Search Results

From the video description: "In this bonus footage from Science Uprising, biochemist Michael Behe discusses his views on the limits of Darwinian explanations and the evidence for intelligent design in biology. ...In Darwin Devolves, Behe argues, in brief, that “It’s easy to break things, and often it gives a benefit.” Building new things, wonderful things, through an unintelligent process like Darwinian evolution is another matter entirely." Biology continues to reveal the complexity of life, and as new discoveries in biology occur, previously held theories predicated on the simplicity and malleability of life continue to break down. The theory of Darwinian evolution is been backed up against a wall, and real challenges to the theory have been developing as our understanding of the complexities of living organisms continues to grow. While it seems like a nice theory to turn to for those that want to cast God aside and go their own way, any person that is intellectually honest with the evidence is nevertheless confronted with continuous challenges that at some point have to be insurmountable. Watch this short clip from Michael Behe explaining some of the challenges from a biological perspective.

This documentary deeply explores the concepts that Dr. Michael Behe has popularized regarding the "evolution" of the simplest lifeforms we know of - bacteria. There are certain components of bacteria that simply can't be explained by way of natural selection acting on random mutation caused by genetic changes - as would need to be the case if Darwinian evolution were true. At the simplest level of individual cells still lies extreme complexity, and while some claim that just because we may not fully understand how the cell functions now we will one day, the truth of the matter is that is a statement that's grounded in faith, not science. Remember the old adage: correlation does not imply causation - meaning that just because two things are similar, it doesn't necessarily follow that one thing caused the other to be. In the case of molecular machines, such as the bacterial flagellum, this still holds true, and while there may be some "scientific papers" trying to discount certain molecular machines such as the bacterial flagellum as being products of "evolution", the fact of the matter is that any such paper will end with only that evolution of the type they describe is "possible" without providing any real proof. Let's examine in closer depth the evidence of the flagellum and other molecular machines in the following documentary.

From the video description: "The bacterial flagellum has become an iconic example of the evidence against modern Darwinian theory as well as the evidence for intelligent design. Stephen Meyer, Scott Minnich and others scientists and scholars explore the facts about this amazing piece of nanotechnology, first made famous by biologist Michael Behe when he coined the phrase irreducible complexity." The simplest living organisms we know of are single cell organisms, one of which is bacteria. However, even at the single-cellular level, the components of a bacterium are still incredibly complex molecular machines that come together to perform organized functions. One piece of evidence against the theory of evolution would be the bacterial flagellum, which is essentially the tail that some bacteria have to swim around. Since the theory of Darwinian macro-evolution posits that all complex lifeforms arose from simpler versions, the theory essentially states that the complexity of life entirely evolved from bacteria. But taking the theory backward, is there a point in the bacterial world where this fanciful evolutionary tale breaks down such that evolution cannot account for the development of an aspect of the bacteria? While there are many pieces of such evidence, the bacterial flagellum has risen to the top as a prime example of how Darwinian evolution can't simply account for its development, since the flagellum is a molecular machine that would need to be fully developed before it is possibly functional, thereby showing that it couldn't evolve slowly by being a beneficial attribute to the earliest bacteria that didn't posses a completely formed flagellum. Listen to Michael Behe explain this concept and the evidence is this very brief clip.

From the video description: "Molecular biologist Douglas Axe challenges the idea that one can evolve major new life forms simply by mutating DNA. In his words: 'There is no reason to think that one can modify fundamentally the form of life by changing DNA.'" The concepts behind the theory of Neo-Darwinian evolution are predicated on the idea that small, random changes during the early developmental phase of organisms can produce mutations that will be either beneficial or harmful to the organism, but ultimately will be decided upon by process of "natural selection". But before natural selection can even begin to occur, the changes in the upstream developmental process have to take place to allow natural selection to do its thing. But is this even possible? In Darwin's time he had no idea about the DNA and the role that it plays in cell development. So knowing what we know thus far though, can lifeforms be significantly altered by modifying the DNA code? Listen to what Dr. Doug Axe, a molecular biologist and an expert in this field of research, has to say.

