Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn on the Danger of Forgetting God More than half a century ago, while I was still a child, I recall hearing a number of older people offer the following explanation for the great disasters that had befallen Russia: Men have forgotten God; that’s why all this has happened. Since then I have spent well-nigh fifty years working on the history of our [Russian] revolution. In the process I have read hundreds of books, collected hundreds of personal testimonies, and have already contributed eight volumes of my own toward the effort to clear away the rubble left by that upheaval. But if I were asked today to formulate as concisely as possible the main cause of the ruinous revolution that swallowed up some sixty-million people, I could not put it more accurately than to repeat: Men have forgotten God; that’s why all this has happened.
@@justsomeone953are you certain about that mmmm. It may not be so but its implications certainly apply. Do you think it is feasible that given enough time the atoms that make up all matter, including the copper, silicone plastic insulation could ever rearrange themselves into even the most simplist computer? You may be crazy enough to believe this is possible. I guess ALL things are possible but are they probsble or plausable. Where do you imagine all the information contained in the IF THEN type logical conditions that govern the incredibly complex and sophisticated functionality and organisational workings of the living cell (such as kinesin and dynein etc.) come from, mindless, blind, random material processes. If you believe that then I certainly think you have much more faith in your atheistic religion than a lot of creationists do in theirs!!!
Brilliant work Discovery Institute. I'm impressed by your resilience in face of the massive opposition. When the next generation has matured, evolution will be overturned as dogma--a reformation of sorts. Books will be written on your diligence and tenacity. You're heroes.
I think this clearly shows the insurmountable gap. For a religious person there is only dogma and nothing else. That's why the argument is always "scientists get everything from books." A religious person recognizes this as his worldview and only understands this. Other concepts such as providing evidence and even carrying out experiments do not take place in the head at all. This gap will “never” be closed. Likewise, someone with a scientific context cannot understand the dogmatic worldview. He will always ask for evidence and want to check it himself and will only ever see questioning faces on a religious person.
It is so ridiculous... Why can't we teach about the theory of evolution critically in schools? Why is it that supporters of intelligent design are objects of defamation etc.? It is because of the atheistic dogma of evolutionism...
I almost bypassed this video thinking it was going to say the same things I've heard before, but I was wrong. It was one of the best videos or shows I've seen this entire year from anywhere. Thank you for posting this excellent information. I did not know the court case was so skewed by a prejudicial judge. The supporting information was quite informative even for someone who has studied molecular cell biology.
The prejudice is intriguing. Must be a lot to lose by refuting Darwin...but why? Big jump, but try this excellent book for insight: Satan and his kingdom, by Dennis McCallum.
I hope the can keep up with the pace of science. Darwin died 1882. He did not even know about genes. There is so much stuff to explain from a religious point of view .... hope the can stop arguing about Darwin and come to our century.
I remember watching a silent video of ATP synthase simulation in the 5th grade. I was raised Muslim and began having serious doubts about religion since I tended to question everything, I felt shameful too. I also questioned evolution. The moment I watched that video I knew there is no possible way that any structure this complex could ever be brought by natural selection. ITS NANOMACHINES. WE ARE MADE OF NANOMACHINES (metaphorically we’re more complex than any nanomachines scientists can make today). Its extraordinary to think that not everyone find this fascinating or revolutionary. And it’s exactly why I’m so drawn to biology. I used to be really into engineering as a kid, but it got stale. Instead the human body is so complex that it never gets stale and that’s why I love learning about it.
If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down. But I can find no such case. Charles Darwin.
I wonder if any such case could even be constructed. Could humans build a biological structure not reachable by evolution? Like molecular machines? Could evolution ever create that? Could you prove evolution could never reach it? Hard but very interesting questions. Funny, James Tour is into molecular machines
Greek education has gradually embraced the Ape theory with enthusiasm. This is the third video of its kind, for which a group of friends has prepared Greek subtitles, in the hope many of our compatriots will snap out of this modern, disorienting Darwinian mythology.... My heartfelt congratulations to Michael Behe, Stephen Meyer and a few other enlightened souls !!!
Well the ape theory is correct because you can see the common descent in the DNA, and we share all the same genetics with the apes. The problem is that going from ape to human involves a particularly informational upward step and this video here shows that mutations (though they do produce new species), can only produce an informational downstep. In other words, the environment isn't enough of a mould to derive this information from, by simple selection pressures. The environment doesn't contain the information, so how could it be translated into the DNA in order to create a higher species (human) from ape?
So if you're religious, you still gotta believe in evolution because it definitely works. We have black people, brown people, yellow and white. Those are the results of evolution However, since it doesn't explain the upwards shift in information, which would involve the shift of millions of nucleotide base pairs in just the right way to create human from ape, you would then also have to believe that God intervened. He shaped and moulded humans from clay (origin of the first cell), and went through lots of different animal stages, until it gets to ape (possibly miraculously intervened a few times along the way). At that ape stage it's very close, and so then he has to miraculously interfere again to breathe life into Adam to make him become a human rather than an ape So you gotta believe that Adam would have had an ape mother, but no father. In effect, God was the father (although ofc not genetically, but in the sense of "we are all children of God"). So when it says "the word became flesh", it means God said "be" to Adam... and he was. So the word is "be", and it refers to Adam in that instance, not to Jesus (although both Adam and Jesus would have to have been created without a father and in both cases they were created better than if they had a father). And also remember that God says "I am that I am" when asked by Moses. And he was referred to by the jews as "He is". Like, Jesus's original name "Yehoshua" means "He is saves". So the Jews called him by the word "be" as well. He "is", because he always was, meaning he is uncreated, but creates other things such as the universe itself and life within it by his word "be!". That's what you religiously have to believe logically. Lol
@@marioluigi9599 Okay, which information is it you miss? Bigger brains? We are so smart .... or what else is it? Evolution can create very new proteins never used before by nature. Is that new "information" enough? I do not have to explain that new proteins can carry out new functions, right?
39:47 German scientist found out that the ID scientists are not religious fanatics pushing their own theocratic system. The next level of his is when he realizes that's exactly what Darwinists do.
21:37 - I hope this part answers Kenneth Miller and all the Darwinian fundamentalists who follow him. Miller's arguments and evidence against Intelligent Design is so shallow and unrealistic it's funny.
We haven't even begun to scratch the surface of complexity in all of it's manifestations. Someday Darwin will be a curious footnote in the history of human thought.
now that one bold and outlandish claim if I ever heard one! can you actually back up any of this nonsense with some sturdy and irrefutable evidence?! yes/no?!
catch up - very old science thought of nature being made up of little billiard balls and electromagnetic waves all milling around in "empty" space. No grad student would ever confess to thinking that today. There was NO TIME until what we now call the universe came into being. There was NO SPACE with dimensions either. NOTHING, NO THING That is what CREATE MEANS! Make, produce, manifest, manufacture, give rise to ... Let us know where the great roulette wheel was situated, what it was made of, if it had any wits, before spinning so often it accidentally made a universe which eventually had semi-intelligent beings like you on it.
