Behe was very good. He rightly points out at the end that Josh’s “Everest perspective” does not include levels of design- and that is key.

@MoreSCI-LessFI

Жыл бұрын

Behe also fails to mention the dishonest fraud by the creation science movement when it was revealed they simply repackaged religious propaganda as ID in their textbook manuscripts. This was a point on contention with the judge influencing his final opinion that intelligent design was NOT science. And lets not forget how the two pro ID Christian board members perjured themselves under oath. How convenient of Behe to leave all this out of the discussion. Intelligent design is not science and frankly is just lazy pseudoscience.

@Alexander-the-Mediocre

9 ай бұрын

Behe is being dishonest. Many christians also believe in evolution so by that idea alone they believe that god had a hand is the universe and life but they also know that its not science they have faith but they practice science. Behe on the other hand insists that everything was created through ID. He insist that ID is science. But when actually asked what ID mechanisms and models are he comes up blank and just points to how evolution is wrong. Remember Josh is Christian he believe in a creator but he not going to use that to ignore what evidence actually shows. There was an analogy in the trial about a baseball team winning a game. Why did the team win? Someone could analyze the game. That would be science. While someone could claim that god wanted the team to win. Both reason could be correct but only the one that analyzed would be science.

@markrutledge5855

8 ай бұрын

@@Alexander-the-Mediocre I sort of agree with you. ID cannot yet be considered a scientific theory because it lacks the necessary mechanisms to explain the evolution or development of life. At the same time, I think it is fair to say that the current scientific explanation for the development of life on Earth, namely the Modern Synthesis, can no longer be considered a sufficient explanation. The mechanism of natural selection and genetic mutation over long periods of time does not have sufficient creativity to account for the rise of new higher taxonomic categories of creatures. As long as you are fair in the application of your critique I can probably agree with you.

@Alexander-the-Mediocre

8 ай бұрын

@@markrutledge5855 "I think it is fair to say that the current scientific explanation...can no longer be considered a sufficient explanation" Why do you think its fair to say that? As far as I can tell when looking up scientific papers your claim is false. The scientific consensus is pretty solid and so I honestly think its unfair to say that unless you can point me to a few peer review papers that make that claim so I can look up the step by step process that proves it. "The mechanism of natural selection and genetic mutation over long periods of time does not have sufficient creativity to account for the rise of new higher taxonomic categories of creatures" I have yet to a see a scientific paper that proves this. ID scientist like Behe just mostly write books for lay people instead of actually challenging the claim. Why not actually write a peer review paper challenge evolutionary claim. Run experiments and simulations then show your methodology and publish it. Behe is a scientist so he knows how to write scientific papers to challenge evolution. Behe has only written one paper on challenging evolution. He was trying to prove that gene duplication claim that "Models of the process often implicitly assume that a single mutation to the duplicated gene can confer a new selectable property" was not enough to answer his irreducibly complex system claim. So he ran simulations. Yet under oath he admitted that the target he was going for could evolve in 20,000 years. This part of why I think Behe is a liar. He ran an simulation wrote a paper on it yet tried to twist the outcome to prove his point but in court under oath was called out and admitted that it actually showed that gene duplication could be an answer to his major claim of irreducibly complex systems yet he acts like that paper never existed or that he admitted what it showed in court under oath. I'm not saying evolution is perfect but by far the best we have and like a crime scene you don't need to know every step leading up to the murder to have a good plausible explanation on what most likely happened. Nothing has proven it wrong so far as I can tell and every new discovery just seems to add to its likelyhood. Also less side note but "Modern Synthesis" is a bit obsolete and new information has been discovered since it was coined. For example it doesn't cover horizontal gene transfer which has become a very important mechanism. It leaves out a lot of biological mechanisms honestly. So yes in a way I agree that modern synthesis isn't a sufficient explanation but once you add everything it misses then I think the explanation is sufficient.

@southernisraelite5167

6 ай бұрын

-Atoms which are not in the world around us based upon what we can observe, test, replicate, and verify are not supernatural because we don't want it to mean that. A sun that is exploding and attracting at the same time is not supernatural either because we don't want it to mean that. Got it!!!!

Josh doesn't know what it takes to build these machines so to him they are no big deal. The specification for an outboard motor compares poorly with that of just a flagellum in the making of it. Strong case for ID and for Mike Behe.

@derlund

2 жыл бұрын

Just an appeal to ignorance i am afraid. In the past we did not know how many things came to be so we inferred design. Yet the more we learned the more found that the gods didnt exist and natural processes could account for most features of the natural world. This doesnt rule out the possibility that we may in fact find a feature of nature that was made by a creator God but it does suggest that we are usually wrong when we infer design in nature.

@alfonstabz9741

2 жыл бұрын

@@derlund "Yet the more we learned the more found that the gods didnt exist and natural processes could account for most features of the natural world" ahah! i heard this idea by atheist evolutionist before without proof !!

@sumo1203

Жыл бұрын

@@alfonstabz9741 what does atheism have to do with anything? It’s just science. And the overwhelming scientific consensus supports and understands evolution. There’s a reason ID is only backed by a small group of religious fundamentalists… it’s a religious idea, not a scientific one. They’re starting with a conclusions and trying to pigeon whole science into what they already believe - which simply cannot be done without dismissing substantial amount evidence.

@alfonstabz9741

Жыл бұрын

@@sumo1203 darwins theory of evolution thru natural selection can not be proven nor tested. darwins theory of evolution can not explain cambrians explotion and failed to explain the lack of fossil records on sequence of evolution. many of the so called lineage of evolution is ghost meaning no evidence of existence. species appear to close to each other for evolution to happen time problem.

@eugene3484

Жыл бұрын

@@sumo1203 that’s not true at all. 90% of Nobel prize winners believe in God. Y’all stop acting like evolution is science and ID is just religious. That alone is self refuting to your point. Here’s why: by saying ID is a religious and not science means you have a bias because science is supposed to be about letting the information decide the truth. However it’s been this way for years that scientist have a bias and public funding to pay for evolution to be taught and ID doesn’t get any funding to give ID a chance to teach it. It’s the same way in veganism. Plant based doctors can’t get funding to teach people that the problems in our diet is the animal foods. Which is why we are always sick. The doctors have to pay for their promotions to push this, same thing with ID. Scientific community has a bias to keep evolution alive

I really love listening this exchange. Prof. Behe is quite precise in his words. Refreshing.

@eugene3484

Жыл бұрын

I am totally confused on Joshua belief. What does he believe. I hear he’s a Christian but is against ID I’m so damn confused

@anthonycraig274

6 ай бұрын

⁠@@eugene3484Intelligent design has been totally obliterated as an argument. Ken Miller handed Behee’s behind in a brown paper bag in that trail, totally discrediting his claims. Behee can only get interviews on Christian podcasts because it’s it’s just a matter of belief not science.

@eugene3484

6 ай бұрын

@@anthonycraig274 that’s total BS. You can’t get credit anywhere unless you teach evolution. The system doesn’t even fund intelligent design so we can do deep study on ID. It’s totally bias in science. Stop it bro

@southernisraelite5167

6 ай бұрын

-Atoms which are not in the world around us based upon what we can observe, test, replicate, and verify are not supernatural because we don't want it to mean that. A sun that is exploding and attracting at the same time is not supernatural either because we don't want it to mean that. Got it!!!!

@anthonycraig274

6 ай бұрын

@@southernisraelite5167congratulations! This has to be the most stupidest comment I’ve read since 2019.

My favorite refutation of the "natural selection of random mutations" flavor of evolution is the fact that functional proteins are exceedingly rare within the set of all possible proteins, and each is an isolated island in a vast ocean of non-functional proteins. Even the slightest incremental change to any functional protein immediately dumps you into an abyss of non-functional proteins that is impossible to navigate in any step-wise incremental fashion. Simply put, there exists no path of stepping stones to follow that could get you from one functional protein to another. If evolution is true, it cannot proceed via natural selection of random mutations. The book "Undeniable" by Douglas Axe elaborates on this at length, with mathematically provable precision.

@oarabileditire786

2 жыл бұрын

I bet you After the underlying principle that guides such a mechanical process is found out, I can predict you'll typically shift the pole to something else, just so you can cling to that ideology

@oliversacks3837

2 жыл бұрын

@@oarabileditire786 😏

@thomasb7464

2 жыл бұрын

@@oarabileditire786 And that's why ID is considered pseudoscience.

@ronaldmorgan7632

2 жыл бұрын

@@oarabileditire786 Just as you have faith that those principles will be found.

@ronaldmorgan7632

2 жыл бұрын

@@thomasb7464 ID simply presents an option to the list of options. If something appears to be designed, then maybe it is. Nothing difficult about that.

Joshua skipped over the scaling down of the molecular machines and that they are made of atoms. The molecules are made of many pieces just like an engine is. Also, a motor may be a wind powered turbine with fewer parts. Either way, the analogy works to illustrate the mechanism as an inteligent design.

@southernisraelite5167

6 ай бұрын

-Atoms which are not in the world around us based upon what we can observe, test, replicate, and verify are not supernatural because we don't want it to mean that. A sun that is exploding and attracting at the same time is not supernatural either because we don't want it to mean that. Got it!!!!

@constructivecritique5191

6 ай бұрын

@@southernisraelite5167 neither are engine parts supernatural by your understanding. It's the arrangement that requires a mind!! Get it!!!

Thanks for your incredible books Dr. Behe

@northernlight8857

3 жыл бұрын

I rather watch paint dry than reading anything from such a dubious and nefarious person.

@timid3000

3 жыл бұрын

@@northernlight8857 Bless, isn’t it irritating when someone demonstrates how delusional your world view is?! If I were a dogmatic atheist, I’d probably want to dodge his books too. Too much truth and not an ounce of bullshit. The polar opposite to books on evolution.

@northernlight8857

3 жыл бұрын

@@timid3000 My worldview are backed up by science and verifiable reality. Your worldview is by magic and fairytales.

@ExtantFrodo2

3 жыл бұрын

His books are shot full of deception by partial truth. That's the worst kind.

@alexstock1022

3 жыл бұрын

@@ExtantFrodo2 Please be more specific. If you haven't read any of his books please be honest and move on. If you have reviewed his challenges to Darwinian evolution and find flaws in his arguments please present them. This is important. Be intellectually honest. Be specific. I haven't found challenges to his arguments that hold up. Lets crush any of his ideas that dont stand up to scientific rigor. Thats the only way Science improves. I have degree Biology/Chemistry and MD. I think it is so important to practice with an inquisitive attitude. ExtantFrodo2, now's your chance. What are your specific concerns?

Josh always interrupts when he disagrees which shows arrogance. Might want to work on that

@Greenie-43x

3 жыл бұрын

This is the second debate I've watched where Joshua actually interrupts the Host more than once. He attempted to interrupt Behe a couple of times but good on the host for shutting it down quickly. It's distracting to be interrupted. And frustrating to then be expected to jump right back to your same place, as your processing being interrupted... Thanks for posting! 💚

In this discussion, i'm with Mike Behe.

@greglogan7706

3 жыл бұрын

Why?

@chadjcrase

2 жыл бұрын

I'm not, but I do like listening to him. He can certainly make a compelling argument and deserves to be heard.

