Exposing Discovery Institute Part 3: Michael Behe
Vložit
- čas přidán 22. 09. 2022
- Continuing this series exposing all the frauds at the religious propaganda mill "Discovery Institute", we arrive at Michael Behe. He became famous for his concept of "irreducible complexity", which is pretty much the go-to creationist argument. Unfortunately for them, it's very stupid. Everything Behe says in his three books is very stupid, in fact. In this video I go through his books and explain how stupid they are for all to see, even those without a background in evolutionary biology. Enjoy!
Check out the great creationism debunking channel "Creation Myths": / creationmyths
Watch me expose many more Discovery Institute IDiots: bit.ly/ProfDaveDI
Watch my other debunks/debates/discussions: bit.ly/ProfDaveDebunk
Vpu and HIV: www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/arti...
Polar Bear Study: www.cell.com/fulltext/S0092-8...
De Novo Genes 1: www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/arti...
De Novo Genes 2: journals.plos.org/plosgenetic....
De Novo Genes 3: journals.plos.org/plosgenetic...
Minnich Paper: journals.asm.org/doi/epub/10....
Irreducible Complexity: www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/arti...
De Novo Promoters: www.nature.com/articles/s4146...
De Novo Multicellularity: www.nature.com/articles/s4159...
Flagellar Motility: www.science.org/doi/10.1126/s...
EMAIL► ProfessorDaveExplains@gmail.com
PATREON► / professordaveexplains
Check out "Is This Wi-Fi Organic?", my book on disarming pseudoscience!
Amazon: amzn.to/2HtNpVH
Bookshop: bit.ly/39cKADM
Barnes and Noble: bit.ly/3pUjmrn
Book Depository: bit.ly/3aOVDlT
Also, I was on a PA school board when the Dover Trial was going on. The ID people lobbied us HARD bringing in 10 boxes of materials--one for each school board director and the superintendent.
Among the items was Behe's book. We politely told them to go to hell.
Why be polite? I mean, kudos to you for having that superpower. But, these people want take our children back to the dark ages! And all for a vengeful, jealous, petty shit with a cumulonimbus loin cloth!
As a parent of PA school students, thanks.
Going to Hell would require the existence of Hell. I guess they are going nowhere.
@@Ken_Pinkston 🤣
"We told them they can go to... whichever imaginary hell they believe in!"
@@Ken_Pinkston you can’t prove it doesn’t exist thiugh
I was raised creationist - I’m now a scientist. This kind of content is a balm on my scars from those days - it’s So helpful
@@michaelgoldstein8516 being out of it, I’m astonished how Christian’s can read some of the things they do out of the Old Testament - honestly, some of the things they get from it are legitimately insane
Me too. I was raised in a fundamentalist Christian denomination (my father was a preacher in that denomination - the "Church Of Christ" denomination), and I was baptized into the church and was a very active member for many years. But it was precisely because of my education in science (astronomy) that I came to realize that my beliefs were factually wrong. I've been criticizing young earth creationists and old earth creationists ever since then.
@@steveg1961 creationist beliefs are so brittle, because many forms are basically a conspiracy theory. I was raised to believe that the earth is young and looks young, but that there was an organised conspiracy of every kind of scientist to make it look older by … well, mostly by making uniformitarian assumptions instead of twisting every observation around what my dad happened to think already. It’s such an obviously ridiculous view when you start studying the science
So glad you "evolved"!
ben smith
ditto. 👊
I'd like to remind what Michael Behe's son said about him on Reddit over a decade ago about this:
"I share your confusion at my dad's stance on the issue- to tell the truth, I think there's quite a chance that he has realized his theory is a failure, but my dad is not the kind of person to forfeit fifteen years of his life's work."
"I do think that he's simply too stubborn to give up on something he put so much work into, even if he sees its flaws now."
"He tends to laugh off opposing viewpoints pretty flippantly, and he also seems not to accept facts that have disproven arguments of his (such as his argument that a bacterial flagellum is 'irreducibly complex')."
Yeah, the infamous "Sunk-Cost" Fallacy.
"It's difficult to make someone understand something when their income depends on them not understanding it"
- Whoever said this
@@TechySeven That just about sums up all religiots who refuse to see reality because it would mean facing up to the fact that their lives have been lived based on lies.
@@quadrewplex6782
Additionally,
You can't use reason to work someone out of a position that they attained emotionally.
Something something "my ignorance is equal to your years of expertise"
What did he say?
The "Discovery Institute" has never discovered anything.
They discovered how thorough one can dissect their pseudoscientific BS 🙂
Wrong. They discovered how to make money by not doing anything useful.
@@marknieuweboer8099 I stand corrected.
Ya just like "focus on the family" doesn't actually care about family they just want to hurt gay people it's a common tactic of rightwing religious groups to name themselves the opposite of what they actually stand for gives them an illusion of credibility.
@@WokeandProud War is peace. Freedom is slavery. Ignorance is strength.
The fact these people, who have been shown to be liars, continue to use the same arguments without any real evidence is infuriating.
They also don't use any of it when doing science because, well, it's not science.
I know how you feel, flerfs are the same way, using arguments that have been debunked hundreds of times, if not thousands of times
This was one of the biggest things that turned me off of young earth creationism. I grew up believing everything they said but when I began to see the level of dishonesty necessary to support their position I couldn’t understand how they could claim to represent Christ. I know most people here are probably agnostic/atheistic but I hope people know that there are lots of Christians who actually accept scientific evidence. Recommend checking out BioLogos for anyone who is interested.
@@joshuawilliams4695 yes we know that there are christians out there that dont take anything in the bible literally, and that they accept science
@@joshuawilliams4695 Religion is just a coping mechanism for existential terror.
I love the way creationists have this almost homoerotic obsession with Darwin. Like no other scientist - before or since - has ever done any work on evolution, natural selection or speciation.
They think he is a priest that you can't question, because that is how they "learn" things.
Darwin is for them a little bit like Lucifer, an angel (he studied to become a priest after all and inteded to proof the theory of creation) who fell from grace (changed his views because of his own observations). He is the ideal embodyment of what they see as corruption. His own grandfather, Erasmus, already held lamarckian views, but that is not important to them.
They need a Bete Noir to fixate upon so that they can avoid having to think about the ridiculousness of their beliefs.
Creationism is lazy, and like most theistic doctrines are archaic. They use arguments against evolution that were created at the time of Darwin, and since they are immune to criticism they have never had to revise or shelf arguments that in their minds have never been debunked.
I love the fact that there is no observation of any creature kind evolving into a different creature kind they all have can have natural selection or natural adaptation but can never change from their original gene of species type to a completely different kind
Here's what his colleagues think of him;
"The department faculty...are unequivocal in their support of evolutionary theory, which has its roots in the seminal work of Charles Darwin and has been supported by findings accumulated over 140 years. The sole dissenter from this position, Prof. Michael Behe, is a well-known proponent of "intelligent design." While we respect Prof. Behe's right to express his views, they are his alone and are in no way endorsed by the department. It is our collective position that intelligent design has no basis in science, has not been tested experimentally, and should not be regarded as scientific." - Department of Biological Sciences at Lehigh University.
Priceless.
Boom!
Listen though, when your entire religious movement boils down to "we're being persecuted!!1!" You take these clarifications as some kind of "win".
I don't believe it, you don't see it that way, nobody sane would believe this -- but that's the point: if a strongly-worded rebuttal was all it took to correct this subset of people we wouldn't be here to start with.