I have written, or been responsible for, more than a million lines of code in my 35 year career as a SW Engineer. In all that time, *NOT ONCE* has a character error added new functionality or achieved anything beyond failure of the functionality of the software. Evolution of DNA is an unacceptable myth ... fantasy ...
Traditional sw is not squishy ... biology is very squishy which elegantly handles if not thrives on benefits of thermal noise... so are neutral networks ... do a deep dive into process of environment influencing cell unraveling histones to permit expression of DNA into protein synthesis
And still your system is not concious. Is it 78 gb software dedicated for one purpose to produce it self.. is it self reliant. Just assembles itself . You think it is few lines of code. It is software which you cannot fathom. Just like the distance between stars..
Lohnt das wirklich? In Deutschland gibt es kaum Creationisten. Der Kelch ist zum Glück an uns vorbeigezogen. Ich muss sogar gestehen, dass man in Deutschland zumindest allgemein Schlauer ist: Man mischt Religion und wissenschaftliche Dinge nicht. Man hält sich ganz bewusst raus. Viel zu schnell kommt man in Erklärungsnot, wenn es neue Entdeckungen gibt. Ich meine, dass ist ja genau was man hier sieht.
I have been saying and thinking over the last 15 years or so, much of what science is now is thought control, or thought leading. It takes on people with presuppositions and uses them to explain only more clearly what they already suppose instead of looking at something in a raw way and only explaining where it lead in an objective way. Great video.
You are aware that scientific results change all the time? So much stuff we learned the last 15 years. You might say "science is weak, they are never sure" but it is the greatest advantage: The scientific method lets you explore, learn new stuff and refine your knowledge about the world. You are able to use the internet today because there are people in the world not saying "it is thought control" but "let us try to find out and do it". I wish you all the best but be sure that you are using results of the scientific method all the time from food to medicine, transportation, communication almost all the technology is based on that - not a "god did it".
Look further. There is no solar system as taught in schools. Just a bunch of CGI planets that look nothing like the real things in the sky. Heliocentrism is just as fake as the theory of Evolution.
As of 1 February 2024, there are 5,606 confirmed exoplanets in 4,136 planetary systems ...and counting "logically laid out" .... mh ... not sure about that one :D. When an asteroid from the outer belt kills you are less sure about it too I assume. But yeah, humans will try to divert that thing and you will praise god to be alive. Strange. But I hope they will be successful.
Yup, I'm reminded " seek and you will find" and " all of this life's suffering is because of our lack of understanding" . I must say I believe St Francis understanding in that " what your looking for is what is looking ". This world and thing we call life is truly an amazing miracle. Yes, how anyone could not believe in a creator, is beyond me.
1) You have to explain where god comes from. If you say he was just there you could also cut him out of the equation and say "the universe was just there". 2) Life started out very very simple that is almost for sure by now. So we are talking about chemistry creating more stable molecules able to copy them self. The "miracle" is the complexity of todays cells but the took billions of years to evolve into such complexity. Plus and that is a big plus: You see all the stages of life still today. You see very very simple one celled organisms, you see more complex life in very distinct steps up to humans ...still, today. You can even compare there gens and you can see with our own eyes that all the life has some common ancestor. I wonder why Creationists go on the thin ice to explain the chemistry was not possible without a god. The will lose. Why not just take the easier route of "god made everything in such a way life could start". Even if we figure out how some quantum fluctuation created the universe and we could prove that multiple universes exist they could still say "yeah, but god is there to do something". We argue on the very detailed scientific level? By that the already acknowledge so much knowledge, the go do deep in.
When someone postulates life on another planet or evidence of such life from radio waves, water, etc. the mainstream scientific community gets all excited. When you say that our planetś life may have come from those intelligent sources their immediate denial and insistence that itś impossible is shocking and telling.
Been watching these for the last few days. This is the best summary as it shows the legal system interfering with thought. I used to use lasers to open blockages in the arteries below the knees so I wouldn't have to cut the leg off. Once in a while, all that technology was supplemented with a prayer, including mine.
Dr. Ken Miller, it was, if I recall correctly, the professor who walked into his class wearing part of a mousetrap (many parts removed) as a tie clip. He was attempting to debunk the concept of irreducible complexity. I might elaborate here by introducing another, related term "continuity of function." Or "functional discontinuity." I have coopted unrelated mechanical parts to serve different functions. But a lot of work is involved, especially for complex, integrated machines. A simple example could be using a nail a a hinge pin. It would work. But the nail must first be removed from the wood it's holding together, sized more or less correctly, and then placed correctly into the hinge with the point down so that the head holds it in place. The door hinge must remain correctly aligned during this process. Can one see that even this simple mechanical "jerry rig" is highly unlikely without an intelligent "coopter?" And what purpose would the hinge plates have served previously without the pin? Maybe they served as brackets to secure a wire? The plates would have to be positioned on the door, and in the frame, in the correct orientation, in order to function as a hinge. A machine is not just "irreducibly complex," but has "continuity of function." A gradualistic, Darwinian process must proceed along a continuous line of improving function to even have a chance at being probable.
This gut truly had a innovative concept to change ideas in biology. Now its still that evolutionism never proved itself and especxially against biblical creationism. yet within the tiny circles that seriously study/think about origins and mechanisms of biology then Irreducible complexity is a profound criticism, deadly, to old time darwinism. This man will always be seen as a important man of science. Opponents are just the bad/dumb guys in the story.
"Great are the works of the Lord ; they are pondered by all who delight in them." Psalm 111:2 How can you get stuck to a mindless process theory only, and not wonder when you see these marvelous things.
Excellent at last I have a scientific hero supporting what I've believed. Scientifically and mathematically I knew Darwinism to be off . It's impossible for purpose and order to come from chaos and randomness, it's just beyond numbers of improbability. This has uplifted my core and belief in science and mankind's potential to grasp at the intelligent designers wonderous world I so wish I had better conception in mathematical calculations as I know there lies many hidden answers. Thank you for your work and endeavors to come
Okay, so now that atheism is disproved we have only the option between deism and religious theism. Either our cosmos was created with purpose by a caring God, or it is just an art project. Either way the common person should be seeking actual religious truth, because now that we know the existence of a creator one should seek to know him. I present to you, the dilemma of Jesus: It was clear that he claimed to be the one and only son of God, and he did so even with the possibility of a shameful and excruciatingly painful death, which he did suffer in the end. This presents three possibilities: 1: He was actually the son of God 2: He was a madman and a lunatic 3: He was some kind of demon The disciples hold firm a humanly considered irrational belief that Jesus rose from the dead that they preached with intense passion, even into a death in martyrdom. The conversion of Saul - a believing Judaic pharisee that formerly persecuted and killed christians - is also widely historically confirmed. Both of these historical facts are inexplicable from the naturalist or deist worldviews, and the resurrection, as the best explanation, serves a divine vindication of the sayings of Jesus Christ. No other religion is as historically and scientifically accurate as Christianity! That's why I think that Christianity is true. Wider study of this argument can be found in the links below: (in order below) ua-cam.com/video/sSQDov6NNp0/v-deo.html ua-cam.com/video/hKRRLpuGiQg/v-deo.html ua-cam.com/video/6SbJ4p6WiZE/v-deo.html www.reasonablefaith.org/ ROMANS 1:20 "For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities-his eternal power and divine nature-have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse."
