Intelligent Design – Frank Turek

Intelligent Design. Frank Turek examines Information Theory, DNA, the Cell, and other evidence for Intelligent Design. Visit for more on Frank Turek and his awesome presentations at university campuses.


About defendtheword

To contact us please send e-mail to
This entry was posted in Apologetics, Atheism, Bible, Christ, Christianity, Church, Discernment, Evangelism, Evolution, Faith, God, Jesus, News, Photography, Prayer, Prophecy, Religion, Theology, Videos. Bookmark the permalink.

10 Responses to Intelligent Design – Frank Turek

  1. tildeb says:

    The fact that you posted this video means that you think it has some kind of value. That’s very disappointing.

    I am always amused when creationists attempt to use science to discredit science. The ironic oversight is somewhat revealing about the envy creationists have towards that which so devastatingly dismantles their belief’s truth claims.

    But like usual, those who wish to discredit science by using science have to do it just like Frank: first misrepresent a scientific idea, then simplify it so even the dimmest in the audience can feel intellectually superior by recognizing what appears to be an obvious problem with the scientist’s terrible thinking and false conclusions, then apply a liberal dose of religious nonsense as if it were a justifiable alternative because it is apparently sanctified by god as well as clearly (with just the right bend in the interpretation) revealed in whatever the holy text happens to be.


    It’s tedious and odious, so to gain anything of any value whatsoever from a presentation like this, one must approach the tried and true style with a good sense of humour and enjoy the slick presentation of the idiotic fallacies.

    Fortunately, those who believe such nits and fall for the misrepresentations as offering any kind of legitimate scientific critique are fewer with each generation.

  2. I have to restrain my comment and moderate my reply in order not to be offensive but If you look closely at what you said you should note that all assertions given by you are not supported by scientific evidence. Lastly by desiring to remove information away from those who are less fortunate and not as blessed intellectually as you and I (Humour intended here) is not being true to the scientific principle that we should strive to explain everything. I have often argued that for the professor to claim himself to be a teacher he should be able to teach. And if one could present data in the way that is easily understood and make new concept more transparent I think this helps rather than hinders this debate.

    Secondly anyone could argue that any other person did not fully understand all the ideas that are discussed unless this is supported by verbal argumentation we are only basing our conclusion on someone else’s assertion which may or may not be factually correct.

    So which is it going to be? Do we accept factually incorrect statements that science has answer to all our questions? Do we hide when we are confronted by complexity of data which is often thrown at us in hope that we may not be able to understand it? I call that baffle me with science tactics, often misrepresenting what is possible and impossible in relation with science and religion. I would strongly recommend that you read books by Dr David Berlinsky The Devils Delusion: Atheism and its scientific pretension. Worth every penny, this insightful book shows so successfully what scientist that have baggage of atheism around their necks don’t like to admit. For more information please go to Amazon and look for this book.

    I also recommend his book
    Deniable Darwin & Other Essays (Paperback)

    Note that Dr Berlinski is Not a religious man he claims to be agnostic not theist or atheist this should hopefully make this reading that much more acceptable to you.

  3. misunderstoodranter says:

    ‘lowest common denominator’

    You can not discredit evolution in a 5 minute lecture about breakfast cereals – all this video proves is that people just can’t think.

    Evolution is not about chance it is about natural selection – but he missed that bit.

    I like this guy Frank!

  4. You said this before, however external pressures could not be controlled and the imaginary “Mother nature” does not direct things, how do I know this, simply because “she” is not there, otherwise what is to stop us making this “mother nature” into a divine being? Therefore it must be governed by chance, that is precisely what the theory stipulates, and you must revisit the subject before making assertions that are not consistent with its theory. Otherwise expand on why do you think it is not a chance driven, and no you could not use mother nature, natural selection only serves to weed out the week, it could never be accounted for creation of new limbs. Hence ID people have no problem with natural selection that is affecting species that are affected by external pressures. But as I said before we have never observed frog growing new pair of wings.

    Also note that any new Insults will be deleted, please refer to the new page on this blog “Rules/Engagement” thanks for complying with them in the future.

  5. misunderstoodranter says:

    “external pressures could not be controlled and the imaginary “Mother nature” does not direct things”

    imaginary mother nature?

    Firstly nature is not imaginary, you depend on it everyday to live.

    Secondly, you speak of nature as having free will – I don’t believe nature does. Nature is itself at the mercy of the physical forces in which it resides. And I believe that the rules (gravity etc) in which it resides are a product of Nature’s existence therefore ‘no rules = no nature, nature = no rules’

    For example, the moon and the sun affects the tides, which in turn affect the weather. The heat from the sun, warms the earth and causes convection currents and water to enter into the air. As the earth cools,, the air temperature cools and the water in it condenses and precipitates upon the earth – humans have experienced this and observed this.

    However, nature does not decide this, it just happens as a result of competing changes as a consequence of cause and effect. This explains why god is not responsible for natural disasters, however, it also introduces the possibility that god is not responsible for the process that caused the disaster at all.

    I therefore conclude that nature is not sentient (i.e. it does not chose to rain, it has to rain). I am however, fairly sure (beyond reasonable doubt) that nature is our creator as we seem to be made up of elements that reside within nature (water, carbon etc).

    Such elements were created in a process that we call a ‘star’ like our own sun.

    So far everything appears to me to be a process, in one large chain reaction and evolution is also a product of that process. I call the whole process nature.

    I think you call it god, and suggest that it has thoughts and free will – I dispute this, because I think humans are a product of nature, and created the bible, therefore the bible is a product of man. And when man created the bible he also created a construct called ‘god’ that was used to explain what they could not explain at the time.

    However, there are other alternatives to reality – reality may not be how we perceive it at all – this (our lives) could be a simulation on (god’s laptop) or a dream in an alien – but as much fun as this form of philosophy is, I find it too difficult to comprehend in any meaningful way. I also have no evidence to suggest that life is a simulation in anyway at all, as I seem to feel pain, and life has real irreversible consequences as a result of cause and effect.

    Some reading for you:

  6. You have not understood my question; it was a rhetorical teasing on my part, without meaning to be malicious about it. In did not mean nature I meant specifically “Mother” part often used by evolutionist to attribute some mystical quality to process of nature. When I said that there is no such thing as Mother Nature I knew that you would agree with me. My point precisely was that because you don’t believe in such thing you could not believe in nature guiding process of evolution, it would have to be random and therefore relaying on chance, which is what you disagreed with me initially. Point proven and case closed.
    Your assertion that Nature is our creator just does not follow, simply because as I said before, if it’s not guided you can’t use it as an excuse to exclude God, you can’t have it both ways. If it’s not guided it’s by chance, and if it’s by chance who decides that only positive traits should be inherited by the next generation??? As I have said before, nature is cruel, it kills the weak, and favours the strong, but it only chooses from already existing stock of life. Therefore claiming that new information can be produces and creating the new species is only in the imagination of the people that blindly follow the doctrine of evolution. Not much different from fundamentalist Christians then, hey?
    Your last point about the man creating the Bible is simply a myth. There is no such evidence this was a favourite trick of the communists that has been adopted by atheists, of whom many use to favour Marxism in their young days.
    In fact if you look at the other religions you may form such opinion as being man maid, but according to the good book (The Bible) itself, process of revelation is drastically different from other religions. This in itself warrants deeper assessment rather than superficial accusation that is repeated simply as unquestioned assertion passed to you by someone else. Bible encourages investigation, shows many embarrassing moments that reveal number of weaknesses of the main characters, lack of faith is very common in the Bible itself, including in New Testament, therefore to say what you did about mans creation is simply not true. It is reductionism at its simplest, not taking into account neither facts that are in the Bible and very much ignoring Archaeological and Historical data can lead to such unsupported assertion. Question is how should we form our opinions, based on confidence or based on facts?

  7. misunderstoodranter says:

    “Your last point about the man creating the Bible is simply a myth. There is no such evidence this was a favourite trick of the communists that has been adopted by atheists, of whom many use to favour Marxism in their young days.”

    Pardon, so the bible was not written by humans – is this what you are saying? That god actually wrote the bible you read? Man had nothing to do with it and that it is a myth…

    Totally irrational even by your standards.

    The first thing they teach you at priest school is how the bible was created, and who selected which bits to include and what not to – in fact this is a basis of academic study of religion, so where is the myth then?

  8. Again that would be correct if we ignore the fact that God could inspire people and reveal his truth and preserve his word. Of which all form essential part of my faith in God. If he is truly God could he not make sure his word is correctly recorded? Just think about it and you will see it makes perfect sense.

  9. misunderstoodranter says:

    misunderstoodranter: Have you ever noticed that when you read the Bible, it often makes no sense? For example, you can read Matthew 17:20 and Jesus clearly says, “Nothing will be impossible for you.” And yet, you know for a fact that that statement is wrong. Lots of things are impossible for you.

    If you ask a Christian about this discrepency, the Christian will say, “Ah, you see, you are not interpretting the Bible correctly. You need to talk to a theologian. He will set you straight.”

    Isn’t it odd that the all-powerful, all-knowing, all-loving, perfect creator of the universe has written a book, but he was unable to write clearly, so we need human theologians to interpret it for us? Why would a perfect god say “Nothing will be impossible for you” unless he meant “Nothing will be impossible for you?” Surely God knows how humans interpret sentences. So why didn’t he speak the truth?

    Defend the Word: Let me clarify this for you, I understand your confusion since you are only willing to listen to one side that happens. First of all no theologian ever said you need him, but would you agree that to understand what ancient literature is saying you need to understand their customs and traditions? Unless you want to continue applying your 21st century standards upon them as you usually do???

    misunderstoodranter: The reason why God speaks so unclearly, and why God fails to speak the truth so often in the Bible, and the reason why we need theologians, is because God is imaginary. You can see that in the following dialog with a theologian:

    Defend the Word: I don’t know who Chris is but some of what he said makes very much good sense to me. Fact is that you will have “adults” who need to grow up, and Chris should have understood that he is simply being ridiculed and that questions were provocation not search for wisdom. You tend to do the same, I tend to tolerate them because I can show clearly that what you are doing is running away from the real issues. Precisely because you are scared of what the message is bringing you.

    Secondly you can claim whatever you like but you should at least give people chance to explain, otherwise you only show lack of maturity and display childish behaviour that should be consigned at playgrounds and should not form part of what intelligent people talk about. This is common escape rote when running out of answers make fun that is bound to work, See if you can provoke reaction then you will feel victorious even when it makes no relevance to the original argument.

    Your Example

    Norm: Hello Chris, it is nice to meet you. I understand that you are a theologian with a PhD in theology.
    Chris: Yes, I am a trained theologian. How may I help you?

    Norm: Can you answer a question for me: Does God answer prayers?
    Chris: Yes, certainly. He has answered hundreds of my prayers.

    Norm: Pray for him to put $10,000 in my pocket right now.
    Chris: It does not work that way. I said God answers prayers, not that he is a cosmic genie.

    Norm: So, in Mark 11:24, when Jesus says, “Whatever you ask for in prayer, believe that you have received it, and it will be yours,” what did he mean? That sounds like you can have whatever you pray for.

    Chris: He means that you pray for something, and if it is his will then you shall receive it. Jesus is under no obligation to answer any prayer. Nor is he obligated to provide the answer that you expect. There are thousands of ways for Jesus to answer a prayer indirectly.

    Defend the Word: I believe Chris should have simply stopped here, also since when does PhD Qualified person give one liner answer? Sounds like loads of boloney to me, bit too close to a put-up job. Otherwise from the start Chris should have expanded and shut that door not allowing childish pranks.

    Norm: If it is his will, aren’t I going to get it anyway? Why pray?
    Chris: Ask, and you shall receive. You have to ask…

    Norm: …and then you should receive. Jesus does not say, “Ask, and you might receive if it is my will.” His statement has no conditions.
    Chris: He meant that. It is implied. You need to see Jesus in the context of the rabbinical doctrine in the early fist century AD.

    Norm: I see. So in Matthew 17:20, when Jesus says, “nothing will be impossible to you,” why isn’t flying-like-superman or $10,000-in-my-pocket-right-now part of that?
    Chris: Quite clearly you have never bothered with any sort of exegetical understanding of the Bible’s promises on prayer. God is under no obligation to answer any prayer.

    Defend the Word: This could go on indefinitely, you know like a child that never ends asking question why? You should know you claim to have at least two children. Secondly did he not hear the previous answer that A. God is not a genie, B. You could not possibly pray for things that are contrary to the Bible, that would make no sense yet your Norm seams to miss this most obvious of points. He needs to be thought lessons in logic and lessons in grown up debate.

    Norm: So when Jesus uses the example of moving a mountain, which is clearly impossible, what did he mean?

    Chris: Jesus clearly was speaking metaphorically, as was common in the first century.

    Norm: Here’s what I do not understand. What Jesus said in the Bible is obviously wrong. If God is perfect, there is no reason why God would put something that is completely wrong in the Bible. Why do we need human beings like you to interpret and massage and explain what God might have meant in the Bible? Why wouldn’t an omnipotent, all-knowing, perfect God have written it the way he meant it, in an understandable, clear, unambiguous, truthful, correct way? There isn’t anything vague about, “Nothing will be impossible for you” or, “Ask, and you shall receive.” Yet, it is completely wrong. Explain that to me.

    Chris: You are completely missing the point.

    Defend the Word: In fact Protestants have been arguing for the past 400 – 500 years that in fact you must read the Bible yourself and this is why it was translated into a common language. So this argument is completely illogical and blatant distortion of facts. Secondly the Bible does say that you need to seek not that you need to ridicule, therefore placing great emphasis on your attitude. And millions of Christians will witness that if you are ready to seek honestly you will not only find but will see it clearly that there is simplicity once you stop pretending that you have all the answers and stop to listen to what others are saying.

    On the issue of “Nothing is impossible to God” Nothing means if not contrary to Gods teaching and his will. very simple and Norm should know better!

    misunderstoodranter And so on…
    Most people can see the problem that is apparent in this conversation. There is no reason why an all-knowing, perfect God would write down, “you can move mountains” or, “nothing will be impossible for you” or, “Ask, and you shall receive” unless he meant that.

    Unfortunately, the reality is that no one can move mountains, and thousands of things will be impossible for you. Not even Jesus moved a mountain. In fact, not one of Jesus’ supposed miracles left any evidence for us to examine today.

    Why would Jesus, who is supposedly the son of God, say, “Love your enemy and pray for those who persecute you, that you may be sons of your Father in heaven,” in Matthew 5:44-45, but then say “Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be damned [to hell]” in Mark 16:16? Why doesn’t Jesus love his enemies? A theologian can explain it, even though the explanation makes absolutely no sense.

    Why does the Bible tell us that we need to murder half of the citizens of the United States? A theologian can explain it, even though the explanation makes absolutely no sense.

    Defend the Word: By Half of united States I assume you make claim that they are all atheists , which is ridiculous, you should brash up on your statistics and if you do, you will find out that Atheism tends to go up and down in USA between 8 to 12% percent and that is nothing like 50%. So again you exaggerate. Atheist themselves are asking for privileges precisely because they are the minority. And did you know that on the global scales you have same results. So despite the fact that you and I live in UK which is predominately atheistic; when you look at the big picture you find that it tells us something different. And one point that you raise where, non Christians who have had to hear the message but refuse to accept the invitation will end up in hell, you complain that God is tyrant, yet if he forced you to go to heaven you would claim he is forcing you to heaven. I would argue that all of those who oppose the God, would still refuse to go to heaven precisely because they hate God. And God is love he never forces himself upon anybody. So no your choice of Biblical text does not justify your outrageous distortion but in fact it clearly shows his caring and loving side and nothing of what you claim.

    misunderstoodranter Why is God a complete sexist in the Bible, and a champion of slavery? A theologian can explain it, even though the explanation makes absolutely no sense.

    Why would an omniscient God write a creation story in the Bible that is acknowleged to be complete nonsense by tens of thousands of clergy members? A theologian can explain it, even though the explanation makes absolutely no sense.

    The reason why you can’t read the Bible yourself, and the reason why only “trained theologians” can “interpret” a book written by God, and the reason why the Bible is actually, concretely incorrect in so many places (despite any interpretation) is because God is not real.

    If God were real, and if God had actually written a book, the book would be brilliant and inspiring. The book would say things that are actually true. Prayer would work as it is actually described by the Bible. People would be left in awe by what they read the Bible. That is what “being perfect” is all about.

    Defend the Word: Yet again you go by your name, you will go on to claim that you are misunderstood when in fact you are very precise on what you say. But let me clarify, there are millions of Christians that believe in the creation story and that includes me. So your argument is not relevant to many Christians but you just don’t like to consider that. Secondly as I said before, you may get incorrect interpretation of the Bible on both sides of the argument. But unless you are in the position of understanding which you clearly are not, as even the best of scientists would not make such ridiculous claim them you are strictly speaking completely unqualified to judge Gods accuracy or his intentions. That is very arrogant on your part and you forget that must sacred of qualities that reasonable people embrace which is to listen and learn. Not simply claiming things that are completely disconnected from reality, have you seen that no miracles have happened? Have you spoken to all the people that have claimed that God had did something for them, I can certainly and have personally shared some of my own experiences with you. But I guess you would rather call me a liar and forget about it then seriously consider what is being shared. So let me summarise, you and your friends are all knowing, all present and have command of time travel therefore you are right in making claims that you do? No I didn’t think so, so may I suggest little bit more honesty and less pretension as that will not lead you to new discoveries only to self glorification which is precisely nowhere.

    I just wish that you would consider this seriously and not treat it as a joke. Otherwise why spend so much of your time, monkeying around, don’t you have better things to do like spend your time with your family, wife and children, this is simply is not consistent with what you are saying and what you are doing.

  10. inpassing says:

    misunderstoodranter: “If God were real, and if God had actually written a book, the book would be brilliant and inspiring.”

    FYI The New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures (King James Version) has been published in over 2,300 Languages and is available to more than 90% of the world’s population. On the average more than a million Bibles are distributed each week!

Comments are closed.