Whew! Frustrating “debate.” I read Behe’s “Darwin’s Black Box” years ago and still find his discussions and critiques of Darwinian evolution point on and clearly defined. Thus my frustration emanates from Joshua’s explanations. Firstly, Joshua holds two conflicting ideas about design best illuminated in the last 10 minutes of the discussion. He says Behe is flawed in pointing to design as necessary for the creation of physical and living machines. Then Joshua turns around and says “obviously God designed Mt. Everest,” but Joshua has no idea how God designed it and he doesn’t care if he understands God’s design. There are two different conversations taking place in this debate. 1. Joshua doesn’t like the use of analogies such as “machine” or “mousetrap” to illustrate the function of design. Yet, he grabs the grand-daddy of analogies for God’s nebulous design mechanism - mystery - in Mount Everest. 2. Joshua rejects the analysis of details in biological systems as pointing to design. Yet, he says there is design - God’s design. Is he even listening to Behe? Behe agrees there is design, and he takes the trouble to give evidence for it…but Behe doesn’t attempt to explain it as evidence of God’s approach to creation. 3. Joshua never offers positive evidence supporting Darwinian evolution. He talks in circles with generalities - could’ve, might’ve, possibly, maybe - presenting vague descriptions of studies such as the “disappearing bacteria” as “evidence” of unguided something or other. Is he defending Darwinian evolution with this? 4. Why is Joshua even concerned with the truth of Darwinian evolutionary theory when he gives the Big Shrug at the end and points to God and the Great Mystery of Design? I’m a Christian. I happen to agree that God is Mystery. But the whole point of Darwinian evolution as defended in science and in the mainstream culture is to “prove” that God doesn’t exist. Thus, demanding positive evidence for this theory is key to holding atheists (and others) accountable for their “beliefs”. The “church of Darwinian Evolution” is the stronghold of rejection of the very God that Joshua claims. I have watched Joshua in one other debate, and his detachment from the key topic of Darwinian evolution was evident there as well. I appreciate Unbelievable? and the presentation of a wide array of theories, philosophies and beliefs. This debate was painful and begs the question…why are people turning to Joshua to analyze evolution in any of its aspects…Darwinian or otherwise?

@stephenglasse9756

2 жыл бұрын

Because the case against ID is so weak and swamidass is as good as the opposition to ID gets🤭

@derlund

2 жыл бұрын

"I happen to agree that God is Mystery. But the whole point of Darwinian evolution as defended in science and in the mainstream culture is to “prove” that God doesn’t exist." ...this is incorrect, scientists like Swamidass understand that proving god doesnt exist is a fools errand and not really scientific. Evolution by natural selection is just one mechanism that has been observed to operate in biology. The implications of this theory challenge some creationist claims but thats not really the point. Natural selection explains some phenomenon but not others and makes no claims for or against the existence of an eternal, immaterial creator god.

@gardenladyjimenez1257

2 жыл бұрын

@@derlund "Proving" God exists or doesn't exist depends on what proof you demand. In general, atheists demand absolute proof that God does exist while dismissing their own need to prove God doesn't exist. Darwinian evolution is their stand-in "proof." The better way to consider proof is to use "preponderance of evidence" for either view (for/against God) and lay out the evidence. Evolution by natural selection is a theory that has failed in all aspects: Cambrian explosion, "evolution" of the first living cell from material means, gradual evolution through DNA from a whale to a cow, the available time since earth's creation for evolution to effect change...the best source of discussion of all matters examining the scientific viability of Darwinian evolution is in the recent book, "The Return of the God Hypothesis." You personally may believe that natural selection makes no claims for/against god, but you are not representative of the views of prominent atheist scientists and philosophers...and most especially the secular media who promote their views. At the minimum, they presume the truth of Darwin's truth that "makes god unnecessary," and at the extreme, claim that because "god is unnecessary," therefore he does not exist.

@derlund

2 жыл бұрын

@@gardenladyjimenez1257 first off, thank you for the thoughtful response. I think you are wrong that natural selection/evolution is some sort of argument against god. Many have argued that it makes the god hypothesis "unnecessary" but that is just a byproduct. Natural selection is an attempt to explain some phenomenon observed by Darwin. It does that in many cases, finch beaks and so on. Natural selection makes no claims on the question of the origin of life, however the theory of evolution implies a common ancestor may be an explanation for the diversity of life on earth. I won't pretend to be naive to the conflict between evolution/natural selection and religion. But your claim that natural selection is some sort of refutation of the existence of a Creator god is not correct. And your claim that atheists must "prove the non-existence" of god is also incorrect. In science we say "I don't know" when there exists an explanatory gap. The origin of life is a mystery and if you think the scientific answer is god then show me some proof that alligns with the mechanism of science, testable, repeatable, empirical, etc. We don't need to disprove every god that humans have ever imagined, rather we just say I don't know how life began...but i do know how finch beaks seem to change based on environmental changes.

@stephenglasse9756

2 жыл бұрын

@@derlund natural selection was expounded by the creationist Edward Blyth! Loren Eiseley admitted "the leading tenets of Darwin's work - the struggle for existence, variation, natural selection and sexual selection - are all fully expressed in Blythe's paper of 1835"

“They aren’t really machines”. What’s next Josh? It’s not really a code? Josh is too busy kissing secular butts to see how bad his arguments are. Pray for him. God bless.

@ExtantFrodo2

3 жыл бұрын

"code" in the sense of physically matching molecular strings with anti-sense compliments of those string. The "information" is not digital, but particulate. What you are calling information is little more than the filtered accumulation of crap upon crap that weeded out the crapiest crap so that slightly less crappy crap could foster the next generation of crap until it was pretty high quality crap compared to the other crap that was around. It's nothing to sneeze at, but it's not divine or supernatural either.

@sombodysdad

3 жыл бұрын

@@ExtantFrodo2 Wrong. The genetic code is a real code in which mRNA codons REPRESENT amino acids. And there isn't any evidence that nature can produce codes. There isn't even a way to test the claim. So it can be dismissed.

@ExtantFrodo2

3 жыл бұрын

@@sombodysdad ignore the facts all you want. You still have nothing but your argument from ignorance.

@sombodysdad

3 жыл бұрын

@@ExtantFrodo2 Wow. Nice projection. You are the one ignoring facts. All you h as very is ignorance. You can't even form a coherent argument.

@philaypeephilippotter6532

3 жыл бұрын

@@sombodysdad Your argument from ignorance is not helped by your inability to form a coherent argument. What does _All you h as very is ignorance._ actually mean when translated into coherent *English.*

I’m excited for this.

Swamidass: no arguments but interruptions

The inevitable flaw in making the rebuttal Dr. Swamidass makes about the "mousetrap," saying that it could undergo a gradual progression from a door stop... to a tie clip... to a mousetrap, is that it actually doesn't explain the mechanism that would make that processes plausible. All it tells us is that -- given an Intelligent agent -- an input of information and supplies can make a simple machine become "upgraded" and take on a new role in an organism. This is problematic to the said proponent of exclusively natural mechanisms (because there are none for this process). However, we could see a broken mousetrap used as a doorstop or a tie clip through unguided processes. Devolution, such as Dr. Swamidass's example of the bacteria and amoeba that live in obligate symbiosis, accounts for these phenomena but does not account for the original material. Sidenote: Dr. Swamidass seems to pick on Dr. Behe for using the term "Darwinist," which is understandable, but Behe is responding to the MS claims; he's just not saying Neo-Darwinism. Don't be confused by this semantic that gets played; they're talking about the same thing. I appreciate Dr. Josh Swamidass for bringing some interesting points to the table here. I love him as a Christian brother, despite our seeming diametrically opposed views on science. Iron sharpens iron, after all. God bless!

@Alexander-the-Mediocre

9 ай бұрын

You do realize that Behe and Swamidass when talking about a mouse trap aren't actually talkinga bout a mouse trap right? its an analogy. It doesn't give the mechanism because that wasn't the point. It's point was to show that a mouse trap isn't irreducible complex. The point is that each part of the mouse trap is useless is itself is an analogy for something like the flagellum or other irreducible complex systems. Dr. Swamidass progression of the mouse trap is an analogy for those same system showing that they could be used for other functions. Its understood Dr. Swamidass analogy mechanism is evolution because he wasnt really talking about the mouse trap just like Behe wasn't really talking about a mouse trap either.

@wesleycolemanmusic

9 ай бұрын

@@Alexander-the-Mediocre Yes, I do realize. Reread my comment and try to understand how the analogy corresponds to the bacterial flagellum and other such examples.

@Alexander-the-Mediocre

9 ай бұрын

​@@wesleycolemanmusic maybe re-read my comment cause I made it clear that I understood " how the analogy corresponds to the bacterial flagellum and other such examples" I was showing that you don't understand Swamidass analogy because you think he didn't talk about a mechanism and think all it shows is "an input of information and supplies can make a simple machine become "upgraded" and take on a new role in an organism. What you don't get is that when it comes to biology the "input of information" is natural selection so his analogy actually works fine when applied to things like flagellum. Anyways analogies mean nothing in actual science so if Behe states irreducibly complex is science then he should do a scientific paper on it instead of blogs and books. Where are his models and mechanisms for ID? Where are the test that can either be confirmed or falsified? Where is Behe actual science about irreducibly complex system or ID?

@wesleycolemanmusic

9 ай бұрын

@@Alexander-the-Mediocre I appreciate you clarifying. Could you link to the part where Swamidass talks mechanism? It's been over a year since I watched this video. The input of information being natural selection is another highly contested topic in ID, and we can air our thoughts on that if you'd like. There are a lot of specific reasons why it doesn't apply here. In general, natural selection isn't a sufficient mechanism for these kinds of organelles to "upgrade". How is the environment selecting for them? It isn't; it's blind chance. Hence, you can't very well argue it applies in this scenario.

@Alexander-the-Mediocre

9 ай бұрын

@@wesleycolemanmusic " natural selection isn't a sufficient mechanism for these kinds of organelles to "upgrade" I disagree because in evolution there is no "upgrades" just selecting for what works in any specific environment at that given moment. First what works in one environment could cause death in another. So saying upgrade or downgrade is already a massive misunderstanding of how the natural selection works. Second the point of showing that the parts could be used for somethings else means that natural selection doesn't have to select for a flagellum. Each part can be select for something else then co-opted. Parts being co-op has been observed in experiments so its a proven mechanism so something like a venom injector that has most of the same parts as a flagellum can be co-oped when a random mutation adds another part that now makes it rotate. Evolution doesn't have to make all the parts from scratch which is what irreducibly complex argument implies and thats why showing that natural selection doesn't have to select for all parts at once puts a huge dent in that idea.

Behe Still Rocking those evolutionists like no other! Thanks Mr Bebe, can't wait to read your new book ;)

@CesarClouds

3 жыл бұрын

He's been mostly ignored and his work hasn't spawned anything in the peer review.

@sumo1203

Жыл бұрын

If he was rocking anything scientific he would subject his claims to peer review, not put them in books for laymen. None of these claims pass scientific muster. Here’s just a few studies explicitly disproving some of his claims: Knockout genes and falgellar motility:“Evolutionary resurrection of flagellar motility via rewiring of the nitrogen regulation system” De novo volition of multicellularity: “De novo origins of multicellularity in response to predation” De novo evolution of promoters: “Random sequences rapidly evolve into de novo promoters” De novo evolution of protein protein binding sites: “Ancient Adaptive Evolution of Tetherin Shaped the Functions of Vpu and Nef in Human Immunodeficiency Virus and Primate Lentiviruses”

The bacterial flagellum is much more efficient than any human-made machine. I really don’t understand why Swamidass is doing this

@LuciferAlmighty

6 ай бұрын

Yet we have them with "missing parts" and they still do just fine. Almost like ID is pure BS.

Joshua, like every evolutionist I have ever heard on this subject, provides hand-wavy just-so stories, and avoids the true difficulties that Behe raises. For example, it's irrelevant that the bacterial flagellum has parts in common with, and a strong resemblance to, the Type-III Secretory System if _both_ are irreducibly complex. In that case, all you've done is identify _two_ molecular machines that undirected evolution is incapable of producing. You haven't helped the evolutionary case, you've hindered it. This is so patently obvious that it's clear that the evolutionist is blinded by philosophical prejudice.

@ExtantFrodo2

3 жыл бұрын

Of the 42 proteins known to make up the bacterial flagellum, Most have been found to serve as ion channels or something else in bacteria. It is therefore perfectly plausible that they really were hanging around-serving some function that would have allowed evolution and natural selection to keep them around generation after generation-until a final component was acquired and together they formed a flagellum. Behe almost convinced me with his irreducible complexity argument. Until I realized that it was rewording the ToE to saying that "ONLY the good genes get passed down" that ONLY complete & functional tools get passed down. Yet evidence of "pieces parts of complicated systems" being passed down abounds. Molecules aren't smart. They don't "figure out a good tool to evolve towards." They can't say this tool is good or that tool is bad. A protein 'encoded for' is produced willy nilly (even if it means killing the biological producer of that protein). If it only kills the organism "after" reproduction then that insidious protein code gets passed on. Some offspring may acquire a mutation that triggers the protein before reproductive age. They get deleted from gene pool. Other offspring may acquire a mutation that triggers the protein or combines with the protein to do something totally marvelous for the organism.

