]

It's easy to see why Behe is considered a joke in the academic world 😂

[@JohnWinters-on8jr]

It's easy to see that you are a scientifically illiterate nobody.

[@walkergarya]

@@JohnWinters-on8jr Behe has NO credibility. 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.

[@JohnWinters-on8jr]

​@@walkergaryaSo, instead of refuting him with science and evidence, they write a spineless letter? Really?

[@walkergarya]

@@JohnWinters-on8jr I do not have to refute Behe, his "Discovery Institute" already did that. cdesign proponentsists

[@JohnWinters-on8jr]

@walkergarya You can't refute Behe. And the DI did not write nor publish of pandas and people. However, the Discovery Institute did publish the book the Designmof Life. The Design of Life superceded of pandas and people. Dobtey to keep up.

[@davidchovanak3343]

Darwin's thesis in a nutshell: an atom in motion given time

[@ARRAM57]

Theists in a nutshell. God did it......🙈🙉🙊

[@user-io1nb1wl1u]

Dr Swamidas, You are pretty wrong about chimps to human hands. It is said that human hand is ‘intelligent and full of silent knowledge.’ Hand-brain connection remembers what is learnt. Due to this, hand is considered as the ‘outer brain.’ Our hands can show our joy, despair, disgust, surprise, disappointment or hope. Our hands can support, appeal, help and welcome in our many daily interactions in life. Using our hands, we can threaten and express sympathy and empathy. Hands do have a significant place in art, dancing and in the practice of religion. Dexterity of the hand and power is vital for most sports. The thumb is vital for us to write which is a fundamental need of all modern humans. Hand gestures are a vital component in talking or giving a lecture. With our hands, we can applaud and express approval. Using the power and superior dexterity of our hands, humans use it for tools, which is one of the major advantages for the human race above all other species on earth, though some species have a very limited ability to use tools. The rich sensations in the hand mean that it complements function as well as helps us to ‘remember’ what we have touched. Even if a person becomes blind suddenly, with his hands, he will able to feel things and correctly identify an object. This is why our hand is the ‘outer brain’ and hence has a large representation in the brain. The human hand is innervated by 14 different types of nerve fibres helping to identify different types of stimuli. These include mechanical, sensory and thermal stimuli. These rich innervations underlie the remarkable capabilities of the hand. We can detect textures as small as 0.1 mm. We can judge the shape, soft or hardness, stickiness, slipperiness, texture and temperature of a surface to identify an object just by handling. Blind people use the touch to read using the Braille technique. The anatomy, opposition, muscles, tendons, joints, sensations of the thumb are the major drivers of these changes, with neural control from the brain. If you look at the above functions of the human hand, they are significantly different and sophisticated than the functions of an ape hand. Hence, when you think of the thumb of the ape/human common ancestor evolving to human thumb, all these changes should take place. It is not only the anatomical changes in the hand, but multiple other changes, in particular, brain changes and neuronal connections. Due to the above-mentioned functions of human hand, there is a large area of the brain devoted to the hand. It is not only multimillions of brain cells devoting to the hand but also multiple other connections the brain has to make to other areas of the brain to facilitate all these functions. Many of these should occur simultaneously, such as the neural connections in the brain and upper limb, as well as the anatomical changes, as through these links only, the thumb can function. Logic suggests that these cannot develop separately over many tens of thousands of years or millions of years. The anatomical changes without SIMULTANEOUS brain changes will be of no use and vice versa. If anatomical changes occur just one by one via blind mutational process as per Darwinism, there is no additional use during interim periods, and potentially disadvantageous than the hand of the common ancestor and certainly without simultaneous brain development, all intermediate stages may be totally useless. How can a blind process give all these changes giving rise to these functional advantages?

[@joecheffo5942]

Just because you don't understand something it must be magic. That's what they said about lightening, infectious illness, mental illness, they even thought the wind was "spirit", that was the original spirit. Here we go again, people never learn.

[@user-io1nb1wl1u]

@@joecheffo5942 If you are such a learned, please tell me how such could happen or are you saying brain changes are not needed?? If the brain changes are not needed, how are they controlled..... by an alien or next door neighbour ??? Not sure what is the relevance about lightening, infectious illness, mental illness !!!

[@tedgrant2]

Two wood pigeons visited my bird table this morning. The first one pecked the second one, which then flew away. Presumably, this survival strategy was designed by God.

[@tedgrant2]

God designed and made me very carefully. So if you don't like my behaviour, complain to the manufacturer.

[@ElliotMuddify]

We have perfectly good explanations for how “irreducibly complex” systems could come about. Behe may think that “Darwinist” set the bar for evidence low, I think Behe sets the bar too high.

