This is part of a series debunking Lee Strobel’s video, “Case for a Creator”. View the rest of the series here:
Part 1
Part 2
Part 3
Part 4
Part 5
Part 6

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-tQ1skMoubg[/youtube]

Starting around 1:50, Meyer claims that all information has an intelligent source. DNA contains information. Therefore, there was an intelligent source for DNA.

The problem is that information DOES NOT need an intelligent source. Information is just data that has been presented to a device capable of processing it, whether it is the human mind, or a few strands of protein. Meyers pointed out three methods humans used to store date: hieroglyphics, text in a book, and computer software. He neglected to mention anything from the physical world: a puddle is evidence that it has recently rained. No intelligence was needed to create a puddle, but it can store the information “It recently rained” in a quite concise format. Depending on the characteristics of the puddle and the environment, one can estimate when it last rained, and how much. One can readily find hundreds of similar, non-intelligent data-stores if one makes an effort to look for them.

Is this sort of information possible in chemistry? Clearly it is: we witness fire, rust, and tarnish – each of these is indicative of the presence of oxygen. The nature if the fire can tell us the type of chemicals burning.

The basic idea that intelligence is required to produce information is soundly refuted, opening the possibility of non-intelligent processes developing DNA information stores.

At 3:00, the pseudo-scientific portion of Strobel’s case comes to a close, non-existent deities are praised, and the narrator sums up.

Strobel clearly fails to make his case: every last one of his conclusions was made either despite significant contrary evidence, or in the absence of any evidence whatsoever.

This is part of a series debunking Lee Strobel’s video, “Case for a Creator”. View the rest of the series here:
Part 1
Part 2
Part 3
Part 4
Part 5
Part 6

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BlQqHgOzMPU[/youtube]

Behe’s is credited as the creator of the Irreducible Complexity argument. He brings up the Bacterial Flagellum as an example – The wikipedia article on Irreducible Complexity (which cites a total of 67 non-wikipedia sources) cites 6 separate documents as evidence that the parts of the flagellum have other purposes within the bacterium. I leave it as an exercise to the reader to discover the various tasks the parts of a flagellum can perform.

The mousetrap argument for irreducible complexity is similarly debunked: A common mousetrap can be reduced to a catch, a spring, a hammer, a holding bar, and a platform. Each of these parts existed long before the modern mousetrap existed, and served numerous roles in other, earlier devices. Not one of these parts was specifically created for the sole purpose of catching mice. All of them were adapted from previous components, and have since been specialized to their current purpose.

At 6:30, the narrator quotes Darwin as he stated the criteria necessary to falsify evolution:

If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down.

As the individual parts of these “irreducibly complex” devices perform functions themselves, it is not only possible but exceedingly likely that these devices could form from these parts and thus be subject to the laws of natural selection.

The fallacy with Behe’s argument can be demonstrated by applying it to ANY complex part of an organism. For example: “Before there was a liver, there was no liver, thus anything that required a liver could not have existed. Therefore the liver and everything that required the liver must have been simultaneously created. ”

Behe himself denies this logic – he is on record in support of evolution, but believes that the earliest organisms must have been created.

At 7:30, we move on to DNA, and discussion with Stephen Meyer. Nothing all that controversial through the end of part 5, just a couple unfounded claims that Evolutionary theory cannot survive the information age.