Behe Counters the Best Objections to Irreducible Complexity and ID, Pt 3

Intelligent Design the Future

Discovery Institute's Center for Science and Culture

Science, Philosophy, Astronomy, Society & Culture, Life Sciences

4 • 993 Ratings

🗓️ 26 September 2022

⏱️ 26 minutes

🔗️ Recording | iTunes | RSS

🧾️ Download transcript

Summary

On today’s ID the Future biologist Michael Behe and Philosophy for the People host Pat Flynn conclude their conversation (posted by permission here) about some of the best objections to Behe’s central case for intelligent design. One objection Behe and Flynn tackle in this episode: the idea of evolution overcoming the irreducible-complexity hurdle through co-option. That is, maybe the precursors to what would become one of today’s molecular machines, such as the bacterial flagellum motor, co-opted simpler machines being used for other purposes, allowing evolution to build a bacterial flagellum motor one small step at a time over thousands or millions of generations, even though the completed bacterial flagellum ceases to function at all when just one of its many key parts Read More ›

Source

Transcript

Click on a timestamp to play from that location

0:00.0	ID the future
0:05.0	future a podcast about evolution and intelligent design.
0:12.0	Hello I'm Tom Gilson here to introduce you to the third of three parts in a
0:16.9	conversation between Michael Bihy and Pat Flynn on the topic
0:21.5	answering the best objections to irreducible complexity and
0:26.4	intelligent design. This final section invites us to use our
0:31.0	imaginations or does it instead perhaps tell us about how some of the
0:37.0	quote best objections to ID require a lot of imagination.
0:43.0	Dr. Behe's host here once again is Pat Flynn
0:47.0	from his philosophy for the People Podcast
0:50.0	and he'll be the first to speak
0:52.0	as they begin here again.
0:54.0	I want to say a few general things here.
0:58.0	One is that I think most naturalists really want to say that you're sort of
1:02.0	metaphysical picture should be sort of
1:05.0	determined by the best of what science has to offer, right? I mean that's that's
1:10.5	sort of what the naturalistic program is all about that at the end of the day
1:16.8	it should be like an idealized completed science that will tell us about everything even
1:20.1	they don't think we'll ever get that idealized completed science, right?
1:23.8	So then one wonders if that is your naturalistic paradigm
1:27.4	and this is the best you have
1:30.9	for the evolutionary account, what's really the motivation here?
	...

Please login to see the full transcript.

Previous episode | Next episode

Disclaimer: The podcast and artwork embedded on this page are from Discovery Institute's Center for Science and Culture, and are the property of its owner and not affiliated with or endorsed by Tapesearch.

Generated transcripts are the property of Discovery Institute's Center for Science and Culture and are distributed freely under the Fair Use doctrine. Transcripts generated by Tapesearch are not guaranteed to be accurate.