Intelligent Design and Evolution

There’s been a lot of talk very
recently, or definitely over the last several years,
about the idea of intelligent design and how it compares
to evolution. And my goal in this video
isn’t to enter into that discussion, or it’s actually
turned into an argument in most circles, but really to make
my best attempt to kind of reconcile the notions. So the idea behind intelligent
design is really that there are some things that we see in
our world that are just so amazing that it seems hard to
believe that it could be the product of a set of
random processes. And the example that tends to
be given is the human eye, which truly is an awe-inspiring
device. You can call it an organ
or a machine. Whatever you want to call
it, it does all of these amazing things. It can focus at different
lengths. It brings the light into focus
at just the right spot, and then you have your retinal
nerves and you have two eyes so can see in stereoscopic
vision. You can see in colors, and then
you can adjust to light and dark, so the human eye
truly is awe inspiring. And the argument tends to go
that, look, how can this be created from random processes? And the goal of this isn’t to
trace the evolution of the eye, but I’ll do a little side
note here that evolution is– and natural selection, and
I like the word natural selection more because
it’s not talking about an active process. Natural selection is acting over
eons and eons of time, and we do see evidence in our
world of a progression of different types of eyes. In fact, all evidence shows
that the human eye is not perfect, and that there
is variation. I mean, we all know some of us
are nearsighted, some are farsighted. We have astigmatisms. It
degenerates over time. People generate cataracts, so
there’s a whole set of things that can go wrong with
the human eye. I’m not using that as a
rebuttal, but I’m just showing you that there is variation,
even in what I believe is truly an amazing piece
of biology. And even if you go outside of
the human world, there’s obviously a huge spectrum
of eyes. You have fish at the bottom of
the ocean that have eyes that are really just light sensors,
that barely can maybe tell you– and some insects are like
this– whether there’s some light or some heat
around, nothing really more than that. And at the other end of the
spectrum, far better than humans, you have certain birds
and a certain type of nocturnal creatures where they
can see in the dark. You know, maybe you have a
certain– actually, all cats have this reflective material in
their eye that allows them much better night vision, so in
that way they’re superior to humans, and they can see just
as good as humans during the daytime. You have certain birds who can
see with far more visual clarity at far better distances
than humans can, so there is no perfect eye. So I’ll go into a little bit
of a theological argument here, and for those of you who
watch my videos, you know that I’m one to stray away from
theological arguments, although I might eventually do
a whole philosophy playlist, but I want to be very careful
not to offend anyone’s sensibilities, because
that truly, truly, truly is not my intention. But the whole point I want to
make is that, look, if you believe in a God, and I won’t
take sides on that argument in this video right here, it’s to
some degree, I would say, almost disparaging of an
all-powerful being to say that this human eye, it kind of gives
too much importance to us as individuals. I always think that religion–
and actually science. Or actually everything. I mean, we should be humble in
our lives, and there should be the realization that we, as
humans, really– this isn’t perfection, and to imply that
this is the best that a perfect entity or an
all-powerful entity could produce I think is a little
actually disparaging of it. I’ll give you another example. I give you another example, and
I’ll put my engineering hat on here. And once again, I want
to be very clear. My goal isn’t in this video to
say, oh, you know, look, hey, evolution, random processes,
that by itself, there is no God, and you just have
to live with it. No, that’s not my point. I’m actually making the opposite
argument, that a belief in God would not point
to a God who– a belief in a universal, all-powerful God
would not point to a God who designs the particular, who
designs each particular. And even more, the imperfections
that we see around us would– and especially
because we see variation and they’re being
selected for it. I mean, we can’t just
focus on the eye. We would have to focus on
viruses and cancers, and it would have to speak to a God
that is designing one off every version of every sequence
of DNA that we see, because if someone talks about
designing an eye, we know that the eye is the byproduct of DNA,
and we know the DNA is a sequence of base pairs, you
know, ATG, C, A, and, you know, billions and
billions of them. And so when we talk about
design, we would be talking literally about designing
the sequence. And we even know that a lot of
the sequence, there’s some noise in there. We know that a lot of it comes
from primitive viruses deep in our past. So the argument I’m making here
is that in order to give credit to the all powerful, at
least to my mind, a system that comes from very simple and
elegant basic ideas like natural selection and
variations, that in our DNA, we call those mutations, in
the laws of physics and chemistry, and those, from that
simple and elegant basic ideas, for complexity
to emerge. So this is one idea and this
is what really evolution speaks to, that, look, our
universe is this profound world, this profound
environment, where from these very basic, simple, beautiful
ideas, we have this complexity in the structure that is truly, truly, truly awe inspiring. This is, in my mind, what
evolution speaks to. And in my mind, even as an
engineer, this speaks to a higher form of design. This speak to a more
profound design. So this whole video, the whole
argument, is that if one does believe in a God, and, you know,
I’m not going to take sides in that in this video,
and a God that speaks to beauty and elegance and is
infinitely powerful, then this idea of the laws of physics
and chemistry and natural selection, which is really– I
mean, you know, when I talked about natural selection in the
last video, it was really– I think you would find it was
a bit of common sense. That this is a very profound
design and it speaks to the art of the designer as opposed
to designing each of these entities one off. And what’s even more profound
about the design is that it’s adaptive. If there’s environmental
stress, then the other variations survive
more frequently. And so it’s never changing,
that perfection, that no instance can ever be pointed to
and say this is the highest point that this design
can reach. That is always– I don’t want
to say getting better. It’s always getting more suited
to its environment as it changes, and that to
me is a better design. Now, just following
up on that, and I want to be very clear. This whole idea is to kind of
raise the standard of what we expect out of design. It’s to kind of show other
points or other places in the scientific or mathematical world
where this does emerge. And the best example I see
of that is with fractals. A lot of you-all might have
seen– this is the Mandelbrot set, a very famous
set of fractals. It’s immensely complex. In fact, you can keep zooming
in on the Mandelbrot set at any point, and when you zoom it
out, it becomes infinitely complex, and you can explore
it indefinitely. But the beauty of it, the true
beauty of it, is all of this can be described by one
equation, one almost shockingly simple equation, and
that’s this: The next z is equal to the z before
it squared plus 1. And you’re like you know, Sal,
you started talking about intelligent design and evolution
and all of that. Why are you all of a sudden
breaking into fractals? And the point I’m trying to make
here is that if I had two designers and one set out to
go and paint this exact particular fractal and say,
oh, you know, I’m going to make this brown and I’m going
to make this blue and I’m going to make this a circle
with other circles, you’d think this is an amazing
painter. For example, if you were to go
to someone 300 years ago and you were to show them this, they
would say that this is the finest design that anyone
might have ever been able to devise, because it’s so
infinitely complex. But now we know that this can
be completely described by this simple equation,
literally. For those of you are interested,
all they’re doing, this is a complex plane, and
they’re starting at zero– excuse me, not plus 1, plus c. Let me make that very clear. This is the equation plus c. So for every point on the
complex plane, you put that point in for c, and then you
start with zero, and you keep doing this. So you say zero squared plus
that number, that complex number, is equal to that. Then you put that in here, and
then you do that number squared plus that complex
number, and you do it again. You do it over and
over and over. So turns out that some numbers
don’t go to infinity and those numbers are in black. They’re considered part
of the Mandelbrot set. And then the numbers that do go
to infinity, as you iterate on this formula, you color it
based on how fast it goes to infinity, and it creates this
infinitely beautiful and complex pattern. Now, if you were to say what is
a more profound design, and you can ask any engineer this,
in my mind, this is the most profound design. Because it’s simple and elegant,
but it describes something of infinite
complexity. It’s not just focused on the
particular, it’s focused on kind of the metalevel. It’s focused on creating just
the idea of which this is just an example. So anyway, this is probably my
video where I steer most away from the science of it all and
maybe I focus a little bit more on the slightly metaphysical or the awe inspiring. But my whole point here is to
really throw out my little idea of how you can reconcile
these notions. That evolution, the randomness
of it, does not speak to a Godless universe, although
I’m not going to take sides on that. It speaks to a more profound
God, in my mind. So anyway, forgive me for taking
my liberties, and I want to make it very clear, I
don’t want to offend anyone’s sensibilities, but I really
just wanted to throw this idea out there. See you in the next video.


  • Sypher D.

    This is the same straw man argument i always hear. There is no controversy over if the eye could form by accident. It's a brute fact that the human eye is not the result of accidental random processes. It's the result of very specific, very targeted processes. Involving DNA replication, transcriptions, transfers, and various mechanisms of unfathomable complexity. It's not the complexity of the eye that indicates design. It's the complexity and the intricacies of the processes that we know need to take place in order for the eye (and every other biological structure) to come about. That's where the actual changes occur. On the molecular/sub-cellular level. Therefore, that's where you need to focus your attention in order to prove your point. How does DNA and all of these processes come about as a result of blind, random processes?

    In the words of Richard Dawkins…

    "Much of biology became a sort of branch of information technology. The consequence of the Watson Crick discovery, with all it led on to; the DNA code and sort of various genome projects that are going on now is that genes, which from my point of view are absolutely central to biology, genes are information. They are coded information. It even looks like computer information. A chromosome is a great, long computer tape. It is linear. Runs one-dimensional. Digital code. It is not binary, it is quaternary, but apart from that, it is just the same as computer tape. It is read in sequence, it is copied and pasted from one part of the organism to another in just the same way as a computer programmer would copy and paste. So biology has turned into computer science."

    If the only thing we can compare these biological processes to is a branch of computer technology that is so far superior to anything we've been able to create, why on earth is it so difficult to admit the fact that intelligent design is at LEAST an INCREDIBLY plausible explanation worth exploring. When we have absolutely ZERO evidence that systems and processes like this arise by sheer accident. The only arguments you ever see to combat this is a bunch of stories that go something like, "well you see, if perhaps this part of the eye formed first, and then perhaps this part formed next, and perhaps randomly this part formed after that, then just maybe it could have been accidental." And people eat it up.

    I challenge Khan Academy to make another video addressing DNA, how it functions, and how each of those functions came about or even could possibly come about as the result of purely naturalistic, unguided processes. I'll be patiently awaiting that one.

  • Mil House

    Has a "law" ever been established, written, or created without an author?

  • ICU 812

    Chaos entered into the universe. Most religions tell of an age that everything was perfect, but the universe fell into chaos. That is why things are not perfect according to many religions.

  • A Fidget Spinner

    puts no bias in order to not offend anyone

    everyone gets offended anyway

  • TheCommandMaster

    my religion belives in both god and science in which god created science.
    everybody is argueing over who is wrong and right and that religion is a bad thing but you guys are only talking about the fanatic people in the world that misinterpret every metaphor in holy books and teachings. religion does not disprove science, in my opinion both can be true.

  • YOutsider

    "product of random processes" is a mis-characterization. There are NO random processes. There are only opportunistic events. "Random" is a word that symbolizes or is an abbreviation for complexity that humans have yet to fully comprehend. Even a computer-generated set of random numbers is a set of opportunistic events–dictated by the ordered constraints of electrons, hardware, software, and input.

  • Duck Tape

    Microsoft Windows isn't perfect either, it gives us blue screens and system hangs all the time, even though no one will say it wasn't designed.

  • papa al

    DNA doesn't make an eye. DNA/RNA make proteins. That's it. A morphogenic field guides the protein synthesis. Robert O. Becker MD &c.

  • Charlie Castillo

    During the Middle Ages, Ibn Rushd, known in Europe at the time as The Commentator argued that philosophy (what we would now call science) should be used to observe and study the world around us, because the Qur'an commands it.

    So by this logic, God would want us to study the world through trial and error, a process that is integral to modern science. Intelligent design is only a human construct used to justify preconceived notions held by some fundamentalist Christians who are reluctant to think critically about their beliefs.

  • heeberman

    He can't even speak in concise sentences because he's tiptoeing so much.

  • rAyZoR rAy

    Its not wether ubelieve in God ornot, neither is any1 religion aproblem. Ive a very broad spectrum of friends across a diverse religous background, there are never any problems and out of respect 4a persons religon ido conduct myself ina certain wa in each 1's company,this isnt aproblem 4me cos theyr my friends but the prob comes wen peeps try unpush thier beliefs on2 others, luckily 4me my friends respect me enough not try that on me but ido no they do that2 others un is resented not apreciated

  • Brooks Weaver

    Everyone here is arguing based in the assumption that natural selection evolved their cognitive faculties to produce reliable beliefs. However, natural selection only evolves to produce survival traits: behaviors that help get food and reproduce. Your cognitive faculties weren't evolved to produce true beliefs. So you Darwinists are making the assumption Darwinism can't account for before you even begin arguing.

  • MartinDxt

    intelligent design in one sentence
    argument from personal incredulity

  • Rasof Ad

    Evolution and Natural Selection is like a brute force attack 😀

  • Jim Schaffer

    So…. We're missing the point here…. Perfection was compromised, but you have to BELIVE that …………

  • kung harvey

    This video is flawed and not the opinion of a casual observer because its biased toward darwinism because this video presupposes that LUCA is true ie when he says about variations of the eye he presupposes they are variants of the same common ancestor. However intelligent design is saying that its more akin to a forest than a single tree.

  • Kristen Michelle

    Please give an example of "complexity emerging" in the present, instead of pointing to an unobservable event in the distant past. If evolution is true, please give some evidence of major morphological transition coupled with higher complexity. If we are to believe that complexity just emerged, then this must still be happening right? Why don't we see any new cell types, or new structures, innovations etc anywhere on the planet when we are told to believe this happened from the dawn of life till now?

  • Ashton van Niekerk

    I don't agree with your theology, but this is a really good and objective argument.

  • Adam Southworth

    One question I would hear answered is whether the modern theory of intelligent design precludes natural processes. On this view, could one potentially oversee the entire biosphere unfold, but, as the Milesian physiologoi may have thought, by a process best explained by a guiding principle? Or does the modern form of I.D. presuppose inexplicable leaps for which there will be no natural process? Would I.D. leave the process untouched? Paley himself seems to support this idea in his natural theology.

  • BlueSky101

    please help my channel by watching evolution videos on my channel.

  • Agman Trivedi

    I love you sal.

  • Jordan Phillips

    Hitting us with those life lessons as well. How is you like this Khan!?

  • Jordan Phillips

    Intelligent design lies in physics which allows for the intelligent design of life and everything else. But the intelligent part goes out the window if you believe in multiverse or simply just think 'okay so if physics is that way then life is gonna happen like this… As from an omniscient beings point of view. Which would be God

  • Thomas Mensah

    As much as I love your videos this is not a pragmatic discussion. Science studies the already made world around us and tries explains 'how'. How it works. But God explains why.
    Infinite complexity is not justifiable by chance.
    Mercedes makes a lot of cars. But assuming that the design of my Mercedes is wrong or not fit for purpose because my air-con stopped working properly after a few years or never worked at all – is stupid and not smart; because everyone else's air-con works in their car. Malfunctioning is not necessarily related to design, but can be to maintenance, and other environmental factors so it is wrong to state that the eye is not perfect in design, simply because 2 billion people out 7 wear glasses. That's stupid.
    As an engineer myself I can confirm that designs work under specific conditions – that's why we make them, or we wouldn't bother.
    So the real question is: Seen that for a time of x in life the vast majority of people can claim perfect sight, why does it change?

  • M N

    This is so easy. Is this really MCAT material?!?

  • Zephaniah Bean

    1:58 "even what EYE believe"

  • Timm Brockmann

    Any connection to the Simulation Hypothesis from Nick Bostrom?

  • andy gaal

    you lay down accurate facts and reasoning for evolution, still leaving room for creationist thoughts, are you a scientist or wannabe creationist , i am confused about your ways ….

  • triplejudy

    Creationsim / Intelligent Design = "Humpty-Dumpty in the clouds made the universe by magic." Pre-school science for the religious, ignorant and deluded.


    wow i think khan academy is the best academy in the world and khan must be famous and mention in the news tomorrow for the world !.

  • J. E.

    If we accept the fact that our God were the Reptilians, then it make sense all the imperfections we have, also the cruelty of God himself. Jajaja! Just kidding. Great video.

  • בן דוד

    Hello everyone, do you have a personal relationship with our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ? The Son of God. That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved. – Romans 10:9

  • Zahara Ambreen

    This lecture was not very smooth

  • Ruben Møller

    The creationists predicts flaws in creation. The counter-argument to the seemingly imperfect eye is simply the fall of man. We can look at God from a deistic perspective, where the flaws are the result of God departing his creation, due to sin. This is where creations believe the second law of thermodynamics came in to action. Everything in the universe will decay in God's absence.

    This doesn't prove creationism, but helps people understand that creation is no longer supposed to be perfect, even if God created it.

  • Tony Mak

    …I detect bs. so you're not denying a creator, the only point you are making is that IF a God made man, why isn't it perfect. Well, if you were an engineer, you would recognise the machine that you use every day in your life. The one that has a skin which heals itself when abraded, the eye that functions perfectly well, has a lubricating mechanism and has auto wipe, etc etc. Now describe to me an engineer who has come up with any sort of machine that even comes close to designing and manufacturing anything that repairs itself and can last up to 100 years. In fact, if you're an engineer and are criticising the human form, tell us all the item you are so proud of which is a product of your own design, and how well it performs.
    As for your fractal patterns, what do they do ? What use are they ?

  • Larry Clark

    "Die Toren sprechen in ihrem Herzen: <<Es ist kein Gott.>>" Psalter 14:1.  Excellent video, as are most of yours.  Thank you for posting.  We are here on purpose.

  • Galactic Scholar

    …why would you even mention "intelligent" design. It's utterly worthless.

  • Mark Crowther-Smith

    Given that religion has yet to prove the existence of a god it makes it very difficult to claim it as the designer. As for intelligent I'll quote my consultant when he told me I had a hernia.

    He said 'there goes the argument for intelligent design'. When I asked what he meant he said 'the majority of hernias are caused by a design flaw in the human body'.

    The American Chiropractic Association say that 31 million Americans experience low-back pain at any given time and their experts estimate that as much as 80% of the population will experience a back problem at some time in their lives. They add that ''most cases of back pain are mechanical''. Yes that means that the back is badly designed.

    I think that a perfect entity which could create everything could get those little bit right. Even if evolution was wrong it would not prove the laughable idea of intelligent design/ flawed design.

  • Goblinkiller

    So if something is not “perfect” makes it somehow not design. And tell me what exactly do you consider perfect because we are created a certain way. You’re eye does what it was created to do…. nothin more

  • wade5941

    Good job.

  • Mohammad Ebrahiminejad

    thanks for your video but your explanation about intelligent design isn't really right. it doesn't say that the eye is the result of a design because it's too complex, this theory talks about the information which is embedded in many biological systems and information can only and only come from an intelligence, not necessarily the god. for example, DNA is digitally coded and it contains tons of information which makes every to work properly and such molecule can't come to existence by any evolutionary explanation and it shows the signs of intelligence and it does explain it based on a real example like any program has a programmer or nanocellural machines. this theory is a new interpretation of the evidences which evolution tries to explain. it also hepled new cures in cancer by having an engineering approach to the cell. this theory has nothing to do with any religions or god but one of the results of this theory can be the god's hypothesis in the history of life.
    and the other point is that perfection in design has nothing to do with this theory, it's a philosophical or theological problem. this theory just talks about the sign of the intelligence, not the perfection in design.

  • israr karim

    Intelligent design is not true.

  • jesutunmbi olaitan

    Mr khan, I appreciate your good works and fact that you didn't react to negative comments directed towards you in previous video. God created Adam not humans, humanity wasn't his will, Adam committed treason; he sinned.

  • Official Kelby

    Honestly, too many sensitive people here. The guy was just trying to teach and all of the sudden people had to either preach about religion or deny it. I'm over here just trying to score high on my exam..

  • マママりんリンゴ

    음 먼소린지..이해가

  • Ed Q

    It is quite funny how Atheists believe in the theory of evolution as a fact and how they conflate religion with the question of what there is after our death – and the question of where we originally came from.
    I do find religion to be an utter joke.
    As regards evolution – well molecular evolution exists for sure, but can a serious scientists say that we can extrapolate molecular evolution to say that the evolution of species is a FACT? Nope. That is why it is a theory.

    Even if the theory is correct and evolution is scientifically proven to be a fact, it does not deny the presence of a Creation force.
    It is sad that scientists and non-scientists take the Theory for Fact, just because they think it makes them clever.

    It's a bit like the people who automatically believe that the Earth is rightfully NOT flat, but when you ask them for proof, they cannot provide it – the reason is that their god is….. tabloid science… or at least what tabloids tell them about their science god.

    So, ignoring man-made religions, back to the question: Where did we come from and where are we going?
    It is an interesting question that could help us answer related questions.

    The answer is, we do not know.
    We don't have the scientific tools to answer the question if there is anything after our death or not.

    Most dead people know the answer but those alive do not.

    Those who take sides on this question just have a human nature where they want to belong to one side or another – they may not believe in laughable religion, but then again, probably believe in other ridiculous man-made ideologies like nationalism, football, tribalism, group-ism of one sort or another. They have a need to believe even in the absence of FACTS.

    THAT IS the human weakness, but hey, don't let me take you off those pedestals you try so hard to put yourselves on.

  • Jon Smail

    Evolution is Dead. Well, it is mostly based on dead things. Isn't it?

  • Jon Smail

    Both Evolution and Intelligent Design are based in science. Both are theories and not laws. Both should not be taught in a hard science class. Both are philosophies of science.

  • Jon Smail

    Variations of the eye, can be caused by epigenetics and not evolution.

  • Jon Smail

    How do you know what an all powerful entity will design? Answer is you don't.

  • Against Atheism

    11:10 :very correct
    Evolution does not speak to a godless universe, it, rather speaks to a more profound God!!

  • zaydkha

    Complex and sophisticated entities are not the evidence for a maker, rather all things even a primitive entity requires ultimately some being who consciously willed it into existence, complexity and sophistication however is evidence for the intelligence and power it requires to construct such things.

  • zaydkha

    When Deists/Theists say the eye has to be a product of intelligent design they don't mean that it has not limitations to an almost divine level, rather the product despite limitations reflects a deliberate and conscious crafting as opposed to being a product of random convulsions, similar to how a camera has limitations (and no camera can compete with the human eye) but it still requires not just a sentient being to make it, but a being who is qualified and has the knowledge how to make it, after all not all humans can manufacture cameras.

  • Galactic Scholar

    It's sad that a professional educator has to waste his precious time talking about this.

  • Jonathan Perry

    I'm just here for the comments

  • Andy Nelson

    Is there any topic you don't do well. You are my hero

  • Roman Starostyshyn

    Why should it be perfect? That is just your assumption.

