Questioning evolution theory THIS IS INCREDIBLE

[gastarbeiter1]

Behe is so flawed.Irreducible complexity?Laughable.He has not presented one and lost on court^^

[wavenaboard]

What a load of compost... 

[poggeh]

The mouse trap analogy is so bogus. Anyone who doesn't understand that evolution means to "make better over time" needs to stop joining in these discussions. Put it this way: Evolution most likely WOULD come up with the mouse trap as we see it today. This does NOT mean that in previous evolutionary stages it didnt have more parts, but that arent needed. Anti-evolutionists only seem to think that parts are added, and cant be removed. It's not Irreducible complexity, its complexity made efficient.

[johnspartan98]

For those that think this has been debunked, it hasn't. Unless you consider outrageous, absurd, and irrational explanations as your proof of debunking.

[wowamonn]

@johnspartan98 Can you please provide the source for your comment please.

[xXpimpleXx]

1. Things that occur in nature have more complexity than created objects.

2. Evolution by natural selection is NOT based on chance. In fact it's the very opposite.

This is pseudoscience at it's ugliest. I pity those gullible enough to fall for it.

[zzzzJAGJEETzzzz]

this is pseudoscience, the people who made this documentary should be ashamed.

[SolidAir54321]

Search for an episode of Nova called Intelligent Design on Trial. Then watch it.

[Killjeser]

He said "Darwinian explanation". What's Darwinian? By using 'inian' or 'ism' (Darwinism) they obviously make it appear that there is some sort of theology behind it. It's called the Theory of Evolution. Theory of Evolution is to Biology what the Theory of Gravity is to Physics.

[vp1981ad]

I can't keep believe that these people keep interviewing Behe again and again...

[Udany147]

Complexity!

[Deetwo7]

aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa...

"Complexitycomplexitycomplexit­ycomplexitycomplexitycomplexit­y."

"Yes yes, but what about your actual evidence?"

"Complexitycomplexitycomplexit­ycomplexitycomplexitycomplexit­ycomplexity!"

*sigh*

Morons.

[FiverBeyond]

Simply misleading and unscientific. Behe's example of the bacterial flagellum has been publicly and specifically debunked by scientists. The claim that "cells are complex, therefore they cant have evolved" is particularly bad science. RNA is incredibly complex, and yet it form naturally, via the laws of chemistry.

[TheLambrozorz]

Behe rocks!

[Dickyanders]

What a shameful video.

[Pseudologic]

Also, isn't Behe just saying "I can't figure out how this could've evolved, so it must be the proof for god, because I, Michael Behe, can never be wrong or not have enough intellect to understand something."

[Pseudologic]

Let me guess, this proves that god exists? Nope, I still don't believe in god. Evolution makes more sense.

[tomj54]

Rubbish.

[Tobsy1981]

It's incredible if you're a moron and you don't realize these ridiculous arguments have been debunked.

See Ken Miller vs Behe Dover Pennsylvania trial.

[holymoose69]

self replicationg molecules are the most simpe. cells are not the most simple forms of life. life is chemistry at its core.

[timelessturtle]

lol

the original poster could not spell "origin"

[OpeningSalvoe]

LOL @ below, aint that the truth.

[raoskaos]

THIS IS CREATIONIST BULLSHIT.

[adstanra]

Behe's epipany.."thats an outboard motor..that's designed, that is no chance assembly of parts".There you go...how stupid the majority of scientists are..lol. I guess he believes in common ancestry though...I have heard this anyway.

[astronomer747]

I think you are right about Behe. He does accept the doctrine of common ancestry but I do not know exactly what his views are. He must be a progressive creationist. Behe is a good scientist but I can't understand his thinking. How could scientists of this sophistication be so skeptical of something as well established as macro-evolution. Even many Christian scientists like Francis Collins and Denis Alexander accept the theory on the basis of the overwhelming evidence.

[adstanra]

Very strange to imagine a God who designs a flagellum with such a specific function and believe in common ancestry..how does that work? particularilywhen the pattern that it leaves is a nested heirarchial bush of life.

[astronomer747]

I think this view is known as progressive creationism. They accept the doctrine of common ancestry but reject the idea that natural selection and genetic mutations are sufficient to account for all the morphological changes in biochemical systems. It is an odd view but at least it is closer to the right answer. I am certainly not a creationist but I am a theist. I am just bewildered at the antagonistic attitude towards the theory and just how ignorant and sophomoric people are.

[adstanra]

hmmm, well said. interesting that you consider yourself a theist...as a theist don't you have to be some sort of creationist...at least a deist?

[astronomer747]

I am not a deist because as you probably know quite well, a deist believes in a God who brought physical reality into existence but does not believe he designed the universe for the purpose of creating beings in his image. The deist God never intervenes in nature. I think that the theory of evolution is irrelevant to the truth of Christian theism. There is no reason to take the creation account in genesis literally. It is obviously full of metaphorical language and even allegorical descriptions

[adstanra]

yes thanks fpr explaining. This brings up the notion of the compatability of a design and evolution. do you agree that the universe is governed by impersonal laws of physics, chemistry and biology? That this explains things like smallpox.

If so, I am not sure where original sin come in,where God fits in except to dial the specific constants that define the impersonal probabilisrtic laws that lead to smallpox, predation...and love beauty and wonder. Interested in yr thought on that.

[astronomer747]

I believe in a designer in the broader sense. I think there are good reasons to believe in God. The rationality and intelligibility manifested in nature seems to me to be best explained as the product of intelligence. And the extraordinary fine tuning of the laws of physics for the potentiality of the evolution of life as the expression of a divine purpose. But I certainly don't take the absurd and ludicrous creationist views that are sadly still so pervasive among believers.

[1rishShaman]

You would think, that if their points had any validity, they would have come up with new details and findings since... what, the fuckin' 60's?

[Hereticbooks]

Evolution is a fact. Face it.

[TheOddFinn]

It's not a fact, it's just a theory. So don't denigrate evolution theory, because it's much more important and meaningful than a mere fact.

[Hereticbooks]

Apparently you're unaware that "theory" in science means something different than it does in the colloquial sence. In science, "theory" is establised fact. Much like germ theory, gravitational theory, or the theory of relativity. Unless you're implying that gravity is "just" a theory. You might look up the word "theory"

[TheOddFinn]

Well, actually I'm quite aware of the definition of "theory" as it indeed is more than just one fact. And my comment was supposed to be partially a joke, with the first sentence. What I meant was to joke using the usual creatonist argument, and to add a part that they don't sometimes understand, which is that a scientific theory is more than just fact, since it explains all the facts (I.E. empirical observations) and so on. (You know what it does, I persume...)

[Hereticbooks]

you "presume" correctly.

[TheOddFinn]

Thanks for the correction, didn't remember how to spell that word =P

[D0ubleHelixFilms]

It's valuable to note that Irreducible complexity has been refuted and was rejected in court. Also its valuable to note that modern eukaryote cells are thousands of time more complex than simplistic and primitive prokaryote cells.

[inscenceburner]

Is it inconcievable that Darwins theory of evolution is true?

What thing that is created can be created without a process of assembly?

[BlessedCompost]

The question is not whether or not things "created" have a process of assembly, it's whether or not that assembly is guided by a conscious mind. Just about everything in nature that has a discernible pattern has a process of assembly but it would be asinine to say that ALL those processes were therefore led by a mind.

Gems, for example, form as a result of collected carbon and extreme pressure, things that can very well happen incidentally under the ground, in nature.

[0538957]

@BlessedCompost Look you can try to twist science anyway you like, religion always has, the end result is just the same, you'll die and your body decays. The only way you live on is by passing on your DNA.

It is just death, everyone does it, don't be a coward! No need for religion if you are brave.

[simonpjhall]

Absolute nonsense.

[ThatWrongGuy]

another argument for irreducable complexity all examples of which have been diproven.

new argument please.

[ProfMTH]

Quite right.  That argument has been thoroughly debunked. That the advocates of "intelligent design" keep offering this refuted argument betrays the intellectual and factual backruptcy of their claims.

[GreenSlugg]

@ThatWrongGuy Can we see a microorganism evolve something as complex as the bacterial flagellum in a lab??? That would be a refutation. We have not seen anything like this, yet E. Coli bacteria can undergo 10 million years worth of human generations in less than a week. It supposedly took less than half of that for the "ape-like ancestor" that evolved into both humans and chimps to evolve into humans. Where is the actual scientific refutation of irreducible complexity? It isn't there!

[TheFallibleFiend]

Good going posting this crappola. Not sure whether to rate if 5/5 (ability to comment freely) or 1/5 (content).

No wonder the original poster didn't allow comments. Behe, Minnich, and Strobel - intellectual giants of proof by assertion.