Michael Behe: Darwin Devolves - Science Uprising Expert Interview

In Darwin Devolves, Behe argues, in brief, that “It’s easy to break things, and often it gives a benefit.” Building new things, wonderful things, through an unintelligent process like Darwinian evolution is another matter entirely.

Michael J. Behe is Professor of Biological Sciences at Lehigh University in Pennsylvania and a Senior Fellow at Discovery Institute’s Center for Science and Culture. He received his Ph.D. in Biochemistry from the University of Pennsylvania in 1978. Behe's current research involves delineation of design and natural selection in protein structures.

In his career he has authored over 40 technical papers and two books, Darwin’s Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution and The Edge of Evolution: The Search for the Limits of Darwinism, which argue that living system at the molecular level are best explained as being the result of deliberate intelligent design. The books have been reviewed by the New York Times, Nature, Philosophy of Science, Christianity Today, and many other periodicals. Darwin's Black Box was internationally reviewed in over one hundred publications and named by National Review and World magazine as one of the 100 most important books of the 20th century.

Be sure to check out these other great videos:

Revolutionary: Michael Behe and the Mystery of Molecular Machines

Michael Behe - Makings of a Revolutionary

Privileged Species featuring Dr. Michael Denton

============================

Follow us on Facebook and Twitter:
Twitter: @discoverycsc

Visit other Youtube channels connected to the Center for Science & Culture

[danpaulisbitski]

Behe’s arguments should be the focus of evolutionary research.These objections are obvious to anyone who takes the time to think critically about the theory.The fact that the scientific establishments response to these arguments is to attack the motives of Behe instead of refuting the arguments, reveals their impotence to refute the arguments.I have a tremendous respect for what science has provided for our lives.The scientific community should not tolerate its members discrediting and lowering its standards by engaging in such unscientific and unprofessional behavior. The only reason science has been so successful is because it is constantly questioned and scrutinized.If it becomes infected by dogmatism it will loose all credibility and eventually will fail. God bless people like Behe and the ID proponents.The more publicity they receive, the more the scientific establishment is forced to acknowledge these arguments and provide the public with a more honest picture of the theory and how the evidence is used to support it.The only people being illogical and unreasonable are the ones trying to dismiss the ID movement and anyone else who dares hold their evolutionary beliefs to scientific standards and scrutiny.

[janvanderkruyk]

Exactly, DNA was perfect with creation and declined due to mutations over time. Consistent with what we observe today. Thanks Michael.

[rutexas]

Even the devil believes in intelligent design - we need repentance in our hearts.

[PauwMedia-Filmproducties]

Beautifully explained Dr. Behe. Nice to hear your own response on one of the arguments against irreducible complexity. The argument of irreducible complexity still holds indeed. It's a real shame that we have no Intelligent Design recourses in the Netherlands. I must get all my information from English and American sources...

[gerardmorton]

The irony that darwin scientists use their "intelligence" to find other uses for a mouse trap parts, but decline to see the obvious design in nature

[louisk]

Solid research leads to the truth... keep on talking about your findings... love it

[joshuamassawe]

It is always satisfying for a Christian to have such enlightening information. It makes for good conversations with our atheist brethren. I call atheists brethren because like us, they are also in pursuit of truth despite their different angle. I believe that, emotions aside, the challenges that an atheist presents us will make us even stronger because if I have learnt anything, it is that there are much better scientific arguments for an intelligent Designer than there is for evolution. I think if atheists would stop taking Richard Dawkin's advice to be insulting and try converse respectfully, we and they could have very interesting and enlightening conversations. Knowledge is always exciting to have! God bless you all!

[geobla]

It was exactly Dr Behe's irreducible complexity argument of the flagellum (rotary motor)
that caught my attention years ago when I read the article. The first thing that I found interesting
was that flagellum is indeed an "Actual Rotary Motor" . I've heard it described as a rotary
motor for what I believed was more of a vague descriptive (which it probably was if
described by materialist ) of a little spinning tail that moved cells thru liquid.

So after looking into this further, the flagellum is indeed a legitimate rotary motor
that apparently is much better designed then the one made by Mazda and their
engineers. Considering there's over 20, 000 different types of these :Nano-Machines"
that vary in complexity, some more complex then the flagellum that are found in
humans, it actually give me a "What the Moment".

