Revolutionary: Michael Behe and the Mystery of Molecular Machines – VIDEO

Revolutionary: Michael Behe and the Mystery of Molecular Machines

As we know, random changes and unguided natural processes routinely succeed in assembling functional equipment for a range of uses. Wait…it doesn’t work that way?

The Revolutionary Behe website, at, features more information about Dr. Behe’s research, other molecular machines, and evidence for intelligent design, and the stories of revolutionary scientists changing the evolutionary paradigm. See the documentary now and pass it along!

The Discovery Science News Channel is the official Youtube channel of Discovery Institute’s Center for Science & Culture. The CSC is the institutional hub for scientists, educators, and inquiring minds who think that nature supplies compelling evidence of intelligent design. The CSC supports research, sponsors educational programs, defends free speech, and produce articles, books, and multimedia content. For more information visit

Follow us on Facebook and Twitter:
Twitter: @discoverycsc

Visit other Youtube channels connected to the Center for Science & Culture
Discovery Institute:
Dr. Stephen C. Meyer:
The Magician’s Twin – CS Lewis & Evolution:
Darwin’s Heretic – Alfred Russel Wallce:

Video Source
Video Keyword – molecular
Video Title – Revolutionary: Michael Behe and the Mystery of Molecular Machines
More News and Resources

  • @HouseformA Houseform Apologetics January 11, 2018
    Revolutionary: Michael Behe and the Mystery of Molecular Machines:  via @YouTube
  • @ArchRaph Dennys Gonzalez January 11, 2018
    Revolutionary: Michael Behe and the Mystery of Molecular Machines 
  • @ChaplianF Chaplian Fred December 22, 2017
    I liked a @YouTube video  Revolutionary: Michael Behe and the Mystery of Molecular Machines
  • @gerhardl Gerhard Lingenberg December 9, 2017
    Revolutionary: Michael Behe and the Mystery of Molecular Machines  via @YouTube
  • @Nzaoui Noureddine ZAOUI December 8, 2017
    Revolutionary: Michael Behe and the Mystery of Molecular Machines 
  • @teppaniaki Teemu Långsjö December 3, 2017
    Tiedätkö, mistä ID:ssä on kyse? Älä luota huhupuheisiin tai tietämättömien huuteluihin. Selvitä itse onko ID:ssä järkeä vai onko se huuhaata. Katso video: Revolutionary: Michael Behe and the Mystery of Molecular Machines 
  • @sosalpha David Pereschuk December 2, 2017
    I liked a @YouTube video  Revolutionary: Michael Behe and the Mystery of Molecular Machines
  • @jpappas8169 John Pappas November 14, 2017
    I liked a @YouTube video  Revolutionary: Michael Behe and the Mystery of Molecular Machines
  • @peipappy Pappy from PEI October 31, 2017
    I liked a @YouTube video  Revolutionary: Michael Behe and the Mystery of Molecular Machines
  • @johnnyangel10 JohnnyAngel Advocacy October 26, 2017
    Revolutionary: Michael Behe and the Mystery of Molecular Machines …

No items to display at this time.

No items to display at this time.

35 thoughts on “Revolutionary: Michael Behe and the Mystery of Molecular Machines – VIDEO”

  1. The Untouchable Theory of Evolution, not even science can touch it, that proves the Theory is not falsifiable and hence not scientific. The mountain of evidence against the evolutionists precious theory will bury it into a fossil sooner rather than later.

    Energy and Information can't come from NOTHING. Yes it was ID.
    Evolution RIP.

  2. Most that argue for design aren't doing so believing that space aliens are the designer. No, it is a God v man mental struggle. The vast majority of people on this planet will not tolerate the notion of God holding the pink slip to their very soul. Willful blindness is a very powerful motivator and should not be overlooked. Intelligent Design isn't an argument that can ever be the popular viewpoint of academia, simply because most arguing against it have a worldview that wont allow it. Period. It will never be treated fairly and given an honest hearing by those that need it to not be true. The vast majority can't be swayed, they can't be convinced. Nothing will get through the concrete barrier of denial. Sin is always going to be more important to the vast majority than a worldview that calls for accountability and repentance.

