From the Big Bang to Irreducible Complexity

[CAridge2008]

I love it. I started thinking about the serious flaws in evolution and the possibility of intelligent design a long time before Michael Behe came along, but he has the background and pedigree (and courage) to describe it and write about it with scientific rigor and authority. Good for him! Of course, there are the nasty haters out there who will attack him because they think he is challenging their religion (random atheistic materialism).

[castelgandalf]

(Dr?) Michael Behe: "to the extent that non-physical beings or non-physical processes were involved in originating the universe, originating life or in any other event affecting things in the universe, science wil have a difficult time, that is an impossible time to investigate those"

I agree, the flying spaghetti monster had nothing to do with originating the universe or any other event affecting things in the universe, dumbass. no wonder his own university disagrees with him.

[brospec]

@shotaboy100 "you actually believe the textbooks are accurately kept in context, " No - of course not. They are full of wicked fabrications, invented by a global conspiracy of atheist scientists, to mock the one true God....Ganesh.

[wildcrazygoats]

@shotaboy100 " the typical self-consumed, glory-hungry, power-drunk, looking down ur big nose on others, morally-bankrupt, illusion of wisdom, whimsical-thinking, convinced urself that ur not a brainwashed moron, proud, boastful, reasonably-retarded cratheist." AMAZING - I didnt know a fuckwit could rent a thesaurus

[brospec]

@shotaboy100 As I said : you are too intellectually lazy to bother trying to understand. You have written a load of utter bullshit pick up a high school science text & come back if you have any sensible questions

"evolution just means change" Of course it doesnt you imbecile

[brospec]

@shotaboy100 "man is willing to die before admitting how reasonably-retarded chance-motivated evolution is" ................ so to sum up your argument from your point of view : "I am too intellectually lazy to bother to try to understand evolution - therefore it is not true"

[lgoopio]

It's best to listen all sides before drawing a sound conclusion

[nightrise73]

@lgoopio Hey smart one, I dunno if you have heard his back ground, but he did go to an evolutionist college.

[Nullifidian]

@nightrise73 Then, it's a shame Behe didn't stop off to learn about evolution, because he certainly has no clue to judge from his books. He's one of those biochemists who came at the discipline from chemistry--his degree at Drexel U. Normally biochemists who approach the field from a chemistry background don't start opining about evolution, but then most scientists have a know their limits, whereas Behe is arrogant enough to assume that if he can't understand a thing then nobody else can either.

[nightrise73]

@Nullifidian Wow, you missed the point. He studied evolution, saw the lack of evidence, then decided that it must have been designed. And he's not even Christian!

You say he's arrogant, but you're just as arrogant to judge what is and isn't truth.

Begging the questions, appeal to pity, appeal to majority, straw-man, okay, you made a ton of logical fallacies,

I'm only 15 and I can beat any older scientist, it's easy. 2 Sam 22:33

[Nullifidian]

@nightrise73 He's not a Christian? So are you one of those nuts who believes that Catholics aren't Christians or do you just like making things up as you go along?

And you apparently missed the point of my comment, which was that there is no evidence that Behe *ever* studied evolution. Not to mention Behe claims to accept common descent. So where does that leave your claim?

As to my "arrogance", are you really stating that you go through life never making judgments about the truth of anything?

[Nullifidian]

@nightrise73 Now your claims about my alleged "logical fallacies" were ludicrous. Appeal to pity? LOL! Perhaps you should learn what these fallacies are before you go about throwing around this terminology. It will lead to less embarrassment that way.

If you sincerely think you're 15 and can "beat" any older scientist (although science is about understanding, not competition), I'll see your 2 Sm 22:33 and raise you Pr 16:18: "Pride goes before destruction, and a haughty spirit before a fall."

[subductionzone]

There are no irreducibly complex systems in nature. Only unanswered problems. Too bad for Behe that he keeps referring to the bacterial flagellum as being irreducibly complex, that problem was solved years ago.

[nightrise73]

@subductionzone Oh really, then which evolved first: The heart, lungs, or kidneys?

[subductionzone]

@nightrise73 Technically the heart did. You are trying to use an argument from ignorance. Just because you don't know the answer it does not mean that others don't . And even if you come up with a question that your opponents don't know the answer to that is NOT evidence for your side of the argument. That is true regardless of the topic being debated.