From the video description: "Molecular biologist Douglas Axe explains what he calls "the gaping hole in evolutionary theory." ...Douglas Axe is Maxwell Professor of Molecular Biology at Biola University, the founding Director of Biologic Institute, the founding Editor of the science journal BIO-Complexity, and the author of Undeniable: How Biology Confirms Our Intuition That Life Is Designed. After completing his PhD at Caltech, he held postdoctoral and research scientist positions at the University of Cambridge and the Cambridge Medical Research Council Centre." As biologists continually dig deeper into the mysteries and complexities of lift at a fundamental level, our understanding of what it takes to build an organism has advanced greatly. But by continually unraveling the mysteries of the cell, honest understanding of how things have come to be the way they are in the world has begun to shift away from the largely popular secular position of Dariwinian evolution by means of natural selection and random mutation. Random mutation seem to lack creative power, and is in fact not aligned with the data at all for how different classes of organisms could have come into existence. In this snippet, Dr. Douglas Axe eloquently explains some of the contemporaneous problems against evolution that have arisen through advances in biological understanding.

From the video description: "In this bonus interview footage from Science Uprising, neurosurgeon Michael Egnor discusses the evidence against materialism and explains how materialism undercuts rather than supports genuine science. ...Michael Egnor, MD (from Columbia University), neurosurgeon and professor of neurological surgery at Stony Brook University. Dr. Egnor is renowned for his work in pediatric neurosurgery. " Materialism can be defined simply as the worldview that all that exists is matter and energy, and in turn the implications of the worldview are such that no God or soul exists, but rather everything in the universe can be explained by the laws of physics. But does this worldview hold any merit when pitted against today's latest scientific evidence? Would it be disingenuous to today's scientists to simply discount all of the gathered evidence against materialism and simply state that the existence of God is simply a fairy tale? Of course! Let's listen to Dr. Egnor as he explores some of the latest evidence against the materialist fairy tale.

From the video description: "In this bonus interview footage from Science Uprising, synthetic organic chemist James Tour from Rice University discusses the serious challenges faced by current origin of life research." There are some people who claim to know how life started and what kicked everything into gear. You hear it quite frequently that a "primordial soup" existed on the early Earth, and somehow a collection of random chemicals in Earth's early oceans magically created the first living cells. It would be easy to think that with our collective 21st century of biology this should be explained, right? But is there any merit to such a thought? Does anybody actually know how early life began? Let's listen to an actual expert of the topic and see what he has to say on the matter.

From the video description: "In this interview Brian Thomas says, "...science shows that these bio-materials fall apart at a regular rate under the optimum preservation conditions. Best case scenario, it still falls apart. Why, because of the second law of thermodynamics." He continued by saying the fact that bio-materials fall apart applies to all of biology, there are no exceptions." In case you haven't heard, but real proteins, soft tissues, and even blood cells have been found in DINOSAUR fossils, including T-Rex and Triceratops fossils! The incredible discovery was first brought to light in 2005 by Mary Schweitzer, a molecular paleontologist at North Carolina State University, and has since been revealed to be "common" amongst many dinosaur fossils. But based on common understandings of basic biology, these types of materials should in no way, shape, or form have lasted for upwards of a few thousand years or certainly not 60 million years - if the secular timeline of when these creatures roamed the earth is to be believed. This of course begs the question if they really are that old, or if the secular timeline presented in every natural history museum is completely wrong and just believed because it fits a secular narrative with no real scientific basis. Could it be that dinosaur fossils aren't as old as secular people claim them to be? Let's hear what Brian Thomas has to say on the subject:

From the video description: "Dr. Jason Lisle is a cosmologist researcher and speaker for the Institute for Creation Research. This interview was conducted at the International Conference on Creationism in August 2013. The primary topic is the Anthropic Principle and the evidence for creation from the finely tuned universe. The interview includes a brief discussed about the Big Bang. In addition are some interesting comments about Stephen Hawking invoking a multiverse to help explain the finely tuned universe." Less than 100 years ago, secular scientists attempted to argue that there was no creation event and that the Universe was simply eternal. Even Albert Einstein believed that the universe was eternal for most of his career, until Edwin Hubble showed him undeniable evidence of the expansion of the universe at Mount Wilson Observatory and he realized that there had to be a beginning to it all. But aside from that, why are the "laws of physics" the way that they are, and life supporting? It take an incredible amount of faith and mental gymnastics to disregard all of the evidence in astronomy and cosmology and believe that everything came about as he result of just random chance... Listen to Dr. Jason Lisle explore the topic a bit more in depth:

From the video description: "Based on new evidence and knowledge that functioning proteins are extremely rare, should Darwin’s theory of evolution be dismissed, dissected, developed or replaced with a theory of intelligent design? Has Darwinism really failed? Peter Robinson discusses it with David Berlinski, David Gelernter, and Stephen Meyer, who have raised doubts about Darwin’s theory in their two books and essay, respectively The Deniable Darwin, Darwin’s Doubt, and “Giving Up Darwin” (published in the Claremont Review of Books)." As our collective knowledge of biology advances, it seems that new research increasingly points away from the secular beliefs of Neo-Darwinianism. Mathematics and probability theory has seemed to back macro-evolution up against a wall which is becoming seemingly inescapable for those trying to cling to the atheistic theory of macro-evolution. It's not some fringe theory to realize the challenges that modern biological discoveries present to Darwin, but the thoughts are grounded in sound scientific study. These three top scientists do a far better job at explaining some of the challenges that Darwinian theory presents for biologists than I can, so let's humble ourselves and listen to what they have to say:

From the video description: "An exploration of microbiology, information science, and the origin of life." As we continually advance our technological capabilities, we continually learn more and more through our observations and the scientific method. But interestingly enough, as we continue to advance in our collective scientific knowledge, instead of getting closer to being able to answer the question of "where did we all come from" simply, the answers surrounding this question have seemingly become more distant. As we continue to observe what we call life and examine its properties, the fundamental aspects of life have revealed themselves to be far more complex than ever could have possibly been imagined only 100 years ago, when life and especially the concept of the cell were considered to be simple and easily mutable. This two part series explores the topic of the origin of life from multiple angles, including 21st century research into the topic in the areas of biology and information science. Watch for yourself and then try to ask yourself: "Is it really possible that what we call 'life' could have arisen from some unguided, unnamed process? Or could it be that it seems like to fairy-tale to believe that such a magical thing as life arising from non-life seems possible? What does this mean for my own worldview and beliefs?" PART 1 PART 2

Any sort of argument against creation as an explanation for the origin of life would need to include the mechanism whereby life can arise from non-life. That is, it would need to explain how the very first cells have ever formed solely from the laws of chemistry and physics, without appealing to some biological process, since at the beginning biological processes wouldn't have come into play yet. An absolutely fundamental necessity for the first cells to ever arise would presuppose the existence of their building blocks, which would include proteins. However, since proteins are chemical structures composed of amino acids (and there are only 20 amino acids), protein formation by chance would need to account for how random combinations of amino acids could somehow come together to find usable molecules, since not all combinations of amino acids produce useful chains of amino acids that can properly fold into proteins. Some of the simplest proteins consist of chains of amino acids that are only a couple hundred acids in length, with some of the largest proteins consisting of amino acid chains stretching over 34,000 acids long! With this in mind, we can use mathematics and simple probability theory to determine if enough time has passed in the universe for even the simplest proteins to have been created (let alone start the process of Darwinian evolution by means of natural selection and random mutation). So then, has enough time possibly passed to let that happen? Watch this next video to find out: