TLDR;
Dr. Michael Behe discusses his intelligent design argument, which posits that the complexity of molecular machinery in cells points to an intelligent designer. He contrasts this with Darwinian evolution, arguing that while Darwinism can explain some changes, it fails to account for the origin of complex systems requiring multiple coordinated parts. He defends the scientific basis of intelligent design, emphasizing empirical evidence and logical reasoning, while addressing common criticisms and the resistance from the scientific community.
- Intelligent design is based on the observation of complex molecular machines in cells.
- Darwinian evolution can explain some changes but not the origin of complex systems.
- Irreducible complexity is a key concept, where multiple components are necessary for a system to function.
- The scientific community's resistance to intelligent design is due to philosophical and theological implications.
- Intelligent design is a scientific argument based on empirical evidence and logical reasoning.
Introduction and Background [0:00]
Dr. Michael Behe is introduced, with a brief overview of his background, including his education at Bishop McDavid High School, Drexel University, and the University of Pennsylvania, where he earned a Ph.D. in biochemistry. He is currently working at Lehi University. Three of his notable books are mentioned: "Darwin's Black Box," "The Edge of Evolution," and "Darwin Devolves."
The Intelligent Design Argument [1:46]
Dr. Behe explains his intelligent design argument, stating that life is run by molecular machinery with multiple interdependent parts. These machines, such as motors and factories, require all components to function, indicating intelligent design. He believes the complexity observed at the molecular level suggests a designer, possibly God, though he acknowledges that scientific evidence alone cannot definitively identify the designer. He emphasizes that the machinery of the cell is clearly designed but lacks a specific signature that would definitively identify the designer.
Philosophical and Theological Implications [4:32]
The discussion explores the identity of the intelligent designer, differentiating between the God of philosophers and the God of prophets. Dr. Behe suggests that biochemical evidence alone is insufficient to make a firm conclusion. He sticks to his discipline of biochemistry, focusing on the intricate interactions of parts within biological structures.
Intelligent Design vs. Darwinian Evolution [7:23]
Dr. Behe clarifies that intelligent design does not reject all aspects of Darwinian evolution but argues that it cannot account for everything. He uses the example of sickle cell disease to illustrate a change that Darwin's theory explains well, where a mutation provides resistance to malaria. However, he notes that Darwin's theory struggles to explain systems requiring multiple simultaneous changes to function. He introduces the concept of irreducible complexity, using a mousetrap as an example, where all components must be present for the system to work.
Criticism and Scientific Basis of Intelligent Design [12:50]
Dr. Behe addresses the criticism that intelligent design lacks a scientific basis. He argues that his argument is based on empirical evidence, specifically the structure of molecular machinery in cells, and ordinary reasoning about intelligent design. He defines intelligent design as the conclusion that different components are ordered to each other to perform a function that they cannot do by themselves. He uses the example of a mousetrap to illustrate that the conclusion of design is based on the same logic and physical evidence as in molecular machines.
Addressing Counterarguments and the Nature of Science [16:04]
Dr. Behe explains why he attributes certain phenomena to intelligent design rather than natural laws, citing our experience with intelligence and its capabilities. He draws a parallel to Isaac Newton's theory of gravity, where the mechanism was unknown but the effects were evident. He responds to Kenneth Miller's critique of the mousetrap example, clarifying that the key point is the system's inability to function as a mousetrap if any part is removed, regardless of whether the parts can be repurposed.
The Status of Darwinian Evolution [19:34]
Dr. Behe asserts that Darwinian evolution is not scientifically proven, noting that Darwin was unaware of genetics, molecules, and DNA. He discusses his book "Darwin Devolves," where he argues that many mutations cited as evidence for Darwinian evolution actually break existing genes. He uses the example of polar bears losing their brown fur pigment as a result of a broken gene. He argues that Darwin's mechanism primarily works by squandering genetic information for short-term needs rather than building new systems.
Scientific Community's Resistance and the Pursuit of Truth [22:24]
Dr. Behe observes that Darwin's theory is often treated as a postulate rather than a scientific hypothesis, making it immune to disproof. He notes that scientists who question Darwinism or support intelligent design are often dismissed as pseudoscientists. He attributes this resistance to a desire to avoid any implications of intelligence or God's activity in life. He emphasizes that scientific truth should be established by evidence, and scientists should follow the evidence wherever it leads.
The Role of Science and the Supernatural [26:08]
Dr. Behe discusses the reluctance within the scientific community to explain phenomena with reference to a transcendental deity. He acknowledges that science primarily describes nature, while philosophy and theology deal more specifically with God. However, he argues that fundamental questions about the universe, the origin of life, and the nature of the mind inevitably lead to philosophical questions. He concludes that it is insufficient to simply postulate natural processes without thoroughly investigating the evidence, especially when dealing with the origin of life and the sophisticated mechanisms within it.
Final Thoughts and Addressing Further Criticisms [28:01]
Dr. Behe addresses Kenneth Miller's challenge regarding the bacterial flagellum, reiterating that removing parts renders it unable to function as a rotary motor, even if the remaining components can perform other tasks. He emphasizes that Miller is ignoring the core argument of irreducible complexity by focusing on alternative functions of individual components.