Michael Behe: Darwin Devolves - Science Uprising Expert Interview

In this bonus footage from Science Uprising, biochemist Michael Behe discusses his views on the limits of Darwinian explanations and the evidence for intelligent design in biology. Be sure to visit www.darwindevolves.com to learn more about his latest, paradigm smashing book, Darwin Devolves: The New Science About DNA That Challenges Evolution.
In Darwin Devolves, Behe argues, in brief, that “It’s easy to break things, and often it gives a benefit.” Building new things, wonderful things, through an unintelligent process like Darwinian evolution is another matter entirely.
Michael J. Behe is Professor of Biological Sciences at Lehigh University in Pennsylvania and a Senior Fellow at Discovery Institute’s Center for Science and Culture. He received his Ph.D. in Biochemistry from the University of Pennsylvania in 1978. Behe's current research involves delineation of design and natural selection in protein structures.
In his career he has authored over 40 technical papers and two books, Darwin’s Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution and The Edge of Evolution: The Search for the Limits of Darwinism, which argue that living system at the molecular level are best explained as being the result of deliberate intelligent design. The books have been reviewed by the New York Times, Nature, Philosophy of Science, Christianity Today, and many other periodicals. Darwin's Black Box was internationally reviewed in over one hundred publications and named by National Review and World magazine as one of the 100 most important books of the 20th century.
Be sure to check out these other great videos:
Revolutionary: Michael Behe and the Mystery of Molecular Machines
• Revolutionary: Michael...
Michael Behe - Makings of a Revolutionary
• Michael Behe - Makings...
Privileged Species featuring Dr. Michael Denton
• Privileged Species fea...
============================
The Discovery Science News Channel is the official KZbin 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 us on Facebook and Twitter:
Twitter: @discoverycsc
Facebook: / discoverycsc
Visit other KZbin 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

[@danpaulisbitski]

Behe’s arguments should be the focus of evolutionary research.These objections are obvious to anyone who takes the time to think critically about the theory.The fact that the scientific establishments response to these arguments is to attack the motives of Behe instead of refuting the arguments, reveals their impotence to refute the arguments.I have a tremendous respect for what science has provided for our lives.The scientific community should not tolerate its members discrediting and lowering its standards by engaging in such unscientific and unprofessional behavior. The only reason science has been so successful is because it is constantly questioned and scrutinized.If it becomes infected by dogmatism it will loose all credibility and eventually will fail. God bless people like Behe and the ID proponents.The more publicity they receive, the more the scientific establishment is forced to acknowledge these arguments and provide the public with a more honest picture of the theory and how the evidence is used to support it.The only people being illogical and unreasonable are the ones trying to dismiss the ID movement and anyone else who dares hold their evolutionary beliefs to scientific standards and scrutiny.

[@PauwMedia-Filmproducties]

Beautifully explained Dr. Behe. Nice to hear your own response on one of the arguments against irreducible complexity. The argument of irreducible complexity still holds indeed. It's a real shame that we have no Intelligent Design recourses in the Netherlands. I must get all my information from English and American sources...

[@LoveYourNeighbour.]

Yes, the argument of irreducible complexity still holds INDEED. If a person truly looks at the DETAILS of attempts to refute it (such as Kenneth Miller's attempt to use the type III secretory system as a precursor to the bacterial flagellum motor), the objections quickly break down.

[@PauwMedia-Filmproducties]

@@LoveYourNeighbour. Thank you. I wonder why my comment is marked as spam... What did I say wrong?

[@rutexas7157]

Even the devil believes in intelligent design - we need repentance in our hearts.

[@gregormann7]

True. But that isn’t an argument against I.D. It isn’t an either/or, but a both/and.

[@janvanderkruyk]

Exactly, DNA was perfect with creation and declined due to mutations over time. Consistent with what we observe today. Thanks Michael.

[@louisk6351]

Solid research leads to the truth... keep on talking about your findings... love it

[@gerardmorton8517]

The irony that darwin scientists use their "intelligence" to find other uses for a mouse trap parts, but decline to see the obvious design in nature

[@somdattamaiti8941]

Bcoz a mousetrap can't reproduce ,it can't adapt to the changing environment condition .But living organisms can do that . Don't you know difference between living and non living things ??

[@joshuamassawe2474]

It is always satisfying for a Christian to have such enlightening information. It makes for good conversations with our atheist brethren. I call atheists brethren because like us, they are also in pursuit of truth despite their different angle. I believe that, emotions aside, the challenges that an atheist presents us will make us even stronger because if I have learnt anything, it is that there are much better scientific arguments for an intelligent Designer than there is for evolution. I think if atheists would stop taking Richard Dawkin's advice to be insulting and try converse respectfully, we and they could have very interesting and enlightening conversations. Knowledge is always exciting to have! God bless you all!

[@geobla6600]

It was exactly Dr Behe's irreducible complexity argument of the flagellum (rotary motor) that caught my attention years ago when I read the article. The first thing that I found interesting was that flagellum is indeed an "Actual Rotary Motor" . I've heard it described as a rotary motor for what I believed was more of a vague descriptive (which it probably was if described by materialist ) of a little spinning tail that moved cells thru liquid. So after looking into this further , the flagellum is indeed a legitimate rotary motor that apparently is much better designed then the one made by Mazda and their engineers. Considering there's over 20,000 different types of these :Nano-Machines" that vary in complexity , some more complex then the flagellum that are found in humans , it actually give me a "What the Moment". Then to watch Miller present his baseless argument against irreducible complexity, created the insight into how pathetically limited so many of these postulations made to support Neo-Darwinian Explanations really are. These types of arguments presented by Miller and others would make them look like complete fools if they were making these same limited claims in any other area of science then to support Neo-darwinism. And unbelievably , there's many that thought the mousetrap analogy was a home run???

[@omnivore2220]

We learned enough recently about epigenetics to see more than just "random mutation" or "random variation", either one, as a factor in adaptation. We now know that changes can occur in response to conditions, which activate or suppress existing genes as a means of adaptation, within the very next generation! So whereas we can say that random variation or mutation are "passive systems", the ability to vary the expression of existing genetic information in response to environmental changes should be seen as "active systems", i.e. a built-in adaptation mechanism having built-in options. This for example is what Darwin observed, without knowing it, in his famous Galapagos finches. This doesn't change your argument here, but it certainly bears mention.

[@MLeoM]

It's wonderful how Stephen Meyer, Michael Behe, and others in Discovery Science Institute THINK OUT OF THE BOX, that's soo necessary for science to progress and all scientists should have this intuition.

[@robertdennis3892]

I think it was Dr. Ken Miller who wore the mousetrap tie clip. He has been at the forefront of arguments attempting to debunk the concept of irreducible complexity, along with Richard Dawkins with his "Climbing Mount Improbable." Dr. Miller was a key witness in the Dover, Pennsylvania school board case.

[@fede1680]

MYTHS AND REALITIES OF EVOLUTION Charles "Darwin believed that the process he called natural selection favored the forms of life that were better adapted to the environment and that the less adapted ones eventually became extinct", and as a favorable illustration he cited the thirteen species of finches studied in the Galapagos, today known like Darwin's finches, but "if Darwin's finches show anything, it is that species adapt to climate change" and, "Darwin's finches have not become 'nothing new'. They are still finches." On the other hand, the critical problem for current evolutionists is that they take the theory of evolution for granted, such as the prominent evolutionary biologist Richard Dawkins, who asserted that "Evolution is a reality as undeniable as the heat of the Sun", although they do not agree on: What was the mechanism that produced evolution ?, and What was the Darwinian competition for? According to some authors "The" Darwinian "competition serves above all to explain the extinction of species” * and, the adaptation of species, but it does not serve to explain how species arise, much less the origin of life and, "if it cannot be try, it's not science "*. On the other hand, “that the Sun is hot, it is demonstrable both by direct observation and by experiments. But is it possible to prove incontestably the validity of the theory of evolution based on observation and experience? Before answering this question, it is worth clarifying something. Scientists have noted that living things can undergo minor changes over generations. For example, through selective breeding, dog breeders obtain individuals with shorter legs or longer hair than their predecessors. Some scientists call these slight changes under the name of microevolution. Evolutionists claim that the gradual accumulation of small changes over billions of years caused the large changes necessary for fish to become amphibians and apes to men. This hypothetical process is called macroevolution. Charles Darwin taught, for example, that the small variations observed in nature indicate that much larger changes - which no one has witnessed - are also possible. According to him, certain forms of primordial life, supposedly simple, underwent a series of "very slight modifications" over vast periods of time to originate the millions of life forms on Earth. Many consider this postulate logical. They reason that if minor variations can occur in a species, why couldn't evolution produce major modifications over extended periods of time? But the reality is that evolutionary theory rests on three myths. " Myth 1. Mutations provide the raw material for the creation of new species. Myth 2. Natural selection led to the creation of new species. Myth 3. The fossil record documents the changes of macroevolution. For information on the three myths of evolution, see the article titled: "MYTHS AND REALITIES OF EVOLUTION", available at this link: www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=www.jw.org/es/biblioteca/libros/vida-obra-creador/mitos-realidades-evolucion/&ved= 2ahUKEwilj4Xv3uTuAhXUGLkGHQU_AY8QFjAAegQIARAB & usg = AOvVaw1_OrH0zfQLFo-NUCPydqNU & cshid = 1613146478792 _ (*) ​​Jhon Hans: “WE CANNOT TURN DARWIN INTO A DOGMA”. www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=amp.elmundo.es/ciencia-y-salud/ciencia/2017/09/10/59b43b8022601de4088b4589.html&ved=2ahUKEwiQtbzp4OTuAhV6D7kGIAFjABeCs= AOvVaw1KoVZZEbTk5vMfhp8HbIGv & ampcf = 1 _ DO ALL THE WAYS OF LIFE COME FROM A COMMON ANCESTOR? www.jw.org/es/biblioteca/libros/origen-de-la-vida-cinco-cuestiones/proceden-formas-vida-antepasado-comun/