If you seriously want to check out some rebuttals of creationist claims then you should Google search "Talk Origins".

[Nullifidian]

@nightrise73 The "kidneys", so to speak--protonephridia, which aid flatworms, ribbon worms, and rotifers to expel waste fluids and maintain osmotic balance. There are no lungs or hearts in these phyla. Hearts evolved next in organisms that grew too large for oxygen to simply diffuse across their bodies & lungs didn't evolve until organisms began to breathe out of water (insects have a distinct respiratory system). Do you have more questions that can be settled by 5 mins. with a zoology textbook?

[PatrickSmithPhD]

Here's a question. Isn't evolution the theory of how life became more complex? How it changes for the better? Isn't that what Natural Selection is? Genetic traits naturally selected by the survival of the fittest, right? Right. So, evolution is the change / development of life. How is that related to origins? All evolution explains is the progression from that point, but it can't explain how life came to exist in the first place. That needs to be looked in regards to the Big Bang...

[PatrickSmithPhD]

Uh... does everyone realize that Michael Behe has published over 60 peer reviewed papers and was very highly respected in the field of biological study before he decided to look at things from an angle different from the main stream's? He's not a lunatic who just popped up all of a sudden. Read about him and his history before you make the same mistake all these other anti-science people are making (i.e. using personal insults instead of data)

[clutchness]

I guess we don't know automatically means = God must have done it.

[PantheraAtrox]

There was a big bang,.......of God's creativity. ;)

[erickdircks]

Nice! Thanks for sharing!

Erick

[EinstenNJ]

No, Dr. Behe, that is not how it works. YOU created the argument that these things were allegedly impossible, the rest of the scientific community showed it was possible. The onus is on them to show how it happened only insofar as they are biologists and the onus was always on them to understand biology. YOUR point is still moot.

[stevejon71]

This is what God wanted from the beginning, he wanted man to know how he created things. This is why our brain is so fascinating: we are in his likeness to know and think. This is what it's all about. There are worlds and galaxies to explore. We are still in the beginning our knowledge. And as our knowledge grows in the end we will see God standing there with no disputes against him.

So until then less debate and argue.

[Mortison77577]

@CesarPhilosophe

No, it's more than philosophical, because it's makes specific scientific statements, like no known mutations that produce a more complex organism and all that.

[joryvans]

if we found out exactly how the universe and life started, would that mean that God does not exist??

For me, God(assuming he exists) is a scientist and created everything according to the laws of physics (which set up in the first place).

[Mortison77577]

@CesarPhilosophe

Intelligent design may not be science, but it contains scientifically valid critiques of evolutionary theory.

[nicophobia]

This guy is a 'part-time' scientist. By that I mean he does science right up until the the point when it interferes with his creation based theories, then he stops doing science altogether.

My comments are probably moot as this guy has had all of his wacky theories disproved now. Anyone who hasn't yet seen Ken Millers vid should watch it.

Anyone watching this who can't see the obvious and repeated flaws in his arguement, either doesn't have the mental faculty to, or just doesn't want to.

[ndrthrdr1]

@nicophobia "Anyone watching this who can't see the obvious and repeated flaws in his argument, either doesn't have the mental faculty to, or just doesn't want to" FTW!

[FallofDarkness55]

No one really knows what happened before the big bang so it's not that absurd to believe God did it. btw you atheists claim that God doesn't exist. Well by your definition God is "nothing". So nothing created everything; what does that sound like?

[StarRonKid]

@FallofDarkness55 pro stuff hahah

[ThroughTheWormhole]

@FallofDarkness55 It is when it's not evidenced, science is inductive, that means a positive claim (god did it) requires positive evidence otherwise believing it is presuppositional fallacy.

[FallofDarkness55]

@ThroughTheWormhole it's actually called faith which you lack. humans are far too arrogant with their scientific claims. by the way, i like science; i'm not criticizing it at all. Science explains a lot but not everything. However it's asinine to figure out how the big bang was caused. Science falls apart at this level in science. At this level it's philosophical and I think it takes more faith to believe in parallel universes than a God. So suit yourself.