I truly believe that they AIM for these results, because in lieu of peer-reviewed content and actual research, the same idiots who gobble this pseudoscience rhetoric up think that pushback == proven.
When you're raised Catholic you're hoping for your Big Christian Moment to be a heroic martyr. Except this is and will always be LARPing. You're taught that you will be questioned and ridiculed for your faith and that remaining steadfast during these times is the real "Test".
They don't have the conviction to die for their paper thin beliefs, so they convince themselves that being criticized is the same as martyrdom. They're "dying" and playing into the tired fantasy of "b-b-but I never renounced my God and that makes me the winner".
Imagine touting yourself as a professional Boxer, getting into a ring, and walking out the loser after throwing no punches but taking dozens of hits... And proclaiming yourself the winner.
Then get mad when the announcer holds the other guy's arm up.
@@AtylonisusThat boxing analogy was the best description of creationists I have ever heard.
This is NOT a BIOLOGICAL problem for the most part at all. Why are we even referring to Biological department. It is well known that Biologists, Mainstream Archaeologists, Epidemiologists, Sociologists don't have a CLUE about Origin Of Life research least of all CONTROL this area of research. They are all scared and are another religious entity to accept the complications involved in our Origin of Life. This is a Chemical problem, a Genetics problem, a loosely connected Mathematical problem and most importantly an ENGINEERING problem. There's no need for Dr. Behe to react to these Narrow-minded Unscientific Pseudoscientists.
@@JohnWinters-on8jr His daft irreducible complexity has been debunked many times so they wanted to distance themselves from such gross stupidity.
14:40 *"Some* bacteria have a flagellum" - Behe
15:20 ~'Any bacteria without a flagellum will die' - Behe
Haha I missed that. Good point.
@@blusheep2 Um, yeah. It's an example of Behe being a self-contradicting douchebag.
Since professor Dave missed this simple thing, in a video that he/we can watch over and over again. I wonder what else he's missed and not just about his opponents, but even about his own beliefs?!?
I have yet to see any scientist show any kind Transition of What a thing is fundamentally And specifically To something else?!? Such as pigs or monkeys or any other mammals transitioning into each other..!!! So just because Certain scientist think and certain scientist don't think certain things can happen And then get proven incorrect;
They still can't show us transitions from 1 kind of mammal to another..!!! Or bacteria becoming a mammal..!!! So it seems like some scientists are even more incorrect than others Thinking that all life is (directly) related Genetically to each other, because we have genes. And you don't want to believe in The Creator Spoken of in the bible, Because that means that you would have to submit to The Creator for how to live your life. Just like criminals don't want to submit to the police and the courts. I understand where you're coming from. Though perhaps a lot of you can't admit that.
@@youmetubingwatcher6418 Hello, we have found lots of transitional forms in the fossil record. Ask about any real part of the family tree - pigs didn't evolve into monkeys, so we shouldn't expect to find transitional forms showing they did. Ask about how dinosaurs turned into birds or something from the actual family tree, and we've got lots of transitional forms.
p.s. As a semantic point, it might also help you to learn that a dinosaur turning into a bird (or ANY example from the whole family tree) isn't something turning into something fundamentally something else. Birds technically count as a type of dinosaur, and that's how the whole family tree works - ancestral family names are always inherited.
p.p.s. I've never heard of a criminal who thought not believing in the police would make them not accountable to the police.
@@HeyHeyHarmonicaLuke Very well said.
About what he said "And you don't want to believe", it's just nonsense. Nobody just "don't want" to believe. We believe in what we think is true, and don't believe in what we think is false; and that's all.
Criminals don't want to submit to the police and the courts, but they know they are there.
I'm a biology major who struggles with chemistry. Very much struggles with chemistry. I passed my first year with a 57%, and my second year with an 87% when i just began saying "these numbers look like they are good pals so i will multiply them together now" and pure luck.
I litterally wrote that out as an explanation for my work on an exam, and presumably the professor thought i was joking so they didnt remove marks for it
Somehow i had less chemistry misunderstandings on your james tour vidoe then james tour himself did. Makes me feel damn smart lol
Dw, i did the same during chemistry. Some of those numbers actually look like they wanted to be multiplied together or something and it just somehow works. I passed most of chemistry classes like that with almost full streak of A's. I felt like god, not having to learn, multiplying random stuff together and people thought that i know what im doing and wanted me to help them learn for exams. I told them to just multiply things that look like they should be multiplied and that's it. People didn't seem happy and thought im a jerk, but thats literally all I did xd glad to see someone else who passed chemistry without having a clue what hes doing xD
I thought 60% was the minimum percent for passing? 🤔
@@prplt apparently not because they let me take the next course after it. Although they also let me skip a mandatory first year class, so maybe they just suck at regulating their rules
@@alexstramp7688 no. I may later, but to be honest its not a priority. Once someone with atleast a decent sized audience has been caught lying, especially if its been multiple times, and doesn't come out too correct themselves on it publicly, then i really don't have intrest in what they have to say because they have no credibility in my eyes
@@alexstramp7688 im not aware of that happening. Could you tell me what he got wrong, and what he should have said?
‘The man who writes for fools is always sure of a large audience’
😆
The fact that a propulsion method not only evolved but evolved _within 4 days_ is absolutely hilarious.
Bacteria and viruses evolve crazy fast, because they have such short lifespans and reproduce so quickly. That's why we have so many covid variants already (not to mention covid to begin with).
To be fair to Behe, which is not something I would normally be, the example given by Dave is not an example of evolution from scratch. All that was knocked out was genes that controlled the expression of the proteins that formed the flagellum, so only a relatively few kinds of mutation would be needed to reactivate their expression. Had every protein involved in the flagellum been deleted entirely, the experiment would likely be impossible in a human lifetime. (One would have to look for mutants who could spread further and faster than others, then try and figure out how they were doing it.)
Behe's argument is that a structure like the flagellum has to spring into existence instantly, or it has no use and couldn't. What he misses is Dave's response that flagellar precursors needn't have the same functions at all, and can serve as the scaffold on which the flagellum gets constructed.
@@Leszek.Rzepecki "flagellar precursors needn't have the same functions at all"
The fact that I, as a none scientist or even a student of evolution, understands this concept and why it should be obvious to any lay person.
@@MrStringybark It just underscores how dishonest Behe and the other Christian fundamentalists with scientific pretensions are. They have to lie about the actual science, but they aren't preaching to scientists or non-believers, they are shoring up the evangelical fundie support, especially their financial support.
Almost as amazing that an idiot like you can read and write.
Behe pulled a Kent hovind move in the trial. Like you said, 58 peer reviewed articles, 9 books and multiple text books, and behe just puts his hand up, turns his head and says “that’s not evidence that’s just a bunch of paper” which is exactly what hovind did.
There are none so blind as those who WILL not see... 😌
this bunch of paper was created, so was your father a strawberry?
@@leol2254 Kent hovind logic
When Ken Hovind points to "scripture" and "the bible", perhaps someone will be kind enough to explain to him that "that's not evidence, that's just a buch of paper"... 😂
@@chrisantoniou4366 **in Kent’s voice** “b-b-but it’s the word of GAD ya see?”
Thank you for continuing to expose these con artists and others, your work is admirable and inspirational!
