Logic, Darwin and God

Exploring some astounding discoveries of modern science that impact Darwinian model of evolution, with Michael Behe, a Professor of Biochemistry at Lehigh University.

Click here if you are unable to view this video.


Comments (6)

(4) Chasya Bernstein, June 16, 2021 3:48 AM

scientists are often not 'scientific'

Taking my degree in social and intellectual history some decades ago, I was required to read Thomas Kuhn's book, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. This describes many instances in which scientists are willing to twist themselves and perceived facts into pretzels in order to preserve their pet theories. One example: For centuries, scientists were willing to accept epicycle upon epicycle to explain why the planets' observed orbits were not circular and did not conform to the geocentric idea (as they had been taught was the correct theory). It was only with the increasing complexity of their epicycle-system, needed to explain more precise observations made with improved telescopes, that later scientists were willing to explore the heliocentric theory.
Modern scientists are no different; they, too, are humans who cherish the 'old ways'. New ideas are to be summarily rejected, no matter how logical or the preponderance of evidence in their favor.

(3) Donald, June 16, 2021 12:33 AM

Powerful evidence for God’s existence

A very important addition to the growing arsenal of evidence for the existence of a Creator and for the flaws in the theory of evolution .. a must view for everyone open to the real facts in the case for logic, reason, and what the data really shows as well as a desire for the Truth!

(2) Bob Applebaum, June 14, 2021 8:51 PM

This is not science

Behe lost his arguments at the Dover Trail. He failed. Stop this.

Chasya Bernstein, June 16, 2021 3:19 AM

trial of law is NOT a trial of science

The 'loss' at the Dover Trial was more about the powers of the school board, definitions of terms, and less about the scientific merit of intelligent design theory as opposed to Darwinism. If every 'loss' in a court of law meant there was no truth to the plaintiff's argument, then we would have to admit that the law changes the 'truth' every so often, to suit the prevailing zeitgeist. 1857 Dred Scott decision, anyone? Or perhaps 1896 Plessy v Ferguson decision (later overturned by 1954 Brown v Bd of Ed )?
What a law court decides, based on the presiding judge's instructions, is - as we all know very well - often not aligned with facts, truth, evidence, etc. How many criminal convictions have been vacated (or conversely, how many perps have gotten off scot-free) because of misuse or ignoring evidence?
Really? Using a politically influenced court case to determine scientific facts should be beneath a person of intelligence.

Donald Reynaud, June 17, 2021 4:24 AM

Agreed!

You took the words right out of my text

(1) Debra Lieberman, June 13, 2021 8:22 PM

Thank You

Its amazing to hear something interesting and i know i can rely on aish to make sure its kosher

 

Submit Your Comment:

  • Display my name?

  • Your email address is kept private. Our editor needs it in case we have a question about your comment.

  • * required field 2000
Submit Comment
stub

Receive the Aish.com Weekly Email

Sign up to our Aish Weekly Update Newsletter.

Our privacy policy