Re: Michael Behe on Intelligent Design

Back


You lose, Dr. Behe.

Channel: Howto & Style
Uploaded: April 26, 2007 at 1:22 am
Author: Kabane52

Length: 00:02:23
Rating: 3.32
Views: 1949

Tags: intelligent design evolution christianity michael behe

Video Comments:
CRoadwarrior (August 12, 2008 at 8:19 am)
Once again, Kabane, I've been studying this issue for a while. I would suggest you study the fact that evolution is not proven scientific fact. Intelligent Design theory is valid scientifically AND it fits what the Bible says about how God made the world, so that we could see that a Creator God made it (Romans 1:20;Psalm 19:1-4). Behe is far from wrong, except where he agrees with evolution. Please read the book "Evolution: A Theory in Crisis" by Dr. Michael Denton.
bignastydragon (September 1, 2008 at 7:00 pm)
hey CRW, seems like you're stepping into the realm of evolution, as i've told you before i have studied biology at degree level and have read literature on both sides of the argument (am currently reading through behe's latest book).

i know evolution stands up as theory, and no-one can dispute that it works. ID is not a scientific theory, although if the scientists who back ID think it is they should pull their fingers out and get some research published.
CRoadwarrior (September 2, 2008 at 1:32 am)
bignasty...I've been studying this issue for a while. I've studied biology as well, as at one point I wanted to be either a biologist or medical doctor. If evolution "stands up" so well, then it would not have so many serious problems. Claiming ID is not a scientific theory doesn't prove it. There are a multitude of scientists with advanced degrees who argue for it. And they do get their work published all the time. However, due to bias against the idea of ID, they are not published widely.
LOLerSk8s (September 14, 2008 at 7:56 pm)
The scientific method shows that ID is not a scientific theory.
CRoadwarrior (September 15, 2008 at 3:57 am)
No, LOLerSk8s, the scientific "method" does not show that ID is not a scientific theory. If that were the case, we could not determine that the Pyramids were designed by intelligent Egyptiians. Nonsense. It's the philosophical method of people who want methodological naturalism and atheism to dominate science. Not gonna work.
LOLerSk8s (September 15, 2008 at 6:42 am)
You truly have no grasp of science, do you?
ND066 (August 7, 2008 at 4:51 am)
Are you reading this directly off a paper.
TheJaredJammer (July 9, 2008 at 9:28 am)
Why Darwinists Hate Michael Behe....

"Until the past decade and the genomics revolution, Darwin's theory rested on indirect evidence and reasonable speculation. Now, however, we have begun to scratch the surface of direct evidence, of which this book offers the best possible treatment. Though many critics won't want to admit it, The Edge of Evolution is very balanced, careful, and devastating. A tremendously important book."

-- Dr. Philip Skell, National Academy of Sciences

HE'S DEVASTATING.
LOLerSk8s (September 14, 2008 at 8:00 pm)
Using quotes without posting a reference means nothing.
MACSHUNDESS (July 7, 2008 at 5:46 pm)
as for you, you are a true gross asshole and what does fatness has to do with good solid arguments against that schmuck theory of irreducible complexity. you know what ? I think - no, I'm sure - you are of irreducible stupidity. will you be able to read this and understand it correctly ? I doubt.