-
Irreducible complexity is a problem for Darwinian evolution. Whenever we see these complex functional systems we realise that they have to be designed.
Michael Behe -
Despite some remaining puzzles, there's no reason to doubt that Darwin had this point right, that all creatures on earth are biological relatives
Michael Behe
-
There is no publication in the scientific literature - in prestigious journals, specialty journals, or books - that describes how molecular evolution of any real, complex biochemical system either did occur or even might have occurred.
Michael Behe -
The first point one has to get straight in discussions like this, is that ID is not the opposite of evolution. Rather, it is the opposite of Darwinism, which says life evolved by an utterly unguided, undirected mechanism. If god directed the process of evolution, or rigged the universe to produce complex life, then that is not Darwinism - it is intelligent design.
Michael Behe -
The strong appearance of design in nature allows a disarmingly simple argument: if it looks, walks and quacks like a duck, then, absent compelling evidence to the contrary, we have warrant to conclude it's a duck. Design should not be overlooked simply because it's so obvious.
Michael Behe -
Although Darwin was able to persuade much of the world that a modern eye could be produced gradually from a much simpler structure, he did not even attempt to explain how the simple light sensitive spot that was his starting point actually worked.
Michael Behe -
Science is not a game in which arbitrary rules are used to decide what explanations are to be permitted.
Michael Behe -
In private many scientists admit that science has no explanation for the beginning of life... Darwin never imagined the exquisitely profound complexity that exists even at the most basic levels of life.
Michael Behe
-
The conclusion of intelligent design flows naturally from the data itself - not from sacred books or sectarian beliefs. Inferring that biochemical systems were designed by an intelligent agent is a humdrum process that requires no new principles of logic or science. It comes simply from the hard work that biochemistry has done over the past forty years, combined with consideration of the way in which we reach conclusions of design every day.
Michael Behe -
Throughout history there have been many other examples, similar to that of Haeckel, Huxley and the cell, where a key piece of a particular scientific puzzle was beyond the understanding of the age.
Michael Behe -
Proteins are the machinery of living tissue that builds the structures and carries out the chemical reactions necessary for life.
Michael Behe -
It is a shock to us in the twentieth century to discover, from observations science has made, that the fundamental mechanisms of life cannot be ascribed to natural selection, and therefore were designed. But we must deal with our shock as best we can and go on.
Michael Behe -
In order to say that some function is understood, every relevant step in the process must be elucidated.
Michael Behe -
We are not inferring design to account for a black box, but to account for an open box.
Michael Behe
-
We can look high or we can look low in books or in journals, but the result is the same. The scientific literature has no answers to the question of the origin of the immune system.
Michael Behe -
Many people, including many important and well-respected scientists, just don't want there to be anything beyond nature. They don't want a supernatural being to affect nature.
Michael Behe -
It was only about sixty years ago that the expansion of the universe was first observed.
Michael Behe -
The conclusion of design flows naturally from the data; we should not shrink from it; we should embrace it and build on it.
Michael Behe -
The trap does not work until all the parts were there. The system itself doesn't work until you fit all of them together.
Michael Behe -
Thus it seemed to Haeckel that such simple life could easily be produced from inanimate material.
Michael Behe