Proof that Intelligent Design is Creationism

MICHAEL BEHE SUPPORTS THIS POSITION

For those who have not seen my other videos, let's get one thing straight, I do not believe in or support ID or creationism, as neither are supported by any data or make any testable predictions. But I am tired of people claiming ID and creationism are separate. That you can teach ID in schools without violating the separation of church and state. Well, sorry, they are the same, and this simple proof shows how.

Michael Behe supports the position that ID at its root is creationism because the ultimate designer must be supernatural.

". . . it may be that all possible natural designers require irreducibly complex structures which themselves were designed. If so, then at some point a supernatural designer must get into the picture. I myself find this line of reasoning persuasive. In my estimation, although possible in a broadly permissive sense, it is not plausible that the original intelligent agent is a natural entity. The chemistry and physics that we do know weigh heavily against it. If natural intelligence depends on physical organization, then the organization seems likely to have to be enormously complex and stable over reasonable periods of time. While simpler systems may perform the tasks that irreducibly complex systems perform a terrestrial life, they would likely perform them more slowly and less efficiently, so that the complexity required for intelligence would not ultimately be achieved. Thus, in my judgment it is implausible that the designer is a natural entity."

When questioned at the Dover trial

Lawyer - "...you personally believe the designer is God."

Behe -- "Yes."


To download this video go to:
http://www.mediafire.com/?evzx2yhxtyi

If you wish to translate this video you can download the PowerPoint file from:
http://www.mediafire.com/?0nuzqkjyz2l

Learn the facts, spread the truth, and most importantly, Think About It.

Category:

Howto & Style

Tags:

• Evolution
• Intelligent
• Design
• ID
• Creationism
• Alien
• God
• debate
• education
• public
• school
• logic

[TheKcsmithy]

really informative and interesting

[samjenkinssam]

This is a great video

[thejameskan]

i enjoyed this vid

[Oddessuss]

@Mogley52 "how did the cell originate when there was no directing code." it didnt likely start as a fully functional cell dude, try a simple self replicating molecule, something like RNA would do the trick.

[Mogley52]

THE SCIENTIFIC CASE AGAINST ATHEISM: Please read this Internet article of mine published in Russia's English Pravda. It will be a real eye-opener for all who think belief in a Creator is merely subjective blind faith. Also read my article, LIFE ON MARS NO SURPRISE (In the Earth's past there was powerful volcanic activity which spewed life-containing dirt and rocks (meteors) into outer space. Mars may literally have millions of tons of Earth soil)

[Mogley52]

WHAT IS SCIENCE? Science is knowledge based on observation. No one observed the universe coming by chance or by design, by creation or by macro-evolution. These are positions of faith. The issue is which faith science supports. Natural laws explain how an airplane or a cell works, but undirected natural laws cannot bring about either. Once there's a complete cell, the code/mechanisms exist to direct the formation of more cells, but how did the cell originate when there was no directing code.

[toobsucker]

@TheSkepticalApe

Logic & reason dictates there can not be a third hypothesis. And the fact that you can not produce a third viable alternative solidifies it. And magic had nothing to do with the creation of the universe & life. All that is needed to design and build a universe with life in it is an intelligence capable of it. And of course you can give me no valid reason why a "God-like" intelligence can not exist.

[toobsucker]

@TheSkepticalApe "Um, no evidence that natural events shape the world? Are you fucking kidding me? So erosion doesn't exist?"

I believe erosion has been unofficially ruled out as a candidate for the origins of the cell. Magic is not needed to create the conditions for life, only an intelligence capable of it. Why is it you equate a simply understood concept as "magic".

You must equate I.D. as magic or your arguments fall apart. And Venter has said science will soon I.D. a cell.

[TheSkepticalApe]

@toobsucker Um, no evidence that natural events shape the world? Are you fucking kidding me? So erosion doesn't exist? No, I don't assume things without evidence, that's what presuppostionalists like you do. You just use deductive reasoning to find anything that seems to back up your "magic created everything" fairy tale without ever trying to prove your god hypothesis wrong. You should study biology before you make idiotic claims like "most of the genome is not subject to evolutionary change".

[TheSkepticalApe]

@toobsucker Just because no one yet has proposed an alternate model doesn't mean it doesn't exist. You are assuming that every option has already been proposed, which is an idiotic position to hold. But then again, you believe in magic creating the universe, so I shouldn't be surprised.