Using examples of bacterial motors, cilia, vision, cellular transport, and more, Dr. Michael Behe explains why Darwinian gradualism fails to explain the origin of …



  1. Atheism. They mock religion, because they don't have anything to say. They claim to be for progress and free thinking, but only talk about suppressing those who disagree with them. Atheism is a fad cult whose followers worship Richard Dawkins instead of God. It's followers are even more ignorant, dogmatic, and fanatical about their chosen path than they claim muslims, christians, hindoos or jews to be. They use science as their excuse for dogmatism, and some of them truly believe their own bullshit in this regard.

  2. Okay let's say spontaneous life generation is possible (mathematically). But what makes you darwinists think, that just because it's possible, this is how life on earth was created? It's about 99.999% that it was intelligent design, it's simple logic.

  3. does anyone know what religious textbooks say about Neanderthals amd what modern day religious nuts say about them, do they denie they existence or claimthat they are democrats or summit??

  4. Molecular clocks, invented by evolutionists to try and save face over the supreme embarrassment of the Cambrian explosion, assume evolution to be true, yet they're using molecular clocks to prove evolution to be true in the first place.
    Talk about circular reasoning!
    Different molecules can bring on wildly different results, but scientists aren't keen on emphasizing this. Histones, proteins which organize chromatin in the nucleus, are one such example:

  5. It should be called Darwinian Creation because it is little else than an absurdly weak repudiation of the Hebrew God who claimed to be the source of life.

    I find it interesting that God (of Hebrew tradition) also claimed to create the universe. Interesting to me because those who "believe" in Darwinian Creation get upset if one argues that Darwin's theory cannot escape the inclusion of the origin of the universe.

     They want to go back in time to a place where life was simple, when no further explanations or questions were required.

    Darwinian Creation is childish in its imaginative allure.

  6. Our repeated and uniform experience with systems possessing integrated schemes of digital information processing is that their origin and design always trace back to intelligence.
    Cells possess integrated schemes of digital information processing.
    The inference to the best explanation of the first cell is intelligence versus any other explanation.
    If the implication of this inference points to an extra dimensional intelligence that would to our limited selves seem like magic, then let's get used to it and expand our thinking accordingly.

  7. Origin of life investigation must certainly NOT be a science since it can only address a unique historical event and NOT an ongoing physicochemical process, some 3.6 billion years in the past, with NO way to be absolutely sure what environment conditions held sway – and therefore providing NO rational platform from which hypotheses can be tested!

  8. Let 'outcome X' = the origin of life. Let 'process Y' = natural processes capable of creating life.
    The naturalist position is as follows:
    "I can't personally understand how 'outcome X' could have possibly occurred without 'process Y.' Now, I have no evidence for any relevant 'process Y.' And yet 'outcome X' has obviously occurred, so it must therefore follow that 'process Y' did give rise to 'outcome X.'"
    The naturalistic position is an argument from incredulity fallacy.

  9. Behe's research is not the only example of irreducible complexity in biology. RNA polymerase is DNA-dependent, and DNA is RNApol-dependent. Now I don't want to draw the usual ad-hoc work-arounds attacking facts and common-sense, but learned speculation as to how this catch-22 could occur is welcomed(please no cursing, from those that are driven to overflowing by the sinful nature, such that it flows constantly from their mouths). While we're discussing the always ready ad-hoc explanations from the evolutionists, why do people believe that humans evolved from a single-celled eukaryote but have no idea how it could have happened? Genetic mutation/selection, if even mathematically or molecularly feasible(which it's not), doesn't come close to providing the information required to alter body plans. I'm not saying science is not able to advance in knowledge, but it's ridiculous to believe in something so strongly[evolution] and have no theory as to how it may have happened. Curiously, the strongest support for evolution, which is a vacuous set of ad-hoc mythical band-aids for a 19th century dreamer at this point, seems to come mainly from those who are hiding from truth.

  10. Dr Behe, I am amazed that you fail to understand basic principles of natural selection. Please reach out Richard Dawkins for some intro. Because you can't get it doesn't mean that there is ID behind all this. this is a logical fallacy..