  • The Pharaoh

    One brings us predictions and advances and other one is pointless, useless and dumb "ID" ..Why does anyone advocate for ID it doesn't explain anything.

  • Rusty Marquis

    Bravo for taking on this topic, but you definitely took sides in this video and even misrepresented tenets of ID. Defenders of ID don't argue that the human body is perfect or the "best" of anything. This may be implied by many Creationists, but ID suggests simply that a "creator" is a more viable explanation of how inorganic material became organic material with all the data needed for growth, adaption, etc., than any other theory that currently exists.

  • Josh M

    It's funny because the more I study science and mathematics, the more I start to believe that there was a form of intelligent design. Not one that created us in their image or etc., but one that put the pieces in place to let the picture paint itself.

  • Cassie D

    Which course is this from on khan?

  • Dano JC

    Good video, Sal, and it's interesting to hear your opinions. Thanks alot!

  • MrDefend0r

    The tree of life is a lie though, the fossile evidence does not support the claim that everything evolved from lesser beings

  • Montana Sellers

    Sir Isaac Newton and Einstein were 2 of the greatest minds in history and both believed in a Creator.

  • Evidence Based Faith

    Just because something isn't perfect does not mean it wasn't designed. A car isn't perfect, it eventually rusts and breaks down but it was certainly designed. Perhaps the designer's intent was for the human eye to not be perfect. So this argument people present when they point out the flaws in creation as though that proves it couldn't have been designed is just illogical considering something doesn't have to be perfect to have been designed.

  • Connor

    If the universe formed without any true cause, it's something coming from nothing, which going by that logic you can say 0 + 0 = 1.

  • AJ Stone

    Jesus Christ is Lord and is God

  • AJ Stone

    All things were created through Christ who is Jesus

  • Jonathan

    Adam and Eve had perfect eyes.

  • Jock Young

    Evolution does improve design, but there is nothing "intelligent" about. There's no need.

  • Cradle of Civilization

    evolution is intelligent design. If it serves its purposes, then it's perfect.

  • Martyn Jones

    So placatory to the idiotic creationists. This is akin to explaining the improbability of Santa Claus by suggesting that he's more "profound" than to attempt to deliver all the presents himself in one night – Instead, he amazingly implants the notion of gift-giving and skillfully direct the entire operation from the North Pole …. Occam's Razor people! God is not necessary for evolution in the same way as Santa is unnecessary for you receiving an Xmas present.

  • Grace Soyemi

    Woah woah woah all the guy did was touch on the whole religion thing and then everyone jumps on that and ignores everything eles he says and the comment section just dies

  • Jungle Jargon

    Evolution is impossible.

  • Jedi 511

    Absolutely love your notion of an even grander description of a designer. Really thought provoking.

  • Aakash Iyer

    Bull sbitt. We cannot even manufa ture a pen without machine. And we say evolution happened

  • Psalm1Tree

    My 2 cents on irreducible complexity and a different way of looking at the bacterial flagellum. First, the evidence for creationism is irreducible complexity. Let's say someone, even a child, sees a pyramid for the first time, not just in Egypt but anywhere around the world. No one has to tell him or her that it was intelligently designed. No one is going to think all that complexity came about by random processes of nature. Ditto so many archaeological artifacts.
    Irreducible complexity is seen at every level in life forms, too. I will give my favorite example. Cell biologist Michael Behe spoke of the i.c. of the bacterial flagellum and supposedly that got debunked biochemist by Ken Miller. No, it didn't. Behe's argument got misrepresented and the misrepresentation was attacked, i.e. a classic straw man logical fallacy move was done on it. But I prefer to look at another part of the bacterial flagellum anyway.
    Google a picture of the b.f. and its motor and whip. Now if the b.f doesn't move, it doesn't do its job and is useless. It isn't going to move anywhere until both the motor, and whip on the motor, are completely formed and attached together. Now, while those 2 parts are just "evolving" nubs and stubs, what good are they? What "co option" purposes could they serve? If you can't even imagine the answer to that, how is "evolution" going to make it happen? Why and how would evolution keep those two, partial and incomplete, parts in limbo for eons until they are complete and connected and ready to go? Well, it's not going to happen. There is zero evidence it ever happened, too, of course. In fact, there is zero evidence the b.f. has ever been anything but exactly what it is right now.
    Back to the "debunk" of the i.c. of the b.f. as described by Behe. It is the usual in evolutionary defense. There is no observable, supporting, data whatsoever, only theories piled on speculations that are presented as facts. For ex. they say that some simpler organism "evolved"into the b.f. Where is the evidence for that, or for any organism, including the b.f., ever being anything but what it is presently? They could have used the scientific method and taken a part away from the b.f. and then watched to see if it could still function. They didn't. Funny about that.
    If you, with intelligence, can't figure out how to make those "evolving" stubs and nubs of a whip and motor on the b.f. be anything but pointless and useless, how are random acts of nature going to do it? If you, with intelligence, can't even make up a diagram – not to mention show any data – for coordinated ever "evolving" reproductive systems between male and female parts of animals all over the planet, how is mindless nature going to do it?
    But if you think it can happen, great. Give the details. Give any fossil or current life form evidence anywhere. Not theories about the unverifiable past, now, but actual observvable data.
    And while we are at it, let's think of all those male and female animals that reportedly "evolved" into different families, classes, orders and phyla. Now, while the males are making their changes in their reproductive systems during those "transitions" what kinds of miracles would it take for the females to continuously make exactly coordinated, and synchronized, matching, and compatible, changes in their own systems, in a totally other body that has no way of knowing what is going on in the male body? Over and over. With vast numbers of animals?
    Now we'ere not talking about synchronized changes in just, say, sperm and eggs, but the essential and related changes also required for things like muscles, nerves, hormones, etc. etc. etc. And of course, with billions and billions of fossils and trillions of living animals around us, we see no example whatsoever for any such coordinated changes. In fact, we never even see any species moving into a new family, order, class or phyla. Or if any of that is wrong, cite your data.
    Evolutionism is a tragicomedy. It is all based on theories piled on hypotheses, which are heaped on speculation and loaded with logical fallacies like Correlation Does Not Imply Causation and Presuming Omniscience. That package is then presented as gawd's truth scientific fact.
    Anyone: Who designed that b.f. with its whip and motor and other irreducibly complex, interdependent, parts? How tiny it is. How magnificently…DESIGNED. Like you, my friend, lovingly designed by your Heavenly Father. Get to know Him, and real science – which He designed, too.

  • vettejoevette

    First of all, the subset can NEVER fully explain the super-set. We are a tiny fraction of the super-set, and I am talking only of our Universe, our system, which is "governed" by certain fundamental rules (the laws of physics as our science defines them). So if our theories are correct and fundamental forces, elements, "physical laws" determine what can and cannot exist in our system, then what is present in this video is pretty accurate. Human beings are not the only sentient beings on the planet, or in the Universe.

    On our planet, we are highly sentient, but modern homo sapiens have only been around a couple of hundred thousand years or so. Earth is about 4.5 billion years old, so we are a relatively new species. Yet we think we know more than the "mother nature" that spawned us! Do you think we humans have made the planet better?

    Matter is not all that matters. Matter is only about 4% of the Universe by our scientific calculations, That means 96% is "something else"! What is the purpose of that something else? We don't know yet. But it is some form of energy. Matter is also a form of energy. What is energy? It is, at the quantum level, vibration and frequency. What is frequency? It is a form of "information". So can we say that the Universe is information?

    Our Universe is vast. We are a spec on a grain of sand by comparison. While we think we know a lot about the Universe, we have observed very little. Therefore, the possibilities of other forms of energy, matter, and sentience are almost endless. As the Universe evolves, new possibilities and probabilities evolve as well. So can we say that the Universe has almost endless possibilities that do or do not manifest as a result of the evolution of probability?

    If the answer to these questions is "yes" than, as this video points out, there is a simple and elegant set of properties and rules than set in motion an almost endless set of possibilities. Through the evolution of our Universe the transformation of energy creates new "information", which drives new probabilities that determine which possibilities manifest and when, and which do not.

  • Robert Dolan

    He would have been better off not even talking about this topic

  • Jon R

    I think it's wrong to assume that humans need to be perfect to be the creation of a perfect being. The best carpenter in the world could make the best and the worst chair.

  • Jon R

    And why an all powerful being wouldn't be bothered to design the individual in particular? That's another assumption without evidence

  • S Hwang

    why so many dislikes? khan clearly said repeatedly that it's not his intention to upset anybody or take any sides. calm down people

  • Michael Parsons

    Really appreciate the content but I need to point out the problem I see with your argument.

    Your argument is based on the notion of God as a being. This is actually a modernist/literalistic interpretation which was not common amongst the highest level of theistic thinkers in the early years. The church calls them saints. Granted most modern people believe today that God is a being but the original Christians for example would say, for example, that God the Father is not a being but “beyond being”. You could call it the universe if you want but calling it God implies that it’s moving towards something.

    Here’s why. As you stated in one of the earlier videos, there could be life somewhere else based on silicone instead of carbon. The commonality between the two would be Life which is Gods purpose or the purpose of “the Universe” If you prefer. Then the question becomes why is God a He? Just as we see in our own lives in general and in the lives of animals it takes two things coming together to create something be it sexually or otherwise. It’s in this sense that God comes together with the physical universe, impregnates her, with His purpose. It’s why in Genesis it says that “In the beginning God created the Heavens and the Earth.”. It’s to show us the realm of agency, purpose and meaning (the Heavens) as well as the physical world (the Earth) and today, we happen to know that the physical world is much bigger than just Earth. It is by the coming together of these two “places” that all things are created, from single cell organisms to human beings etc. The patterns in the Bible show us that the physical world and the Heavens have to “agree” in order to lead to creation. Dare I say the physical world must gives its (or her) “consent”. This is not dissimilar from an immaterial scientific theory which does not exist in the physical world but none the less is confirmed by it. It starts as a hypothesis and if the data doesn’t “agree” or give its consent then it doesn’t become a theory. This is the manner in which God creates.

  • Baha Aljaser

    I am not sure why should we assume that God must design a perfect being, I could argue humans and other organisms are by default designed to be imperfect and die and be replaced by other beings.. If the design was perfect we would be immortal..

  • Vv Simple

    One of Allah's names : Al-Bari (The Evolver, The Developer) ..

  • brandon tory

    The example is predicated on the existence of a system in which planar coordinates have meaning, and colors are assigned based on thresholds. These heuristically assigned concepts are mentioned as an afterthought in the video, but in nature, it is in these fundamental system decisions that intelligent design becomes evident. It is only because these systems (better known as math) were created, that an equation such as z(n+1) = z(n)^2 + C can be so minimal yet so vastly expressive.

  • Andre Kish

    There have never been any codes that did not require intelligence in their creation or decyphering. No human has ever reported witnessing one.

    DNA is everyone's personal, information filled digital code. To assume DNA is the exception scientifically requires, as science does, repetition of results.

    If DNA is accidental then another code that is accidental also should also be scientifically visable – there are definitely not 2 examples of accidental codes that anyone has reported seeing. All codes REQUIRE intelligence by their nature.

    The information in DNA can only have come from a mind since information is only of a mental origin which has a purpose or else the existance of the information is pointless.

    If anyone can give examples of 2 accidental codes they will be the very first person in history to do so!!

  • Seamus

    Good vid! The complexity with life, however, deals with abstract code and machinery that carries out the recipe code.

  • Think and Do

    Sal,you are awesome!

  • Sarah Barclay

    As a creationist, even I found this video very informative and thank you for your caution regarding sensibilities. I could care less, call me any name, it was professional though. IMO Particulars are special, more so than random beneficial mutations, it adds the ART to ARTIST/Designer. Thanks for vid.

  • netelsg

    If Eve was created by GOD from Adam's rib, was Eve's DNA the same as Adam's DNA…?

  • Basic

    "This speaks to a more profound design" – Why? How? What are you basing that conclusion on?

    You can't say "As an engineer" and then proceed to act like a credulous layman.

  • Prerna

    oof why is everyone so offended

  • Tom Sticht

    But we all have human eyes

  • Shreks newborn son named Larry

    Evolution makes more sense for a god than everything was created independently I think. When we create something we don’t poof it exactly how we want it. Each brush stroke evolves the painting bit by bit until we are happy with it and even 10 years later you can go back and paint more on it adding or evolving it even more. With videogames the developers constantly send out updates adding more features and fixing errors. That’s kind of like evolution. Maybe a god is controlling it and he’s just having fun with what cool things he can create. He doesn’t demand anything from us or any of his other creations just like how we don’t demand our paintings anything or we will burn them for eternity.

  • Merializer

    A hawk has better vision so he can see small creatures on the ground which he hunts, but humans do not need this. A hawk would likely be unable to hunt well without it's vision. The human eye is perfectly fine for humans.
    Humans don't have fur because we are smart enough to make clothes. I do not know all animals in the world, but most seem to have fur or feathers or have some other feature to keep them warm.

  • The Mad Titan

    Moral of the story: you can never truly convince a muslim that there is no God.

  • ZeddieBoi

    Whether you believe in science or religion. They're all the same, both are just theories. No human is certain enough whether a powerful being created this universe or a natural phenomenon and natural processes are what made this universe be. Us humans don't have a clue about what and who we are and how we started to understand the meaning of love and moral and that's why we started thinking about different theories which doesn't even matter to our lives at all, us ourselves are what matters more.

  • connie feijen

    Law is not intelligence design. Intelligence can make everything while law can not and is heart and love so everything is created by love and nothing else and the matter of love. All is one in all.

  • SinisterC6

    I have always felt the same way md glad you put it so clearly!


Leave a Reply

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