Most that argue for design aren't doing so believing that space aliens are the designer. No, it is a God v man mental struggle. The vast majority of people on this planet will not tolerate the notion of God holding the pink slip to their very soul. Willful blindness is a very powerful motivator and should not be overlooked. Intelligent Design isn't an argument that can ever be the popular viewpoint of academia, simply because most arguing against it have a worldview that wont allow it. Period. It will never be treated fairly and given an honest hearing by those that need it to not be true. The vast majority can't be swayed, they can't be convinced. Nothing will get through the concrete barrier of denial. Sin is always going to be more important to the vast majority than a worldview that calls for accountability and repentance.
Wow, you have encapsulated the problem of science denial pretty well - refusal to accept reality because it doesn't jive with one's worldview - but you mixed up which side is so willfully ignorant and woefully blind.
Do some disciplined thinking. Behe as a scientist working as a scientist was not convinced that the claims of unguided development and changes from one sort of organism by chance events and selection of the fittest novelty to another was supported by ever increasing scientific discoveries. Just as atheists jumped on Darwin's guess to seek to claim that there is no need for the hypothesis of a creator god, modern honest scientists receive the modern science as revealing that all biological life forms are so complex in design, assembly and reproduction and so different each one from the other that the only viable idea to understand their origins is through the medium of an intelligent designer. Flagellum is a factual structure examined by actual science, there are photos. The genes for the manufacture of the flagellum was examined by actual science. They are in published, peer-reviewed scientific journals. Atheists vote for space aliens, Christians vote for an already familiar Creator and many honestly suspend judgement - idiots and the wicked stick to the old discredited Darwin.
I remember reading about Darwin's brilliant deduction when he came across a flower that had a really long stem. He said that a butterfly must exist that has evolved with a long enough proboscis to reach the nectar in that flower and ensure its pollination. He was right and it was a brilliant deduction. That flower that evolved with an extra long stem must have had a really strong faith in Darwin's theory of evolution. My question is, how did the flower pollinate while waiting for this butterfly to evolve.
It's a co-evolution, they both grow simultaneously, flowers with longer stem were selected because it's a better protection, and that change became the pressure to select insect with the longest proboscis at each generation. Think in long periods of time.
@@aurelo54Do you mean the longer the time period the more the chances are that everything came from nothing , then designed itself , then gave itself life and here we are ? What’ll be around in gazillions o years I wonder ?
I don't think of the Intelligent Design movement as having been inspired originally by Behe, but rather by Michael Denton whose book 'Darwinism: A Theory in Crisis' inspired Behe himself to look into the intelligent design issue. It is a great shame therefore that Denton has been sidelined in this movie. But if you are interested, there's plenty of Denton material on UA-cam and he has published several important subsequent books including 'Darwinism: A Theory Still in Crisis'. There is a single statement I find most impressive, but which was not once uttered in this movie: "There is no evidence anywhere of complex structured information ever having invented itself".
Ben Sheppard -AO fitness ministry You mean the design of the one true God. Trinity is false. Until Christianity disabuses itself of orthodox philosophical speculations and erroneous creeds and actually lives up to Sola Scriptura it will not capture modern minds.
The Judge Jones on Kitzmiller/Dover was seriously out of line. The hearing was on whether ID could be taught as a theory. Jones basically declared it wasn't science and all the arguments presented ARE SCIENTIFIC discussions! All the rest of his declarations were political activism which should have resulted in his loosing his position as judge. I have seen this often. It is a serious flaw of our legal system.
I have been an atheist for as long as I can remember but I am just glad that I didn't end up like some of these Darwinian nut jobs who seem to be aggressively rejecting any information that might challenge their cherished beliefs.
Love this evidence. Wish they had expounded more on the ion drive of the rotor itself. The energy required and the impulses whether to select forward or reverse rotation. Many, many more challenges to this micro machine being randomly selected.
Well done Behe. Well done. Atheism is defeated. You will stand before the Creator on the day of Judgement just like all the Prophets and Messengers have truthfully said so.
At that time Jesus said, "I praise you, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because you have hidden these things from the wise and learned, and revealed them to little children. Matthew 11:25
Beautiful compilation. I think Behe should be credited for all of this. I had come in touch to ID by watching the ID on trial and when I had seen the flagella motor in their documentary I knew it is tough for such structures to evolve and also the Type 3 secretion system evolving into a Motor was too far off to be real . And it looked more like a word jugglery to make it look real. It was not a scientific explanation. Later on I digged more into ID and watched lectures by Stephen and Behe and was completely convinced about two things a) That Flagella challenge was never properly addressed by the evolutionists and b) There are strong signs of intelligence in creation of such systems. Looking forward to more such wonderful videos.
We have had fairy tales told and re-told over centuries. But we know they are stories which teach some morals or are purely for entertainment. Do we have modern fairy tales? Yes. As nothing assembles itself even if all the parts are in the vicinity without direction and actions. If you got out all the ingredients to make a sandwich, and you got called away as the doorbell rang, when you went back into the kitchen, would you assume that the sandwich evolved or that someone in your family did you a kindness? All the supposed micro changes, accumulating over time, all by chance, and this is how your brain came to be. So if your brain which thinks is itself came to be by an irrational process, then can you trust what you think?
Thank GOD for You Michael BEHE. Your work and discovery in your own life has been an important defense of a Creator GOD designing our Universe. Forgive us for not properly Supporting You and Your Discoveries and Promoting your work and Conclusions which are self-evident and lead us to GOD and JESUS. The Christian Congregations and Denominations have much to be ashamed for not Promoting your efforts.
Interesting article by Yale computer science professor David Gelernter in the Claremont Review of Books. "Giving Up Darwin" Based on new evidence and knowledge functioning proteins are extremely rare. www.claremont.org/crb/article/giving-up-darwin/ "Darwinism is no longer just a scientific theory but the basis of a worldview, and an emergency replacement religion for the many troubled souls who need one." "But those predecessors of the Cambrian creatures are missing." "The obvious fact is that genes, in storing blueprints for the proteins that form the basis of cellular life, encode an awe-inspiring amount of information. You don’t turn up a useful protein merely by doodling on the back of an envelope, any more than you write a Mozart aria by assembling three sheets of staff paper and scattering notes around. Profound biochemical knowledge is somehow, in some sense, captured in every description of a working protein. Where on earth did it all come from? Neo-Darwinianism says that nature simply rolls the dice, and if something useful emerges, great. Otherwise, try again. But useful sequences are so gigantically rare that this answer simply won’t work." "If you tinker with a valid gene, you will almost certainly make it worse-to the point where its protein misfires and endangers (or kills) its organism-long before you start making it better."