PBS NOVA's documentary on the Kitzmiller case showed Behe get humiliated in court on 'irreducible complexity'
I'm so happy that you gave Dr. Dan (Creation Myths) a shout-out because I love that channel and he deserves more viewers
He earned the shout out, he did a lot of work for this video!
@@ProfessorDaveExplains I'm going to have to check that channel out
Came here to say this! Dr. Dan has some great content, and a lot of the stuff in this video comes from his own videos on irreducible complexity. Everyone, please check his channel out!
@@rekkwaffle7668 It's a good watch, I binge watch a load of Dr Dan's stuff recently and his interviews with Behe were quite informative. The end result seems to be that Behe's own description of Irreducible Complexity doesn't matter as you can meet his criteria and magically the goal posts shift. The take home message was that Behe himself is the only one who can decide if the target of an experiment has fulfilled the criteria to be called irreducibly complex but evolved and guess what the answer is always no.
I'm not sure what we're going to do in a decade or twos time when Behe has gone to meet his god, he'll have to nominate a successor to just shake their head no matter how many experiments meet the criteria.
@@ProfessorDaveExplains Great stuff, have you ever had a look into CTMU and Chris Langan? It's like ID but somehow worse, it seems to be doing the rounds again.
I can't express enough how important it is for experts to highlight relevant studies and papers that contradict these claims. As a layperson it is excruciatingly difficult to find the proper articles amongst the thousands that are published. Thank you for your hard work!
Watch THE ORIGIN OF LIFE ON EARTH - Steven Mayer also ORIGIN OF LIFE ON EARTH Lab information
@@donstevens8414 Shut up
@@donstevens8414 *Stephen Meyer, and no thanks.
@@donstevens8414 - Do you mean Stephen Meyer?
He's a biblical literalist and doesn't do science.
Bad place to go if you want to learn science.
Don't take this the wrong way Dave but you're doing god's work. HOLY SHIT that copyediting typo is absolutely incredible. I can only imagine how much joy it bought you uncovering this gem
@@bobbysanford4777 dumping medication is a well known environmental problem. It's not controversial and this sounds a lot like a /thathappened moment. There's no vested interest in covering up the environmental harm of pollution. Sounds like you've had some anecdotal personal experiences with bad professors, and it's way outside the norm. Like you said, many people see what they want to see.
Also, I have no idea what this has to do with my comment, seems like you may have been replying to someone else.
@@bobbysanford4777 Who ever told you that is very wrong.
Where I live they even give out special medical bags to specifically throw away the stuff.
Lol he didn't discover that typo.. he got the info from the documentary "Judgement Day Intelligent Design on trial"
Edit: you can find it on CZcams. Type the title on the search bar
@@Daren6111 or, more than 1 person saw it, which is totally irrelevant anyways, just pedantry
@@kylezo Pedantry lol? Relax, I was just letting you know where the info came from if you wanted to see more..
"Or, more than one person saw it" he's literally using the clip from the documentary when talking about it lol but okay
I can feel the backlash on its way, Did you catch mathematician Jason Rosenhouse dismantling of the discovery institute use of mathematics? That really set them off.
Every time they get dunked on they enact the same pathetic damage control over on their blogs for morons. It's so sad. They've done three on me already.
Panda's thumb fan?
@@thomasneal9291 yeah.
A Professor Dave debunk of Behe, on the same day Forrest Valkai did a Reacteria where he skewered the same irreducible complexity arguments? I love it. I really appreciate, Dave, you really going into the details here of the science. I'm a math/physics guy (and a college math professor), so the biology is extremely interesting to listen to. I remember on a previous debunk you talking about autocatalytic systems and telling my wife (who has an immunology degree) of them and she was fascinated. Cheers man.
Yeah - LOL! - I saw that too.
I'd so love a Professor Dave / Forrest team up for a video sometime.
sir, are you scientist, if not, how do you distinguish if Michael Behe and Mr. James are liars. If say liars based on other scientists, how are sure that, they are not lying.
@@ozgurlukbizim9823 You... Look at the papers they wrote and if they are peer reviewed? If they aren't, they are charlatans. It's actually extremely easy.
@@ozgurlukbizim9823 you look at the actual research.
Calling modern day evolutionary theory "darwinism" would be like calling modern day neurobiology "freudism".
It would be like calling Islam, Mormonism and Christianity "Judaism“ because technically they are all just Jewish sects.
Hans S, exactly! Well put!
Lol, well said
Well, Freud was a fraud to begin with 😂
This is because they always elevate a person into a savior. Christ, Hitler, Trump. All people they worship and put on a pedestal. So they think people that understand and believe evolution must worship Darwin, hence Darwinism or Darwinists. Just like they use the term evolutionists. As if the field of study were reducible down to that.
I love the normal content but not going to lie I get so excited to see you posted a new debunk. I love watching you play the piano by the way.
Me too!
🤣🤣
This might by the most hotly anticipated and critically well-received series of 2022
I get so much joy from witnessing the merciless dismantling of these clowns who once fooled me with their blatant lies. I was raised under creationist propaganda. It’s shocking how many people believe in some form of creationism where I live, in the southern US. A family member of mine is a science teacher in a public high school and still believes the earth is 6,000 years old. He used to proudly share with me how he would dismiss evolutionary science in the classroom. Nowadays I try to talk about this stuff with him but he seems to never want to actually discuss the details. I think he knows deep down how the facts will quickly unravel his faith. It’s amazing how much this pseudoscience promotes irrationality in otherwise intelligent people. That’s why this is some of my favorite content on the internet. The more people know about the truth, and the more they are encouraged to think critically, the better the world will be.
Thanks for another incredible resource, Dave!
Apologists are never actually making an argument. It is purely a performance, to be seen as appearing to argue, so that witnesses that may have doubts are assured that those much more knowledgeable than them have already considered and discarded these doubts.
Apologists are deliberate liars, every last one.
Very well put.
Apologists use philosophical snake oil-peddler tactics to invent new ways to smear mustard on the 💩sandwich being sold by churches.
That works both whays Tho... i dot think that eny one is saing i understand and have all the Facts about Evolutions creations we as humans seguest dna like 10y ago but there is valid cnowns about it and hell of a lot Holes.. and you can actualy lisen what people think whitout ridicule.. thous Who have finanses and actual brains to go where no one has and fils the Holes in time.. no harm done to teoriase posebilitys when whe have so New and theory so full of holes
@@hui9an and in English?
@@hui9an Of course you are entitled to have an opinion about anything you so choose. But I doubt this is area is one your opinion is based upon an actual understanding thereof. I have personally spent my entire adult life in natural science but nowhere near the biological sciences. Therefore I shut the fuck up about specific details about biology. It would be sooo refreshing to see the apologists do the same, considering the vast majority of them lack any actual education in the area.
As someone who was raised in a fundamental creationist environment I get where these guys are coming from - I used to think the same way - that was how I was taught. Creationists look at the end result, say isn’t this amazing, and work backwards and think how incredible it is that everything came together to give the end result, and how improbable it is that this could happen. Now, I don’t see an end result - it is just a stage where systems have, through environmental and biological happenstance, ended up at at the moment we observe them.