[@blusheep2]

No you don't.

[@ElliotMuddify]

@@blusheep2 we can’t go back and actually prove it, but we have possible explanations for how it could happen. One example is constructive neutral evolution

[@blusheep2]

@@ElliotMuddify For the life of me, I don't see how Constructive neutral evolution explains anything. It appears not to be a mechanism at all. It just describes evolution in different terms then survival of the fittest. It does nothing to explain IC. Whether mutation is selected or if it is neutrally added to the genome doesn't change the challenges of IC in a random environment.

[@ElliotMuddify]

@@blusheep2 becasue it explains how a biological system can have a part that at one time is not necessary for the system to function, but later in time the system cannot possibly function without those parts. It may be true that if you remove a part of the EXISTING system then it will not function, but that doesn’t mean it can’t have evolved as the system will have functioned differently in the past.

[@blusheep2]

@@ElliotMuddify It explains nothing Eliot. It is a description of a process. It has no explanatory value. It only says that evolution may not be about selection. If you think I'm wrong, could you quote something for me about it that would demonstrate it? I'm not an expert on it but when I looked it up, the few sources I read did not describe a mechanism that explained anything. It was pitted up beside Darwinian natural selection as a competing process. The point of IC is that you find a system in which you can't break it down anymore and it still have any beneficial function. So the flagellum was a good candidate until the scientists found its pieces in other parts of the cellular wall. This is what came out in the Dover trial. This was seen as a great victory against IC. The problem is that there have been studies since and now we know those pieces are flagellum that has broken down. They are scrap pieces of a once existing motor. They know this because of the bonding agents still found on the parts. You can't just say, "the parts had other functions." What are those other functions? How did the incomplete cellular machine function as anything without those pieces? That is the heart of IC and your suggestion does nothing to answer those questions.

[@tedgrant2]

I design computer systems for a group of factories. I try very hard to think of everything that could go wrong. God must have assumed that everything would go right.

[@3luckydog]

Everything is going according to God’s plan. God doesn’t assume because he is outside of time and thus knows the end from the beginning.

[@tedgrant2]

@@3luckydog And yet he repented creating man on the earth ! (Genesis 6:6)

[@3luckydog]

@@tedgrant2 that doesn't mean what and how you think it does. There is an entire field of study called "Christian Theology". You, being a Godless Atheist and ignorant of this fact, should consult someone or "Google it" before you think are about to "mic drop" 🎤 on Christians about Christianity from one verse taken out of context.

[@vintage53-coversandorigina37]

Couldn’t finish listening to, Josh totally muddled the conversation with nonsense and non-specific arguments! Clearly his mind was made up beforehand!

[@KenJackson_US]

1:10:35 _"It's all bluster."_ Dr.Behe is exactly right. Nobody can explain the designs of life without an intelligent agent. Nobody can explain how a disulfide bond could evolve. All the waffling about possibilities are just _"bluster"!_

[@jamesdeburiet3919]

So how do you explain fossils in different layers, considering you believe all of life didn’t evolve we should see all animals be in one layer. We have all scientists leaning on one side, it would have to be an enormous conspiracy if evolution never happened

[@KenJackson_US]

​@@jamesdeburiet3919: _"... you believe all of life didn’t evolve we should see all animals be in one layer."_ It was *violent.* The earth's crust literally ripped open--the mid oceanic ridge bears testimony to that. There was plenty of energy to stir. If anything, it's surprising more animals weren't ripped to pieces. *James:* _"We have all scientists leaning on one side, ..."_ Not true. For one thing, evolution is only part of a very small area of science. Most doctors and biologists can just keep their mouths shut to avoid controversy or even pay empty lip service to evolution without really saying anything. Go along to get along. If they love their jobs, why would they want to take a stand on something so peripheral to what they're working on? Conspiracy? No, but Planck's principle certainly applies. Science only advances one funeral at a time.

[@jamesdeburiet3919]

@@KenJackson_US ok, so your excuse is because the crust ripped open every modern animal was only ripped apart. Nice one. And how do you explain population genetics. We’ve got clear evidence of interbreeding between Neanderthals and we know we came from a common ancestor with chimps. I know you’ll make an excuse but maybe go to a real scientist and they can explain it for you

[@KenJackson_US]

​@@jamesdeburiet3919: _"ok, so your excuse is ..."_ Why would I need an _"excuse"?_ What am I excusing? You're not making sense. *James:* _"We’ve got clear evidence of interbreeding between Neanderthals ..."_ Neanderthals were fully human. *James:* _"... we know we came from a common ancestor with chimps."_ We _"know"_ no such thing. We did not. That's a doctrinal point held by the church of Darwin, not supported by science.