In time to come scientist with even more complex discoveries may finally conclude to put this very popular theory of evolution of natural selection to rest .
“The most essential prediction of Darwinism is that, given an astronomical number of chances, unintelligent processes can make seemingly-designed systems, ones of the complexity of those found in the cell. ID specifically denies this, predicting that in the absence of intelligent input no such systems would develop. So Darwinism and ID make clear, opposite predictions of what we should find when we examine genetic results from a stupendous number of organisms that are under relentless pressure from natural selection. The recent genetic results are a stringent test. The results: 1) Darwinism’s prediction is falsified; 2) Design’s prediction is confirmed.” ― Michael J. Behe
I don't profess to know how the flagellar motor came to be. It truly is remarkable. But, I do have some questions. 1) If Darwin was completely wrong, explain why DNA contains encoding for genes that are not expressed today? 2) Why would an almighty being include those genes? Or, is it more likely that they are archaic vestigial remnants of the being we once were? 3) Why is it that congenital abnormalities are so prevalent across all of life? Did the almighty designer get it wrong in every single life form he created... intelligently? I welcome reasonable answers to these questions. But, I don't expect any. Until I do get some, I'll continue to disregard the nonsense about an intelligent designer.
Can someone explain to me why scientists oppose this so much? And not from a religious perspective but from a scientific one, why dont they want to even look into these possibilities?
I'm so glad this video didn't push a "God must be behind this" angle. The work on ID must stand on it's own as hard science without any hint of religious overtone or agenda. I've seen a few videos on ID and as soon as they bring in God, all I think is "well there goes another missed opportunity for an atheist to start questioning their stance". People need to be invited to see what's been discovered and be allowed to digest the information for themselves.
It's fascinating how complex these molecular machines are with so many different types and specific purpose's. Many of our motors designed by engineers are similar in that we have to design , manufacturer and assemble them before their of any use. How could random nothingness foresee the need for a flagellum motor sometime time in the future , start designing the parts and when the design is complete , give the factory ( the code) and have them create all these individual motor parts and then assemble them with (complete randomness , chance , nothingness or evolution) into an actual motor. This randomness , chance or nothingness had to have the foresight to look thousands or possible millions of years ahead and recognize this need or purpose unless it had some unscientific non-purpose , but that goes against the little steps that evolution purpose's it accomplishes with each tiny mutation. The speculation by evolutionists that there was some prior use of some of these parts has no evidence to support it. It's incredulous that anyone could think that chance could design a real motor and quite possible 100% efficient.
I am being honest here. I tried to read the origins of the species by Darwin... it was painful. With the relative lack of knowledge in his day, he reached a plausible conclusion. Since then, the explosion of knowledge ( for me the favourite is the discovery of DNA) should have allowed the prompt expulsion of the evolutionary theory. I literally get a headache trying to figure out how glycolysis evolved, and fortunately happened to be a major energy source for cells. What environment exactly would have gradually selected for, not only the order in which glucose is broken down but also the molecules that randomly happened to be passing by to collect hydrogen ions? Or the enzymes which catalyse the reaction ( oh yeah and the DNA that codes for these enzymes, and the magical, not, assembly of proteins that facilitate protein synthesis, oh and the DNA that codes for those proteins ...) Isn’t it great that they also happened to be drawn to mitochondria which happened to... I just can’t. What really upsets me is when people talk about how purposeful and specialised everything is as if they subconsciously know that it is there for a specific preordained reason, but then are affronted by the question of intelligence playing a part!
I believe that life is a unidentified intelligent force found through out the universe. It is a force that by intelligent design seeks a niche and will find one in any environment. I believe that evolution can happen in certain situations where there is an unused or available niche. My problem with evolution as a starting point is how does a complex organism feed itself during the long process that would lead to it's eventual evolution into a viable life form.
Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn on the Danger of Forgetting God
More than half a century ago, while I was still a child, I recall hearing a number of older people offer the following explanation for the great disasters that had befallen Russia: Men have forgotten God; that’s why all this has happened.
Since then I have spent well-nigh fifty years working on the history of our [Russian] revolution. In the process I have read hundreds of books, collected hundreds of personal testimonies, and have already contributed eight volumes of my own toward the effort to clear away the rubble left by that upheaval.
But if I were asked today to formulate as concisely as possible the main cause of the ruinous revolution that swallowed up some sixty-million people, I could not put it more accurately than to repeat: Men have forgotten God; that’s why all this has happened.
I would love to help promote this on my channel. Behe actually inspired me to go into molecular biology. I now have two biotech degrees.
This is valuable feedback. Even the “worst” can still somehow lead to something good.
Wish you all the best.
@20:56
« Intelligent Design is not science...»
Well, I feel sorry for the guys who made my computer...
You are aware that "intelligent design" does not refer to the design of a computer at all?
Hope it was a joke ^^ But you can never know ....
@@justsomeone953are you certain about that mmmm. It may not be so but its implications certainly apply. Do you think it is feasible that given enough time the atoms that make up all matter, including the copper, silicone plastic insulation could ever rearrange themselves into even the most simplist computer? You may be crazy enough to believe this is possible. I guess ALL things are possible but are they probsble or plausable.
Where do you imagine all the information contained in the IF THEN type logical conditions that govern the incredibly complex and sophisticated functionality and organisational workings of the living cell (such as kinesin and dynein etc.) come from, mindless, blind, random material processes. If you believe that then I certainly think you have much more faith in your atheistic religion than a lot of creationists do in theirs!!!
Darwin has convinced me that intelligent design exist
Brilliant work Discovery Institute. I'm impressed by your resilience in face of the massive opposition. When the next generation has matured, evolution will be overturned as dogma--a reformation of sorts. Books will be written on your diligence and tenacity. You're heroes.
Max Planck came to believe that changes in scientific understanding come to be accepted 'only one funeral at a time' ! I reckon that is true.
I think this clearly shows the insurmountable gap.
For a religious person there is only dogma and nothing else.
That's why the argument is always "scientists get everything from books."
A religious person recognizes this as his worldview and only understands this. Other concepts such as providing evidence and even carrying out experiments do not take place in the head at all.
This gap will “never” be closed.
Likewise, someone with a scientific context cannot understand the dogmatic worldview. He will always ask for evidence and want to check it himself and will only ever see questioning faces on a religious person.
@@1946kp wow profound and true when one thinks about it
Richard Dawkins wants us to climb Mount Probability.