[@fede1680]

"IF IT CANNOT BE TESTED, IT IS NOT SCIENCE" There are foundational facts that science WILL NEVER BE ABLE to EXPLAIN empirically. 1_The origin of the universe, because "the prevalent model in current cosmology is based on mathematical speculation, and not on scientific evidence", such as the models of - "cosmic inflation" and "quantum fluctuation-, because current models The origin of the universe does not resolve “the fundamental question:" Where did everything come from? Where does the primordial energy-matter come from, which probably consisted of a dense plasma that cooled as it expanded? "*," Science will never be able to empirically explain the origin of matter and the energy of which We are made"*. 2_ The origin of life, because “geological processes have nevertheless ended up destroying the evidence that allows us to explain how life arose on our planet Earth” *, for this reason, the Nobel laureate Francis Crick, one of the biologists who discovered the structure double helix of the DNA molecule, “thinks that it is too complex to have been formed by random events. His hypothesis is that intelligent extraterrestrial beings must have sent DNA to Earth to sow life here ”**. 3- Finally the origin of man, according to many textbooks and encyclopedias, and "sensational reports on discoveries of the so-called missing links, give the impression that the evolution of man from the apes is fully verified" ***, but "given the irremediable scarcity of the fossil record, it is practically certain that science will never be able to explain exactly where, when, why and how the emergence of humans occurred" *. Therefore, the origin of the universe, of life and of man, science will never be able to explain empirically, current explanations are based on speculation and “if it cannot be proven, it is not science”, as the writer of 'Cosmosapiens 'John Hands, in the article titled: JOHN HANDS:' "WE CANNOT TURN DARWIN INTO A DOGMA." 4- The origin of the language :( "Some researchers believe that modern languages ​​arose from a single language: the so-called“ mother tongue ”that, according to them, human beings spoke almost one hundred thousand years ago. * Others affirm that languages Today emerged from various languages ​​spoken for at least six thousand years. But how can linguists reconstruct the evolution of languages ​​that no longer exist? Of biologists, [evolutionist] linguists don't have fossils to guide their steps through the past. ”And he adds that one of them reached his conclusions using“ mathematical guesses ”) ****. 5- The origin of religion: (the book World Religions - From Ancient History to the Present (Universal religions ... from ancient history to the present) concludes that “the modern historian of religions knows that it is IMPOSSIBLE to reach the origin of religion ”) *****. Therefore, science can never empirically explain the origin of the universe, the origin of life, the origin of man, the origin of language and the origin of religion, due to the scarcity of evidence. Added to this these foundational facts according to the Bible had a divine origin. BIBLIOGRAPHY: 1- (*) JOHN HANDS: '“WE CANNOT TURN DARWIN INTO A DOGMA”. www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=amp.elmundo.es/ciencia-y-salud/ciencia/2017/09/10/59b43b8022601de4088b4589.html&ved=2ahUKEwjPhMDhkODuAhUhDrkGHACeQCpg= AOvVaw1KoVZZEbTk5vMfhp8HbIGv & ampcf = 1 2- (**) SEE THE TITLED BROCHURE: "The origin of life. Five questions worthy of analysis", chapter, entitled: “Question 3 Where did the instructions come from?” Page 21, available at this link: www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=www.jw.org/es/biblioteca/libros/origen-de-la-vida-cinco-cuestiones/&ved= 2ahUKEwi5ufTzkODuAhW9HLkGHWEmCykQFnoECAMQAQ & usg = AOvVaw33HFzy3obLw0VrzWVzzUxf 3- (***) SEE THE TITLED BROCHURE: "The origin of life. Five questions worthy of analysis", chapter, entitled: "Do all life forms come from a common ancestor?", In the sub topic entitled: "Is Human Evolution Proven?" P. 22, available at this link: www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=www.jw.org/es/biblioteca/libros/origen-de-la-vida-cinco-cuestiones/proceden- common-ancestor-life-forms / & ved = 2ahUKEwjB1vXl4pnxAhUhppUCHYyyAjQQFjAAegQIAxAC & usg = AOvVaw2U_rVXOJuWCYkddMEkSEw8s 4 _ (*****) DID THE LANGUAGES REALLY ARISE IN THE TOWER OF BABEL ?: www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=www.jw.org/es/biblioteca/revistas/wp20130901/la-torre-de-babel-y-los- world-languages / & ved = 2ahUKEwi4iJawi4HzAhWUqJUCHaHMA88QFnoECAYQAQ & usg = AOvVaw2YzsY5l5yLqSGFtZzuMHGX & cshid = 1631712881053 5 _ (****) "RELIGION ... HOW DID IT START?": www.jw.org/es/biblioteca/libros/El-hombre-en-busca-de-Dios/La-religi%C3%B

[@robertdennis3892]

Dr. Dawkin's eye evolution scenario has a continuous, straight path with the deepening of the cup surrounding the light sensitive cells on the surface of a creature. But the origin of those cells, how they were positioned, or how they got connected to the creature's motor reflexes is not, to my knowledge, speculated upon in a plausible manner. Or how did the cup, once deep enough, suddenly develop a clear covering and capture fluid in a advantageous manner? This would be a divergence from the straight path that is much less probable. Then the appearance of the iris, its control muscles, and motor connections.....Does Dawkins attempt to explain how these highly divergent solutions took place or could have been coopted from other existing functions and placed, advantageously, within the eye cup?