@ExtantFrodo2

3 жыл бұрын

@RetroMan *" until atheists can show that lifeless, immaterial, unintelligent, impersonal processes can not only bring life into existence but can then set the process of evolution into motion"* Well, you are certainly at liberty to feel that way, but I prefer not to make any kind of argument from ignorance like that. St. Augustine (among others) would council you not to rely on what scientists can or can not show you about the world as your basis for believing or not believing what ever you want to believe about god. Secondly, the process of evolution happens whenever and wherever you have variant reproduction and non-random culling (such as we have with biological life). It doesn't need to be enabled. It is a direct and default consequence of those conditions. You can't NOT have things evolve under such conditions.

@JeansiByxan

2 жыл бұрын

”Molecules aren't smart. They don't "figure out a good tool to evolve towards." They can't say this tool is good or that tool is bad.” ” If molecules aren’t smart (or ”intelligent”) then why woulf they evolve into the flagellum? Sounds like you just contradicted your own argument. Btw, even if you still believe in evolution smart molecules shouldn’t exist, and yet they clearly do.

@lawrence-dol

2 жыл бұрын

@@JeansiByxan : You're simply begging the question. You assume that molecules evolved the flagellum, and then offer the supposed evolution of the flagellum as evidence that molecules are smart. The contraposition is that the fact of the flagellum and the lack of any indication whatsoever that molecules develop in a directed way evinces against en toto unguided Evolution.

@JeansiByxan

2 жыл бұрын

Except I never said it is unguided. Theistic evolution would not be unguided. Does anyone actually argue that?

Behe is so much more compelling! Great discussion!

@JerryPenna

3 жыл бұрын

Except to all scientific organizations worldwide that aren’t fundamentalist accept evolution as established science. Behes source material is a 2000 year old book of angel-human f-ing and talking animals. He a pariah and an outlier proven wrong and fraudulent in court by a Christian judge. As a result of his work Creationism and id are irrelevant to all but the few Bible fundamentalist. We can do better than incoherent religious texts in 2020.

@TheEpicProOfMinecraf

3 жыл бұрын

@@JerryPenna intriguing. You don't actually know what you're yelling about, but you're yelling about it nonetheless. Maybe start with Lodish's "Molecular Cell Biology." The 8th edition is quite informative.

@ApozVideoz

3 жыл бұрын

D Costello Alberts may be fitting too, or Voet & Voet perhaps.

@TheEpicProOfMinecraf

3 жыл бұрын

@@ApozVideoz Yeah, Alberts is good as well, but it's longer and, I generally feel, less rigorous where it counts

@christianaspas

3 жыл бұрын

@@JerryPenna Problem is when Swamidass says that microbiology isn’t what Behe says, when it actually is by Behe showing it with evidence that the concept of molecular machines is factual and not a metaphore. This is one of many examples in the discussion where Swamidass lacks knowledge or is dishonest in my opinion. It really sounds by your reply that you didn’t even watch the discussion.

There seemed little to trouble me from Josh regarding ID, I am an ID proponent, and it felt like a lot of his objections were something and nothing.

@ministryofarguments3525

3 жыл бұрын

ID is not intelligent though. If it was then it would have prevailed in a court of law, but it was overwhelmed by the Christians that were defending the theory of evolution.

@mikegodfrey2221

3 жыл бұрын

@@ministryofarguments3525 -I don't think a court of Law is the place for deciding the truth of these things -and the ID movement as represented by the discovery institute did not want to be part of that trial.

@derhafi

3 жыл бұрын

@@mikegodfrey2221 They did not want to be part of the losing side. One of the founders of the DI openly expressed his wish to transform the US into a theocracy. Guess what they would teach in schools?

@mikegodfrey2221

3 жыл бұрын

@@derhafi Hi Rob can you provide a reference 're the founder of the DI -I haven't heard if that.

@Draezeth

3 жыл бұрын

@@ministryofarguments3525 The court of law in questions did not hear all the evidence and arguments before making its verdict.

From 37 to 38 minutes, the Swami just rambles on saying things like "maybe this" and "maybe that", while not really doing anything to argue FOR evolution. It is just whimsical and unsupported spiel.

@Phill3v7

3 жыл бұрын

I agree that he does ramble around in response, but he begins by saying that he only needs to rebut the argument brought by Behe. Even if the responses are hypothetical rebuttals, the argument isnt an experimental one and is simply a conceptual problem, which implies no logical inconsistencies only evidencial dilemmas. Josh therfore needs only propose a possible explanation to show that there might be some mechanism that remains yet undiscovered.

@ministryoftruth1451

3 жыл бұрын

@@Phill3v7 'might' pretty much sums up all evolutional theory since the evidence has to be interpreted very liberally to get there.

No contest, Behe wins.

@ExtantFrodo2

3 жыл бұрын

...a booby prize.

@philaypeephilippotter6532

3 жыл бұрын

@@ExtantFrodo2 at best!

Great discussion!

Great discussion. I am a Christian Science teacher and am very thankful for this kind of discourse. Joshua well presented his view and I was encouraged to hear him mention that he processes the world theologically and then scientifically. It illustrates the fact that Christianity and science are separate categories of thought that address separate issues. The Christian scriptures and teachings tell us "why"; Science allows us to discover the "how". As a Christian Science teacher, I occasionally feel uneasy when addressing evolution in any context. It is important to remember that God does not compete with evolution to explain how the diversity we observe came to be. Evolution is simply the mechanism. God is the purpose giver (the why) and initial mechanism (also the how) to the creation and continuation of our complex and incredible universe. I am very excited to check out Joshua's book.

@derhafi

3 жыл бұрын

"As a Christian Science teacher, I occasionally feel uneasy when addressing evolution in any context......." That is one way if saying..I have no scientific integrity. Take it from one of your own: Dr. Francis Collins, the head of the Human Genome Project, is also a devout evangelical Christian. Perhaps the only respectable one in the entire world. Here's what he says. 'Yes, evolution by descent from a common ancestor is clearly true. If there was any lingering doubt about the evidence from the fossil record, the study of DNA provides the strongest possible proof of our relatedness to all other living things. It's also now been possible to compare our DNA with that of many other species. The evidence supporting the idea that all living things are descended from a common ancestor is truly overwhelming. I would not necessarily wish that to be so, as a Bible-believing Christian but it is so. It does not serve faith well to try to deny that.'

@ExtantFrodo2

3 жыл бұрын

*"God does not compete with evolution"* No, he just tells a completely different story and expects no one would notice.

@derhafi

3 жыл бұрын

Why would anyone who is interested in the truth, let alone experts who's job it is to separate truth from fiction, consider a story where neither the claims in the story, nor the supposed storyteller aka God, has any demonstrable correlation with reality?

@ExtantFrodo2

3 жыл бұрын

@@derhafi indeed!

@andrewwells6323

3 жыл бұрын

@@derhafi A bit of a ridiculous overreaction there; there’s nothing unintegral in what Tanner said and he didn’t say he didn’t believe in evolution. He quite literally said the opposite. *”Perhaps the only respectable one in the entire world”* Do you have an emotional problem? There are plenty.

Not sure I understand Swamidass's arguments. Adam and Eve designed and mountains designed, but other things not? Confused.

@ministryoftruth1451

3 жыл бұрын

Also, I could be wrong, but if you are not a Darwinist, but are a "modern evolutionist" don't you still start with the presupposition of evolution? Because the evidence doesn't point that way, they must first begin with that view and then force everything into that square peg. We all have our presuppositions, would be nice if science would admit it so we can move beyond this false pretense that the evidence leads us to evolution.

@brianmi40

2 жыл бұрын

@@ministryoftruth1451 "start with the presupposition of evolution? " WAIT. So, your position is, that GOD ONLY CAN CREATE A VIRUS? WHICH IS IT: 1. Evolution, using the well documented, understood, and OBSERVED process of mutating DNA in the offspring of living things, mutated a Coronavirus into a new and more lethal form, resulting in over 4 million deaths so far. -or- was it: 2. Only GOD can CREATE ANY LIFE or ALTER IT. And so, being BORED as you get at times as a god, god decided to create Covid-19 and all the variants over a year+ of time, and unleashed them to watch a few million of his "creations" be slaughtered. WHICH IS IT?

@ministryoftruth1451

2 жыл бұрын

@@brianmi40 Neither. Both statements contain ignorant biases and make truth claims that can't be enforced. Lets start with the first one. show me evidence where we have observed one being mutate into another. And, I don't mean a virus into another virus.

@brianmi40

2 жыл бұрын

@@ministryoftruth1451 "Lets start with the first one. show me evidence where we have observed one being mutate into another." I could do that. However, at the moment I'm discussing a virus. If we can agree on how that happened, I'll be happy to discuss speciation. I am EXACTLY claiming in my statement above, that a Coronavirus mutated into a new and more lethal form. So, I'll make the alternatives open ended for you if you don't like my alternative, and I'll even grant the possibility you may wish to claim that Covid-19 in it's original SARS-Cov2 form came about as a result of human gain of function research: WHICH IS IT: 1. Evolution using the well documented and understood processes of genetic mutation mutated the SARS-CoV-2 virus spreading around the world into several variants that have been documented so far, including the Lambda, Mu and Delta variants. -or- 2. Whatever the hell you want to propose as an alternative.

@ministryoftruth1451

2 жыл бұрын

@@brianmi40 Nobody has disputed micro evolution. Birds with small beaks evolve into birds with longer beaks. A virus becomes another virus. I assume you are trying to make a point.

32:57 Joshua dodged the question. He really needed to answer it. He overstated the use of Darwin's name. It made me smile when he said he didn't see any evidence of God's design, ignoring all the people in the world today.

@DrZacksCafe

3 жыл бұрын

Could you expand on what you mean by “all the people in the world today”? Thanks in advance.

@northernlight8857

3 жыл бұрын

What do you mean? Could you elaborate?

@DonswatchingtheTube

3 жыл бұрын

@@DrZacksCafe That was simply looking at what evidence is. Is it evidence where you witness the act of the creation of humans, or humans as evidence once they have been created? As they were both Christians, God, the designer in question only created the first two humans, who had the ability to produce the next generation. So the system they were discussing was established at the creation. That creation runs by designed laws. The arguments for design and evolution are both inferred.

@DonswatchingtheTube

3 жыл бұрын

@@northernlight8857 I wanted Joshua to give an account of those evolutionary pathways Justine asked about. He dismissed it, yet it's at the heart of the discussion. If the intelligent design argument is rejected you can't just default to an evolutionary alternative without giving a detailed clinical biological account, as was mentioned by Michael Behe. This becomes a double standard since inferences are allowed for one argument and not for the other.

@northernlight8857

3 жыл бұрын

@@DonswatchingtheTube A short dialogue on youtube isnt time to explain the wast amount of evidence for evolution. Behe has nothing but empty claims and he knows it.

its incredibly obvious, even for someone like me who has no scholarly experience... creation is the only rational explanation... look around, its all just 3 dimensional artwork, actually its less abstract than artwork... its incredibly precise and efficiently functional craftsmanship... Behe and Myer are not only smart and articulate, they are CORRECT!!! what they are saying is TRUE... thats why nobody can stand toe to toe with them in a "debate"... God Bless you Michael!

@zhugh9556

2 жыл бұрын

What is incredibly obvious is that you have no idea what you're talking about.

@matthewbland6246

2 жыл бұрын

@@zhugh9556 i know exactly what i said, and i meant what i said... but since you didnt seem to grasp it, id be willing to break it down more simply for for you if you'd like

@sumo1203

Жыл бұрын

“Rational” - many things about science and reality defy common sense and what some would deem “rational”. That’s why we do science, which ID just does t find any support

@Alexander-the-Mediocre

9 ай бұрын

"even for someone like me who has no scholarly experience... creation is the only rational explanation.." And yet to a majority of people that actually do have scholarly experience and spend there life studying would disagree with you. Your making an argument from personal incredulity or appeal to common sense. This is a fallacy and no one in court or debate takes these types of claims seriously because they have no actual merit. If Behe is correct like you assert based on nothing but cause you think so then why did he get his butt kicked in court? Why under oath did he admit for ID to be a scientific theory then astrology would also be scientific theory? Why was he unable to convince a republican christian judge?