It's actually Mount Improbability and goes nowhere.
It is so ridiculous... Why can't we teach about the theory of evolution critically in schools? Why is it that supporters of intelligent design are objects of defamation etc.? It is because of the atheistic dogma of evolutionism...
Behe is da man no matter how you look at the issue.
I almost bypassed this video thinking it was going to say the same things I've heard before, but I was wrong. It was one of the best videos or shows I've seen this entire year from anywhere. Thank you for posting this excellent information. I did not know the court case was so skewed by a prejudicial judge. The supporting information was quite informative even for someone who has studied molecular cell biology.
The prejudice is intriguing. Must be a lot to lose by refuting Darwin...but why?
Big jump, but try this excellent book for insight: Satan and his kingdom, by Dennis McCallum.
Excellent, Dr. Behe! Darwin's Black Box was the first book I read about Intelligent Design and it completely changed my perspective of life.
I hope the can keep up with the pace of science. Darwin died 1882. He did not even know about genes.
There is so much stuff to explain from a religious point of view .... hope the can stop arguing about Darwin and come to our century.
I remember watching a silent video of ATP synthase simulation in the 5th grade. I was raised Muslim and began having serious doubts about religion since I tended to question everything, I felt shameful too. I also questioned evolution. The moment I watched that video I knew there is no possible way that any structure this complex could ever be brought by natural selection. ITS NANOMACHINES. WE ARE MADE OF NANOMACHINES (metaphorically we’re more complex than any nanomachines scientists can make today). Its extraordinary to think that not everyone find this fascinating or revolutionary. And it’s exactly why I’m so drawn to biology.
I used to be really into engineering as a kid, but it got stale. Instead the human body is so complex that it never gets stale and that’s why I love learning about it.
Christ is waiting for you my friend
If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down. But I can find no such case.
Charles Darwin.
I wonder if any such case could even be constructed.
Could humans build a biological structure not reachable by evolution? Like molecular machines? Could evolution ever create that? Could you prove evolution could never reach it? Hard but very interesting questions.
Funny, James Tour is into molecular machines
Greek education has gradually embraced the Ape theory with enthusiasm. This is the third video of its kind, for which a group of friends has prepared Greek subtitles, in the hope many of our compatriots will snap out of this modern, disorienting Darwinian mythology.... My heartfelt congratulations to Michael Behe, Stephen Meyer and a few other enlightened souls !!!
Well the ape theory is correct because you can see the common descent in the DNA, and we share all the same genetics with the apes. The problem is that going from ape to human involves a particularly informational upward step and this video here shows that mutations (though they do produce new species), can only produce an informational downstep.
In other words, the environment isn't enough of a mould to derive this information from, by simple selection pressures. The environment doesn't contain the information, so how could it be translated into the DNA in order to create a higher species (human) from ape?
So if you're religious, you still gotta believe in evolution because it definitely works. We have black people, brown people, yellow and white. Those are the results of evolution
However, since it doesn't explain the upwards shift in information, which would involve the shift of millions of nucleotide base pairs in just the right way to create human from ape, you would then also have to believe that God intervened.
He shaped and moulded humans from clay (origin of the first cell), and went through lots of different animal stages, until it gets to ape (possibly miraculously intervened a few times along the way). At that ape stage it's very close, and so then he has to miraculously interfere again to breathe life into Adam to make him become a human rather than an ape
So you gotta believe that Adam would have had an ape mother, but no father. In effect, God was the father (although ofc not genetically, but in the sense of "we are all children of God"). So when it says "the word became flesh", it means God said "be" to Adam... and he was. So the word is "be", and it refers to Adam in that instance, not to Jesus (although both Adam and Jesus would have to have been created without a father and in both cases they were created better than if they had a father).
And also remember that God says "I am that I am" when asked by Moses. And he was referred to by the jews as "He is". Like, Jesus's original name "Yehoshua" means "He is saves". So the Jews called him by the word "be" as well. He "is", because he always was, meaning he is uncreated, but creates other things such as the universe itself and life within it by his word "be!". That's what you religiously have to believe logically. Lol
@@marioluigi9599 Okay, which information is it you miss?
Bigger brains?
We are so smart .... or what else is it?
Evolution can create very new proteins never used before by nature. Is that new "information" enough? I do not have to explain that new proteins can carry out new functions, right?
39:47 German scientist found out that the ID scientists are not religious fanatics pushing their own theocratic system. The next level of his is when he realizes that's exactly what Darwinists do.
Wow, I love this video . It just opened my eyes
21:37 - I hope this part answers Kenneth Miller and all the Darwinian fundamentalists who follow him. Miller's arguments and evidence against Intelligent Design is so shallow and unrealistic it's funny.
darwinism is not science
it's political double-speak
Met a friend today. He said that the more he sees about the complexity, the beauty of creation, the more he believes in the Creator.
We haven't even begun to scratch the surface of complexity in all of it's manifestations. Someday Darwin will be a curious footnote in the history of human thought.
Remember everyone! Out of nothing, nothing comes!
Where did the purposed energy from before the big bang that Theoretically caused it come from?
Except God, amirite? He's magic! He poofed everything from nothing.
HAHAHAHAHA
No he has always been, This is his Mind we are in, in a way. Without God they're is no Space. Without God the Universe wouldnt exist.
now that one bold and outlandish claim if I ever heard one! can you actually back up any of this nonsense with some sturdy and irrefutable evidence?! yes/no?!
catch up - very old science thought of nature being made up of little billiard balls and electromagnetic waves all milling around in "empty" space.
No grad student would ever confess to thinking that today.
There was NO TIME until what we now call the universe came into being.
There was NO SPACE with dimensions either. NOTHING, NO THING
That is what CREATE MEANS! Make, produce, manifest, manufacture, give rise to ...
Let us know where the great roulette wheel was situated, what it was made of, if it had any wits, before spinning so often it accidentally made a universe which eventually had semi-intelligent beings like you on it.
I have written, or been responsible for, more than a million lines of code in my 35 year career as a SW Engineer. In all that time, *NOT ONCE* has a character error added new functionality or achieved anything beyond failure of the functionality of the software. Evolution of DNA is an unacceptable myth ... fantasy ...
Imagine a million individuals like you, given a million year...
Traditional sw is not squishy ... biology is very squishy which elegantly handles if not thrives on benefits of thermal noise... so are neutral networks ... do a deep dive into process of environment influencing cell unraveling histones to permit expression of DNA into protein synthesis
And still your system is not concious.
Is it 78 gb software dedicated for one purpose to produce it self.. is it self reliant. Just assembles itself . You think it is few lines of code. It is software which you cannot fathom. Just like the distance between stars..
Scientists are the new Inquisitors trying to defend the darwinism worldview.
It comes down to worldview, belief and faith. Darwinism is a faith
could somebody with a heart of a lion translate this beautiful video for my german people?
Lohnt das wirklich? In Deutschland gibt es kaum Creationisten. Der Kelch ist zum Glück an uns vorbeigezogen.
Ich muss sogar gestehen, dass man in Deutschland zumindest allgemein Schlauer ist: Man mischt Religion und wissenschaftliche Dinge nicht. Man hält sich ganz bewusst raus.
Viel zu schnell kommt man in Erklärungsnot, wenn es neue Entdeckungen gibt. Ich meine, dass ist ja genau was man hier sieht.
I have deep respect for people, such as Behe and Bechly, who decided to find the truth, and believed it when they found it.
I saw those 999 likes become 1K. I liked this video. I like creation.
I have been saying and thinking over the last 15 years or so, much of what science is now is thought control, or thought leading. It takes on people with presuppositions and uses them to explain only more clearly what they already suppose instead of looking at something in a raw way and only explaining where it lead in an objective way. Great video.
You are aware that scientific results change all the time? So much stuff we learned the last 15 years.
You might say "science is weak, they are never sure" but it is the greatest advantage: The scientific method lets you explore, learn new stuff and refine your knowledge about the world.
You are able to use the internet today because there are people in the world not saying "it is thought control" but "let us try to find out and do it".
I wish you all the best but be sure that you are using results of the scientific method all the time from food to medicine, transportation, communication almost all the technology is based on that - not a "god did it".
Btw, Stephen Meyer’s book, “Darwin’s Doubt”, provides an even more compelling case for intelligent design than Behe’s!
Turns out that nothing requires more faith than Atheism.
And now we are looking into the cosmos and discovering our logically laid out solar system is like no other. We are a miracle surrounded by miracles.
Look further. There is no solar system as taught in schools. Just a bunch of CGI planets that look nothing like the real things in the sky. Heliocentrism is just as fake as the theory of Evolution.
As of 1 February 2024, there are 5,606 confirmed exoplanets in 4,136 planetary systems
...and counting
"logically laid out" .... mh ... not sure about that one :D. When an asteroid from the outer belt kills you are less sure about it too I assume.
But yeah, humans will try to divert that thing and you will praise god to be alive. Strange. But I hope they will be successful.
Yup, I'm reminded " seek and you will find" and " all of this life's suffering is because of our lack of understanding" . I must say I believe St Francis understanding in that " what your looking for is what is looking ".
This world and thing we call life is truly an amazing miracle. Yes, how anyone could not believe in a creator, is beyond me.
1) You have to explain where god comes from. If you say he was just there you could also cut him out of the equation and say "the universe was just there".
2) Life started out very very simple that is almost for sure by now. So we are talking about chemistry creating more stable molecules able to copy them self. The "miracle" is the complexity of todays cells but the took billions of years to evolve into such complexity. Plus and that is a big plus: You see all the stages of life still today. You see very very simple one celled organisms, you see more complex life in very distinct steps up to humans ...still, today.
You can even compare there gens and you can see with our own eyes that all the life has some common ancestor.
I wonder why Creationists go on the thin ice to explain the chemistry was not possible without a god. The will lose. Why not just take the easier route of "god made everything in such a way life could start".
Even if we figure out how some quantum fluctuation created the universe and we could prove that multiple universes exist they could still say "yeah, but god is there to do something".
We argue on the very detailed scientific level? By that the already acknowledge so much knowledge, the go do deep in.
Amen! Intelligent Design or ID is God's ID (Identification) for mankind.
When someone postulates life on another planet or evidence of such life from radio waves, water, etc. the mainstream scientific community gets all excited. When you say that our planetś life may have come from those intelligent sources their immediate denial and insistence that itś impossible is shocking and telling.
Irreducibly complex systems. Purposeful/Functional Arrangement of Parts. Great discussion.
Been watching these for the last few days. This is the best summary as it shows the legal system interfering with thought. I used to use lasers to open blockages in the arteries below the knees so I wouldn't have to cut the leg off. Once in a while, all that technology was supplemented with a prayer, including mine.
great work, solid throughout
Dr. Ken Miller, it was, if I recall correctly, the professor who walked into his class wearing part of a mousetrap (many parts removed) as a tie clip. He was attempting to debunk the concept of irreducible complexity. I might elaborate here by introducing another, related term "continuity of function." Or "functional discontinuity." I have coopted unrelated mechanical parts to serve different functions. But a lot of work is involved, especially for complex, integrated machines. A simple example could be using a nail a a hinge pin. It would work. But the nail must first be removed from the wood it's holding together, sized more or less correctly, and then placed correctly into the hinge with the point down so that the head holds it in place. The door hinge must remain correctly aligned during this process. Can one see that even this simple mechanical "jerry rig" is highly unlikely without an intelligent "coopter?" And what purpose would the hinge plates have served previously without the pin? Maybe they served as brackets to secure a wire? The plates would have to be positioned on the door, and in the frame, in the correct orientation, in order to function as a hinge. A machine is not just "irreducibly complex," but has "continuity of function." A gradualistic, Darwinian process must proceed along a continuous line of improving function to even have a chance at being probable.
God bless Micheal Behe and his fellow colleagues for shedding light and truth on the myth of evolution. True logic and facts always win in the end.
Świetny materiał. Dzięki za waszą pracę.
The ultimate irreducible complexity - the first dividing cell.
This gut truly had a innovative concept to change ideas in biology.
Now its still that evolutionism never proved itself and especxially against biblical creationism.
yet within the tiny circles that seriously study/think about origins and mechanisms of biology then Irreducible complexity is a profound criticism, deadly, to old time darwinism.
This man will always be seen as a important man of science.
Opponents are just the bad/dumb guys in the story.
Why the distracting constant noise in the background?
"Great are the works of the Lord ; they are pondered by all who delight in them." Psalm 111:2
How can you get stuck to a mindless process theory only, and not wonder when you see these marvelous things.
The rotary engine bears resemblance to the flagellum motor. Not the other way around.
Excellent at last I have a scientific hero supporting what I've believed. Scientifically and mathematically I knew Darwinism to be off . It's impossible for purpose and order to come from chaos and randomness, it's just beyond numbers of improbability. This has uplifted my core and belief in science and mankind's potential to grasp at the intelligent designers wonderous world I so wish I had better conception in mathematical calculations as I know there lies many hidden answers. Thank you for your work and endeavors to come
Okay, so now that atheism is disproved we have only the option between deism and religious theism. Either our cosmos was created with purpose by a caring God, or it is just an art project. Either way the common person should be seeking actual religious truth, because now that we know the existence of a creator one should seek to know him. I present to you, the dilemma of Jesus:
It was clear that he claimed to be the one and only son of God, and he did so even with the possibility of a shameful and excruciatingly painful death, which he did suffer in the end. This presents three possibilities:
1: He was actually the son of God
2: He was a madman and a lunatic
3: He was some kind of demon
The disciples hold firm a humanly considered irrational belief that Jesus rose from the dead that they preached with intense passion, even into a death in martyrdom. The conversion of Saul - a believing Judaic pharisee that formerly persecuted and killed christians - is also widely historically confirmed. Both of these historical facts are inexplicable from the naturalist or deist worldviews, and the resurrection, as the best explanation, serves a divine vindication of the sayings of Jesus Christ. No other religion is as historically and scientifically accurate as Christianity! That's why I think that Christianity is true.
