An 86 second example of Intelligent Design


The video that proves Intelligent Design – Just one example of many showing not just the staggering complexity but the logic behind the movement.

You couldn’t have life unless you had this motor to produce the energy currency, so it looks like this motor must have been there right from the beginning, and I’d say that because this motor is so much better, so much tinier and more efficient than anything we can design, … the Designer of the motor is far more intelligent than any motor designer we have today too.

24 thoughts on “An 86 second example of Intelligent Design

  1. That’s pretty good. I’m re-posting this on Facebook — ironically enough, my Unitarian high school AP biology teacher is one of my FB friends! Probably not for long…:)

    • ATP, “an evolutionary impossibility”??? I don’t think so.

      So, how does one get ATP Synthase by random mutation and natural selection, and: if cells really need ATP to run, how did they manage before ATP Synthase? Does Darwinism have a demonstrable account? If it couldn’t account for something like this, or hasn’t yet, should it have our confidence or would it be prudent to exercise a little skepticism?

      • Well we know it’s not irreducibly complex – that has been demonstrated. And a cursory internet search does reveal at least one possible explanation for its evolution. I’m no biologist and not qualified to even begin an argument on this topic, let alone end it, but the assertion that this enzyme is an evolutionary impossibility and that it proves intelligent design seems a trifle over-confident.

      • I’ve never come across a refutation of irreducible complexity that proved that something did evolve, only “just so” stories about how it could have evolved.

        I think the circularity of the evolutionary argument is evident.

      • The papers are gobbledegook to me but I gather that somehow they removed the “axle” and yet the thing could still spin, just not with the same efficiency. Just what one would expect from evolution, ie that it’s not an all or nothing affair.
        I read Kipling’s “Just-so” stories as a child – if I recall correctly they were about things like “how the leopard got its spots” or “how the rhino got its skin” – the latter was the theme of nightly discussions on a five-day kayaking expedition down the Orange River; nobody could remember the exact myth (was the parsee actually up the tree or not?), so we told our own versions until a return to civilisation could settle the matter. A somewhat religious experience, with hindsight.

      • If you’re looking to refresh that argument you’ve come to the wrong person – I didn’t take part in that discussion. I don’t have any particular view on the evolution of homosexuality; actually I have no problem seeing homosexuality as pure choice, because I do not consider it immoral at all. The fact that we see it in the animal kingdom, and the fact that when someone I know says he has never, ever, not once in his life felt sexual attraction to a woman.. is interesting but I don’t spend any time worrying about it.

        The information I was referring to can be found here if anyone is interested. I go to Pharyngula when creationists make some spectacular claim about a biological phenomenon, because it’s a blog by a biologist. I don’t go there to learn about philosophy and theology.

        If you consider that naturalistic presuppositions always leads to circular reasoning, perhaps you could pause to consider how your own commitment to theistic suppositions affects how you view the world. The evidence, without any pre-suppositions at all, is clear. The earth is very old, and many species came and went before us. Our own species is at least 100 000 years old, and the real figure is probably almost twice that. How do you square this with the bible? Was the earth and everything in it made for us, or did God make dinosaurs for his own enjoyment and then wipe them out to make way for us? Do creationists even think about these things or does the commitment to design lead to them saying “well God must have a reason, even if we don’t know what it is” which is the ultimate question begging.

      • Re. seeing “it” in the animal kingdom — I wouldn’t use that as a reference point for acceptable moral behavior in humans, nor do we see the same type of behavior (are “gay” animals wildly promiscuous relative to the rest of the species?).

        There are old earth and young earth creationists, so the age of the universe doesn’t bother me.

        I don’t see any of that as question begging. There is a big difference between:
        1. I don’t understand how all this came together, so there is no God.
        2. I see vast amounts of evidence for God, so I know He was ultimately behind creation.

      • Yet attempts to understand how things came together you label as “circular logic” And you refuse to address the incongruities between your beliefs and the evidence.

        There are old earth and young earth creationists, so the age of the universe doesn’t bother me.

        You’re not Ray Comfort; I’ve always credited you with way more integrity than him, so don’t disappoint me now. You can’t be both an old earth and a young-earth creationist, unless you have no confidence in science at all.

      • The circular logic reference I made was in regards to the parts of the cell that had to exist for them to allegedly evolve. If you need “A” to make the original “A” then you never get there.

        Didn’t follow the part about any claim to being both an old earth and a young-earth creationist . . . I was simply pointing out for the benefit of others that not all creationists are young earthers. You probably don’t make that claim, but I’ve seen pretty much all the New Atheists assume that despite being corrected many times.

      • My apologies for misunderstanding you. I thought you were trying to cop out of answering questions about squaring a very old earth with the bible, by appropriating YEC arguments (Ray Comfort has never answered the question “how old do you think the earth is”, despite being asked almost every day by one particular commenter on his blog, and cynical old me thinks it’s because he doesn’t want to alienate a large percentage of his revenue stream). I know you’re not a YEC, so I’m interested in your thoughts on whether there was a literal Adam and Eve, and if so, how long ago they lived, and Noah’s ark, stuff like that. You may have blogged on these things in the past – I’m still a relative newcomer here.
        If I have to highlight one reason why I’m not a Christian any more, it would be the historicity (or lack thereof) of the Old Testament, not the New.

        Btw I have spent quite a bit of time today reading up on ID – articles by Michael Behe and William Dembski. I wanted to learn more about this “explanatory filter” for determining design. I don’t want to be accused of not understanding the arguments.

      • No problem. Probably a lack of clarity on my part.

        I enjoy the young/old debates but don’t get divisive over it.

        Re. history: I think the number of stars noted in Genesis is significant, not to mention that the universe came into being a point in time (just a lucky guess?). The main history I point to is the resurrection then I work from there.

      • Regarding A & E, not sure how long ago it was but I think they were real. Christians who deny that mock the bible. Original sin and the whole book don’t make sense otherwise. Mitochondrial Eve offers some supporting evidence, as much as evos try to rationalize it away.

        Sent from my iPhone

      • I think the rest of Europe wants to make an example of us, before the same thing happens to Spain, which would be much more painful for Europe. Most people here do realise that spending cuts have to be made, but for me the litmus test will be: Will the Irish taxpayer be saddled with the country’s banks’ liabilities, or will the EU recognise the capitalistic reality that risky investments carry, well, risk? And consequently allow regulation for a debt-equity swap whereby the banks’ creditors become the shareholders and not the Irish people.

        If it’s the former, I’ll be dusting off the rioting shoes, along with many others (it’s been a while :-) ) What has happened here is not like Greece. In Greece, a govt borrowing crisis became a banking crisis. Here it was the other way around, due to an ill-advised multi-party supported bank guarantee.

        The single currency experiment has failed – the questions some were asking years ago along the lines of “what happens when some economies within the zone go to the wall ?” is in the process of being answered. What I’d like to happen is for us to tell the bondholders to go to hell, re-float the punt and devalue it to the extent that we can make a fortune selling the rest of the world potatoes, Guiness and Jameson’s.

        But then I do tend to live in a bit of fantasy world inside my own head sometimes.

  2. we can make a fortune selling the rest of the world potatoes, Guiness and Jameson’s

    My husband will do his bit to make sure you all stay afloat. These are a few of his favorite things!

  3. Very interesting stuff. I poked around and didn’t see anything regarding laminin. Are you familiar with it? Supposedly the glue that holds everything together. Cool stuff. The more science “sees”, the more God will be revealed.

  4. Pingback: Signature in the Cell | The Good News

  5. Pingback: April 1, 2011 - Contend For The Faith Ministries

  6. Whew! I’ve never read so many big words at one time. Wanna hear the sum and total of the whole “Evolution vs. Creation” matter? It’s really so simple that many evolutionists can’t grasp it with their finite minds. Here it is:
    SOMETHING cannot POSSIBLY come from NOTHING! Get it?
    There is only one logical, reasonable, honest and plausible answer for “Where did everything begin?” It is, “In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth……”, Genesis 1:1 and etc. This is the most hated and challenged verse of Scripture in the entire Bible because it means IT’S NOT ALL ABOUT US! It means God is real, the Bible is true, and we are each of us a sinner in need of a Saviour.
    P.S. I have yet to meet an athiest/evolutionist who has read the Bible.

    • Hi Barry — thanks for visiting and commenting. Re. atheists and the Bible — I know of many who have read it. They either don’t understand it or sometimes deliberately distort it or just don’t believe it (yet), but many have read it more than Christians. And that is the problem with too many Christians today.

So, what do you think?

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s