The internet searches graph will always misrepresent ID because school students from 5th to 12th grade will get homework or special assignments based on evolution. Ranging from look up the definition of evolution to a bit more complex stuff. Keep in mind most of these kids aren't in the stage of life where they think about these topics and they just want to make schoolwork and not get an F or a zero on their work. Also Christian kids aren't exempt from these types of assignments so they have to search for the basic definition of evolution as well just for the sake of doing homework. In my opinion the graph mostly proves how the education system has staunchly pushed a viewpoint. I did a lot of internet searches back in high school and even college just to get my assignment done, not because I believed it.

@northernlight8857

3 жыл бұрын

ID is unscientific and desperate religious drivel. It should be kept outt of schools.

@rc7625

3 жыл бұрын

Boo fucking hoo, maybe try to bring real evidence as opposed to dishonest lying/speculation influenced by Bronze Age myths and fables.

@jamestyler9897

3 жыл бұрын

I too have had to look up my homework for science projects, I too don’t necessarily believe in evolution, mainly because I think it’s easy to convince a group of people (scientists) that an ideology is correct because of groupthink, not to say there isn’t any good evidence for evolution, but simply that any idea that differs from that idea gets called drivel and dumb, our current view of politics is proof of this, we have republicans and democrats who both think they’re right and have they’re own facts to back them up, but only one side can be right, it’s just hard to peer through the overwhelming bias that people have for a side that they disagree with.

@notwhatiwasraised2b

3 жыл бұрын

The school system teaches what it understands to be most likely true or necessary to understand. If we teach one alternative creator/creation myth, we must teach them all. And there are soooooo many

@martinploughboy988

3 жыл бұрын

@@northernlight8857 ID is far more scientific that Evolution. Have you ever observed Common Descent?

It seems like Josh feels like being within the scientific majority is enough to answer Michael's objections, but Josh was very light on the science. Like Michael said it just never rises above storytelling.

@southernisraelite5167

6 ай бұрын

-Atoms which are not in the world around us based upon what we can observe, test, replicate, and verify are not supernatural because we don't want it to mean that. A sun that is exploding and attracting at the same time is not supernatural either because we don't want it to mean that. Got it!!!

After watching this, I find myself not understanding where Josh disagrees with Michael.

Appreciate them both but Swami has some maturing to do. Basic concepts were either avoided or missed by him. The inability to differentiate between a man carved Rushmore and Everest was astonishing in the context of "design". Behe is a master of addressing objections BECAUSE his position is unassailable.

@ExtantFrodo2

3 жыл бұрын

Your failure to observe and appreciate the capabilities of evolution by random mutations and natural selection is something you should work on.

@philaypeephilippotter6532

3 жыл бұрын

Simple translation for _creationists._ You are wrong. Learn.

@southernisraelite5167

6 ай бұрын

-Atoms which are not in the world around us based upon what we can observe, test, replicate, and verify are not supernatural because we don't want it to mean that. A sun that is exploding and attracting at the same time is not supernatural either because we don't want it to mean that. Got it!!!

Every time I see the advert for “The Big Conversation” I bemoan the fact that William Lane Craig’s best rejoinder slipped by quickly and-probably-unnoticed. WLC describes God as an infinite consciousness and Penrose replies, “That’s too much like us.” In the full interview WLC responds with something to the effect that “We’re like Him.” He was spot on. That’s the whole thing right there. Dare I say that I found it Unbelievable for that to just slip by?

@downingkeys

3 жыл бұрын

@Dave The Brahman That is a good question sir! If we stay in this context, our consciousness is a reflection of the fact that we are created in the image of God who-in some sense-is a mind with infinite consciousness. I’m not saying that I can prove that here in a KZread comment section, I’m just saying that people of many faiths have believed that humans are created in God’s image, so you cannot debunk that claim by saying-as Penrose did-that the idea of an infinite consciousness is “too much like us”.

@downingkeys

3 жыл бұрын

@Dave The Brahman You say “the very idea has many difficulties.” Well I’ll grant you that. It’s actually an understatement. And while it’s not obvious to me that something that falls outside of my comprehension must not exist, we’re getting quite far afield of the point I was making. I never meant to give the impression that we are like God in every way-far from that. I only meant to say that in some way, we are made in His image. You deserve better theological and philosophical answers than I can give you, but I’d venture to say that part of what it means to be made in God’s image means that we have minds. Not infinite minds, but minds nonetheless. I think the point I’m trying to make is easy to understand if you want to, but unfortunately it’s also easy to misunderstand if you’d rather do that. Clearly things that are alike in some way can be very unalike in other ways. (That’s one of the reasons we have Venn diagrams.)

@ExtantFrodo2

3 жыл бұрын

@@downingkeys *" it’s not obvious to me that something that falls outside of my comprehension must not exist"* It's quite a bit more problematic than simply falling outside your comprehension though. Isn't it? It also falls squarely outside the realm of existence. Welcome to The Twilight Zone: a realm of pure fiction and ad hoc reasoning.

@ExtantFrodo2

3 жыл бұрын

@Dave The Brahman *"and we know that he has a mind"* Huh? How do you even know it exists? If you don't know it exists, then how do you get to claim you know it has a mind?

@downingkeys

3 жыл бұрын

@Dave The Brahman Actually, it sounds like saying: we have a mind. I’m not setting out to prove the existence of God as an infinite mind here. I’m actually not entirely sure what WLC meant by that claim. (He’s usually quite good at defending his own claims.) I was merely claiming that WLC had offered a valid defeater for Penrose’s defeater that “that sounds too much like us.”

This discussion collapsed into the Clark-Van Til disagreement in the end

Joshua has studied ID, I'll take him at his word on that. The problem is, he doesn't engage it in his arguments. I'm sure he doesn't realize that.

@LuciferAlmighty

6 ай бұрын

What arguments?

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. Romans 1:20 I guess Josh hasn't come across this passage of scripture in the Bible.

@ministryofarguments3525

3 жыл бұрын

The Torah, Bible and Quran are all Abrahamic religions that talk about fictional characters that have nothing to do with modern humanity. They come from a time of uneducated people that had little to no understanding of the size of the universe and believed the Sun revolved around the Earth. They were geocentrics and quite literally naive in their beliefs.

@elizabethmcilwain9418

3 жыл бұрын

@@ministryofarguments3525 Hello, Thank you for taking time to share your thoughts! But I would encourage you to look up this citation before you choose to criticize it; it is actually taken from the Christian New Testament, written hundreds of years after the Patriarchs. Additionally, I believe this specific quote was written by a man name Paul who was highly educated in the Pharisee sect. Also, I think your argument is an intriguing one. If the roots of all of these Abrahamic faiths are uneducated and steeped in ignorance, than today - supposedly when we are more educated and less shackled by the burdens of ignorant religion - we would have a more sophisticated society, less burdened by crime, selfishness, poverty, etc. But it is pretty clear that these issues flourish not just in uneducated areas but also in first world countries.

@ministryofarguments3525

3 жыл бұрын

@@elizabethmcilwain9418 Hello, thank you for acknowledging the Abrahamic religions unfalsifiable faith claims. They have a fictional story that is unevidenced and factless and goes against the nature of what we know about the universe in general. The only reason they are still around today is because the deviousness of the religions associated that have infiltrated into nearly every facet of a society and the general lack of education for the followers of such. Religious people such as bishops should not be allowed to be ruling over others that have nothing to do with their devious religion. There should be a freedom from religion but religious people get upset if they can't be prejudice towards others.

FYI: Bill Nye used to be on TV in the Seattle area - where I lived for many years and used to be on a late-night regional comedy show that I enjoyed at the time. He has the standard science entertainment-propaganda down pat for evolution and catastrophic climate change. He knows how to market himself well and to 'teach' the ignorant (and keep them ignorant). So he has a big following.

@brianmi40

2 жыл бұрын

"propaganda down pat for evolution " WAIT, so evolution isn't a "thing" for you, and "only GOD" can create? So, which is it: 1. Evolution, using well known and documented processes of random mutation mutated a Coronavirus into a new and more lethal form, resulting in, so far, over 4 million deaths. -or - was it: 2. Only god can create a virus, so, being bored, god decided to create Covid-19 AND all the variants popping up, and dropped them off one at a time over year plus amount of time just to watch the slaughter of a few million of his "creations"? WHICH IS IT?

@michaelworst9339

2 жыл бұрын

@@brianmi40 Just wrong and the new strain is more virulent but less lethal, devolution

@brianmi40

2 жыл бұрын

@@michaelworst9339 Let us know where you've gotten your information on organ damage and long covid syndrome from Omicron. And there's no such thing as devolution in the Theory of Evolution. Just Evolution.

@southernisraelite5167

6 ай бұрын

-Atoms which are not in the world around us based upon what we can observe, test, replicate, and verify are not supernatural because we don't want it to mean that. A sun that is exploding and attracting at the same time is not supernatural either because we don't want it to mean that. Got it!!!

Good science will overcome the bias. I can agree with Josh there.

Michael "That. Is. Wrong. Utterly wrong" Behe

Those who attacked ID, and irreducible complexity, just pointed to some "supposed" utility or function that could have had a specific biological system, lacking some essential parts. For instance, let's say that there is a car that does not have wheels, nonetheless, is "functional", because it has seats and people can get into and sit. A car cannot be functional without wheels, and could not have accomplished any functionality of transportation before having them. A car in order to be a car and function in its proper way would have needed to have all its parts rightly put and adjusted in form before getting in action.

@brando3342

3 жыл бұрын

Seems like an argument from a mereological nihilist to me. That being, there is no "car" until we label it a "car" and all of it's parts existed just as they were before we labeled their current composition as "car". Therefor the function can be anything one wants it to be, as the object itself doesn't really exist, but all it's parts always existed in some form. The object itself is only a "car" because we decided it is a car. Of course, I am no mereological nihilist.

@sombodysdad

3 жыл бұрын

@@brando3342 The object is a car because it fits the description and definition of a car.

@brando3342

3 жыл бұрын

@@sombodysdad Right, but they would say it only matches the description because we defined it that way. Which is to say everything exists prior to any arbitrary description we give it. It just exists in a different form or composition or lack of composition. Thus nothing really "comes into existence", we just put names to things that already exist. So a "car" is basically a term that doesn't describe something that came to be, it's just a name we give something that always was.

@brando3342

3 жыл бұрын

@@sombodysdad One question they might raise is. "How many grains of sand does it take before it's a 'pile' of sand"?

@sombodysdad

3 жыл бұрын

@@brando3342 So George Washington had a car? Really?

I dont think there re hundreds of machined parts in an outboard motor.

@ExtantFrodo2

3 жыл бұрын

You must have some notion that when parts can come from a hardware store they aren't machined. Screws and washers and pipes and clips and on and on...are all made by machining. The ONLY part not machined is maybe the rope used to pull the crank.

so who controls the search results?

@46:46 Joshua "...It becomes a lot lot easier to IMAGINE how it (flagellum) could have evolved." Inagine? How is that science? Science would be showing us how it put itself together. This sounds like faith to me. I'll stick with the Bible, come on us Josh, it's time to drop that secular 'molecules to man' fairly tale for atheists.

I have a tendency to be contrarian and when the media and scientific "consensus" portrays something in a negative light, it sparks my interest and it makes me think that there's likely some truth to the theory being proposed, given the ridiculous manner at which people are reacting. Every major discoveries in history was a challenge the scientific consensus of the time and faced ridicule. I've been supporting ID ever since and it's not merely for the sake of being a contrarian at this point but rather the lack of evidence that darwinian evolution can create complex systems. If you did the least amount of research on "Irreducible complexity" you'll find that it's never been debunked. The so called "debunks" are just cool stories about how something might've evolved, and that's not science, it's mere speculation and doesn't debunk anything. Most people have not researched both sides of the argument, and the responses by ID proponents, which are quite compelling.