Wider study of this argument can be found in the links below:
(in order below)
ua-cam.com/video/sSQDov6NNp0/v-deo.html
ua-cam.com/video/hKRRLpuGiQg/v-deo.html
ua-cam.com/video/6SbJ4p6WiZE/v-deo.html
www.reasonablefaith.org/
ROMANS 1:20
"For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities-his eternal power and divine nature-have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse."
Praise God on his perfect creation! Hallelujah!
God bless those scientist
Most that argue for design aren't doing so believing that space aliens are the designer. No, it is a God v man mental struggle. The vast majority of people on this planet will not tolerate the notion of God holding the pink slip to their very soul. Willful blindness is a very powerful motivator and should not be overlooked. Intelligent Design isn't an argument that can ever be the popular viewpoint of academia, simply because most arguing against it have a worldview that wont allow it. Period. It will never be treated fairly and given an honest hearing by those that need it to not be true. The vast majority can't be swayed, they can't be convinced. Nothing will get through the concrete barrier of denial. Sin is always going to be more important to the vast majority than a worldview that calls for accountability and repentance.
Wow, you have encapsulated the problem of science denial pretty well - refusal to accept reality because it doesn't jive with one's worldview - but you mixed up which side is so willfully ignorant and woefully blind.
"The pink slip to my soul". What an amazing way to put it. The rest of it was also on point. Well said Sir.
Do some disciplined thinking.
Behe as a scientist working as a scientist was not convinced that the claims of unguided development and changes from one sort of organism by chance events and selection of the fittest novelty to another was supported by ever increasing scientific discoveries.
Just as atheists jumped on Darwin's guess to seek to claim that there is no need for the hypothesis of a creator god, modern honest scientists receive the modern science as revealing that all biological life forms are so complex in design, assembly and reproduction and so different each one from the other that the only viable idea to understand their origins is through the medium of an intelligent designer.
Flagellum is a factual structure examined by actual science, there are photos.
The genes for the manufacture of the flagellum was examined by actual science. They are in published, peer-reviewed scientific journals.
Atheists vote for space aliens, Christians vote for an already familiar Creator and many honestly suspend judgement - idiots and the wicked stick to the old discredited Darwin.
Great documentary 👍keep going!!
Send them some money to support them plz.
God will be happy and they too
I love how it ends with the quote from Darwin :)
excellent video
I remember reading about Darwin's brilliant deduction when he came across a flower that had a really long stem. He said that a butterfly must exist that has evolved with a long enough proboscis to reach the nectar in that flower and ensure its pollination. He was right and it was a brilliant deduction.
That flower that evolved with an extra long stem must have had a really strong faith in Darwin's theory of evolution. My question is, how did the flower pollinate while waiting for this butterfly to evolve.
It's a co-evolution, they both grow simultaneously, flowers with longer stem were selected because it's a better protection, and that change became the pressure to select insect with the longest proboscis at each generation. Think in long periods of time.
@@aurelo54Do you mean the longer the time period the more the chances are that everything came from nothing , then designed itself , then gave itself life and here we are ?
What’ll be around in gazillions o years I wonder ?
Excellent, very well presented information. Thank you
I don't think of the Intelligent Design movement as having been inspired originally by Behe, but rather by Michael Denton whose book 'Darwinism: A Theory in Crisis' inspired Behe himself to look into the intelligent design issue. It is a great shame therefore that Denton has been sidelined in this movie. But if you are interested, there's plenty of Denton material on UA-cam and he has published several important subsequent books including 'Darwinism: A Theory Still in Crisis'. There is a single statement I find most impressive, but which was not once uttered in this movie: "There is no evidence anywhere of complex structured information ever having invented itself".
Can anyone tell me the music at 2:50?
audiojungle.net/item/in-the-moment-of-inspiration/1586348
Nature developed NOTHING! I never get tired of the astonishing design of Christ
Ben Sheppard -AO fitness ministry You mean the design of the one true God. Trinity is false. Until Christianity disabuses itself of orthodox philosophical speculations and erroneous creeds and actually lives up to Sola Scriptura it will not capture modern minds.
A whole new world.
The Judge Jones on Kitzmiller/Dover was seriously out of line. The hearing was on whether ID could be taught as a theory. Jones basically declared it wasn't science and all the arguments presented ARE SCIENTIFIC discussions! All the rest of his declarations were political activism which should have resulted in his loosing his position as judge. I have seen this often. It is a serious flaw of our legal system.
A lot of the comments seem to be recent ones.
Most interesting. The video has resurfaced.
What a man is what he thinks what's in his heart
This is a superb presentation.
If you say intelligent design they say its religion but if you say panspermia they say its science.
If Darwin had access to these amazing nano machines his theory would have been different.
I have been an atheist for as long as I can remember but I am just glad
that I didn't end up like some of these Darwinian nut jobs who seem to be aggressively rejecting any information that
might challenge their cherished beliefs.
Wonderful work! The day will come when humanity will bow it's head in shame for entertaining the notion that we evolved from apes.
Love this evidence. Wish they had expounded more on the ion drive of the rotor itself. The energy required and the impulses whether to select forward or reverse rotation.
Many, many more challenges to this micro machine being randomly selected.
The Irreducibilty complex argument is Logically tight and the Scientific observation of testing backs up the argument.
Beautiful Intelligence, the stuff we are all made of! God bless brother Behe, and all who bring us such wonderful visualizations of micro-reality.
Pls keep up this struggle. May Allah bless u all. Pls dnt get down. I really love ur work.
What if this "intelligent designer(s)" doesn't want to be known-
and has gone to great lengths to keep it that way-
Well done Behe. Well done. Atheism is defeated. You will stand before the Creator on the day of Judgement just like all the Prophets and Messengers have truthfully said so.
Intelligent design yes
100% intelligently designed. The questions are by who and how?
good thing he came out as an intelligent design proponent after he got tenure at lehigh.
Glory to God!!!!
At that time Jesus said, "I praise you, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because you have hidden these things from the wise and learned, and revealed them to little children. Matthew 11:25
Even people taking Darwinian evolution side seem to also take an intelligent design angle in their arguments, mostly without even knowing it.
Beautiful compilation. I think Behe should be credited for all of this.