[@jamesdeburiet3919]

@@KenJackson_US it is held by science there is no church of Darwin. Darwin’s theory is supported by fossil evidence and the best evidence which really settled the debate was Y-Chromosome 2 fusion. And yes Neanderthals were fully human, but they were a different species. I don’t know if your a creationist or not (I’m a Christian believe it or not) but I’m not gonna lie to myself that God created every animal that existed in 1 day and that a first couple existed just to satisfy my beliefs. I was arrogant and fought against evolution until I realised how stupid I looked with the horrible arguments that can be debunked in a snap by a “real scientist”

[@TheTruthisWritteninyourHeart]

This is general chit chat just missing the pub and it’s 3 guys meet a guy in the pub and he said blah blah blah

[@Drifter4ever]

I never saw much commercial breaks in an conversation that was not worth watching.

[@midlander4]

You're scarcely literate, Eric. So you're really going to be pushing water uphill with your crappy xtian suppositions, aren't you?

[@kennedybunga399]

Human beings are gods. Psalms 82.

[@michaelwill7811]

Tragic translation, one that a whole "religion" bases its validity on.

[@kennedybunga399]

@@michaelwill7811 you surely are missing out.

[@michaelwill7811]

@@kennedybunga399 The operative word there is "surely." And I am sure that the translation is dead wrong.

[@midlander4]

Behe the charlatan

[@Drifter4ever]

Behe is the one who is talking science. The other guy can't even formulate one objective, scientific question. Reading Behe's books you will find he's very carefull with the things he concludes but very right.

[@midlander4]

@@Drifter4ever you're semi-literate, but whatever.

[@Drifter4ever]

@@midlander4 if name calling is all you can do and like all shouters never have any arguments, Behe's case is getting stronger and stronger.

[@midlander4]

@@Drifter4ever his laughable claim of irreducible complexity is bullsht for a start. Take one atom away from a flagellum and it still works fine. So it's not irreducibly complex. Behe is a snake oil salesman.

[@Drifter4ever]

Waist of time. This isn't a debate at all. Michael Behe is still king.

[@midlander4]

King of lying

[@Drifter4ever]

@@midlander4 again, never arguments. Only hoping that people won't read his books to find out that Behe is only giving an honest interpretation and extrapolation of data. The more you people only calling names, the more people understand you just have nothing in return :-)

[@midlander4]

@@Drifter4ever it's anything but honest. Behe starts from the conclusion "god dunnit"... and works backwards from there. The precise opposite of science.

[@Drifter4ever]

@@midlander4 no he doesn't. It's clearly you never read his books. Stop spreading lies.

[@midlander4]

@@Drifter4ever what lie? You're so far out of your depth and we haven't even started yet.

[@axisofbeginning]

God reveals Himself through His Word. And adding even one more day to the six days of creation inspires a form of evolution and deception, contradicting the Biblical genealogy from Adam to Jesus. What if God, in eternity past, conceived the cosmos fully complete, in a form that is billions of years old? Then when he spoke each day into existence, everything He made, formed and created proceeded forward, including light in real time. That would satisfy the six days of creation and not contradict Biblical genealogies and prophecies of God's word. Can this be proven scientifically? Perhaps some evidence may exist. In a recent discovery within the Cosmic Microwave Background radiation, the Planck data confirms what the Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe data reveals, that our Earth and solar system look to be cosmically aligned. And according to cosmologists, one thing is evident, the alignments with our Earth and solar system somehow exist! Moreover, because these features do not fit the Standard Model of Cosmology, scientists dubbed it the Axis of Evil because it can destroy everything in their Big Bang hypothesis. However, instead of an Axis of Evil. Could these alignments show a new cosmological theory of an actual Axis of Beginning? "And it shall come to pass in the last days, saith God, I will pour out of my Spirit upon all flesh: and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, and your young men shall see visions, and your old men shall dream dreams:" ACTS 2:17. The Earth is where the Biblical story begins. Our Salvation is what His story is about, and Jesus, the Word of God, is the story's hero.

[@PhilosophyforthePeople]

Why are you posting the same comment on multiple videos?

[@axisofbeginning]

@@PhilosophyforthePeople I apologize; I didn't know this was frowned upon, being new to posting. I did feel the comment cuts to the chase of this debate. Also, I will take your reply as an education. God bless!

[@mottthehoople693]

just a young punk with a big mouth who doesn't listen

[@joecheffo5942]

Just look up a video on endogenous retroviruses, a real science video or book or article, and then tell me humans and other primates don't have a common ancestor. It's very solid evidence, extremely.