@Alexander-the-Mediocre

9 ай бұрын

ID has no peer reviewed papers and no mechanism or theory. nothing about ID can be falsified or tested. ID proponents primarily argue for design through negative arguments against evolution...this isn't science. "Every major discoveries in history was a challenge the scientific consensus of the time and faced ridicule" Yup like the big bang thoery yet most ID don't believe in a old earth. Here the difference even if a idea or hypothesis faced ridicule scientist that believed it still wrote scientific and peer reviewed papers. These papers where then challenged by other scientist that didn't believe it and so they did there own test yet there test actually failed to falsify the idea and so it slowly changes minds. Now the ID scientist like Behe will write peer review papers on whatever field they studied but when it comes to ID they don't instead appealing to the general population. So the scientist at discovery institute know how to do good science yet they don't when it comes to ID for some reason. Also you know what a tell that you haven't looked at both sides like you claim. You still say "darwinian evolution" which is a dumb ID strawman. Evolutionary science has moved why beyond darwin. All the evolutionary studies now are things darwin had no clue on yet for some reason people that believe in ID keep tacking him on. I know ID claims will never advance and because its religion based and is stuck in the past but real science is always moving forward I would also like to point out that under oath Behe stated that for ID to be a scientific theory the definition of theory would have to be expanded...but he admitted again under oath that his definition would also include things like astrology. So if ID should be taught in schools should astrology as well?

@southernisraelite5167

6 ай бұрын

-Atoms which are not in the world around us based upon what we can observe, test, replicate, and verify are not supernatural because we don't want it to mean that. A sun that is exploding and attracting at the same time is not supernatural either because we don't want it to mean that. Got it!!!

@LuciferAlmighty

6 ай бұрын

ID is a refuted joke

Unbelievable is increasingly disappointing. Its like a theological Overton window that is committed to excluding that which is most relevant. Swamidass needs to pick a position and try to defend it, he simply hasn't yet. Behe needs to take the gloves off and get after it. Everyone here needs to stop assuming their audience isn't ready to get technical- have at it for once!

@eugeneaustin9151

3 жыл бұрын

Behe doesn't need "to take the gloves off" that would cruel.

@budd2nd

3 жыл бұрын

Behe tried that 15 years ago, and lost. The case for evolution is closed. It happened, it’s still happening (COVID 19 anyone).

@onecowstampede9140

3 жыл бұрын

@@budd2nd he "lost" in the same US justice system that declared OJ Simpson "innocent". The epigenome was hardly known, ENCODE began in '03, we still are barely seeing the tip of the iceberg of complexity 17 years later. The 4D nucleome project, and the glycome may contain more information than was thought possible- there's information read in 4 directions. Histone modification by methylation and acetylation literally makes genetic information read/ write- that, in itself, is a ridiculously complex mechanism that needs to be accounted for. Modern synthesis doesn't address it- at all. It simply pushes the random mutation+ selection myth. Its fairy tale for the stubbornly ignorant. If you think you can defend it- hit me up on reddit to discuss. u/onecowstampede Cheers

@budd2nd

3 жыл бұрын

@@onecowstampede9140 Yes there are still areas of evolution that scientists still don't fully understand, but and it's a big BUT, it works. It makes testable predictions, that have all produced the expected results. ID makes NO predictions, offers no NEW information. ID just re- hashes old claims. It has no scientific basis, because it is just an argument from incredulity and lack of knowledge.

@budd2nd

3 жыл бұрын

@@onecowstampede9140 The US justice system has made mistakes, but overallit strives for truth and transparency. Just because science hasn't produced 100% of the answer it is lazy to say god did it. Even if you do say "god did it" which god ? Either are many to choose from, and all claim to have created our planet.

What would Mt. Rushmore look like if it WASN’T designed?

The key concept here is that laws of nature do not have a preference to the order of arrangement of biological molecules. Therefore things like rocks which are formed by the base laws of nature arise all the time and have a certain type of order/complexity. Life has apparently only arisen once in the whole of existence if the universe. Life does not arise regularly like other items such as rocks, mountains, etc. There is no preference in the laws of nature which nucleotide follows the previous nucleotide (likewise with amino acids). Therefore the assumption is that life arose by a one-time chance event. A life form is easily distinguishable from non-life. This even at an intuitive level shows us that life forms have a different type of order/complexity compared to non-life. There are certain definitions a conglomeration of atoms must meet to be defined as life. All of these items are functions and purposes. For example the ability to self-replicate. The ability to gather matter and organise it in a specific way. Logically this type of order is different from the type of order of rocks, mountains and even planets. To fail to recognise this is a failure in basic logic. Otherwise there would be no way to recognise life from non-life. The only other similar type of order that we know of are machines that we build. These are clearly designed, they can not form into their order by laws of nature alone. Therefore it is reasonable to conclude that both the type of order of living things and the type of order of machines are both intelligently designed.

@r00kiepilot

3 жыл бұрын

Josh’s comment that to him life forms are like mount Everest is a ridiculous comparison. If that were the case then no definition of life could exist, for how could we distinguish it from non-life if it is the same type of order and rocks and mountains, and if it is formed by the same natural laws. To re-iterate, life is possible within the laws of nature, but laws of nature can not produce life directly, as they do mountains and rocks. Thats why appealing to a massively improbable chance event is currently the underlying axiom of origin of life

Behe - “I don’t like analogies because they don’t describe what’s happening at a molecular level well.” *immediately jumps into a ridiculous analogy about building a mouse trap from garage scraps that would never work for a mousetrap.

@MarcusHitch

Жыл бұрын

I didn't get that far... not the mousetrap again? Admittedly it's kinda funny... did you ever follow the story of how various people demonstrated how a mousetrap wasn't irreducibly complex, and he ended up having an ongoing spat about mousetraps? He's a belligerent jackass, incapable of backing down from anything...

@harlowcj

9 ай бұрын

People like who? I haven't come across an honest rebuttal of the irreducible complexity problem. On the contrary, I find it surprising how many scientists don't seem to understand just how difficult the problem is.

@Alexander-the-Mediocre

9 ай бұрын

@@harlowcj This is a lie. Behe stated during a cross exam in court that the immune system was irreducible complex and that science has never addressed this. Then he was pressented with like 50 peer review papers on that very subject. ID acts like its never been addressed when it has. From Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District "Professor Behe's concept of irreducible complexity depends on ignoring ways in which evolution is known to occur. Although Professor Behe is adamant in his definition of irreducible complexity when he says a precursor 'missing a part is by definition nonfunctional,' what he obviously means is that it will not function in the same way the system functions when all the parts are present. For example in the case of the bacterial flagellum, removal of a part may prevent it from acting as a rotary motor. However, Professor Behe excludes, by definition, the possibility that a precursor to the bacterial flagellum functioned not as a rotary motor, but in some other way, for example as a secretory system." See most ID ignore things like precursor functions and evolutionary mechanisms like recombination. lol Behe even did a simulation and wrote a paper on modeling evolution for producing a new trait with irreducible complexity. And his simulation even ignored some evolutionary mechanisms. And yet under oath admitted that that it showed that the biochemical systems it described could evolve within 20,000 years. So even his simulation created a so called irreducible complex system within a timeframe well within evolutions scope. Science has addressed the irreducible complexity problem yet every time they do ID just finds another thing. Which isn't how science works. They proved that a irreducible complex can evolve in general yet ID acts like they have to prove exactly how every single example they find works.

44:11 Perfect example of Joshua's time wasting prowess. This guy can go all day talking, and not say anything noteworthy. That particular gishgallup starts around 43:00 Hilarious reaction from Behe when Smarmydass tries to conflate things with the dinosaur comet theory. 44:51 but for the total effect, I recommend backing it up just a bit to when Smarmydass says, even if we knew everything about evolution, that wouldn't explain everything. Huh? It's fun to watch Josh faildancing.

@EternalVisionToday

Жыл бұрын

...yeah, Dr. Swamidas didn't do great here at all. I was expecting a much more rigorous opposition from biological science from Dr. Swamidas, but the flailing around was unimpressive and frustrating.

Biologists need to trained in chemistry - Nano chemistry. They explained in such broad views almost like an analogy

Joshua... Biologists have no idea. Don't know a lot of things. But they sure assert it in the media.

Josh, this is the second discussion I’ve heard you in. Your denial that Darwinian evolution is central to many biologists and affects their study is demonstrably wrong. Your explanation of bacterial flagellum as composed of only one part, exhibits your lack of understanding of bacterial biology and undermines your credibility.

@EternalVisionToday

Жыл бұрын

...truly. Dr. Swamidas lost credibility in this debate. It was lawyerly rhetorical flourish at best. But, a scientific pushback to Dr. Behe based on biological science, it was not. I would have liked to see something substantive to challenge Dr. Behe just to see how well he could defend his own scientific grasp of irreducible complexity of the flagellum....but no dice. Dr. Swamidas attempted his only clear scientific attack vector that the parts of a flagellum were fundamentally the same, thus implying that the "irreducible complexity"...was actually "simplicity", but gets batted down brutally, and wimpers backward and backs into that "other biologists" would disagree with Behe. This was childish at best as opposed to backing up his argument vector, but, Swamidas knew that he couldn't simply punch back in kind. Dr. Behe was unopposed here, and clearly took this debate.

@Alexander-the-Mediocre

9 ай бұрын

@@EternalVisionTodayI don't really believe you when you say you want to see substantive to challenge Dr. Behe. But if you really do want to see it then I recommend you look up the Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District case text. Cause he was challenged in the cross exam. For example it was brought up that one of the irreducible complex systems that science will never touch was the immune system. Behe has stated this multiple times in books and speeches. And yet a bunch of papers that addressed that was shown to Behe and his only response was its not good enough. Now I do understand that it was a bit of a gotcha attach but at the very least it proved that Behe either over exagerates his claim that "scientist will never touch the subject" or that he is comletely ignorant of the studies actually happening because he has made that claim even after papers have been published showing at the very least the scietist will touch the subject. He was also challenged on how ID is a scientific theory and asked to come up with mechanisms like all other scientific theories have but he failed on that part as well. He also admitted that there are no peer reviewed papers on ID. Wining a debate is not science its just who can think on their feet on the fly better that's all a debate shows. Maybe with a little bit of prep time.

We need to get more engineers and mathematicians involved in the debate because that's the detail that was missing here. It's about precise probabilities and the engineering of complex information-driven systems with several bootstrapping problems in them. Those facts, glossed over here, are the evidence of a designer laid out plainly for anyone who wishes to dig in. This is an engineering and statistical problem that could have brought both sides of the debate together better. I like that they ended civilly - that was nice.

@philaypeephilippotter6532

3 жыл бұрын

I'll be civil. I'm an engineer who has also studied mathematics and I see no evidence for any kind of _intelligent design_ in nature and no evidence for a designer. An _intelligent designer_ would never have included in the human body an entirely redundant organ the failure of which can kill that human body - the appendix. Sorry but that's pretty well conclusive by my lights.

@akashverma4280

3 жыл бұрын

@@philaypeephilippotter6532 An intelligent designer would never had made us die. So, no intelligent design. case closed. . gud shite. GG Don't call yourself 'civil' , I have seen you call out people morons online. when they were asking simple questions.

@elizabethmcilwain9418

3 жыл бұрын

@@akashverma4280 What an interesting comment. Just out of curiosity, do you mind taking a minute to explain why an intelligent designer would never had made us to die? I’ve never heard anyone make this claim before.

@akashverma4280

3 жыл бұрын

@@elizabethmcilwain9418 Phil and I have weird chemistry. I'm a supporter of intelligent design. I was merely highlighting the absurdity in Phil's statement. Phil believes that we evolved from Primordial soup and all that design we see is an illusion. But I disagree with Phil. When I ask questions about neo-Darwinisms and Abiogenesis, he (including other believers of Darwinism) resorts to name calling. Abiogenesis and neo-Darwinism is wishful thinking. Darwinism is a reductionist theory. I was an Atheist myself but a rational one. I went from Atheist to saying that I believe in god to proclaiming God exists! Suffering is the cost of living and anyone who tells you otherwise is trying to sell you something. This quote resonates with me... Bhagvad Gita As it is (8:15) says: the same thing that this world is temporary and full of miseries is not our home. Everything we face (whether happiness or distress) are the fruits of our own actions and when we enjoy those fruits, we experience depending upon what the fruit was. God doesn't intervenes in deciding material happiness or distress. We are eternal living beings residents of spiritual world. This is not our real home. In this material world it is full of dangers. Similar to what popular anti-theist, Neil Degrasse tyson said instead of building tornado shelters if Earth really was home there would be no tornados at all. SB 10.14.58 says padaṁ padaṁ yad vipadāṁ na teṣām I.e. in this material world there are miseries at every step. God cannot be known by the inductive process. Therefore He is called adhokṣaja, which means “unknowable by direct perception.” The scientists say there is no God because they are trying to understand Him by direct perception. But He is adhokṣaja! Religion means bhāgavata-dharma, understanding God and our relationship with God. That is religion. You may call it “Hindu religion” or “Muslim religion” or “Christian religion,” but in any case, real religion is that which teaches how to love God. Sa vai puṁsāṁ paro dharmo yato bhaktir adhokṣaje: if by following some religious system you come to the platform of loving God, then your religious system is perfect. Otherwise, it is simply a waste of time - bogus religion, without a clear conception of God. So we have to understand what God is and what He says, and we have to abide by His orders. Then there is real religion, there is real understanding of God, and everything is complete.

@TestMeatDollSteak

3 жыл бұрын

Viewing biological organisms as “engineered” is precisely the mistake that people like Behe are making, though. Hence Behe’s flawed and debunked argument regarding the bacterial flagellum as being analogous to an outboard motor, for example.

prof Behe is amazing man.

@southernisraelite5167

6 ай бұрын

-Atoms which are not in the world around us based upon what we can observe, test, replicate, and verify are not supernatural because we don't want it to mean that. A sun that is exploding and attracting at the same time is not supernatural either because we don't want it to mean that. Got it!!!

@LuciferAlmighty

6 ай бұрын

He doesn't understand evolution

@user-nx7xx7rf1h

6 ай бұрын

@@LuciferAlmighty you don't understand evolution.

@LuciferAlmighty

6 ай бұрын

@@user-nx7xx7rf1h behe is a fraud

As an atheist, this debate demonstrates the absurdity of religion. Neither the Christian (Behe) nor the Hindu (Swampass) had any explanation for origins. Just superstition and God or Vishnu. Wow.

@gehanameresekere1345

Жыл бұрын

Swamidhas is a Christian

Joshua doesn't understand Behe's argument. He doesn't or can't address it at the the level Behe is discussing. Joshua say's that maybe if you took a part away it might still do something. Okay, but that begs the question, what? Joshua doesn't say, nor have other critics. It's not Behe's obligation to make the argument against his theory, it's Joshua's obligation, at which time Behe would have to respond. Joshua doesn't apply scientific process properly, and is the one who has logical errors. Joshua also thinks the flagellum is very simple (thinks it's only one part), but he is doing what Darwinists do, look at the problem at such a high level that the complexity can be ignored. Joshua says Behe's argument has logical flaws without explaining, but he demonstrates that he fails to make logical arguments. For example, for example he continually makes comments like "it's not a machine" or "it's only one part" without any real argument. Those are conclusions not arguments. Ultimately, Joshua admits that his claim that Behe theory isn't good science comes from theology, at that point he has no scientific argument. Behe wins this debate, easily.

Josh has some resentment.

The examples Behe uses in his books are demonstrably wrong, he doesn’t have any published, peer reviewed research supporting irreducible complexity. Here’s just a few studies demonstrating his claims are explicitly incorrect. KZread doesn’t like links, but just google the titles and the papers will pop up. Knockout genes and falgellar motility:“Evolutionary resurrection of flagellar motility via rewiring of the nitrogen regulation system” De novo volition of multicellularity: “De novo origins of multicellularity in response to predation” De novo evolution of promoters: “Random sequences rapidly evolve into de novo promoters” De novo evolution of protein protein binding sites: “Ancient Adaptive Evolution of Tetherin Shaped the Functions of Vpu and Nef in Human Immunodeficiency Virus and Primate Lentiviruses”

Agree with Behe, I like Josh, but seeing him in other discussions-especially with Dr. James Tour, was enough for me to see he has little to stand on.

@zombiesingularity

3 жыл бұрын

James Tour's points have nothing to do with evolutionary theory. Tour's points are about abiogenesis, the origin of life.

@flamingswordapologetics

3 жыл бұрын

@@zombiesingularity Yep, but you can't separate the two-especially if you are coming from a Naturalist perspective. At least Josh understands that this all can't be an accident.

@zombiesingularity

3 жыл бұрын

@@derhafi I don't believe in ID nor do I agree with Tour's arguments, FYI.

@derhafi

3 жыл бұрын

Do you realise that the suggested alternative, for evolution or the origin of life, as it is presented by the hand puppets of the ill named Discovery Institute, to a naturalistic explanation is indistinguishable from magic? Tours argument is this: "we don't know exactly how this happened..therfore the God I happen to believe in must be responsible"

@flamingswordapologetics

3 жыл бұрын

@@derhafi Actually that is not Tour's argument. Tour from a scientific perspective, actually does not support ID either. I disagree with him on that, but otherwise he is awesome. We all didn't get here by accident. Only a fool would believe such. We are clearly designed, the universe, everything has a designer. I would believe that, even if I wasn't a Christian. The naturalist believes in the beginning a primordial soup, which arose from some sort of big bang that no one can explain. I'm sorry, but I don't have enough faith to believe that nonsense and neither should you.

If you eliminated the word 'Darwin' from Mike Behe's presentation, it would only be half as long.

Joshua is misdirecting by generalizing. Glossing over extremely important details. Disappointed.

Intelligence design is a hypothesis and evolution is a theory. That is the difference. Dr. Behe said it himself. There isn’t an explanation for the beginning of life.

@enomiellanidrac9137

2 жыл бұрын

So basically Evolution has a working model whereas intelligent design don't.

@brianmi40

2 жыл бұрын

But, fascinatingly, we now have discovered a NONORGANIC CHEMICAL REACTION that is CREATING A COMPLEX MOLECULE CHAIN, which then is ABLE TO SELF REPLICATE ON ITS OWN. That is HUGE. If they can show it has the ability to mutate the complex molecule we will be getting quite close to a demonstration of how life CAN begin.

@alfonstabz9741

2 жыл бұрын

@@enomiellanidrac9137 what working model? example?

@enomiellanidrac9137

2 жыл бұрын

​@@alfonstabz9741 What I mean by a working model is that the theory used to explain the starting set of hypothesis has demonstrated predictive power. For example a study was conducted to see if evolution by natural selection could apply to non living system and found conclusive result that it indeed does under certain sets of conditions ( Journal of Theoretical Biology Volume 247, Issue 1, 7 July 2007, Pages 152-167).

@alfonstabz9741

2 жыл бұрын

@@enomiellanidrac9137 "evolution by natural selection could apply to non living system" non you mean chemicals thru the process of chemistry? obviously a control environment by the chemist with finite set of chemicals controlled by the chemist. that will definitely yield predictable result we all know that.! obviously remember evolutionary process is unintended unguided without a target process.

Please look at the scientific description of the flagellum and make up your own mind if it is one part or many parts.

@LuciferAlmighty

6 ай бұрын

Yet it works just fine with "missing parts".

Does any aspect of Intellingent Design oppose Young Earth Creation? Because I do believe both are true. I like when Behe said what we observe today is devolution NOT evolution. I completely agree. Darwinian evolution is a myth. God bless.

@zgobermn6895

3 жыл бұрын

ID is not committed to a young earth, as far as I know ID proponents accept the general outlines of the current science related to the age and formation of the universe, even the origins, age, and development of life on earth. They dont take the Genesis creation account as literal.

@jonfromtheuk467

3 жыл бұрын

Gerinja, ID doesn't oppose a young earth , just the vast myriad of different scientific disciplines, all mutually buttressing the fact that the earth is 4.7 billion years old does that job without any comeback. If it wasn't written in your book that the earth is 6,000-10,000 years old, you have ZERO problem this 4.7 billion years date but remember these same people thought there was a hard firmament in the sky and didnt know where the sun went at night? The reason why you dont accept it is that it is a house of cards - thus you CANT admit that we dont seems to be the centre of God's plan if he created the cosmos 13.8 billion years ago, but only populated one tiny planet with his chosen a few thousand years ago? and that furthermore 99.8% of all creatures that have ever existed on the planet.......... have gone extinct.

@northernlight8857

3 жыл бұрын

So you choose to believe in an old storybook rather than science because it makes you feel good......

@jonfromtheuk467

3 жыл бұрын

@@northernlight8857 and one that contains many school boy level scientific errors

@jonfromtheuk467

3 жыл бұрын

@King J-dub correct, but it seems they are heavily intertwined.

Joshua's points just now are real 101. I'm surprised they're so basic.

@lrn_news9171

Жыл бұрын

The same points that were debunked in 1990s lol

What does the Holy Ghost have to say about this matter?

@borneandayak6725

3 жыл бұрын

He talk nothing, He just enjoy it. His creation struggle to learn and He please with that.

Basically you can't say.. See? This is how designed stuff is made by itself. And use designed stuff in your experiment. The experiment would require undesigned stuff for it to be legitimate. Never mind the point that you need stuff to begin with because evolutionist like to argue as well that the universe didn't come from "Mind". And string field theory is just infinite regression which is the same thing they like to accuse ID of having.

@notwhatiwasraised2b

3 жыл бұрын

Let's say you and I are equally bewildered by the mysteries of life and evolution. Would that evidence god(s)? Are you confusing string theory & quantum field theory?

The quality of ideas and meticulous thought in this is not up to usual standards

@notwhatiwasraised2b

3 жыл бұрын

sophistry

46:40 _//"IF that is the case then it becomes A LOT EASIER TO IMAGINE"//_ Swami, I actually feel a bit sorry for you. And you saying _"All these parts are so similar . . "_ as to say that _"random mutations"_ will step in and "save the day". It is no wonder that the ToE comes off as such a bone headed idea.

@DJRickard2010

3 жыл бұрын

It has nothing to do with saving the day. In a population, there are always random mutations occurring and some being passed on to subsequent generations. The phenotypic expression of some of them give an organism an adaptive advantage. Over millions of years (sorry, not 6000), there is evolution and occasionally speciation.

@john-giovannicorda3456

3 жыл бұрын

@@DJRickard2010 Those mutations will bring nothing remarkable to that offspring. Since no remarkable changes, then no way to show the cause for the bio-diversity that we see today. You are only guessing, and any bones or fossils found in the dirt would tell you nothing of any such changes, as any previous "changes" would require your imagination to kick in. Until you sort out proving how your mutational changes caused any such "changes", then we may assume that your theory is no good for explaining how our bio-diversity came to be. I'd like to add that the natural selection phenomenon tells nothing of any changes that any given life form had when it was born. That is unless you also have *it's known parents* to examine as well.

@DJRickard2010

3 жыл бұрын

@@john-giovannicorda3456 you’re wrong John, just wrong. Do you have ANY idea how long 3.7 billion years is?

@john-giovannicorda3456

3 жыл бұрын

@@DJRickard2010 I have more to add, but first let me ask you; Which point do you say is wrong? Name one or two, and please be specific.

@DJRickard2010

3 жыл бұрын

@@john-giovannicorda3456 “Those mutations will bring nothing remarkable to that offspring?” Where the F do you get you information? The theory of evolution by natural selection is essentially a law to most scientists. Are you a flat earther too?

Forget about 'intelligent'.... Is there design or not in the simplest molecule? Professing to be wise, they became fools, And if is stupid design simply try to make one.

Religion teaches man how to go to heaven. But science studies how heaven goes! The may not talk the same language and understand each other, and may not be contradicting each other, but man may think they are.

Just a few days ago, some people found a stainless steel monolith in the middle of the Utah desert. It is strange that no one assumes it is a natural outcropping.

@ExtantFrodo2

3 жыл бұрын

Why would you say that's strange? I'd say it's pretty obvious.

@chrisazure1624

3 жыл бұрын

@@ExtantFrodo2 Aliens did it.

@chrisazure1624

3 жыл бұрын

@Dave The Brahman But the fact is you see something made in an orderly shape, foreign material (to the environ) and finish and immediately know that it had a creator. Knowing how is immaterial. Knowing that it can't be explained through nature certainly makes one wonder.

@chrisazure1624

3 жыл бұрын

@Dave The Brahman Bwahahaha. I don't think a stainless steel monolith is one of those of mistaken origin.

@chrisazure1624

3 жыл бұрын

@Dave The Brahman We don't know where energy and matter came from. We don't know how life began. We don't know what consciousness is. We speculate, but we don't know. Many scientist think it had to have an outside, guiding force. It you want to learn how speculation has been used to try to explain the origin of life, Google Dr. James Tour on the subject. As a organic chemist, he says we don't have a clue.