[@pajtaj]

Dr. Behe’s argument for “Irreducible Complexity” is THE fatal flaw in any form of Darwinian evolution.

[@LoveYourNeighbour.]

Atheists often cite Kenneth Miller's attempt to debunk “Irreducible Complexity.” But if person really cares to examine the DETAILS of Miller's argument (eg. a precursor to the bacterial flagellum), it quickly falls apart. Phil, I love Behe... He's a true pioneer of Intelligent Design theory!

[@dianaking-gates8105]

I so appreciate hearing these descriptions; which are in terms a layman can grasp. They make sense because one can intuit basic principles from observation of life-not specific just to the physical sciences. I have no background in, but love science because I sense the order and beauty in it. The more I come to know, the more amazed I am by God's creation. It's okay with me that my full comprehension has not caught with His omnipotence. Thanks.

[@LoveYourNeighbour.]

LOL, occasionally people 'explain' things in highly technical, drawn-out ways that leave you more confused in the end... Behe is certainly not one of those people. I've always been able to follow what he says.

[@stewartparker1872]

The more I study this debate and see the complexity of all living things, the element of design is winning out. Who or what designed can be debated, but it’s time to let go of the idea that any of this can come about by random chance in conditions that should be detrimental to life. We can’t with our abundant knowledge, great labs and conditions and all the chemicals provided can’t get close to creating life.

[@ProNorden]

Around 06:15 ..I've been giving some thought to reworking and modifying the appendix .. Any requests ? Any preferred new functions ? Any other organs (preferably "vestigial") you'd like improved or modified ? ✌

[@eliasney]

maybe what we observe as the flagella wasn't the ultimate design but a NEcESSARY one. those designs that remain necessary are conserved and optimized. well that part is obvious. but what about those that become decreasingly necessary. Can their parts become repurposed? In the case of the flagellum, as the design becomes optimized the amino acids that were not used remain in the cells bank fully capable of turning into any other protein structure. there is a conservation of energy when a necessary adaptation becomes unnecessary (adaptive pressure is removed). why is it not conceivable that those gene's for the specific structures of the flagellum are far more ancient than the conception and necessity of a flagella like structure? even further!!! Protein motif's (secondary and tertiary structures) are conserved in the proteins that develop into the flagella. Do those motif's not find themselves in countless other proteins? Is every protein truly unique when you use a combination of 20 or so amino acids? why would the genes not conserve among themselves a set of motif's for protein interactions that is non specific? Michael Behe seems to me like one convinced and one not questioning his conviction with the scrutiny he casts on adaptive radiation and selection. Intelligent design is no more material than the signal conceived in the noise of all possible interactions of atoms and photons themselves. Are crystals intelligently designed? I ask all of these questions with serious concern that there might be here something I am missing. thank you.

[@johnsmit5999]

The same techniques that SETI uses to search for intelligent life can be used to examine genes to evidence of design. They search the heavens for evidence of complex specified information. Crystals would be classified as highly specified but not complex relative to information content.

[@AbrarManzoor]

irreducible complexity is a very good argument against ultra gradualistic evolution model in which DNA mutations are happenning very gradually and randomly and the systems are modifying gradually but i think the more complex a living thing becomes the more systems are interconnected so if any mutation happens it has to adjust with already existing systems that are viable for survival and reproduction.It is all about probability the more systems in an organism the more probaability decreases that blind unguided process will invent mutations that will suit to irreducible complex systems.The darwinists tackle this problem by suggesting that life on earth is billion of years old so they increase the time and claim given enough time mutations will invent new features and some of them had accepted the punctuated equilibrium and leave ultra gradualism.

[@johnnowakowski4062]

So a tieclip and a paper weight automatically come together to make a mousetrap? I guess only if there are mice running around your bedroom...

[@Mike65809]

how many advantageous mutations are necessary to go from amoeba to man?

[@ShadesofViolet8]

I was literally just thinking about you guys and saw this notification a couple of minutes ago

[@michaelogrady232]

I heartily agree with Dr. Behe. We are devolving. It is not that every generation is on an evolutionary trajectory to a barrier that cannot be crossed, it is that every generation is just a little bit less than its predecessor.

[@les2997]

"It never ceases to amaze me that Darwinists like Coyne are unable to separate the question of what happened from the question of how it happened. Okay, flightless dinosaurs had feathers and birds can now fly. So what exactly is the evidence that it happened by a Darwinian process? What is the evidence that a Darwinian process could even, say, differentiate owls and crows from a common ancestor? I argue at length in the book that unintelligent processes aren’t remotely up to those tasks." --- Michael Behe

[@chadsuratt2161]

Good video Thanks

[@johnsmit5999]

Even if mousetraps could be used in a multitude of ways, each of those arrangements would need instructions for each of those uses. Who supplies the instructions?