[ThroughTheWormhole]

@FallofDarkness55 Not sure what you call it, but I call holding a position not apparently true and in fact contradicted by available data willful ignorance.

[FallofDarkness55]

@ThroughTheWormhole Explain how God is contradictory to science? I like to see you explain that one. Because the way i see it, science is the natural incessant process from an intelligent designer. Its not willful ignorance. Like I said I like science but trying to come up with a solution of the cause of the universe is asinine. Even if we get to a solution that still doesn't make it a fact; it can be some other phenomena. Humans are far too arrogant and think they have the answers to everything

[ThroughTheWormhole]

@FallofDarkness55 The notion of god itself isn't contradictory but it's also unfalsifiable which makes it tantamount to magic. Your bias and presupposition of a designer leads you to seeing intelligent design where there is none.

You have it backwards, the only ones who have non-answers and think they have the answer to everything are creationists.

[FallofDarkness55]

@ThroughTheWormhole What makes you think there is no intelligent designer? Have you seen anything beyond the edges of our universe that makes your claim true? By the way, I'm an evolutionist not a fundamentalist creationist and I don't think I have the answers to everything, neither do you have the answers to everything. I'm willing to look at all possibilities, and you need to at least accept the fact that God is a possibility otherwise you're just being a prideful atheist.

[ThroughTheWormhole]

@FallofDarkness55 The onus is on the person making the positive claim, a designer existing is not the default position. Not accepting one due to lack of positive evidence for a designer is the default.

[FallofDarkness55]

@ThroughTheWormhole It might be default but even that position requires extraordinary evidence for making such asinine claims of parallel universes and higher dimensions. Until that is proven, I will continue to believe in God. Even if it is proven I'll still believe in God, because at that level in science all you're doing is describing God's operations using science.

[JayDee98765]

'Science can only investigate material processes'

Before suggesting spirituality, prove it is actually a supernatural process and i'll believe science is actually limited.

[JarJar88forever]

God will throw your soul into the heart of a star to burn. When the star dies, he will send you to another dimention to continue your pain extradimentionaly.

[algadykhalifa]

Great video, the intelligent design will destroy the myth of evolution.

[luxfair]

behe is a liar

[matThaHatter]

lets step back, so we can see the big picture. A LONG time ago, in an era of relative ignorance, an explanation of the universe becomes popular, because it explains things and provides social structure. As time goes by, we start to learn new things, & 1 by 1, the hard, concrete claims made by the "Explanation" are questioned. Those who enjoy the privelage that comes with being the expert on the "Explanation" argue and fight against each new argument, but are eventually forced to backtrack.(cont)

[matThaHatter]

@matThaHatter But because they are a permanant fixture, and because of some sort of innate need for meaning, the "Explanation" men are able to wait until time has clouded our memories, and say"See? We told you so," and take credit for their victories AND defeats.

And now, as our understanding of things has become far more complex,less people have the time to learn about the details of everything,and by creating more and more complex arguments, they are able once again to cloud the water (cont)

[matThaHatter]

@matThaHatter By doing so, and at the same time playing on peoples lack of information and the trust they hold from their followers, they can twist the truth and keep afloat.

I'd also like to ask people this question: why is it that people go into scientific fields? For the money? Go look up the average scientists salary. I guarentee you it's less than you'd guess. It's in search of the truth. The idea of some big conspiracy by scientists to trick you and lie is the most ridiculous part of this

[pdxeddie1111]

YAY Behe LOL boy talk about pissing off the scientific world, thats scientific heresy. Good work

[michigan6443]

@CesarPhilosophe Atheism is the foundation for communism. read about communism views regarding religion you will find all communist regimes are atheist. this ends this debate....move on.

[SteenJdaPenspinna]

39 likes

37 dislikes

Dislikers FAIL!

no seriously I dont want to say anything about that now. because there are just some fags discussing about that below

[michigan6443]

@CesarPhilosop you mentioned that christianity inflicted a lot of harm on humanity and I was pointing out the governments hostile to chritanity ie atheist communist regimes commited far more atrocities than did the church. you need to study communism and what it said about God and you will see communism is a godless system. how could you miss the glaring fact that communist government is atheist? don't think you are interested in facts. anyway i only give one reply a chance and u failed.

[michigan6443]

@CesarPhilosophe wow you were not "biased" with this comment? Do you think our constitution and declaration came from "science"? I would agrue that sin is the bomb in our hands that we cannot handle. 150,000,000 people were murdered by atheist government regimes in the last 150 years.

[gupsphoo]

The idea that an intelligent creator who doesn't need to follow physical laws is completely unscientific. It's not the kind of hypothesis a scientist should ever make and it should never be taken as an alternative "scientific theory". If Behe can't think of any other explanation, his only intellectually honest answer is "I DON'T KNOW".

[raju53]

grate video,,

[blucobranick]

Thats what I am trying to work out, what part he does not agree with, Darwin kicked off the idea in his work, like his work, Darwins theory and are understanding of it evolves and becomes more complex as are own understanding of life becomes more clear, Darwin did not say he could explain how life got started but what happened after life got started, may be we have to buy his book to understand what part he does not agree with

[gregrutz]

That is all science deal with, dummy. Are you sure he is a scientist?

[ZenMondo]

Behe is a tool. There is no room for the supernatural in science. Behe's argument is the argument from incredulity "I can't think of an explanation, so god must have done it" Every example of a irreducible complex system Behe puts out has proven not to be so with natural evolutionary explanations.

[LetReasonPrevail1]

@ZenMondo I disagree. Behe isn't a tool.

He's a Super, Fucktard, Mega-Tool!

I know that was a terrible Ad Hominem attack, but it felt so very satisfying to say it.

;o)

Cheers

[StopSpamming1]

Big Bang is a model, not a theory - yet.

What practical application can be based on or developed from IC or ID? What?! Science has a number of ideas how life could have developed. I knew Behe is deluded, but not dishonest.

Getting really bad: Darwin and abiogenesis? Strawman.

13 minutes and I can't tolerate any more.

[jpkfox]

@StopSpamming1 "What practical application can be based on or developed from IC or ID? " For example people who study crimes: they use ID theory to find out whether something is done by a mind or it happened by change. They use 1) Propability 2) has it order in it. So is exactly ID theory. Police uses in these situations intuition to determine 2). So, I think we can also use intuition when looking at human cells!

[devoceans]

why would unitelligent matter take the complicated route of creation anyways? it would have been easier to stay lifeless. Do we just ignore the law of causality all together to live our carnal desires to the fullist?

[Mortison77577]

I'm surprised the see this on the UC channel because intelligent design is sort of taboo at secular universities.

[cdputnam]

The confusing thing about naturalists that hold to materialism is that science has now discovered that 90% of the matter in the universe is completely unknown, dark matter. It's quite incredible that they arrogantly deny immaterial reality, when they must confess ignorance about 90% of the matter in the universe.

[per50n]

@cdputnam:

If science new everything, it would no longer exist. Science is a process of acquiring new knowledge. Positing dark matter as immaterial is simply dishonest, as you have no evidence for such a claim.

Furthermore, dark matter has clearly detectable interactions with the material world.

The key point you are missing is that scientists are honest enough to admit when they don't know something and then try to find out more.

[athlete117]

Some of the comments in here are really disheartening. It's like you see Michael Behe's name in the title so you start foaming at the mouth. Come on, take the subject seriously and think about what's being discussed here.

[athlete117]

Edit: that should have read in the description, not title! LOL!

[types10001]

irreducible complexity:

we dont at present know how this could have happened therefore MAGIC MAN DUNNIT

[grenangle]

Dover, Dover, Dover and Dover

done,dusted,dessicated and deceased.

[mrnq]

imagine if someone told you that youtube with its complex design,purpose,its users and videos came into being by pure chance ..and tried to proof that with a "scientfic" "theory"...just to feel free from its admin's authority....take this example and place on existence

[cuntscab555]

he doesn't understand the anthropic principle

[iJakmekum01]

Don't get it all. But I do understand what makes sense.

[iWalter01]

Thanks UCTV ! I wish not to place the Scientific community into one basket; nor do I appreciate, many pseudo-scientists who like the 3-monkeys, continue to talk, refuse to see or listen. But that is their choice. I invite you to my YouTube site. I grew tired of an increasing group, who bombastically threw mud everywhere. I decided to try to introduce factual knowledge of both Scientists and Religionists and also the speculations. Why can scientist build backward and have no tolerance to others?

[clownschuhe]

Hey I know!

When we discover something that looks very complex, seemingly designed and improbable to come about via naturalistic means, instead of saying "we can't explain this yet" and trying to figure out what is going on, we stand back in awe and admit that an unknown intelligence designed it!

And even when some atheist scientist finally provides us with a theory to explain it, we can just forget that particular evidence for a creator but still consider our position sound! Ad infinitum!

[cuntscab555]

sure, but in the meantime they force us to do the actual work that drives them deeper into the shadows. see the bright side

[Patience1138]

@clownschuhe ?

[extremophile]

Michael Behe? OMG, what will be the next guest on UCTV? Kent Hovind? Erik Von Daniken? Some psychic channeling Velikovsky, or maybe Ramtha and the "what the #$@$ do we know" folks?

[erikmartin2]

Hats off to UCTV for including this. Unlike the morons who mostly populate the internet, they are obviously interested in honest inquiry and discovery.

[Fishqueen1972]

We not freaking MACHINES dude. Michael Behe needs to be put away into an insane asylum. This is guy is not a scientist. He is a religious fundamentalist.

[kobasica]

hahaha who can take this guy seriously?

[McDaveDJM]

Interesting - I guess 2 + 2 = 4 is also a one trick-horse. Do you want someone to come up with a new and exciting answer to this equation - Facts are always sterile - Behe is stating the obvious - in the 21st century, we call this common sense...

[DarkKitten22]

He speaks to our anthro theory class every year (I'm @ Muhlenberg in Allentown, PA) and he literally gives the same ppt presentation and says the same thing every year. I've almost memorized it. He never develops new evidence or analogies to support his theory or has different answers to questions. My perspective of his work is like someone who found a circumstance of evidence which just happed to support a theory he had- in other words, a one-trick horse.

[TheLORDismySheperd1]

How anyone could watch this video has got to at least contemplate what he's saying.

Don't get too caught up in the religion of the evolutionary THEORY.

[RabidApe]

yeah, it's a THEORY.

Just like atomic THEORY (ask Hiroshima and Nagasaki about that THEORY!).

Just like germ THEORY (when you get sick do you go the doctor or the witch doctor?).

Just like the THEORY of relativity (have you ever used a GPS?).

see also:

watch?v=aM13EdaKsRs

watch?v=ElyqKDRU4gg

[TheLORDismySheperd1]

John Dalton (1766-1844) Father of the Modern Atomic Theory - was Christian and creationist (believed in the literal 6 day account of GOD creating this universe.

Louis Pasteur, (1822-1895) as a Christian and a creationist, his discovery that most infectious diseases are caused by germs, known as the germ theory of disease, is one of the most important in medical history. He also debunked the widely accepted myth of spontaneous generation; this set the stage for modern biology and biochemistry.

[RabidApe]

....ok.

That fallacy is called the "argument from authority". "Some smart guy said X so X must be true."

The human race has continued to learn since these guys died.

Evolution is the foundation of "modern biology and biochemistry". Ask anyone who is actually working in the field today and contributing to our collective understanding.

Even Michael Behe believes in modification with descent.

What part of the theory do you disagree with?

[TheLORDismySheperd1]

ALL OF IT.

Scientists are bias! They are humans! They are going to have points of view.

Either they're going to have the belief BEFOREHAND. "There is a GOD" (7%)or "There is no GOD"(93%), and then going to look at the stars, fossils, ect.; at that point making their assumptions of what, when, how & why these things came into being.

Most of the greatest minds in scientific history have been Christians who believed in the creation account.

[Patience1138]

@RabidApe Bandwagon?

[TheLORDismySheperd1]

And Einstein said both pro-GOD things and anti-GOD things. So, who knows.

But if you wish to believe you came from nothing, then that's absolutely you're belief. But, I firmly disagree with teaching it to children/high schoolers.

[RabidApe]

"But if you wish to believe you came from nothing"

When did I say that?

(and way to dodge my last question, btw. Sometimes I don't know why I bother...)

[TheLORDismySheperd1]

MANY scientists today, who are evolutionists, disagree with this theory being taught in schools.

All it is, is just atheistic brainwashing. Who are they to tell kids, "This is how it was", when they weren't there? This is just their "non-GOD" belief.

[RabidApe]

"who are evolutionists, disagree with this theory being taught in schools"

I don't believe you. Citations, please.

"All it is, is just atheistic brainwashing"

What is "it"?

"Who are they to tell kids, "This is how it was", when they weren't there? This is just their "non-GOD" belief. "

Who are "they"?  What is "this"?

[polymath7]

Why on Earth is UC television providing this dribbling buffoon a forum?

[TheLORDismySheperd1]

Maybe because freedom of speech is allowed for EVERYONE.

Besides, he's right :)

Awesome!

[polymath7]

One has right to free speech.

One does not have a right to an interview.

He most definitely is not right, and th very fact that you would argue otherwise makes you, ipso facto, a moron.

I would attempt to explicate the manifold reasons why it is in fact you and Behe who are colossally., titanically, wrong, but I have every reason (beginning with your screen name) to believe that any understanding of the issue is neurologically debarred you.

Asshat.

[Acronym77]

M.I.C.H.A.E.L. B.E.H.E. = "Much Irreducible Complexity Has Attacked Evolutionists' Logic, Boldly Exposing Holes Everywhere!"

[AlexanderOppenheimer]

An electron is a probabalistically-determined point-like field loop and a member of a group of particles known as the lepton family. It is as real as you or I.

Furthermore, probability (frequency) density distribution results in a polynomial of 'outcomes'. This is the basis of rationalism, induction and can be applied effectively to deduction.

- I expect this should assist further understanding.

[LothairApoclyane]

that you *know* very little about, typo

[LothairApoclyane]

Why is it silly to think that cells spontaneously arose in the oceans? Why can't the universe just be naturally complexifying?

How can you calculate probabilities of life arising in an early universe that you verrry little about.. Maybe universes inevitably create complex structures? The only case we have to analyze is our universe. And in this one, life arises, seemingly out of dead matter. Why suppose that there was an external creator? Life arising out of death is just as interesting.

[LothairApoclyane]

this guy sounds like a christian

[TheLORDismySheperd1]

Oh no!

[szatmar666]

the good old Cartesian dichotomy is back. 2 prove something exists you need to find a thought experiment 1st and establish a criteria under which you are ready to abandon your thesis that "X exists". X is Creator, God or immortal spirit etc. "fine tuned" is like the face on Mars, sure from the current angle and our limited understanding it looks like it's "fine tuned". Perhaps what we call universe is just a small part of the real universe and from that perspective it's not "tuned" at all.

[szatmar666]

4 those who believe in ET of course the 1st explanation is going to be that they are looking at ET's face carved in the Martian landscape. The rest of us know that the most logical way to solve the puzzle is to get a few more shots from different angles ;)

Perhaps that's what believers in cosmic "tunings" ought to do: see if they are ready to abandon their beliefs in a "tuner" if it turns out that in fact what looks like "tuning" is just the result of natural processes not yet discovered.

[mattblackcat]

'It set the universe in motion'

Then what set 'It' in motion?

It is a religious proposition with 'god/the creator' as the terminator of all points of enquiry.

[Plutonwolf]

At the risk of being childish....Liar liar, pants on fire. The man would use a Buick to prove that Fords don't exist...and believe it himself in the end.

[daisyworldnikolai]

Natural science is NOT limited to material entities. What a dogmatically ignorant thing to say.

[jfeucht82]

Oh, really???

[Plutonwolf]

Indeed.

[szatmar666]

daisyworldnikolai:

what other "entities" do you know? what is an electron?! a "material entity"?! WTF is a "material entity" or an "entity" anyways?! As far as science is concerned there are theories/equations that must satisfy experimental predictibility in order 4 them to stand. Beyond that it doesn't matter if you call them "electrons" or "Archangel Gabriel", until you find new empirical evidence 2 the contrary the equations stand, and we talk about them as "electrons" as a shorthand.