The classic example I always heard was the eyeball… So many parts of a system that all have to be present for the whole thing to work. But there were millions and millions of eyeball variants that failed to be of use and we cannot observe, failed attempts if you will… and this is assuming the eyeball is the perfect ‘end result’. It is layers and layers of mutations that happen to result in absorbing a small part of the electromagnetic spectrum… Why doesn’t it absorb the *entire* spectrum - wouldn’t that be more perfect? Besides, when you study how the eye actually works, it is not efficient and functions in some stupid ways… The eardrum is even worse lol
It is very, very, hard to deprogram yourself when you are raised in this world view. I had to really work at it - It would have been a lot easier to just stay in it - ignorance is bliss. But you have to really jump through logical hoops to convince yourself that creationism is true if you really think about it - you have to be able to lie to yourself very well or just block out everything that challenges you - which I believe is what most of them do.
Content like this helps - thanks 🙏
Well done, Paul!
My story was one very similar to yours. The tribalistic association with creationism had its claws in me deep from a young age and kept me from questioning the very questionable details. Thoughtlessly bound by pride, rabid excuses and dismissals of challenging ideas were all I could muster.
An example that I will always recall is when a science teacher lightly challenged me on the notion of evolution; he pointed out to me that the relatively rapid change and adaptations that can be seen in microbial life (such as in response to antibiotics) is a clear example of evolution in action. But to my younger self, that was insufficient. I simply stubbornly retorted that was just how microbes *are* -- but this was while I of course completely ignored that it's the same function as in more macroscopic life when beneficial mutations occur, just at a more rapid rate. But even more importantly, the idea was massively inconvenient for me, which is really why I disregarded it. I already believed in my preconception, and I pridefully defended what I perceived as an attack.
Eventually, though, I was able to free myself from such a teleological worldview, and I have come to increasingly better understand and appreciate our world and its emergent nature. Humanity is (probably) a rare phenomenon in the universe, and it is dealt the perceptive absurdity of being aware of that fact. And I'm glad to be a part of it.
@@iwkaoy8758 A may sing. Whattif detornado wur ahurricin desize offtheerth? Whattif de storm went for a turnity and thee leg-ohs were as deep as deoshin?
@@DrWhom I think he meant "failed attempts" in quotes. In the sense that they aren't really failed or even attempts. There are less effective branches of specific eye forms, and mutations that can render the individual organism sightless. And keep in mind that he is intentionally presenting (I think) the creationist view in the paragraph about eyeballs. And yes, you're correct about the driving principle being that barely perceptible "random" (seemingly arbitrary, or directionless) incremental changes are *often enough* better than what existed before, which provides an advantage that leads to more reproductive success. He didn't state that explicitly, but I don't think that means he doesn't understand it.
The most damaging insult to creationism is telling the creationist they sound like Kent Hovind.
Most will see that as a compliment. Like I still see a lot of Christian’s still quoting him.
@@mut1565 And there are still many who would consider it an insult. James Tour, for instance, wants nothing to do with Kent Hovind, according to Hovind's own admission.
These debunk videos are some of my favorites of yours. They are sorely needed. So many educators don't want to take the time to debunk garbage from religous communities or conspiracy theorists. I feel this has resulted in our current situation.
where conspiracies and misinformation is running rampant. Thank you for taking the time!
Was waiting for this video! Also, I love your astronomy playlist. Keep up the good work, Dave.
Another banger dave, speaking about the Mousetrap analogy, I've been watching creation vs evolution debates in my spare time lately for fun, and I pretty distinctly remember watching a video where people actually DID take away parts of the mousetrap and had it function properly, down to the point where they could actually use just a single spring to catch mice, albeit inefficiently. Keep it up Dave!
Or else, removing parts made it still functional, but with a different function, which is what evolution does, it often repurposes system to achieve different ends...
Its true, but it is still a category error, because mousetraps don't come forth and have baby mousetraps with mutations. All those machine and built stuff comparisons lack basic comparability.
Leave the spring the base and the slapper and guess what you got a tie clip because that is precisely how Evolution would work if it is going to strip something down it might just strip it down and then use it for something else. I am not going to say that Evolution only is degrading which is a bullshit it's every direction all at once but that's beside the point
@@Angelmou One could argue that mousetraps weren't created as they are from day one. For their argument to work, mankind would've had to be devoid of any mouse extermination capabilities, then someone built the mouse trap as we have it today. Instead, what we did was build different types of mousetraps and kept iterating on things that worked. In fact, we have many different types of mouse traps, not just the one design. So the argument of irreducibleness is demonstrably wrong even in their own bad example. But wait, I hear you say, "that would mean that someone intelligent did those things" - no it does not, and it's an invalid conclusion from an example that was bad to begin with. In the end we're always down to the evolutionary mechanisms and their lack of understanding thereof. They are simply waving these things away, so there's no chance of meaningful debate with them. If you know that evolutionary mechanisms exist and that they work, intelligent design ceases to have any legs to stand on. The only way it can survive is via ignorance of demonstrable, observed and confirmed facts.
@@Angelmou bit of a cop out don't you think. You do realize that your average person isn't going to understand Jack deadly Squad when it comes to biological systems and how they work right because by law logical systems are not intuitive they are so fucking alien honestly when you think about it so to your average person it makes a lot of sense to relate biological systems to you know the types of systems we are used to you know engineered items you know. It's kind of a just a pet peeve of mine when people bring that up because it's like you're correct but the funniest thing is is most of the time you can reword the analogy in such a way that it actually can accurately describe whatever it is meant to describe you know so when they're trying to explain irreducible complexity using a mouse trap you can use a mouse trap to explain why it doesn't work because you can remove multiple components and you have the mouse trap tie clip. Now is this analogous to life at all yeah because that's exactly what happens with Organic systems as they adapt and they change various things are going to become more efficient less efficient or will straight up break and are completely non-functional for that purpose anymore I mean think about it a whale's pelvis is completely worthless for walking now much like how that mouse trap ain't catching any mice now but you know what it does work good for works good for muscle anchor points for reproduction hey kind of like how that mouse trap still works pretty good isn't it. Both of which were reductions in the system to allow for a different purpose almost as if the analogy while maybe not being a 100% comparable is still comparable like it isn't difficult and allergies are meant to simplify and make it easy to understand relating it complex system to another complex system isn't going to make it easier for anyone to understand relating it to a very logical and very simple concept then you can possibly start to understand the more complex one. It would be like trying to explain how to build the space shuttle by explaining how to build a plane. Or trying to explain motorcycles while using cars. Whereas explaining a bicycle and how it works would better describe both the car and the Motorcycle then either would explain the other.
Dave, very few things give me as much joy and glee as seeing you utterly eviscerating con artists. You are a legend, awesome video per usual!
I just saw this turn up. I am stoked. I was waiting for a new episode on the creationist frauds and liars.
Prof. Dave you are my hero. Your content is unique, and I realize how much work must go into the production of a video like this.
@@blusheep2 Why? This video transparently debunks, at the very least, a significant proportion of each book. It also lays down a lot of contradictions in his rhetoric as well as content other than the book. Also, it highlights lies that Behe told, which is undeniable even if everything Dave said about the books is wrong. Unless you can point out any error on Dave's part in a crystalline fashion, like Dave did, it's useless.
@@blusheep2 I have read Behe's disgraceful books, have you? I have a huge library on the topic of Biological evolution, that I have been building for over 40 years now.
I suggest to you that you pick up Behe’s book, actually read it, and then rewatch the video. But you might also want to read the responses of evolution biologists to the garbage of Behe.
@@blusheep2 It's laughable, really. In all the other comment threads you chose to foolishly participate in, you very inconspicuously ran away when someone insisted for you to point out a single lie or misrepresentation that Dave did. I suspect you'll do the same here as well.
But, I can try. Explain in crystal-clear detail, with time-stamps about what Dave lied about and misrepresented Behe in, or tuck your tail between your legs and stop typing. Anything else will just reveal your lack of actual rebuttals to any of Dave's assertions and reasoning.
Are you acquainted with the scientific method? Do you know that you need empirical evidence of your claim for someone to consider it? If you're saying that "Dave is strawmanning and misrepresenting Behe's arguments," then one would require a cogent explanation to consider it, as opposed to some competing assertion. Dave provided his claims with ample supporting peer-reviewed research. If you're disputing his claims, you need evidence of your own.
Best Behe moment is when during the ID trial he was shown something like 78 scientific papers/books all about whatever he was claiming couldn't happen, and admitted he never read any of them.
An even better moment was when he had to admit that astrology is science too.
@@marknieuweboer8099 What? Astrology is woo and not science.
@ Freddan: thanks for explaining the joke.
@@freddan6fly Behe admitted that for Intelligent Design to be science Astrology would need to be science too.
Context was Kitzmiller v Dover trial where they asked Behe for a definition of science.
@@mathiasrryba Sorry did not know about this during the trial. I am not American.
That smoking gun of a table referenced at 49:27 is truly heartbreaking. More specifically, the fact that I'm confident a literal majority of Behe's audience will refuse to acknowledge these facts when they are presented right to their face...
Absolutely and the ole bible proverb states" let me describe for you a wicked man; first he is a constant liar" this will be handwaved away to join the rest of the cherry picking lexicon of uncomfortable truths.
@@blusheep2 Timestamp please. You can keep telling it's a strawman or reductive all you like, but unless you can call it out and explain specifically about it, then you're just posturing.
And I'd love for you to try to defend Behe on the point about where he maliciously manipulated the data on polar bears.
Behe's claim about god? I thought the entire point of "intelligent design" was that it explicitly made no mention of gods, ever since they search-and-replaced that term out of their previous version of the same literature when it was still called creationism...
@@blusheep2 "So you see, its lazy to think that people just changed the name because the other term was getting bad press or that they wanted to sneak past secular school boards" that's... literally what happened with the Discovery Institute. Creationists in a creationist organisation used creationist arguments in creationist literature, then nothing changed except that one word in the sentence -- as concluded by a courtroom full of (christian) scientists and a republican christian judge. ID is as "scientific" as astrology, *according to Behe, when cornered.* Did you watch the whole video? *"Most* [oh really...] of the ID proponents are not young earth creationists and none of them that I know of deny evolution as a mechanism" Are you serious..? They literally argue that evolution CANNOT explain biodiversity (including Behe who wrote an entire BOOK on it) on a daily basis in order to discredit materialism along with it, in order to get political grip in schools. In their own words, leaked with the wedge document.
Also, I recommend watching Dave's 2-video response (full of experimental evidence and experts' confirmation of misrepresentation) to an incensed Tour's 14-part series aimed at Dave before accusing the latter of character assassination. Behe is not the only one in "ID" circles of whom you should be a lot more "skeptical"...
Viewer discretion warning. 13:23 you will be subjected to hearing Kent Hovind speak.
Thank you for this warning, I will keep that in mind as I watch.
I wasn't prepared for that.
I used to fall for intelligent design hook line and sinker at my school, thank you professor Dave.
Hey, congrats on escaping the ID propaganda, you should feel good about that 😊 There are still reasonably smart people who remain ignorant & taken in by their nonsense.
I hope this was not in a public school. This nonsense belongs nowhere near a public school.
@@f0xygem Look up the Pennsylvania court case on creationism ("Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District") when creationists (young earth creationists and the Discovery Institute) tried to inject creationism into science classes in the Dover area school district. Science teachers refused to do it, and they took the creationists on the school board to court for trying to do it.
Can I ask what first got you to question the ID line?
Professor Dave, thanks for exposing for these frauds and liars. Keep up the amazing work!
Yep calling them what they are is indeed very necessary .
@@ingridschmid1709
The sad part is some, possibly even most, think they are honest.
They are unable to see their biases and flawed logic; Blinded by their un-falsifiable preconceived beliefs.
@@Unsensitive I'm not speaking of followers here but of Behe himself and it's very obvious he willfully lies .... to I suspect mostly promote his financial comfort .
His motives being the only remotely debatable issue here
@@blusheep2
Did you watch the video?
Well here's one of them
49:00
He takes a table of data, says it means something, by cropping off a few columns of data which clearly shows the opposite.
This is called lying.
@@blusheep2 Systematic misrepresentation of science he knows as abundantly documented in this very vid ... did you watch or listen at all ?
Prof Dave does not level accusations in vain they always are precise and documented
Dave, your tutorials are far beyond helpful for any subject but your debunks are my favorite. Your like a surgeon fixing a set problem then fixing a side detail upon a smaller detail and explaining why in detail. Keep this up buddy, I love it
The most thorough debunks on CZcams. ❤
I was once a Christian who believed in "creationist science". Upon getting my Bachelor's and Masters Degree in Biology and Molecular Biology, I was confronted by the evidence of and for evolution. I believe that God tells us to not only look at Scripture, but to also look at the record of nature. Evolution by natural selection is God's intended method to bring about life and diversity into the Earth.
These videos that deconstruct and debunk the core arguments of incorrect and sometimes just outright deceitful science of ID proponents is helpful for those actually looking for the truth. Thanks, Dave.
Yaaaa!! More Prof. Dave!!!! I love the exposes, but frankly your academic lectures are helping me get a better grasp on basic chemistry than O've ever had. Thanks for all the hard work!!
OOOOOFFFFF that copypaste part was brutal. 🤣Behe and the DI tell on themselves constantly: if they were presenting real science with scientific methodology and scientific evidence, they'd be speaking to/with SCIENTISTS. But all they do is talk in churches and go on Christian podcasts.
Met the Judge. They thought because he was a Republican, they could not miss. At the Franklin Instituted, he said, "My new name is Bush-Appointed Judge John E Jones III".
He was quite charming. And he was scientifically literate--much to the chagrin of the ID people.
Lehigh University:
"The faculty in the Department of Biological Sciences is committed to the highest standards of scientific integrity and academic function. This commitment carries with it unwavering support for academic freedom and the free exchange of ideas. It also demands the utmost respect for the scientific method, integrity in the conduct of research, and recognition that the validity of any scientific model comes only as a result of rational hypothesis testing, sound experimentation, and findings that can be replicated by others.
The department faculty, then, are unequivocal in their support of evolutionary theory, which has its roots in the seminal work of Charles Darwin and has been supported by findings accumulated over 140 years. The sole dissenter from this position, Prof. Michael Behe, is a well-known proponent of "intelligent design." While we respect Prof. Behe's right to express his views, they are his alone and are in no way endorsed by the department. It is our collective position that intelligent design has no basis in science, has not been tested experimentally, and should not be regarded as scientific."
Part 3 YES (been waiting for this one) Parts 1 and 2 are outstanding, thanks Dave!
It takes a huge effort to do videos of this type. Deep dives into both the false claims and their refutations. Thank you for the tremendous work you have done.
I'm taking a university course in the study of religion and science, and we have just finished analysing contemporary creationism and intelligent design. Our lecturer brought up Behe and Meyer and my mind was instantly drawn to your videos on these frauds. Glad to see the series continuing!
Damn, Dave. This was an absolute obliteration of Behe. Extremely well put-together, my friend. I'm loving this series and can't wait for the next one.
This was very useful for me. As my former church has repeatedly cited Behe's work to support creationisms, I needed an expert to go through his claims. They have even interviewed him and gotten him to say that his colleagues are driven by questionable motivations, as if he can read minds.
Behe and Co. just hide all the data that is flying in their face like on camera evolving different types of bacterial flagella with photos. So it is basic denial like flatearthers deny photos of the earthglobe. Or hiding the data when the flagellum is copied around the whole hull of a bacteria with 100x of genetic data than before incl. with observed refunction of the former locomotion to be used as defense shield against attacking amoeba to avoid the consumption by the predator. In this video it is highlighted how Behe hides the benign mutations crashing his devolution/degeneration claims at 49 minutes 20 seconds.
Behe actively bears false witness against the research and the researchers themselves. And preaches the out of context quotations to his flock, because the complete observations are not allowing any space for his personal conviction of "Since an assumed sinfall event in the past all went down the hill" to be correct. Behe therefore pretends it is the fault of the whole scientific community not to share this specific belief for a bias as deflection game. It is just a charade of well constructed conspiracy allegations solely based on lies by the own dogmatic stubborness. The slogan is basically: _For that which must not, cannot be._
So… Intelligent Design is what gave me the genetic disorder that’s going to be the death of me.
THANKS, NebulousSkyDaddy! 🤬
Addendum - Behe can’t even look the camera in the lens when telling those lies.
Hope you're doing good 👍
@@ThePresident001 Thank you! I’m hanging in.
They are ironically destroying their belief that their deity is the embodiment of good because he either gave you the disorder willingly just because, or he knew you would get it and let it happen. These people are just frauds and con-men. Hope you are doing well.
@@gjesus051 Thank you! I'm hanging in.
Intelligent design gave me a practically dysfunctional eye 💀
One thing I’d like to point out… a science text book in jail or prison is basically impossible to get BUT these creationist books and the edge of evolution book bs is all over the place. They know that in schools they have to call it science but for inmates they call it religion and the prison or jail allows it in. They purposely target inmates as most of them don’t have a science background or even a basic education. Those are the people they are promoting too. People who already have an issue with “authority” or the “establishment”. It’s appalling to see the amount of ignorance spewed behind the walls and touted as science fact. SMH
Y’know what had me questioning my faith? It was how scientists from multiple countries could agree on the same things, but Christians couldn’t. In science, there’s no such thing as a denomination. It’s either science or not. Then, Professor Dave came. I sent him a thank you in an email along with a question, and he responded. The response email I received from him said, “Always happy to help someone kick such an archaic worldview.” (Note: I’m not quoting him necessarily because I accidentally deleted the email 😅) The guy’s an absolutely amazing teacher!
Yeah and it's not only christianity. The reason is that there is no reliable, well tested method to research any supernatural claim. As a consequence there is no book called Introductory College Theology written by scholars from all major religions.
Better than that. If you rewound the clock to the origin of the first homo sapiens, it seems unlikely that we'd have the same religions as we have today. Oh, we'd have virgin births, flood myths, 3 days of atonement, sin and all that. But, the narratives would be different than the largest organized religions. There would still be natural selection toward religions that oppress others, urge lots of babies, punish non-conformity but the stories wouldn't be exactly the same.
At the same time, all the scientific discovery would be exactly the same. The physics, chemistry, biology would not change. Newtonian mechanics, the periodic table, DNA replication, cell division... it would be exactly the same regardless of who describes it or when.
@@8584zender That thought is an inherently perfect analogy of how science works. It's concepts really can't change. Our theories may change over time, but they change through refinement to become better and more accurate.
The problem with the irreducible complexity argument is that it presupposes a linearity that doesn't exist. It doesn't account for the arise of multiple, simultaneous and spontaneous mutations resulting in novel traits.
Presupposition is at the very heart of intelligent design. Its proponents start out with their belief of how life came about, and then perform ceaseless mental gymnastics to try and validate it. There's nothing good or honest about it.
@@DrWhom guess we all pack it up. This guy says "nuh uh".
Thank you very much Dave for this series. I truly appreciate the effort you put into this. Keep up the great work.
Evolution starts from the bottom up, the things we build as humans start from the top down
My girlfriend is a biochemist and she just laughs whenever she hears some of those arguments for " intelligent design" as they call it. Back to the middle ages with those DI-folks
Now you do the scholars from the Middle Ages a disservice. They were mostly honest.
I was impatiently waiting for this one, great work as always, Dave!
Hey Professor Dave. I would like to Thank you for efforts towards eradicating Misinformation and science denial. I’ve been a fan for while and really like what you do. Especially the long form content. It’s great to watch your content in the background as I work on something else. It helps me focus on whatever I’m doing and I learn a lot from you. I don’t know much about what you debate/teach, but I’ve been doing some advice that you’ve said, I believe you said it in the james tour stuff, is that you learn science or trust scientists. I’m more in with computers science and not bio/chem/Astro science. So I trust the science and I really trust your ethos. It’s just weird that in my family, I’m the only one that believes in evolution and the 4.5 Billion year earth and not creationism and the 6000 year earth. I love your content man and you have definitely helped me in the ⭐️ past years. 😁👍
You made my Friday by posting this. Been looking forward to it.
You and Forrest Valkai both separately released a video exposing the same poor argument within 6 hours of each other. When are you two going to do a collab so I can watch my two favorite bad argument destroyers, destroy bad arguments together?
That would be great, Forrest + Professor Dave.
I hope everyone appreciates how much work Dave puts into these. So much work!
This is one of my favorite channels on CZcams and I appreciate your content Dave.
Keep up the good work, professor! I love these debunks.
I personally love the Creationist mousetrap argument. Here's why. They say that a mousetrap is irreducibly complex, OK. Cool.
Let's flip the script and look at some simple objects that have different and unrelated uses.
1) Water
2) Peanut Butter
3) A Broomstick
4) A paper towel tube
5) A bucket
6) Some tie wire
All of these things serve discreet functions. But guess what happens when you fill the bucket with water, then affix the broomstick to the top of the bucket and put a peanut butter smeared paper towel tube on the broomstick? You get a mousetrap. Sure, it's not "irreducibly complex", in fact, it's the opposite. But it neatly subverts the mousetrap argument while at the same time demonstrating convergent evolution.
Not to mention many other uses for all of the objects you have listed... 😂
@@chrisantoniou4366 That's my point. They like to say that the mousetrap (the snap-trap kind) is irreducibly complex because if you remove any item the mousetrap doesn't work, and that the items on their own are useless. Like a spring has no use. Or metal wire has no use.... Spelling it out even more simply with the bucket mousetrap example is useful because clearly a bucket has many other uses. Same with water.
But they still use the mousetrap as an example for some reason.
Not to mention that we keep finding how proteins and structures within things such as the Bacterial Flagellum that are useful and used elsewhere.
@@nasonguy When you look at the mathematics that underpin how our Universe works, evolution is inevitable and complexity emerges from the simplicity that existed at the Big Bang. Plasma evolved into hydrogen atoms, which evolved into larger and more complex atoms (nuclear synthesis and supernovae), which evolved into molecules, which evolved into larger organic molecules, which evolved into single celled life, which evolved into multi celled life and so on.
As you point out, even our inventions follow a similar evolutionary path to life forms and the constituent parts may well be "useless" on their own, still play a role in other inventions. Steel on its own has no use, but springs have many uses, including in mousetraps, pens, cars, valves, computers, etc. etc. 👍
I walked into the discovery institute to use the bathroom, slipped and suffered major brain damage, and when I came to, they offered me a job.
I took it you rejected the offer and they were like "Damn, he's not brain damaged enough."
I bought his Darwin's black box book back in the early 2000s. I couldn't finish it because it was so blatantly wrong, back then I didn't know about apologetics - I just thought it might be interesting as I have a degree in biochemistry. Now I understand why the book made no sense
I get so hyped every time you make a debunk!!!
Oh geez, I actually saw Behe at a lecture he gave at UCI in 1998 or 99. I was a freshman and a devout Christian but was surprised after hearing his lecture that all these unrelated religious books were for sale in the lobby (by other authors). It seemed like everyone was so relieved to have a creationist "expert" on their side. I wasn't sure what the lecture was intended to be then, an actual critique of evolution or a backhanded defense of a creator. And I did believe in some form of evolution/creation mashup, but the purpose of the lecture seemed off to me.
I know that debate and debunk is not your primary gig, but speaking as someone who has taught speech and debate for decades, you're easily in the top 1% of pro CZcamsrs when it comes to argumentation and breaking down extremely complex topics in order to give highly-persuasive support to your arguments.
When you have the time for it, please keep up the great work!
Wonderful! Behe’s “Darwin’s Black Box” was a book I read toward the end of my Christianity in a desperate attempt to find a single fact that would allow me to keep my faith. a Strobel’s “The Case for Christ” was another. I had such high hopes for that book, written as it was by an actual, aka non-Hovindesque, scientist. I didn’t find an iota of the proof I was looking for to help me resuscitate my faith. I’m really looking forward to Professor Dave’s take on Behe’s arguments; this is going to be good!
Edit: excellent as always, however, I noticed that Bebe called for the de novo evolution of the flagellum, whereas the cited experiment only demonstrated the (re)evolution of flagellar motility genetics.
The best criticism I read about "The Case for Christ" was that Strobel, like any good lawyer, was going to present his client's case while ignoring or downplaying anything said by the prosecution.
oh man, when I was entering my edgy teen atheist phase, my church bible study group(I was thankfully not part of) was reading Strobel's "The Case for Christ"
I went through a similar crises of faith. I feel like these kinds of people are doing more to destroy the faith of those struggling with intellectual issues then any atheist spokesmen. Thankfully, in my own walk I found that the science doesn’t have to be at odds with scripture and my faith. In fact, far before any of this science was known people were interpreting things like Genesis in way that remains consistent with modern scientific discoveries. I recommend checking out BioLogos if you want to know how the two can be compatible. I still struggled with the issue for a long time of wanting to find that evidence that proved what I believe was true and I simply couldn’t find it. Finally, I realized that the issue was that what I was really doing was trying to supplant the need for faith all together. I had to re-examine what faith was and why it was so important. The core of Christianity is faith is necessary for God to work out the corruption of sin in us. The heart of what faith is means being able to hold on to a belief even when it doesn’t always make sense in our heads. That doesn’t mean believing in something that is all together unreasonable or ignoring evidence, in fact I believe there is enough evidence for Christianity to see how it could be true (although certainly not enough to demonstrate beyond a reasonable doubt that it is true). Now this is definitely different then how we approach science but that doesn’t mean that it is any less important. How can I believe that my marriage will last when I know that over half of marriages don’t end up working out? In truth, I don’t know but the truth that I have found in this world is that the only way that it can work out is if I believe against all odds that it will work out.
@@muggsylauer2683 that’s perfect 😆
@@superanimeniac oh no, lol - I would have hated that so much - I’m sorry you had to sit through that
Not going to lie Dave my finances are in the rough and seeing people make up nonsense and make more than many honest workers really wears down the spirit. I don't know how you can keep up, good luck
Great series Dave! Keep up the good work. Once this series is concluded I would love to see an Exposing Answers in Genesis, Exposing Creation Ministries International, or Exposing The Daily Wire
This is the "I don't understand it so it must be magic" argument.
At the end of the day, that's all gods are.
Please keep up the good work professor Dave. You are appreciated
Was so looking forward to this. Behe really is the bottom of the creationist barrel.
He is an industrious con-artist.
been waiting for this series to get another entry, it's always fun watching you tear apart scientific dishonesty.
6:22 I remember seeing Dr. Dan's interview with Behe pop up in my recommended videos and I put off watching it because I was genuinely apprehensive about Behe possibly disproving evolution. There's a quote from Carl Sagan that I can't recall off the top of my head but the gist was that good scientists should accept when ideas they hold are disproved. It might be an uncomfortable process because scientists are human but _good scientists_ have to go with the evidence, and that includes abandoning ideas when the evidence is against them.
Suffice to say I needn't have worried because Dan utterly eviscerated Behe, whose one tactic was to refuse to concede when he was proven wrong and shift the goalposts to another topic or attempt to redefine 'irreducible complexity' so it wasn't disproved. It was honestly stunning to watch someone of Behe's supposed calibre be so thoroughly debunked and so adamantly refuse to concede that he was wrong.
This is typical for all apologists. They feel that they have to give up all of their propaganda if they admit that they are wrong on even one point.
Irreducible complexity Is both an appeal to ignorance and an appeal to personal incredulity fallacies. Due to those two reasons, it lacks falsifiability, in a scientific context. It doesn’t matter how many systems you show that would lead to it they will always be a “future” of the gaps.
Yes! Been waiting for this. You are doing good work
I hope to see content addressing some incredibly dangerous subjects in the alternative medicine realm, like alternative cancer treatments which include MMS, or "Miracle Mineral Supplement," made with strong oxidizers, as well as ingesting products that contain considerable amounts of Cyanide.
I'm certain you've saved lives with your content in the past. Keep up the good work, Professor!
I was arguing with a creationist and he kept using these long pseudosciencey sounding words and phrases (I don't even remember what they f****** were)
and I finally just said.
" I don't know what you mean by that and quite frankly I don't think you do either.
What you're doing is a cheap debate tactic called baffle gabbing.
You're just bringing up lots of things as quick as you can before I can answer them. It's to look smart, to a dumb audience."
He didn't have any answer for that
Tell him before he can prove ID he must thourougly define and prove this creator agent (god). Trust me it won't happen 🤣
Creacrap and especially IDiocy can't do without ambiguous nor meaningless language.
They like to use long words they don't understand to make them seem more photosynthesis.
The one thing I'll give Behe credit for... is he actually knows what "design" is. Sadly, even many atheists miss the point of design in engineering, and don't realize where the principle of parsimony logically/philosophically comes from. Behe correctly argues that the best sign of intelligence is when a thing is as *_simple_* as possible, and not simpler. So, rather than implying that "complexity=intelligence", he's actually arguing the opposite, and he's right about that. When you run a mouse through a maze, the mouse doesn't demonstrate maximum intelligence when it hits every possible dead end, but rather when it modifies its choices over time to SKIP the dead ends and reach the cheese in the fewest steps possible.
Ergo: Intelligence is not demonstrated by the _complexity_ of a solution to a problem, but rather the *_simplicity_* of the solution with respect to the complexity of the obstacles. Restated: Intelligence is about simplicity, not complexity.
The fundamental problem with Behe's argument, from a philosophical perspective, is simply that, with an omnipotent being, there's no reason for a "complex universe" to exist. If there are NO obstacles to the "problem" of creating life (e.g. angels are non-corporeal), then there are NO possible justifications for the existence of a complicated path to the solution (the shortest distance between two points is always a straight line). This means there is NO possible religious justification for ANY of the particles of the standard model; no bosons, gluons, muons, etc., let alone complex structures like molecules and materials. Atheists waste their time arguing against design by pointing out errors like cancer, when the should be arguing against DNA itself. According to the tenets of the Bible (and almost any other religion), physical matter itself could all be re-simplified back to air, fire, wind and water.
If the universe were intelligently designed by an all-powerful being who writes his own rules of math and physics, the result would be a simple universe, not a complicated one. And the universe isn't just complicated -- it's _infinitely_ complicated, and it's growing in complexity as we speak (more "stuff" being created everywhere).
The universe is moving in entirely the wrong direction to imply a designer of any kind. Behe argues against himself.
Truly excellent point. If one studies molecular biology in depth, one is struck by all this redundancy, waste of energy and materials, this absurd complexity: the unmistakable impression is that nobody with great intelligence would possibly design such a mess.
You're missing Behe's point: He's saying Complex Item = Designed... as all things which were designed by an intelligence... he's saying Complex Item = Designed by an Intelligence.... as these Complex Items were Designed, these things couldn't have happened naturally... ergo Evolution didn't happen.
It doesn't matter if he's right about simplicity being a hallmark of _intelligence_ because he's not using it to mean "this was _intelligently_ designed" he's saying "this was designed by an intelligent (at least to the basic human concept of intelligent) agent" as in "a Person [god, aliens, homo erectus] made these things".
In his second book, The Edge of Evolution (published in 2007), Behe claimed that no cilia can form without IFT protein complexes. I pointed out that a paper on ciliary formation in the protist Plasmodium, published three years before his book came out, demonstrated that there are NO IFT genes in the genome of Plasmodium (which can form a cilium). In other words Behe was full of crap. Here is a quote as to how he responded to me calling him out on this.
“I'm afraid I didn't see the Briggs et al. 2004 paper before my book was published. As you know, the literature is vast, so it's very hard to track down everything that might be relevant...” - Michael Behe
Yeah, duh! That is why real scholars submit their work to peer review.
So Behe is either a crappy scholar or a liar.
Take your pick.
Both.
@@marknieuweboer8099 Good choice.
Love your videos Professor Dave. Keep 'em coming!
Dave,
You are doing a great service, brother. Thank you for your sharing your passion and trying to reach those on the fence.
i love these, not because of the stupid gifters who get dunked on, but because how much you learn about how we know things, and how cool science is
It can be both. I LOVE these despicable, profoundly hypocritical lying cons and frauds being absolutely humiliated and debunked… AND the super fascinating science stuff.
It’s two scoops of delicious truth-flavored ice cream - enjoy them both.
Yes! That's why Dave is becoming my favorite debunker. Making fun of them is funny, but eventually I just find myself bitter and upset.
The detailed science lessons in these is much more productive!
Ironic that Behe is catholic considering the official position of the Catholic Church is that Genesis is allegory, that the universe is 13 billion years old and that evolution is scientific fact. In this sense, must be a US thing.
I blame our education system. Too many people, especially in highly conservative or insular Christian communities, grow up without learning the fundamentals of critical thought and rigorous debate.
Fundamentalism leaks into many other sects in the USA, and most Carholics don't even know what the word "catholic" means.
I fell for irreducible complexity for too long. Ugh. So cool to learn this stuff is real- so fascinating!
I think more broadly speaking what you need to take away is that modern science, though not 100% perfect, is a reliable system where any scientific claim must be backed up by repeatable experiment and observation, and peer-reviewed for authenticity. In this way the scientific and non-scientific audience can be reasonably well assured that the science is correct (or at least as correct as possible). Most scientists are skeptics, not to mention proud and so don’t want to publish anything that is wrong.
this series made me fall in love with dave. love the dry wit prof.
I am loving this series on these shills for the Discovery Institute. I am hoping you will do one on Jonathan Wells author of Zombie Science amongst other books.
Creationists: "it's all too complex! Therefore an infinitely more complex magic man is the answer!"🤣🤣🤦🤮
You know what's strange to me, as a former Christian that became atheist without having any strong moment of denial or loss of religion to get this way? The obsession with making the Christian God a "God of gaps (in human knowledge)", and then trying to force human knowledge to regress and make the "gaps" bigger, instead of just, like, rolling with the new scientific discoveries and telling themselves "isn't the universe our God made so fascinating, that we always have something new to learn about it?". That's such an easier conclusion to come to.
You're right. I've never heard about the study with bacteria that grew back their flagella. Removing the irreducible complexity argument from the tool belt. Thanks Dave.
I've been looking forward to this one for a long time!
I literally watched part 1 and 2 yesterday and came to see if you had anything I could listen to while I work. How tf did I find this 4 min old upload
I was waiting for this. Thanks ProfessorDave.
“I’ve been looking forward to this.” -Count Dooku
Okay the one that finally pushed me over the edge was the smartphone thing. That example literally works against him, as phone models are definitionally iterative. Does he think they redesign the iPhone from the ground up every time they put out a new one?
I will watch every one of these. Please keep making them.
i cant say how much i inproved with this channel. I learned a lot, forgot a lot of myth, scams and pseudoscience. Seriusly, thanks dave.
Hey Dave / subscribers, computational biologist here.
I wanted to further debunk the “fitness valley” argument. Even in a constant environment, fitness valleys aren’t really an issue, but instead are an artefact of trying to project “fitness” into few dimensions (2D and 3D). In reality, a genome typically has thousands of genes, millions of amino acids, and billions of nucleotides in a genome. Even when only looking at a single gene of 1000 base pairs, you still have 998 more dimensions than the 2D/3D image suggests. These many dimensions can’t be reduced to a simple “landscape”, but you CAN calculate the odds of being stuck on a peak, where moving in any direction (eg changing any of the amino acids) will reduce your fitness. It turns out that the more dimensions you add, the lower the prevalence of such local peaks.
In realistic scenarios, there very often is “a way to the top”, usually by taking a small detour. By analogy, imagine walking on the side of a mountain ridge. Sometimes you walk a long way around a valley, which isn’t the shortest distance, but it is much easier because you never had to go down! So, long story short, even if the environment does not change, evolution is rarely “stuck on a fitness peak”.
Hope that helps. Or that anyone reads this, for that matter. Cheers!
Here’s some papers that explore the fitness landscape concepts much better:
www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0169534718302660
www.nature.com/articles/s41559-016-0045
www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1571064512000486
I wonder what the endgame is for the creationists. Do they imagine that scientists in the future, when creationism has replaced evolution in high school, will somehow stop seeing evolution in nature, when observing nature? That evolution will somehow just go away?
Their endgame is religious authorities determining what can and what cannot be called science. As a Dutch Young Earth Creacrapper wrote: theology is the queen of science.
They don't give a shit they will just restrict any data or knowledge that disagrees with thier worldview 1984 style.
At the end of the first video Dave explains why they do it, it's about tearing down secularism and for Christianity to regain control and power.