[@dougoverhoff7568]

I think we have some scientists that would make good paper weights. Lol

[@seamus9305]

The most irreducible complex system is the first protocell.

[@markjohn8472]

Behe is BACK!!

[@joebombero1]

Genius. Leading the way

[@ProNorden]

Somewhat more seriously, at 03:53 Behe really should skip the 'moustrap analogy'/illustration ..or offer it quickly and move on ..because it gets used by the opposition as a distraction from the "real life" cases/examples like the '#bacteriaFlagellum' which show the '#irreducibleComplexity' idea at least as well. ✌

[@ensartokmak8837]

I appreciate you for your good sharings...I want to translate your videos in my national language and share them with your permissions ☺

[@grumpyed58]

Behe completely ingores Complexity Theory and it's complementary Nonlinear Dynamics (more commonly known as Chaos Theory).

[@media5820]

Good stuff here. Please upload more videos.

[@sciarc]

Love Michael behe! Check out this video about how our whole body is conscious and not just the brain- kzbin.info/www/bejne/j4rRi2iknJmUsJo

[@midnighthymn]

Need more videos!

[@grayarcana]

Ideological Darwinists are discredited, not Darwin. Darwin made quite a large step for mankind in refining the generic meme of evolution to a more closely defined, and refutable concept, which he himself recognised may be refuted by the Cambrian explosion. What is refuted is a concept of evolution based entirely on small changes arising entirely randomly, requiring elimination of mal-adaptive changes, and requiring a long time to generate a recognisably new species. He had no idea of how these changes might arise, and little idea of what a long evolutionary time might be. Evolution has been evidenced to be relatively quick acting in the context of a developing eco-system, highly adaptive, evincing a ‘Quasi-Lamarckian’ intelligence, epigenetically directed, and involving immensely subtle mechamisma. Further, there seems to be more than one type of evolution. The more fundamental process involves a deep level genetic commitment: we are stuck with two arms and two legs thanks to that mudfish that crawled out of the Silurian or Ordovician mud. Morphological adaption within the context of a rapidly developing eco- system seems to be much more reversible. Could the generic giraffe get back to living in the forests? There is a further degenerative form of evolution in which genetic information, and therefore generic potential, is destroyed. This has been observed in singular celled life. Another evolutionary phenomenon not necessarily related to generic limitation but rather to strategic overbalance is the repeated elimination of the larger lifeforms in the event of ecological catastrophies. As new ecosystems evolve, the niches appear to be relatively quickly populated. Quo Vadis? Leaving aside any controversy over our estimates of dating the age of the Earth and the Cosmos, what is evidenced is that the generic genome of the Eukaryota took ages to accumulate sufficient generic intelligence that immediately let to the Eukaryotic explosion, more than half way through the story of life on Earth. Some further ages were necessary to accumulate the generic intelligence enabling the Cambrian explosion, though the generic geomes may have already parted on their separate ways ages before manifesting evidentially in the Cambrian, and always dependant on environment, and a mutually evolving eco-system. The rest, as you Americans should say, is Natural History! Now, credit where credit may be due. None of this is any sort of argument against God, poor chap! He seldom gets the credit he deserves these days. However, the above, though proceeding neutrally within a framework of Natural philosophy, may be taken by the Theologian as more consistent with a Logos in Materia doctrine than a Deus ex Machina doctrine.

[@VariantAEC]

Darwin's theory doesn't mean there were no influences. In fact based on what I understand of it nature is the primary influence. We do not know where the first particles came from that eventually created the stars or why and how space is so vast from our perspective and likely infinite in its entirety, but ignoring the complexities many of which are still speculation about how space, the solar system and life came to be we can definitely see how mixing things up in the genetic space changes organisms from cats and dogs to people themselves. We see how disparate groups of the same species can create new groups within the species with different strengths and weaknesses. As far as human activities impacts on our own species differentiation and that of dogs, cats and other domesticated animals which is all sexual selection driven by conscious actions. Natural selection drove evolutionary processes creating diversity amongst all life by culling the weaker less capable life forms which were unable to survive long enough to reproduce or who were able to reproduce but whose genetic lineage wasn't able to survive long enough to reproduce later on. The world we live in decided in part how life would evolve and this process also defines what is required to make organisms with the bare minimum attributes to complete a specific function to continue living in the environment. Basically that flagellum can only do its job if it has the parts required to move a cell around and cells that cannot produce a functioning flagellum will not continue to exist or will have to find other ways to move around which will also affect how that cell will eat and survive forcing it to diverge from cells with functional flagellum or cease to exist. Natural selection drives evolution even against human involvement. Animals live horrible lives and ultimately die sooner and have worse QoL when we make mistakes creating hybrids through our hubris. Intelligent design requires knowledge of literally everything and obviously God didn't make perfect creatures that could survive in the world we were created for... Intelligent design has fundamentally failed. All of this is proving God isn't as smart as the BIBLE says he is. Which is a bad thing. Thinking this through breaks intelligent design and helps shrink any potential reasons to believe in the existence of a God.

[@robertdennis3892]

Evolution could proceed along a given path only with continuous selection pressure and a relatively straight path. This means each step is small, probable, and results in an incremental survival advantage. Coopting unrelated working parts to form a new function seems to be a convoluted path that is less probable, and ultimately does not solve the problem of irreducible complexity. The probability of this coopting decreases with the functional specificity and number of the coopted parts needed for the new function. It is on this basis that Dr Miller's arguments against irreducible complexity fail, in my opinion.

[@FRN2013]

Desperate Darwinists deceive themselves because they want to keep sinning. Even a few honest skeptics such as Thomas Nagel and Aldous Huxley admitted that they had biases against the existence of a Judge in Heaven. God is still firmly ensconced on his throne!

[@electricspark5271]

Amen

[@LoveYourNeighbour.]

The world's foremost academic Atheist, Antony Flew (who debated and wrote many books FOR ATHEISM, was ALSO an honest man. In 2007 he released his bombshell book: "There *IS* a God - How the World's Most Notorious Atheist Changed His Mind." His change of mind, was due to his willingness to follow the evidence WHEREVER it leads.

[@JBulsa]

BNGO$

[@stardustchimp375]

Its simple really we do not understand how abiogenesis occurs without an agent. That is because we expect to know everything now but things take time. Decades at least. Future AI will help us in discovering more on evolution which is a fact.

[@ttecnotut]

“If you look at paperweights, none of them look like a mousetrap.” Nonsense. A mousetrap stripped of most of its parts is a paperweight that looks like a mousetrap. On molecular biology: he’d be wrong to say if “you look at a bacteria’s syringes, none of them look like a bacteria’s flagellum tail.” That would’ve nonsense to say too because syringes do look alike and share many of the same proteins an evolved flagellum tail.

[@johnsmit5999]

sham shan, If the bacterial syringes evolved from the bacterial flagellum then we would expect them to share many of the same proteins and look similar even though they have very different functions. If one breaks a mousetrap and you have pieces of metal and wood that can cause bodily injury, then the mousetrap has devolved via deleterious manipulation. Bacterial syringes are measured to be younger genetically than bacterial flagellum so it does not serve to answer the origin question of the bacterial flagellum.

[@jsphfalcon]

Yah. We are too complex for evolution.

[@theHentySkeptic]

Such an important figure. Behe will surely be judged well by history- if not by his jealous or closed-minded contemporaries.

[@LoveYourNeighbour.]

True pioneers are often FIERCELY DENOUNCED at first. And then later on, roundly applauded. Unfortunately, he probably won't get to see the SECOND phase, during his lifetime.

[@fellowshipofthemystery6154]

In seems that science, in this particular field of study, has also devolved as there are more question arising than answers. The more we learn about the complexity of life, the more we lean towards intelligent design. There is an unexplained source-code provider that belivers recognize as God and science recognizes as a mathematical equation yet to be realized.

[@AbAb-ww4bb]

If thousands of physicists, microbiologists, biochemists with their Nobel prizes, the smart brains 🧠 , eyes, ears, labs, research centers, scientific books, and scientific papers in 150 years, they have not been able to create a single cell or fly so far. How the chance, randomness, nothingness, and the blind and deaf nature can make and control the precise universe, including the miraculous creatures as man who can hear, see, speak and rationalise???

[@refuse2bdcvd324]

Declare Jesus (our intelligent designer) as your Lord Believe in your heart that God has raised him from death And you will be saved!

[@terriekraybill9724]

The argument against irreducible complexity was just very bad; much more so than you would expect if Darwinism were a viable theory. It seems they're grasping at straws; missing the obvious idea and pretending that because things can be interchanged for extremely simple tasks that they can be interchanged for highly specified ones.

[@onehappydawg]

First 😁

[@vertigoz]

Science haven't progress well enough in opposition to bible interpretation, perhaps...

[@mikemoats2710]

When Mr behe was a kid he could a puzzle together nice and neat. There would be a barn maybe. An evolutionists would pound the pieces were ever he wanted and even though he could never finish the puzzle he'd tell you it's a barn your just too dum to see it. Yep that's what you folks are like.

[@martinmalar]

The 'mouse trap argument' is not an argument, that reasoning is inherently flawed. Mouse traps happen to be artificially designed and cannot be compared to anything that we might assume (for the sake of argument) evolved naturally without input of a designer. Flagellum would make a much better argument, if anyone could prove it couldn't have evolved on its own under any circumstances. It was shown that many of the proteins that comprise a flagellum are (or could be) useful on their own, which would make such proof extremely tricky.

[@ogreman-lll-957]

Dr. Behe is not a creationist.

[@zlee4019]

Theory of evolution is ridiculous and childish. "Giraffes got their long necks because there were not enough food at lower places".

[@saadfadel924]

ı hope this gets to deluded atheists as much as possible,

[@waitingandwatching9328]

In the beginning God created. ...AMEN

[@tdtexas1934]

Why can't you just accept the science of evolution instead of just making things up.

[@masacatior]

Survival and reproduction is the guidance...

[@Now_Time_For_Science]

Your argument for a mouse trap is flawed. We didn't just come up with a mouse trap ourselves. Pretty much all of the constituent elements were invented separate from the creation of a mouse trap, and were then combined into that simple machine. As a result you are basically arguing that spontaneous generation of a mouse trap is a thing, like we had none of the parts for making one, then just created one with no prior knowledge. Look, evolution is a very well proven and accepted theory. I'm sorry it doesn't conform with your faith and it's preconceived notions. Unfortunately these ideas were founded on a hypothesis from ignorance about Biology, in a time where we didn't even know what made up life. Now we know better, and have invested huge amounts of time in to researching the natural world. The same cannot be said of your faiths original hypothesis, and as a result it has to be discounted as a viable explanation of the biological world until you provide at least as much evidence as is available for our current theory of evolution. Until then your argument is null and void, just like your example of a mouse trap.

[@brucetutty9984]

I feel safer already knowing you are all home furious typing. I think that's a great use of your time and efforts. Thank you for showing consideration for the rest of the human race.

[@DWinegarden2]

Not very many people are “Darwinists” these days, Darwin wrote in the 1800’s. There have been many, many developments in science since Darwin proposed some of the principles setting out the Evolution of life. Likewise, this “scientist’s” arguments are from the 1800’s and the discussion surrounding religion and the accuracy of the bible as a basis for science is outdated. Why not just admit the bible was written in an ancient time, in the context of archaic cultures, that most of the bible has no pertinence for today’s society and move on?

[@johnsmit5999]

1963 Stragocaster, The Bible is not primarily a science book, but has the purpose of revealing the person of Jesus Christ who saves everyone who repents and receives Him. The Bible contains many transcendent truths that apply as well today as the day it was written. Proverbs is a good example of this. I have never heard Behe refer to Scripture when describing intelligent design but I do believe he is a Catholic. His intuition that variation extends up to the Family level of classification corresponds well with the Biblical kind of Genesis. Noah only needed about 7000 animals on the ark to repopulate the earth with the pertinent kinds.

[@MrStaano]

Oh.... somebody must have designed this...... how do you know its even possible for something to exist that has this super intelligence ?? Just because you think something "looks" designed. A superhero must exist that dreamed all this up. No. Its 2019. Evolution happened. Dont waste our time. hahahah !!!

[@johnsmit5999]

I agree with you that evolution has happened, but how would you go about proving that a trait or feature is the result of natural laws and not intelligent design?

[@lioneye108]

I think this guy is Darwin reincarnated

[@Jamaal4Jesus]

Evolution = a fairy tale for grown-ups.

[@ericbrufatto5371]

Given enough time...

[@gamecinema4801]

Objective pearls of wisdom against obsolete (19 century) evolution theory and evolution "believers"

[@davesundra]

Yes yes yess We know Jesus was real 😂👌🏻👏🏻🤦‍♂️......

[@3ron]

Perfect example of willful ignorance.

[@harunrasid2094]

This is what atheists believe in..they wud rather believe atoms talk to each othr and decide to create a wonderful complex universe wth its contents, than an infinte God wth infinite wisdom and power who created ething including the DNA program of living things

[@bartleon]

The Bible says: "19 because that which is known about God is evident within them; for God made it evident to them. 20 For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made" John 14: 21 He who has My commandments and keeps them is the one who loves Me; and he who loves Me will be loved by My Father, and I will love him and will disclose Myself to him.” 22 Judas (not Iscariot) *said to Him, “Lord, what then has happened that You are going to disclose Yourself to us and not to the world?” 23 Jesus answered and said to him, “If anyone loves Me, he will keep My word; and My Father will love him, and We will come to him and make Our abode with him. 24 He who does not love Me does not keep My words; and the word which you hear is not Mine, but the Father’s who sent Me. John 6: 44 No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him; and I will raise him up on the last day. John 6: 65 And He was saying, “For this reason I have said to you, that no one can come to Me unless it has been granted him from the Father.” Ephesians 2: 8 For by grace you have been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God; 9 not as a result of works, so that no one may boast. 10 For we are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand so that we would walk in them. James 4: 6 But He gives a greater grace. Therefore it says, “God is opposed to the proud, but gives grace to the humble.” John 8: 12 Then Jesus again spoke to them, saying, “I am the Light of the world; he who follows Me will not walk in the darkness, but will have the Light of life.” Luke 24: 44 Now He (Jesus) said to them, “These are My words which I spoke to you while I was still with you, that all things which are written about Me in the Law of Moses and the Prophets and the Psalms must be fulfilled.” 45 Then He opened their minds to understand the Scriptures, 46 and He said to them, “Thus it is written, that the Christ would suffer and rise again from the dead the third day, 47 and that repentance for forgiveness of sins would be proclaimed in His name to all the nations, beginning from Jerusalem. 48 You are witnesses of these things. 49 And behold, I am sending forth the promise of My Father upon you; but you are to stay in the city until you are clothed with power from on high.” (I) The Law of Moses, the Prophets, the Psalms, these Scriptures also have those who do not accept Jesus as the Christ (Jews). So Jesus and His followers could not have forged (what is the ricght word? falsified, corrupt?) this to make this Bibletexte come true, because then there should be a difference between the Old Covenant of those who accepted Him and the Old Covenant of those who did not accept Jesus as the Christ ( Jews). And this is not the case. This is the difference between the Jewish Bible (Old Covenant) and the Bible of the believers in Jesus (Old and New Covenant). The Old Covenant are the same Scriptures. I want to believe in Jesus, though my mind is not open to see this and to understand what this text said. So if Jesus and His followers falsified the Law of Moses, the Prophets, the Psalms in the Old Covenant to make this come true, then we should now have a different Old Covenant than the Jews who don't believe in Jesus. And this is not the case. As for the Old Covenant, we have the same Scriptures as the Jews, only we have the New Covenant also. John 5: 39 You search the Scriptures because you think that in them you have eternal life; it is these that testify about Me (Jesus); 40 and you are unwilling to come to Me so that you may have life. 41 I do not receive glory from men; 42 but I know you, that you do not have the love of God in yourselves. 43 I have come in My Father’s name, and you do not receive Me; if another comes in his own name, you will receive him. 44 How can you believe, when you receive glory (or honor or fame) from one another and you do not seek the glory (or honor or fame) that is from the one and only God? 45 Do not think that I will accuse you before the Father; the one who accuses you is Moses, in whom you have set your hope. 46 For if you believed Moses, you would believe Me, for he wrote about Me. 47 But if you do not believe his writings, how will you believe My words?” Where can one start reading the Bible? John (4th Scripture of the New Testament) and/or Acts of the Apostles (5th Scripture of the New Testament) and in between you can read the first letter to the Thessalonians (New Testament). Romans 2: 6 who will render to each person according to his deeds: 7 to those who by perseverance in doing good seek for glory and honor and immortality, eternal life; 8 but to those who are selfishly ambitious and do not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness, wrath and indignation. 9 There will be tribulation and distress for every soul of man who does evil, of the Jew first and also of the Greek, 10 but glory and honor and peace to everyone who does good, to the Jew first and also to the Greek. 11 For there is no partiality with God. 12 For all who have sinned without the Law will also perish without the Law, and all who have sinned under the Law will be judged by the Law; 13 for it is not the hearers of the Law who are just before God, but the doers of the Law will be justified. 14 For when Gentiles who do not have the Law do instinctively the things of the Law, these, not having the Law, are a law to themselves, 15 in that they show the work of the Law written in their hearts, their conscience bearing witness and their thoughts alternately accusing or else defending them, 16 on the day when, according to my gospel, God will judge the secrets of men through Christ Jesus.

[@IndiasTopTen]

Im surprised how in so many instances eg tv programmes, lectures , casual conversations etc, people use the word evolution as if it is a fact like gravity.they say things like “ look at these 3 year olds , they have learned to use their thumbs to push the button because of evolution “🥺 . Such people conveniently bypass that evolution was just a theory proposed by Darwin. It is not a proven fact. Thousands of theories” float around about all sorts of topics. It doesn’t mean they are taken as facts.

[@tonyisnotdead]

it is a proven fact as much as a theory within science can be considered a proven fact. it's not proven since science doesn't prove things, science accepts the best supported explanations

[@yingyang1008]

Is it possible that evolution is true, but that the mechanism (random mutation) is false? Perhaps life itself is somehow conscious and adapts to changing conditions in a way that we are light years away from understanding Perhaps Lamarck wasn't so much of a nut job after all

[@johnzielinski9951]

Design is always a matter of faith, not of science, regardless of where you choose to interject it in taxonomy, and regardless of the simplicity or complexity of a specific structure. Science actually has nothing to say about whether the universe is intelligently designed. There is no way to prove or disprove such an hypothesis. You're not going find God in a microscope or telescope unless you already believe He's there.

[@johnsmit5999]

Design plays an important role in forensic science as well as SETI's search of extraterrestrial life. The same principles can be applied in the field of biochemistry.

[@shahid8545]

Science should and is supposed to bring you closer to God.. not futher away. The problem is we have a band of people that chose what information hits the mainsteam and that there are so many other dominate opinions. A deep look at science proves intelligent design.

[@tonyisnotdead]

that's funny since science not only does not prove things, and god and anything related to him can not be obersved in nature, but also science actually explains away god with every single new discovery since with an explanation about something, there's no need to believe god is behind it. the only way to rationally believe in god today is to just say that god was the cause of every single natural phenomenon through the various properties and processes which they encompasses