Behe: logic, argument, analogies, science Joshua: that can't be true because scientists don't agree, theology is more important than the flagellum, God's creation isn't like Mt Rushmore - it's more like Mt everest... Behe 1 - Joshua 0

@ExtantFrodo2

3 жыл бұрын

Behe: argument from incredulity. = already lost.

@martinploughboy988

3 жыл бұрын

@@ExtantFrodo2 You don't think Joshua is arguing from incredulity?

@budd2nd

3 жыл бұрын

Behe is just protecting his comfortable myth.

@airikd6535

3 жыл бұрын

@@budd2nd hey nice try sport

@martinploughboy988

3 жыл бұрын

@@budd2nd The myth is Evolution.

God actually did make it pretty clear that the human and chimpanzee genomes are not the same. The problem was actually rooted in a misunderstanding of what actually constitutes the active portions of the genomes. The gene coding regions were the only regions considered, because the vast majority of the genome was considered non-functional “junk” DNA. NOW we know that those regions are completely different between humans and chimps, and two genomes are actually much more different than originally thought. In fact, what is being discovered is that the most important regions involved in differentiation and embryonic development tend to be species-specific. That is NOT what evolutionary theory predicted. And so there is actually not strong evidence that humans evolved from a common ancestor with chimps, at least not by means of random mutations acted on by selection. There simply was nowhere near enough time for that many mutations to accumulate to account for the actual differences between the species.

@ramptonarsecandle

3 жыл бұрын

Before making a statement like that ("God actually did make it pretty clear that the human and chimpanzee genomes are not the same") you need to establish the existence of your particular god as from where I'm standing you have nothing but baseless faith. And also a gross misunderstanding of evolution and in particular phylogenetics. Just saying..........

@philaypeephilippotter6532

3 жыл бұрын

@@ramptonarsecandle Actually you're missing their point (and just to make it clear, I agree with you _except_ for this). They start from this position: _God exists therefore I believe in it; Since I believe in God it must exist; Why can you not see that, it's totally obvious!_ They don't see this as the _circular argument_ that it is. Equally beliefs in any other _god,_ agnosticism and atheism can all be the same - often devil-worship. Not that you shouldn't take them apart, you should, but it helps to know how they think - illogically.

@ramptonarsecandle

3 жыл бұрын

@@philaypeephilippotter6532 Hi Phil, good to chat again! Get what you're saying but I always start from the position that no god exists, especially theirs! As he seems to be the most evil and bloodthirsty of the lot. I also get angry by the way they ignore all of modern science, but that's just me.

@philaypeephilippotter6532

3 жыл бұрын

@@ramptonarsecandle Hi *David,* No, it's not just you, I get upset by their wilful ignorance too. But I was born in 1953 (I'll be 22 soon) so over time I've developed an equanimity now that won't let me get more than a little upset. And I must confess to a little _schadenfreude_ when these idiots get angry with me!

@ramptonarsecandle

3 жыл бұрын

@@philaypeephilippotter6532 it was ever thus. It annoys me that they think they own morality when their bible is the most blood soaked book in existence Stay safe in these crazy days

Fundamentally Swamidass is right. One fundamental error in ID is that it seems to focus on the gaps in scientific knowledge while restraining God to create just like we create. A pair of pliers are designed but are not complex. The Bible, in Romans, says that all things are from God, through God and for God. This is true. We should let nature speak and tell us of the creator. We may be missing the message because we expect God to design like us. The Bible says my ways are not your ways, my thoughts are not your thoughts. Thanks for this.

@Jamie-Russell-CME

3 жыл бұрын

read Genesis

@samdg1234

3 жыл бұрын

Are you sure a pair of pliers is not complex according to the definition here? What does it take to qualify as complex? A mousetrap is complex remember. Irreducibly so. I am just asking you to not equivocate on that term. I don't see that we are talking about space shuttle complexity.

@gfujigo

3 жыл бұрын

@@Jamie-Russell-CME I have read Genesis. Help me understand your point. Thanks.

@gfujigo

3 жыл бұрын

@@samdg1234 Perhaps better examples could be a stick made to move something, a hammer, a stone used to hit something, etc. The point is that intentional design is manifested in a wide range of phenomena that are not irreducibly complex. In addition, Swamidass gave an example of the amoeba and the bacteria that recently merged under observation. Behe's reply was to ask about the molecular process involved. Just because scientist don't currently know that doesn't mean they will not know. The amoeba absorbing the bacteria happened right in front of them under observation. This is a perfect example of the gap's approach of ID. When scientist do investigate the amoeba and bacteria and find the molecular pathways, then what? What will then happen to ID? As a Christian I am not a physicalist. So I do think there is far more at play in reality than the physical. The Bible makes this clear. So, one thing I think about is that if God used evolutionary processes to develop life on earth, what can we learn from what he has revealed through the process. The Bible says all things are from God, through God and for God. Elsewhere it says that nature declares the glory of God. I am convinced, based on these Bible verses, that whatever we encounter in nature is ultimately a revelation of and from God. I agree with Leibnitz who said "When God works miracles, he does not do it in order to supply the wants of nature, but those of grace. Whoever thinks otherwise, must needs have a very mean notion of the wisdom and power of God." In other words, God works miracles for theological reasons not because nature is lacking in its intended ability. God in his wisdom and power designed nature such that with the exception of his sustaining power and grace it does not need constant miraculous intervention. The evolutionary process says volumes about God's creative power, wisdom and infinite intelligence. The more we study nature - biology, physics, chemistry, mathematics, etc. - the more we should be drawn to God and see, as Paul said, his infinite power and wisdom revealed to us in such a comprehensive and thorough manner. I do think it's good for ID to raise the issues and questions that it does. I now, however, understand why scientists don't pay it much attention. Again, not being a physicalist, I do think there is more at play here than blind physical processes. One day that may become even more clear. In the meantime, whatever happened, I am sure God did it.

@ExtantFrodo2

3 жыл бұрын

@@gfujigo evolution does not need to be designed. It happens necessarily whenever you have variant reproducers culled non-randomly.

Behe’s arguments were made during the Dover trial and ripped to shreds and yet he can’t critically accept the flaws in his position

@TyrellWellickEcorp

3 жыл бұрын

You have no idea what you’re talking about. The dover trial was an absolute joke. Behe’s arguments remain unrefuted to this day.

@andrewdouglas1963

3 жыл бұрын

Can you give an example of some of these flaws in Behe's position?

@patldennis

3 жыл бұрын

The fact that intermediate forms of structures have intermediate functions unrelated to their function in supposedly irreducibly complex assemblies (and are thus amenable to preservation via selection) is one argument that Behe denies or ignores. He just can't wrap his bald head around the mouse trap/tie clip argument

@TyrellWellickEcorp

3 жыл бұрын

@@patldennis This dumb and pathetic demonstration had already been refuted for a while now. The tie clip demonstration doesn’t address the essential point, namely, that ALL parts of the mouse trap are necessary to make it function as intended. Now if by removing a part of the mouse trap the mechanism could still function in the same capacity, then I think a valid point would be made. But Behe’s whole point is that ALL parts of the mouse trap are needed to function as a mouse trap

@patldennis

3 жыл бұрын

@@TyrellWellickEcorp no it's just that the point of the tie clip flew right over your feeble head. Different components are selected for functions which are alternative to those which they perform in multi-component complexes. That's how they all manage to rendezvous. This is the reason why a theropod forelimb can be selectable as a wing prior to it having any flight capability-based on its ability to do other things in the meantime. Bacterial flagella and bird wings are incidental, not accidental

The primary error in Swamidass’ argument is that it springs from science first before it draws from scripture.

@michaelbabbitt3837

3 жыл бұрын

No, it draws from limited science. Science is very broad.

@ministryoftruth1451

3 жыл бұрын

@@michaelbabbitt3837 I agree with both of you. When science is the basis for your worldview its going to be limited. Up until the enlightenment science was just another subject among many of which all were subordinate to a theological one. One who views science as a system under theology will be able to have a systematic and complete worldview. One that begins with science will have a limited worldview. Either way, each worldview begins with a presupposition. this is something those who worship science don't understand.

at 37:00 An amoeba ate a bacterial cell and the bacterial cell continued to live while inside the amoeba. The Swami here said it was evolution right before his eyes as a new "organelle" arrived. What kind of horse puckey is that?

@sombodysdad

3 жыл бұрын

That is all Joshua has- horse puckey

@anthonydiaz2073

3 жыл бұрын

So did this amoeba with a bacteria inside then reproduce itself? With another bacteria inside the daughter?

@chadjcrase

2 жыл бұрын

@@anthonydiaz2073 Once it reproduces with the new organelle, it then becomes a part of that species' DNA and so you can say it is an example of evolution.

15 years on and "Wow, that's complex!" still isn't a theory.

@lrn_news9171

Жыл бұрын

The question is whether or not it's possible for complex biological systems to evolve in gradual undirected darwinian steps and if it's shown to be impossible then the only plausible conclusion is design.

@lizd2943

Жыл бұрын

@@lrn_news9171 Nope. Design needs to stand or fall on its own merits. You don't get to god of the gaps your way to being right. And of course, it's quite possible for them to evolve.

@lrn_news9171

Жыл бұрын

@@lizd2943 "I imagine that it might have evolved that way" does not refute irreducible complexity. I said IF evolution by natural undirected processes is shown to be impossible, the plausible conclusion is design. Maybe that can never be proven, but scientists would agree that nothing can be proven in science. Evolution fails in the testability and predictability department, thus falls outside the parameters of the scientific method.

@lizd2943

Жыл бұрын

@@lrn_news9171 Irreducible complexity was refuted by evolutionary biologist Hans Muller 78 years before Behe published Darwin's Black Box, only he gave it the more accurate label interlocking complexity. There are entire scientific journals specifically devoted to tests of evolutionary theory. It has massive predictive power. Again, design has to stand or fall on its own merits, of which it has none.

@lrn_news9171

Жыл бұрын

@@lizd2943 That is absurd, they had no idea about DNA code, or anything about the cell and the overwhelming complexity of biological systems. We are talking about discoveries that have been made the past 3 decades.

Joshua slips in his final analyses round Rushmore v. Everest.

@sombodysdad

3 жыл бұрын

Joshua is confused as God didn't have to intentionally create Everest. Mt Rushmore wouldn't have the Presidents if someone didn't intentionally do it.

Swamidass, these arguments are addressed in the books, but you don't answer any questions. How do random parts work together? It is random. You make questions, but you don't give any answers. You make possibilities but you don't answer questions. Machine and room? What?!

Interesting. An amoeba and also a complex amoeba. Seems to me they are two distinct, unrelated creatures. What happens is the amoeba was not *eaten*. It was excited or transformed into a different amoeba by the host. The same with bacteria alive in humans intestines. They thrive living in the human hosts.

@chadjcrase

2 жыл бұрын

From what I can gather, the research is actually showing that the bacteria changed morphologically to become a structure. It's not just that they continued to survive in the amoeba.

please tell us the fallacy. Please tell us the error. How did the argument fail? The fallacy came from Swamidass word salad fallacy. Love you Dr. Josh, but you never give specifics. What is clear is the retreat to suggest ID proponents are idiots. Allbeit, in a kind way.

@Jamie-Russell-CME

3 жыл бұрын

your the example given IS a complex machine.

@ExtantFrodo2

3 жыл бұрын

@@Jamie-Russell-CME for life not to be complex after 3.5 billion years of competitive evolution would be a miracle.

Theists like Swamidass are in an awkward position when you recognize the impossibility of natural causes or inanimate materials creating life , but attributing evolutionary mythology methodology for the creation of "Almost" all forms of life. His definition of faith fails him at both ends.

If I had a dollar for everytime Joshua Swamidass has been refuted and yet still uses the exact same arguments that have been refuted--I'd be a millionaire!!

@gfujigo

3 жыл бұрын

For example?

@StandingForTruthMinistries

3 жыл бұрын

@@gfujigo Go to my channel playlist section and search through "Refuting Joshua Swamidass". TMR4A for one.

@mauskins87

3 жыл бұрын

You can't even beat the lovely Gutsick Gibbon standing.

"Everyone sees the mouse trap as Designed." ~ Dr Behe (Truth !!!) Yet the human eye and profound fine tuning of the Universe have no 'Purpose' ? (Get REAL People !!!) "Nothing exploded from nothing, and they all sinned happily ever after." ~ Atheist Creed ~~~ “There are NONE ‘SO BLIND’; As those who Will Not SEE.” ~ John Heywood

@Alexander-the-Mediocre

9 ай бұрын

Behe - don’t like analogies because they don’t describe what’s happening at a molecular level well. Also Behe uses mouse trap analogy..... Also Behe admitted that his version of theory would include astrology.... ""Nothing exploded from nothing....." ~ Atheist Creed" blatant lie by you. First Big bang theory doesn't explain where the singularity came from and second athiest creed? lol the theory was first put forth by a christian priest and had a lot of push back initially because it was thought to be religious in nature but unlike ID it actually was science so it was able to overcome the anti-religious bias.....lol and now its gotten to the point that idiots call it an atheist theory cause they don't know history or science.

@tonygoodkind7858

7 ай бұрын

_Shawn,_ did you know you were wrong and that's why you mentioned atheism? * Behe doesn't have evidence of intelligent design. * That's why it isn't accepted science. It's pseudoscience. * Evolution is apparently responsible for the vast majority of complexity in life. That's why when you simulate it on computers, it works. (You know like "mari/o" and other vids on KZread.) If you had good reason to think there was an intelligent designer, you'd simply stay on topic and not need to attack other ideologies to try to put them on the defensive. For example, when the topic is evolution I never bother attacking the other person's beliefs. I simply keep presenting non-stop evidence proving evolution is a fact, like the ~340 scientific papers in the references section of "evolution" on Wikipedia (just for a start).

the statement that Justin is referring to at about 7 minutes came from the schoolboard who'd just lost their case against evolution, the courtcase was a resounding defeat for the schoolboard, they were wrong to say that evolution hadn't been proved, there isn't a major university in the world that does not teach evolution as fact. It's the foundation on which other branches of science stand on.

@ExtantFrodo2

3 жыл бұрын

Even the Bible says that the acid test for the veracity of a claim (or prophet) is whether the predictions it (or he) makes come to pass. The simple fact is that the better your evolutionary model is the better your predictions are. If that does not attest to the veracity of the theory of evolution, then state a better test. When thusly challenged no creationist ever responded. They just ran away.

@winterlogical

3 жыл бұрын

Evolution is the foundation on which other branches of science stand on? Really? How about chemistry and physics which exist and operate outside of biological systems? Evolution is a hugely pivotal topic in biology, sure - but ALL science? I think you're overstating its importance.

@bonnie43uk

3 жыл бұрын

@@winterlogical Hmm, .. i did not say ALL science, I was talking about other branches of science such as genetics. It certainly is hugely important in the field of science, it explains the diversity of life by means of natural selection.

But how does skepticism of biological evolution evidence your or anyone else's god(s)? Why should any god proposition be entertained as plausible or even possible? Your personal incredulity regarding science does not support your faith in an intelligent designer. How would an immaterial intention to create arise anyway?

@ExtantFrodo2

3 жыл бұрын

I guess they would say that the nothingness wasn't nothing even though they condemn Kraus for saying the exact same thing.

@martinploughboy988

3 жыл бұрын

Can you produce evidence of 'biological Evolution'?

@ExtantFrodo2

3 жыл бұрын

@@martinploughboy988 Sure, the order of the fossils in the geological column.

@martinploughboy988

3 жыл бұрын

@@ExtantFrodo2 The fossils are deposited according to where they lived, not when.

@ExtantFrodo2

3 жыл бұрын

@@martinploughboy988 you're making up your own facts. Try not to do that.

Good interview...Swamidass...you really don't know what a "molecular machine" is? Wow...that was a fumble. Are you letting evolutionists redefine that term? Wish it would just "go away" somehow? Very telling. I appreciate your interest in theology, and you sound pious...but your theology isn't biblical. If I may critique you, as a fellow traveler in theological pathways...you ignore God's word and entertain the words of neo-darwinists. You have departed from the God of the Bible. God formed Adam from dust...and formed Eve from the flesh and bone of Adam. That clearly communicates a process completely contradictory to that of neo-darwinian "science". So you pick which one you want to believe. Oh yes...you say science has no belief statements...then you are wrong yet again. Science believes that all truth is derived from physical evidence, and the laws of physics. So it fosters belief in methodological naturalism...plain and simple. Get your head out of the DMZ and pick a side. I do thank you for reminding us all that science is a streetlight...I wish more of those who believe in scientism would agree with you. Those entrenched in science believe that the streetlight is sufficient to see all the landscape...and that the only important things are those which are illuminated by that streetlight. Plainly put, science is a belief system...and it's based on a false philosophy knowns as naturalism. I'm glad it has usefulness in certain small ways (like medical advances, technological advances, etc) but in the end it is a false hope. It has done nothing to deliver anyone from the curse, the sin of mankind, or the darkness of spiritual death. Only the true and living God has done that for us.

@MezztovenShort4DannY

3 жыл бұрын

Amen

Mike was cool and composed.

I don't agree with Joshua. He claimed thst Behe didn't have a single central point to make whereas he did : the mechanism model. He claimed that science didnt have to defend its defsult position whereas in fsct it does. He claimed that ID has to make a more compelling case whereas the discussion has clearly gone over how both the science eatablishment and thr poiticsl estsblishment using its influence on the judges has blocked reasonable discussion of ID. Josh has simply sidelined the discussion with anecdotes thst did not address the mechanism model at all. At the same time Josh did not discuss why the Darwinian model is sctuslly both wesk and undemonstrated and therefore should be tested against the ID hypothesis properly which it most decidedly has not happened I watched a discussion between Professor Denis Noble and Richsrd Dawkins that seems to me gernane to ghe issue. Noble's experiments on heart muscle showed that cells dynamicslly choose from the toolbox of genes and proteins to adapt to its challenges.its not a blind, random process. Josh simply sits on the opinion of "the majority of biologists" while recognising that Dareinism is evidently imsifficient. His position on the topic is borderline incoherent. While he accepts thst we just dont know rnough he provides no reason why ID should not be discussed equally alongside the weak darwinist model which has become a cult axiom in the scientism culture and just holding back science. Science should be about truth, not about defending uncorroborated classic hypotheses.

*"It's still just a theory "* Welcome to the idiot zone.

@Jamie-Russell-CME

3 жыл бұрын

yeah, you are an idiot.

@martinploughboy988

3 жыл бұрын

Evolution isn't even a scientific theory, it cannot be demonstrated.

@ExtantFrodo2

3 жыл бұрын

@@martinploughboy988 You don't know what you are talking about.

@martinploughboy988

3 жыл бұрын

@@ExtantFrodo2 Prove me wrong.

@ExtantFrodo2

3 жыл бұрын

@@martinploughboy988 What criteria of a scientific theory is not fulfilled by the theory of evolution?

Oh dear, Behe does not come out well here, perhaps stick with guests from the scientific community in future? Biologos perhaps?

All the creationists in the comments probably need to be reminded that Behe accepts common ancestry. For example, that mammals are derived lobe-finned fish

If I were an evolutionist, my faith in evolution would be badly shaken by the fact that the human genome is irreversibly degenerating. This fact is confirmed by multiple materialist evolutionists (e.g. Alexey Kondrashov). This means that Natural Selection is not able to weed out bad mutations let alone design or evolve anything. “Chaos is common, but order is rare, and chances of a typo improving Hamlet are slim” --- Alexey Kondrashov "Crumbling Genome: The Impact of Deleterious Mutations on Humans" (geneticist and author)

@ExtantFrodo2

3 жыл бұрын

Humans have been doing everything they can to not be subject to natural selection. Citing the associated effect on our genome as though that stands in direct contradiction to evolution is dishonest or (at best) misguided. That beneficial mutations are rare has been part of the equation from the start. The bias of natural selection filtering what survives to reproduce quite obviates those arguments. Fatally bad gene sets fail to get passed on. Meanwhile neutral and beneficial ones do. It's elementary.

@les2997

3 жыл бұрын

@@ExtantFrodo2 Mutations are errors by definition. Errors don't generate information. They all create damage to one extent or another.

@ExtantFrodo2

3 жыл бұрын

@@les2997 your definition is wrong so let's start there. Mutations are CHANGES. Those changes can be good, bad or neutral. The changes themselves are not informative but the biased filtering of them IS information about the characteristics of the filter. So your last sentence is wrong as well.

SWAMIDASS FOR THE WIN

Joshua couldn't refute Dr. Behe if his life depended on it. Swamidass lives in denial

@ministryofarguments3525

3 жыл бұрын

Dr. Behe couldn't show you a single shred of evidence for his unevidenced belief if his life depended on it. All he has is a special pleading fallacy and is frowned upon as an advocate of the pseudoscientific principle of intelligent design by the vast majority of the scientific community. So before running with your so called hero and argument from authority you better sit down and study hard because you'll get the same rough and ready treatment just like he does with no mercy.

@sombodysdad

3 жыл бұрын

@@ministryofarguments3525 Dr. Behe presented the evidence for ID. And all you can do is choke on it. And ignorant cowards like you can't do anything beyond whining and lying.

@ministryofarguments3525

3 жыл бұрын

@@sombodysdad ID is a pseudoscience and doesn't compare to real science because its a cheap immitation and rip off. You quite obviously have been taught how to be a complete idiot when talking about factual knowledge. Next you'll be trying to regress back to the geocentricism from the Bible.

@sombodysdad

3 жыл бұрын

@@ministryofarguments3525 ID is still the only scientific explanation for our existence. Your ignorance is not an argument.

@sombodysdad

3 жыл бұрын

@@ministryofarguments3525 No one can produce a testable hypothesis with respect to blind and mindless processes producing ATP synthase or any bacterial flagellum. There aren't any observations to support the claim. So we can dismiss the claim. You lose, loser

So, Joshua is a Christian? Trying to argue for evolution? What's that all about?

Why would you need biochemical difference in order for God to exist or to show His creation in Adam, it is a non-starter as a complaint, it is clear that the function and functional abilities of humans are far different from any other organism. So what is they both come from dirt, the arrangement of the dirt is very different but even so, so what, non of that does away with the idea that both could have been created why is one created and the other evolved, seems silly.

Swamidass obviously lacks mileage and accuracy. Behe used well pondered arguments and dismantle Josh's superficial talk

Behe's patience with this dimwit is AMAZING!!!!

When you consider his belief, scientific or theological, whatever he calls it; Joshua Swami tries to sit on both sides of the debate of: did an intelligent being design all life that we know of, OR did all life evolve as described in the Darwinian model. Joshua says he's just a scientist and not a Darwinist, not true. This is an exact reminder of where God says there will come false profits that will lead you astray, even the Elect could be confused if possible. God says, He'd rather have you hot, OR cold, rather than lukewarm; translation: you're of no use to Jesus if your not grounded solidly in him and what he teaches, floundering with one foot in the ways of the world and one in the between spaces of the lettering in the Bible. I've heard enough of Swami's perspectives about theology and science to make this judgement. As to his evasive arguments in this talk, pretending not to follow Michael Behe's mouse-trap explanation, I say: All of Joshua Swami's education is either lacking in some rudimentary levels, or he's simply evading truth, like most secular scientist. The mouse-trap model is about is simple as can be explained. To this, I remind you of God's words on such matters: He says He'll make fools of the wise. Intelligent Design has made such an impact on the world of science, proving that it is impossible to have life evolve from what we KNOW of this world during its origins; not to mention the uber-complex processes necessary to even create the basic sugar molecules vital for life under the conditions of the time! We can't even do this, with all of our high-tech scientific instruments of today, in controlled environments! Listen, not every-one's going to get to God, in spite of Him giving each-human all the chances they need to reach Him. Having understood this, personally, I just communicate truth in Jesus AND science to everyone willing to listen, for those who won't listen, I say God-speed. In the end I'm sure they will have big regrets. In the meantime, don't be fooled by the likes of Mr. Joshua Swami.

Hahahahahaa Eugenix Scott IS NOT A DARWINIST?!!!! HAHAHAHAHAHAA