I had come in touch to ID by watching the ID on trial and when I had seen the flagella motor in their documentary I knew it is tough for such structures to evolve and also the Type 3 secretion system evolving into a Motor was too far off to be real . And it looked more like a word jugglery to make it look real. It was not a scientific explanation. Later on I digged more into ID and watched lectures by Stephen and Behe and was completely convinced about two things a) That Flagella challenge was never properly addressed by the evolutionists and b) There are strong signs of intelligence in creation of such systems.
Looking forward to more such wonderful videos.
listeners should be given the option to play or silence the background music.
We have had fairy tales told and re-told over centuries. But we know they are stories which teach some morals or are purely for entertainment. Do we have modern fairy tales? Yes. As nothing assembles itself even if all the parts are in the vicinity without direction and actions. If you got out all the ingredients to make a sandwich, and you got called away as the doorbell rang, when you went back into the kitchen, would you assume that the sandwich evolved or that someone in your family did you a kindness?
All the supposed micro changes, accumulating over time, all by chance, and this is how your brain came to be. So if your brain which thinks is itself came to be by an irrational process, then can you trust what you think?
Information comes from an intelligent source. Nuff said!
Thank GOD for You Michael BEHE. Your work and discovery in your own life has been an important defense of a Creator GOD designing our Universe. Forgive us for not properly Supporting You and Your Discoveries and Promoting your work and Conclusions which are self-evident and lead us to GOD and JESUS. The Christian Congregations and Denominations have much to be ashamed for not Promoting your efforts.
Interesting article by Yale computer science professor David Gelernter in the Claremont Review of Books.
"Giving Up Darwin"
Based on new evidence and knowledge functioning proteins are extremely rare.
www.claremont.org/crb/article/giving-up-darwin/
"Darwinism is no longer just a scientific theory but the basis of a worldview, and an emergency replacement religion for the many troubled souls who need one."
"But those predecessors of the Cambrian creatures are missing."
"The obvious fact is that genes, in storing blueprints for the proteins that form the basis of cellular life, encode an awe-inspiring amount of information. You don’t turn up a useful protein merely by doodling on the back of an envelope, any more than you write a Mozart aria by assembling three sheets of staff paper and scattering notes around. Profound biochemical knowledge is somehow, in some sense, captured in every description of a working protein. Where on earth did it all come from?
Neo-Darwinianism says that nature simply rolls the dice, and if something useful emerges, great. Otherwise, try again. But useful sequences are so gigantically rare that this answer simply won’t work."
"If you tinker with a valid gene, you will almost certainly make it worse-to the point where its protein misfires and endangers (or kills) its organism-long before you start making it better."
How do i inquire as to how to book Dr. Behe for a lecture?
I find Behe's arguments persuasive.
So excited. I've been waiting for new Behe brilliance for a while now. Just need to get lunch and enjoy!
In time to come scientist with even more complex discoveries may finally conclude to put this very popular theory of evolution of natural selection to rest .
where does all of the information in biology come from? was it in the original cell that evolved from rocks, water, and electricity?
“The most essential prediction of Darwinism is that, given an astronomical number of chances, unintelligent processes can make seemingly-designed systems, ones of the complexity of those found in the cell.
ID specifically denies this, predicting that in the absence of intelligent input no such systems would develop.
So Darwinism and ID make clear, opposite predictions of what we should find when we examine genetic results from a stupendous number of organisms that are under relentless pressure from natural selection.
The recent genetic results are a stringent test. The results:
1) Darwinism’s prediction is falsified;
2) Design’s prediction is confirmed.”
― Michael J. Behe
I don't profess to know how the flagellar motor came to be. It truly is remarkable. But, I do have some questions. 1) If Darwin was completely wrong, explain why DNA contains encoding for genes that are not expressed today? 2) Why would an almighty being include those genes? Or, is it more likely that they are archaic vestigial remnants of the being we once were? 3) Why is it that congenital abnormalities are so prevalent across all of life? Did the almighty designer get it wrong in every single life form he created... intelligently? I welcome reasonable answers to these questions. But, I don't expect any. Until I do get some, I'll continue to disregard the nonsense about an intelligent designer.
Can't wait til all this passes away and the King settles all of this.
Fascinating video. This is real science.
Can someone explain to me why scientists oppose this so much? And not from a religious perspective but from a scientific one, why dont they want to even look into these possibilities?
I'm so glad this video didn't push a "God must be behind this" angle. The work on ID must stand on it's own as hard science without any hint of religious overtone or agenda. I've seen a few videos on ID and as soon as they bring in God, all I think is "well there goes another missed opportunity for an atheist to start questioning their stance". People need to be invited to see what's been discovered and be allowed to digest the information for themselves.
Maşallah. Muhteşem..
Allah vardır, birdir ve mükemmeldir..
Adaptation? Sure.
Evolution (where Information is added)... NO WAY!
Michael behe 👍
It's fascinating how complex these molecular machines are with so many different types and specific purpose's.
Many of our motors designed by engineers are similar in that we have to design , manufacturer and assemble them before their of any use. How could random nothingness foresee the need for a flagellum motor sometime time in the future , start designing the parts and when the design is complete , give the factory ( the code) and have them create all these individual motor parts and then assemble them with (complete randomness , chance , nothingness or evolution) into an actual motor.
This randomness , chance or nothingness had to have the foresight to look thousands or possible millions of years ahead and recognize this need or purpose unless it had some unscientific non-purpose , but that goes against the little steps that evolution purpose's it accomplishes with each tiny mutation. The speculation by evolutionists that there was some prior use of some of these parts has no evidence to support it. It's incredulous that anyone could think that chance could design a real motor and quite possible 100% efficient.
I am being honest here. I tried to read the origins of the species by Darwin... it was painful. With the relative lack of knowledge in his day, he reached a plausible conclusion. Since then, the explosion of knowledge ( for me the favourite is the discovery of DNA) should have allowed the prompt expulsion of the evolutionary theory. I literally get a headache trying to figure out how glycolysis evolved, and fortunately happened to be a major energy source for cells. What environment exactly would have gradually selected for, not only the order in which glucose is broken down but also the molecules that randomly happened to be passing by to collect hydrogen ions? Or the enzymes which catalyse the reaction ( oh yeah and the DNA that codes for these enzymes, and the magical, not, assembly of proteins that facilitate protein synthesis, oh and the DNA that codes for those proteins ...) Isn’t it great that they also happened to be drawn to mitochondria which happened to... I just can’t. What really upsets me is when people talk about how purposeful and specialised everything is as if they subconsciously know that it is there for a specific preordained reason, but then are affronted by the question of intelligence playing a part!
I believe that life is a unidentified intelligent force found through out the universe. It is a force that by intelligent design seeks a niche and will find one in any environment. I believe that evolution can happen in certain situations where there is an unused or available niche. My problem with evolution as a starting point is how does a complex organism feed itself during the long process that would lead to it's eventual evolution into a viable life form.
Love the evidence of Gods design of everything we see and inspect at the smallest level we can!