Uploaded February 2009 | Updated September 2026, 1 week ago
This video was originally created by youtube.com/cdk007
MICHAEL BEHE SUPPORTS THIS POSITION
For those who have not seen my other videos, let's get one thing straight, I do not believe in or support ID or creationism, as neither are supported by any data or make any testable predictions. But I am tired of people claiming ID and creationism are separate. That you can teach ID in schools without violating the separation of church and state. Well, sorry, they are the same, and this simple proof shows how.
Michael Behe supports the position that ID at its root is creationism because the ultimate designer must be supernatural.
". . . it may be that all possible natural designers require irreducibly complex structures which themselves were designed. If so, then at some point a supernatural designer must get into the picture. I myself find this line of reasoning persuasive. In my estimation, although possible in a broadly permissive sense, it is not plausible that the original intelligent agent is a natural entity. The chemistry and physics that we do know weigh heavily against it. If natural intelligence depends on physical organization, then the organization seems likely to have to be enormously complex and stable over reasonable periods of time. While simpler systems may perform the tasks that irreducibly complex systems perform a terrestrial life, they would likely perform them more slowly and less efficiently, so that the complexity required for intelligence would not ultimately be achieved. Thus, in my judgment it is implausible that the designer is a natural entity."
When questioned at the Dover trial
Lawyer - "...you personally believe the designer is God."
Behe -- "Yes."
To download this video go to:
mediafire.com/?evzx2yhxtyi
If you wish to translate this video you can download the PowerPoint file from:
mediafire.com/?0nuzqkjyz2l
Learn the facts, spread the truth, and most importantly, Think About It.
This video was originally created by youtube.com/cdk007
MICHAEL BEHE SUPPORTS THIS POSITION
For those who have not seen my other videos, let's get one thing straight, I do not believe in or support ID or creationism, as neither are supported by any data or make any testable predictions. But I am tired of people claiming ID and creationism are separate. That you can teach ID in schools without violating the separation of church and state. Well, sorry, they are the same, and this simple proof shows how.
Michael Behe supports the position that ID at its root is creationism because the ultimate designer must be supernatural.
". . . it may be that all possible natural designers require irreducibly complex structures which themselves were designed. If so, then at some point a supernatural designer must get into the picture. I myself find this line of reasoning persuasive. In my estimation, although possible in a broadly permissive sense, it is not plausible that the original intelligent agent is a natural entity. The chemistry and physics that we do know weigh heavily against it. If natural intelligence depends on physical organization, then the organization seems likely to have to be enormously complex and stable over reasonable periods of time. While simpler systems may perform the tasks that irreducibly complex systems perform a terrestrial life, they would likely perform them more slowly and less efficiently, so that the complexity required for intelligence would not ultimately be achieved. Thus, in my judgment it is implausible that the designer is a natural entity."
When questioned at the Dover trial
Lawyer - "...you personally believe the designer is God."
Behe -- "Yes."
To download this video go to:
mediafire.com/?evzx2yhxtyi
If you wish to translate this video you can download the PowerPoint file from:
mediafire.com/?0nuzqkjyz2l
Learn the facts, spread the truth, and most importantly, Think About It.