Then to watch Miller present his baseless argument against irreducible complexity,
created the insight into how pathetically limited so many of these postulations made
to support Neo-Darwinian Explanations really are.
These types of arguments presented by Miller and others would make them look like
complete fools if they were making these same limited claims in any other area of
science then to support Neo-darwinism.

And unbelievably, there's many that thought the mousetrap analogy was a home run???

[stewartparker]

The more I study this debate and see the complexity of all living things, the element of design is winning out. Who or what designed can be debated, but it’s time to let go of the idea that any of this can come about by random chance in conditions that should be detrimental to life. We can’t with our abundant knowledge, great labs and conditions and all the chemicals provided can’t get close to creating life.

[dianaking-gates]

I so appreciate hearing these descriptions; which are in terms a layman can grasp. They make sense because one can intuit basic principles from observation of life-not specific just to the physical sciences. I have no background in, but love science because I sense the order and beauty in it. The more I come to know, the more amazed I am by God's creation. It's okay with me that my full comprehension has not caught with His omnipotence. Thanks.

[MLeoM]

It's wonderful how Stephen Meyer, Michael Behe, and others in Discovery Science Institute THINK OUT OF THE BOX, that's soo necessary for science to progress and all scientists should have this intuition.

[pajtaj]

Dr. Behe’s argument for “Irreducible Complexity” is THE fatal flaw in any form of Darwinian evolution.

[omnivore]

We learned enough recently about epigenetics to see more than just "random mutation" or "random variation", either one, as a factor in adaptation. We now know that changes can occur in response to conditions, which activate or suppress existing genes as a means of adaptation, within the very next generation! So whereas we can say that random variation or mutation are "passive systems", the ability to vary the expression of existing genetic information in response to environmental changes should be seen as "active systems", i.e. a built-in adaptation mechanism having built-in options. This for example is what Darwin observed, without knowing it, in his famous Galapagos finches. This doesn't change your argument here, but it certainly bears mention.

[robertdennis]

Dr. Dawkin's eye evolution scenario has a continuous, straight path with the deepening of the cup surrounding the light sensitive cells on the surface of a creature. But the origin of those cells, how they were positioned, or how they got connected to the creature's motor reflexes is not, to my knowledge, speculated upon in a plausible manner. Or how did the cup, once deep enough, suddenly develop a clear covering and capture fluid in a advantageous manner? This would be a divergence from the straight path that is much less probable. Then the appearance of the iris, its control muscles, and motor Dawkins attempt to explain how these highly divergent solutions took place or could have been coopted from other existing functions and placed, advantageously, within the eye cup?

[michaelogrady]

I heartily agree with Dr. Behe. We are devolving. It is not that every generation is on an evolutionary trajectory to a barrier that cannot be crossed, it is that every generation is just a little bit less than its predecessor.

[robertdennis]

I think it was Dr. Ken Miller who wore the mousetrap tie clip. He has been at the forefront of arguments attempting to debunk the concept of irreducible complexity, along with Richard Dawkins with his "Climbing Mount Improbable." Dr. Miller was a key witness in the Dover, Pennsylvania school board case.

[AbrarManzoor]

irreducible complexity is a very good argument against ultra gradualistic evolution model in which DNA mutations are happenning very gradually and randomly and the systems are modifying gradually but i think the more complex a living thing becomes the more systems are interconnected so if any mutation happens it has to adjust with already existing systems that are viable for survival and reproduction.It is all about probability the more systems in an organism the more probaability decreases that blind unguided process will invent mutations that will suit to irreducible complex systems.The darwinists tackle this problem by suggesting that life on earth is billion of years old so they increase the time and claim given enough time mutations will invent new features and some of them had accepted the punctuated equilibrium and leave ultra gradualism.

[dougoverhoff]

I think we have some scientists that would make good paper weights. Lol

[refusebdcvd]

Declare Jesus (our intelligent designer) as your Lord
Believe in your heart that God has raised him from death
And you will be saved!

[les]

"It never ceases to amaze me that Darwinists like Coyne are unable to separate the question of what happened from the question of how it happened. Okay, flightless dinosaurs had feathers and birds can now fly. So what exactly is the evidence that it happened by a Darwinian process? What is the evidence that a Darwinian process could even, say, differentiate owls and crows from a common ancestor? I argue at length in the book that unintelligent processes aren’t remotely up to those tasks."


--- Michael Behe