  11. Yet another problem for abiogenesis is that, at the functional epicenter of the genetic code, is the charging of tRNAs by one of twenty different aminoacyl tRNA synthetases. For this functional system to have developed spontaneously in prebiotic earth, dozens of different tRNAs, each containing a unique RNA anticodon, would have had to be synthesized DE NOVO and readily available.
    You can't argue that ANY of these tRNAs "came from meteorites" or comets, etc.
    But at the same time, for those tRNA molecules to actually function within the genetic code, unknown random processes needed to spontaneously generate 20 different PROTEINS…. catalytic ENZYMES… known as aminoacyl tRNA synthetases, and these enzymes would have to – further – develop and persist in having a TRIPLE CHEMICAL AFFINITY:
    1) with one of 20 amino acids, and to no other amino acid, just one;
    2) with an adenosine triphosphate molecule through a covalent bond right at the amino acid's carboxyl group;
    3) with anywhere from one to four different anticodon-bearing tRNAs that, again, had to appear DE NOVO.
    Moreover, the RNA triplet in any given tRNA anticodon could NOT, in the supposed natural origin of life, possess any direct chemical affinity with any given amino acid. The mapping of 64 anticodons to the 20 aminoacyl tRNA synthetases had to occur completely by chance.
    Further still the highly specific molecular structure of the aminoacyl tRNA synthetase would almost certainly have had to have been specified in turn by DNA within an already functioning genetic code.
    No plausible prebiotic chemical pathway has ever been shown to permit the unguided, natural and spontaneous formation of complex protein enzymes with the requisite 3 dimensional folding structure necessary to catalyze chemical reactions.
    Each aminoacyl tRNA synthetase enzyme would have to exist before the molecular conditions existed for it to be synthesized in the first place!!!

  12. In the light of more recent research on the functions of parts of the Flagellum, it's now clear that this 'poster boy' example of ID is in fact NOT irreducibly complex. If you google it, you will find that the evidence against ID in this example was presented in court and was rejected as having no scientific basis and being motivated by Religious beliefs rather than evidence..

  13. My favorite example of irreducible complexity involves the whip and motor on the bacterial flagellum.  Now you may know that biochemist Michael Behe said the  b.f is irreducibly complex.

    I don't disagree with anything he said, I just want to change the focus a little.  And btw in the "refutations" of i.c. in the b.f. we see the usual in evo. think.  There was no use of the scientific method.  For ex. they could have removed a part from the b.f. to see if it still functioned.

    But, no, instead they spun purely theoretical scenarios about what "probably….might have…must have" occured in the conveniently unverifiable past.  They talked about "co option" and "dual purpose" as if those words were evidence for what happened in the invisible past.  They want us to believe that because some bacteria are more simple, well, something unseen (in the past and in the present) like them must have "evolved" into the b.f.

    They ignore that the more simple bacteria are doing different jobs and that out of countless numbers of them, observed for over 2 centuries, not one of them has ever been observed to be evolving into anything at all.  (No, it is a myth that antibiotic resistant bacteria are evidence of "evolution."  They are 100% bacteria like all bacteria everywhere, like all bacteria observed since the 18th century and seen in fossilized examples from the "Cambrian" period.)

    Having said that, onto my own example of i.c.  Google the motor and whip on the b.f.  Neither has any use if the other isn't fully functional and fully complete.  Further the b.f. has no use for them until that is true.

    Now how and why would "evolution" keep the whip and motor in evo. limbo lala land while they are turning from dots to nubs to stubs to fully formed, fully connected parts?  You can't even imagine how or why.  You can't show any "co option" or "dual purpose" that those incomplete "evolving" parts could have. You can have…faith….that someone, somehow, some way, some day, will explain it all for you.  But in the meantime you do have something to use called common sense.  Evolution discourages common sense but I'm quite sure you still have it.

    Now let's talk about another kind of flagellar whip, on the sperm.  Now how is "evolution" going to coordinate its development – and again keep it in limbo lala land for aeons while it "evolves" sufficiently – to match the needs of the supposdely ever "evolving" egg in a totally other body? 

    Let's say somehow the first egg and the first sperm got created by evolution, though that has zip evidence and is absurd.  Well, golly think of all those species of animals out there that have different systems, different body structures, for their eggs and sperm.  So evolution would have to keep coordinating the development of the sperm and its new pathways with the development of the egg and its new pathways, continually changing the female reproductive AND male reproductive system over and over as they supposedly "evolve" SYNCHRONOUSLY!

    There is astronimcally more much to consider than it seems on the surface.
    Let's just look at the womb of a woman for one example.  For reproduction it's not just a matter of a sperm hitting an egg.  Everything has to be just right in terms of hormones, body temperature, motor and sensory nerves, glandular functions…  Well, the list just goes on and on and on and…. 

    And we're supposed to believe that somehow the male parts, which also require incredibly complex, intricate and co dependent parts, kept developing in sync with the female parts as they both "evolved" into a different species with different kinds of ever changing, ever "evolving" reproductive parts on both sides?  (Evolution would be hilarious if it weren't dumbing down the populace, particulary school children.)  And what use would either of those "evolving" systems be, of course, until they were fully finished on both sides? 

    Of course we see that animals mating outside of their own species don't even produce fertile offspring anyway.  Apes produce apes, monkeys produce monkeys and people produce people. That's what we see in the real world. But forget all those rules.  Things work differently in the fairy tale lala world of long ago and conveniently far away Evo. Land.

    Monkeys, apes and people no way have identical reproductive parts, neural connections, hormones, glands, etc. So, assuming some "lesser apes" were being revamped, going from one species to another to turn into a human, you've got the same problems mentioned:
      1.  Coordination between two separate bodies over vast periods of time for vast numbers of change for vast numbers of males and females.
    2. There is not even a theory on how the female body parts would keep on "evolving" SYNCHRONOUSLY OVER AND OVER  in the body, while they are incomplete and therefore useless, to match the male body parts' continually "evolving" changes.
    3.There is no evidence anywhere that any such things could happen, much less did happen.

    My how miraculous, one could even say magical, are the presumed abilities of "evolution."

    Friend, evolution is a religion.  It is based on faith in the unseen.  It ain't science.  It defies science as well as common sense.  Your mind was…created….for so much more.

    You're being told you're nothing but a modified monkey.  Isn't there something in you that kinda bristles at that claim?  Rhetorical Q. but if so your common sense is alive and well.  You are not an ape update.  You are made in the image and likeness of the Creator, your Heavenly Father Who loves you.  Don't miss out.

  14. Professor Strauss mentioned about renowned scientist who come up with a delusional crazy idea, which is basically that we are the only intelligence on earth, and somehow through quantic mechanic, we went back on time to "create the universe for themselve". so here is what GOD says about such a people:

    We know that there are some people who do not believe in the existence of the One God (a Creator). Allah has (as one example that I am choosing out of many) answered these people using reason in the Quran In the 52nd chapter called Surah at-Tur, Allah says:

    أَمْ خُلِقُوا مِنْ غَيْرِ شَيْءٍ أَمْ هُمُ الْخَالِقُونَ

    أَمْ خَلَقُوا السَّمَاوَاتِ وَالْأَرْضَ بَل لَّا يُوقِنُونَ

    “Were they created by nothing, or were they themselves the creators? Or did they create the Heavens and the earth? Nay, but they have no firm belief” (verses 35-36)

    this verse also talk about the disbeliever that states we come from NOTHING, (i.e. before the BIG BANG there was NOTHING, not even SPACE or TIME") and yet we came out into existence from nothingness !! What a beautiful verse (surah) for people who are willing to use their " AQL" (i.e. reasoning, brain, mind), as stated in this following verse:
    Allah – The Most Perfect and the Most High – describes the people of the Hellfire when they are thrown into the Fire. They will be questioned by the angels as to why they are in the Hellfire. Allah tells us that they say:

    وَقَالُوا لَوْ كُنَّا نَسْمَعُ أَوْ نَعْقِلُ مَا كُنَّا فِي أَصْحَابِالسَّعِيرِ

    “Had we but listened or used our intelligence, we would not (now) be amongst the Companions of the Blazing Fire!” (Surah Mulk [Chapter 67] verse 10)

    So when the people are condemned to the Hellfire enter it, they realize that their fault lay in not listening to the message; also they did not use their faculties of reasoning in order to decide whether the message was true or false.

  15. So let me get this straight – these things LOOK like designed "machines" therefore … Aliens?
    That's the proof? No numbers, no equations, no thought behind it? That's it?
    Wow, no wonder only those with half brain are taking this shit seriously.

    And to have audacity to ask the first questioner to produce evidence for his possible solution (elements having different functionality) to irreducible complexity, while he (Behe) himself has absolutely no proof of intelligent design whatsoever is just what you would expect from creationists.
    And in the Beta-lactamase plasmid answer he actually points out that this plasmid might have some different functionality somewhere else. Oh LOL what a douche.

  16. How can something be irreducibly complex and also be designed? If it can't be reduced into simpler functions, it can't be designed to the function it is currently in. Intelligent design proponents are shooting themselves in the foot and they don't even realize it.

  17. Behe, is a failed academic, run up his own gum tree. Creationists, give him a living, but he has no credibility. I went to one of his self serving rants They are designed to fool the ignorant, so he can sell books and fool creatards, for money. As far as science is concerned, he is a zero.

  18. @1:06:00 This gentleman tries to disprove irreducible complexity by choosing an intelligently designed object in order to refute Behe's position of irreducibly complex systems are intelligently designed. I'm so confused….

  19. Atheists want us to blindly, dogmatically and religiously believe that complex organisms can arise out non organic chemicals by sheer random processes such as wind, erosion, sand, thunder and un intended farting, because Darwin said so. Being an atheists today, after science from cosmology, mathematics, physics, micro biology, information science and logic has literally buried Darwin's pile of dogma, must be one of the most ignorant places to be. Digging an atheist's heels claiming to be right, because Darwin thought that flies and maggots were borne out of rotten meat, is nothing but blind belief. Just a religious, blind belief in a demagogue named Darwin…

  20. Specified complexity, irreducibly complex, is the name of the game for DNA. Different for each and every species of plant and animal. The message found in the genetic alphabet in the nucleus of a simple one-celled amoeba is more than the message found in the thirty volumes of a large encyclopedia. The message in the DNA is not random but in a specified order and for the amoeba as a whole the massage would fill a 1000 complete sets of the said encyclopedia. Looking at Trump Towers one would immediately infer design. Looking at the more complex amoeba some would deny design. Truth is the victim. Status-quo and ego demands a different world view, compelling one to reject truth. (p 115 of Faith of an atheist by Norman Geisler and Frank Turek)

  21. One assumes that God is Irreducibly Complex (IC). You can't have half a god, so to invent a mysterious being to explain the complexity in nature, just adds another layer of Unnecessary Complexity (UC) and so those who try to use this already explained "mystery" to shoe-horn God into existence are just revealing how little thought has gone into the idea. I suppose it will fool the uneducated and will temporarily increase the donations from the fools, but for my part, I trust the scientific method will prevail, so I recommend donating to scientific establishments if you really have the urge to give money.

  22. There is a lot of focus on evolution around this. More core to this is the mathematics of morphogenesis, chaos and feedback. Alan Turing did some ground-breaking work on this, up there with his work on his computers.

    Intelligent design shows a lack of imagination. Dr. Behe needs to look up to the stars to see almost infinite complexity, interaction, recycling and complexity. Remember, the only elements in the early universe were hydrogen & helium.

  23. ¨Dr. Behe, But you are clear, under your definition, the definition that sweeps in intelligent design, astrology is also a scientific theory, correct?¨

    Behe: Yes, that's correct.

  24. isn't everything irreducibly complex, from the sea lapping on the shore, to the cat licking its paw, but what a silly way of looking at the problem.

  25. ARN doesn't appear to want people to know when this was recorded.

    This from way back in 1997: I still have my VHS copy from back when I was ignorant of biology.

  26. how silly something that's so complex, billions of years of evolution couldn't create it…we wont understand these creatures till we except these things aren't divinely inspired… to say these creatures that we sneeze out are holy in some way, is looking at the problem wrongly.

  27. Irreducible complexity has not been and cannot be refuted correctly by modern science. Its falsifiable, but I don't think that it will ever be refuted, debunked, or falsified correctly by science.

  28. Irreducible Complexity:

    Irreducible complexity simply means that certain mechanisms, be they mechanical or biological, require all of the essential parts in place to function. If you deny that, then you are incredibly unlearned. You do know what the word 'essential' means? And you must know that right in front of you and all around you are devices that will not function if an essential part is broken or missing.

    Each claim for irreducible complexity must certainly be examined individually not categorically since there are obvious examples that are not irreducibly complex. However, there are other examples that cannot easily be dismissed.

    Understand that no scientist or engineer claims irreducible complexity is not a valid concept. Very simply, a mechanism cannot run without all of its ESSENTIAL parts. No one questions that. It is in fact, a self-evident statement, that always holds true.

    The real issue with IC is whether a partial mechanism or organ can remain around long enough to become useful before natural selection eliminates it.

    All I have heard from those trying to refute irreducible complexity are imaginary unobserved scenarios describing what "might have happened" in the evolutionary time scale to bring about the biological features in question.

    No one has demonstrated the step by step processes taking place on an irreducibly complex bio-machine, organ, or the extraordinary complex cell itself.

    Shooting down an hypothesis takes more than some reasonable imaginary story of how something might have happened but has not been observed happening. The problem with evolutionary theory is that evolution depends on unguided mechanisms: random mutation and natural selection in order for evolution to take place. These mechanisms have been shown by experience and reason to not be adequate to cause evolution.

    And, there is more to it than some useless mutational changes just hanging around until something useful is built. The whole notion that any complex life form can even get off the ground is at odds with observation and common sense.

    Do some serious reading,


  29. The illustration shows a motor driven mechanism which is intended to be misleading to the ignorant.  In fact, flagella evolve from other structures naturally, they are not built or manufactured by gods or any other magical persons..

  30. Official Disclaimer

    My ideas about irreducible complexity and intelligent design are entirely my own. They certainly are not in any sense endorsed by either Lehigh University in general or the Department of Biological Sciences in particular. In fact, most of my colleagues in the Department strongly disagree with them. `Michael Behe

Leave A Reply

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here