  3. Great video….!  However…queue the atheist backlash! (Grabs popcorn to observe atheist and Darwinian Evolutionists not need to explain the processed steps to evolve by random selection the complexity of DNA/RNA or even the most basic cell….just calling ID people 'creationists' and saying that they believe in a magic sky fairy.)

  4. “The most essential prediction of Darwinism is that, given an astronomical number of chances, unintelligent processes can make seemingly-designed systems, ones of the complexity of those found in the cell.

    ID specifically denies this, predicting that in the absence of intelligent input no such systems would develop.

    So Darwinism and ID make clear, opposite predictions of what we should find when we examine genetic results from a stupendous number of organisms that are under relentless pressure from natural selection.

    The recent genetic results are a stringent test. The results:

    1) Darwinism’s prediction is falsified;
    2) Design’s prediction is confirmed.”

    ― Michael J. Behe

  5. See also: Energy as information and constrained endogenous RNA interference
    Feedback loops link quantized energy as information to biophysically constrained RNA-mediated protein folding chemistry. Light induced energy-dependent changes link angstroms to ecosystems from classical physics to chemistry/chirality and to molecular epigenetics/autophagy. The National Microbiome Initiative links microbial quorum sensing to the physiology of reproduction via endogenous RNA interference and chromosomal rearrangements. The rearrangements link energy-dependent fixed amino acid substitutions to the Precision Medicine Initiative via genome wide inferences of natural selection. This detailed representation of energy-dependent natural selection for codon optimality links biologically- based cause and effect from G protein-coupled receptors to RNA-mediated amino acid substitutions and the functional structure of supercoiled DNA. Energy-dependent polycombic ecological adaptations are manifested in supercoiled DNA. Chromosomal inheritance links the adaptations from morphological phenotypes to healthy longevity via behavioral phenotypes. For contrast, virus-driven energy theft is the link from messenger RNA degradation to negative supercoiling, constraint breaking mutations, and hecatombic evolution. The viral hecatomb links transgenerational epigenetic inheritance from archaea to Zika virus-damaged DNA, which typically is repaired by endogenous RNA interference and fixation of RNA-mediated amino acid substitutions in organized genomes

  6. The Judge Jones on Kitzmiller/Dover was seriously out of line. The hearing was on whether ID could be taught as a theory. Jones basically declared it wasn't science and all the arguments presented ARE SCIENTIFIC discussions! All the rest of his declarations were political activism which should have resulted in his loosing his position as judge. I have seen this often. It is a serious flaw of our legal system.

  7. Beautiful compilation. I think Behe should be credited for all of this.
    I had come in touch to ID by watching the ID on trial and when I had seen the flagella motor in their documentary I knew it is tough for such structures to evolve and also the Type 3 secretion system evolving into a Motor was too far off to be real . And it looked more like a word jugglery to make it look real. It was not a scientific explanation. Later on I digged more into ID and watched lectures by Stephen and Behe and was completely convinced about two things a) That Flagella challenge was never properly addressed by the evolutionists and b) There are strong signs of intelligence in creation of such systems.
    Looking forward to more such wonderful videos.

  8. Irreducible complexity is a undeniable fact

    The argument of irreducible complexity is obvious and clear. Subparts like a piston in a car engine are only designed, when there is a goal where they will be mounted with specific fitting sizes and correct materials, and have a specific function in the machine as a whole. Individually they have no function. Same in biological systems, which work like factories ( cells ) or machines ( cells host a big number of the most various molecular machines and factory-like production lines ) For example, in photosynthesis, there is no function for chlorophyll individually, only when inserted in the light harvesting complex, to catch photons, and direct them to the reaction center in Photosystem one and two. Foreplanning is absolutely essential. This is a simple fact, which makes the concept of Irreducible complexity obvious concept. Nonetheless people argue all the time that it's a debunked argument. Why ?

    In the same sense, as a piston has no function by its own, an enzyme in a prebiotic soup or hydrothermal vent would have no function on its own.

    A piston has no use if not installed in the cylinder of the engine, and the engine is fully functional. Similarly, a protein has no function if not installed in the cell in the proper location, and the cell is fully functional. So why would a prebiotic soup, or hydrothermal vents, produce proteins that have no purpose by their own? A factory with machines, production lines, computers, software/hardware, waste bins, recycle devices, quality check , control and repair, communication lines, and internal delivery mechanisms etc., always has an inventor. The building instructions for a factory or machine always have an intelligent origin. Biological cells are factories, full of machines, computers, and building instructions, stored in DNA. Abiogenesis is impossible. Life can only come from life.

    Biological systems are functionally organized, integrated into an interdependent network, and complex, like human-made machines and factories. The wiring or circuit board of an electrical device equals to the metabolic pathways of a biological cell. For the assembly of a biological system of multiple parts, not only the origin of the genome information to produce all proteins/enzymes with their respective subunits and assembly cofactors must be explained, but also parts availability ( The right materials must be transported to the building site. Often these materials in their raw form are unusable. Other complex machines come into play to transform the raw materials into a usable form. All this requires specific information. ) synchronization, ( these parts must be read on hand at the building site ) manufacturing and assembly coordination ( which required the information of how to assemble each single part correctly, at the right place, at the right moment, and in the right position ) , and interface compatibility ( the parts must fit together correctly, like lock and key ) . Unless the origin of all these steps is properly explained, functional complexity as existing in biological systems has not been addressed adequately.

    How could the whole process have started " off the hooks " from zero without a planning intelligence?
    Why would natural, unguided mechanisms produce a series of enzymes that only generate useless intermediates until all of the enzymes needed for the end product exist, are in place and do their job?
    My conclusion is: The origin of biological cells, and life, can only be explained by the acting agency of an intelligent mind.

  9. Im thinking here. Im not a micro-biologist or anything. But maybe, just maybe, a way to better explain the similarities between TTSS and the BF is to consider that features located in cellular wall structurally need to be something like that two known features.
    For example, in computer's motherboard there are plenty of similar or equal slots because its just better this way.
    Is there any studies in that direction?

  10. Excellent at last I have a scientific hero supporting what I've believed. Scientifically and mathematically I knew Darwinism to be off . It's impossible for purpose and order to come from chaos and randomness, it's just beyond numbers of improbability. This has uplifted my core and belief in science and mankind's potential to grasp at the intelligent designers wonderous world I so wish I had better conception in mathematical calculations as I know there lies many hidden answers. Thank you for your work and endeavors to come

  11. I believe that life is a unidentified intelligent force found through out the universe. It is a force that by intelligent design seeks a niche and will find one in any environment. I believe that evolution can happen in certain situations where there is an unused or available niche. My problem with evolution as a starting point is how does a complex organism feed itself during the long process that would lead to it's eventual evolution into a viable life form.

  12. It's fascinating how complex these molecular machines are with so many different types and specific purpose's.
    Many of our motors designed by engineers are similar in that we have to design , manufacturer and assemble them before their of any use. How could random nothingness foresee the need for a flagellum motor sometime time in the future , start designing the parts and when the design is complete , give the factory ( the code) and have them create all these individual motor parts and then assemble them with (complete randomness , chance , nothingness or evolution) into an actual motor.
    This randomness , chance or nothingness had to have the foresight to look thousands or possible millions of years ahead and recognize this need or purpose unless it had some unscientific non-purpose , but that goes against the little steps that evolution purpose's it accomplishes with each tiny mutation. The speculation by evolutionists that there was some prior use of some of these parts has no evidence to support it. It's incredulous that anyone could think that chance could design a real motor and quite possible 100% efficient.

  13. Awesome video – Well done Macro evolution is a popular myth being pushed as dogma in the classroom.The onus of proof should be on evolutionist to prove that it is true – but they are unable to produce credible scientific evidence.   The evolution battle is often MISrepresented as science against religion – this is baloney!
    The real battle is between good science and Darwinism.
    When Darwinian/Macro evolution is scrutinised using the scientific method, it crumbles.
    The scientific method demands: observation, measurement, repeatability. Darwinian/Macro evolution has none of these, all it has is circumstantial evidence which is open to interpretation. Ask yourself: What evidence is there that our great …. Great grandfather was a self replicating molecule?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *