Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

William Lane Craig calls Michael Behe a theistic evolutionist

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

Here, in a discussion, saying he is better known for theistic evolution than Francis Collins.

Let us hope so. Francis Collins has accommodated Darwinism to the point of founding BioLogos to proclaim to the world that “Darwinism is a correct science.” Despite everything we have heard and read even in the last few months.

Behe, author of Edge of Evolution (the book you should get and read), is a biochemist who first drew attention to the fatuous claims of tenured profs battening on unexamined Darwinism. The latter are often supported by “Christians for Darwin” groups, who don’t get the problem either: Natural selection — a method for killing things—does not result in complex, interlocking, interrelated innovations.

Behe has focused on the issues. He thinks common descent is a reasonable idea. It might not be true, and the giant viruses are making people wonder. But it is a reasonable idea. We are not going to find out what is until we finally get loose from the phantasms of what isn’t, and blow clear of a religiously motivated need to defend them.

Comments
Alan must be off exploring some new niche he hopes to fill.Mung
August 20, 2013
August
08
Aug
20
20
2013
05:05 PM
5
05
05
PM
PDT
Alan Fox:
The evidence is what fascinates me. Almost anywhere you look, you will see some community of creatures filling the niches they stumble across.
ok, so how do I tell whether something is a "niche" or not? Is there niche measuring tool? And how do I tell if some community of creatures has "stumbled across" a "niche" and "filled it"? Sort of like gold prospectors moving to California is it? For some creatures to "stumble across" some "niche" and "fill it" the creatures must first exist. So creatures stumbling across and filling niches is not a mechanism of evolution or even evidence for evolution. This is why so many of us have issues with the "theory." It's proponents are not even capable of explicating it in any coherent manner and when then do they sneak in design through the back door.Mung
August 16, 2013
August
08
Aug
16
16
2013
07:22 PM
7
07
22
PM
PDT
@ Jerry, Re ToE, it's not a question of belief. But it's not an issue if people want to ignore evidence. I know you think there is an ID theory somewhere but, so far, it is proving very elusive.Alan Fox
August 14, 2013
August
08
Aug
14
14
2013
09:28 AM
9
09
28
AM
PDT
I have the title for the book wrt the theory of Intelligent Design (in biology): On the Origins of Species, Molecular Machinery, and Other Biological Discrete Combinatorial Objects by Means of Intelligent Design and Intelligently Designed Evolution The examples for Intelligently Designed Evolution are all the problem-solving GAs and EAs, including Dawkins' "weasel" (Thanks Dick) and artificial selection. So all we have to do is write a fancy narrative around that and we would have ourselves the style of theory evos crave. IDE is directed mutation followed by real selection, as opposed to just the elimination of the deficient. We could take Dr Spetner's starting hypothesis from "Not By Chance", merge it with all the evidence James Shapiro provides in "Evolution: A View from the 21st Century", and our theory would surpass anything the evos could muster. Alan once sed that the alleged theory of evolution could be found by reading several books on the subject. Well Alan, the theory of Intelligent Design could also be discerned the same way. OR you could hold your breath until the unifying book comes out. Just look for the title (above)...Joe
August 14, 2013
August
08
Aug
14
14
2013
09:07 AM
9
09
07
AM
PDT
If it’s a good theory, fits the facts well, it can stand the criticismand the critic will learn something in the process.
Absolutely true, I have learned a great deal since being introduced to this controversy. What I have learned is that Darwinism and all its variants does not fit the facts let alone fit the facts well. It has not been able to answer the criticism thrown against it. And as I said it has been a great learning experience.
But there is no theory of “Intelligent Design” for us to analyse or test for weaknesses.
But the diverting all the time to whether there is a good theory of intelligent design is an admission that the so called theory of evolution is not even a good working hypothesis. No one would spend a nano second on some other theory if one had a good theory of their own. Intelligent design can be a lot of things, one is an independent theory or it can just be a conclusion in the normal science of any discipline. Within the discipline of evolutionary biology, intelligent design is just a conclusion, one that has more support than any competing explanation. Is is absolute? No. But it is a conclusion with lots of good support. I suggest a different tack. Trying offering support for what you believe rather than focusing on the beliefs of others.jerry
August 14, 2013
August
08
Aug
14
14
2013
08:29 AM
8
08
29
AM
PDT
Alan Fox:
I’m pleased that people try and pick apart the theory of evolution.
What theory? It's easy to pick apart evolutionism, Alan. But there is no "theory" of unguided evolution, Alan. There aren't any testable hypotheses nor any predictions borne from unguided evolution. Ya see Alan, your trope may fly on pro-evo sites but here we all know better. In a world where leading by example is the best way to make your case, it is strange that evos refuse to take that tact and just hand-wave away IDists when we do lead by example. You're a pathetic little person Alan.Joe
August 14, 2013
August
08
Aug
14
14
2013
07:53 AM
7
07
53
AM
PDT
Oops criticism [space] andAlan Fox
August 14, 2013
August
08
Aug
14
14
2013
07:25 AM
7
07
25
AM
PDT
No one who is pro Darwinism in any of its forms can provide evidence to support it and the ID people politely point this out. And for that they are called IDiots by those who cannot provide the evidence.
I'm pleased that people try and pick apart the theory of evolution. If it's a good theory, fits the facts well, it can stand the criticismand the critic will learn something in the process. If ToE is wrong, then it needs to be rejected or corrected. But there is no theory of "Intelligent Design" for us to analyse or test for weaknesses. That is what would get ID off the ground. Some theory or hypothesis.Alan Fox
August 14, 2013
August
08
Aug
14
14
2013
07:24 AM
7
07
24
AM
PDT
Pro-ID people, the ultimate skeptics in the evolution debate. From above:
Sceptics ask what is the supporting evidence for those positions.
No one who is pro Darwinism in any of its forms can provide evidence to support it and the ID people politely point this out. And for that they are called IDiots by those who cannot provide the evidence.jerry
August 14, 2013
August
08
Aug
14
14
2013
06:37 AM
6
06
37
AM
PDT
Alan is as clueless as ever:
On the other hand, “Intelligent Design” is supposed to be a theory presenting an alternative explanation for life’s diversity.
Alternative to what, exactly?
There is supposed to be at least one testable hypothesis according to some who post on this site.
There are more than one, Alan. Hpwever all you ecver do is choke on them, so what is the point? Ya see Alan, until you produce testable hypotheses for your position- ya know so we can compare- you are just a willfully ignorant punk on an agenda. With regard to unguided evolution the knots people tie themselves into trying to reconcile the irreconcilable can be painful (and, yes, funny) to watch. BTW Alan, anyone who accepts unguided evolution is NOT a skeptic- and that includes you.Joe
August 14, 2013
August
08
Aug
14
14
2013
04:15 AM
4
04
15
AM
PDT
Alan is intelligent enough to know there’s no evidence for his position, which is why you will never see him arguing for it.
I think this is the essence of the difference between those who think ID is a good idea and those who are not convinced. ID supporters seem to argue for positions. Sceptics ask what is the supporting evidence for those positions. Mung suggests I don't argue for, say, the theory of evolution as an explanation for the diversity of extant and extinct life that we find on Earth. Well, indeed, I don't waste much time on it. The evidence is what fascinates me. Almost anywhere you look, you will see some community of creatures filling the niches they stumble across. When someone prefers a religious argument to the evidence of their own eyes, I doubt that pointing out the evidence and then suggesting ways how various organisms ended up in their particular niches while other organisms became extinct is going to make much impression with those who seem to specialise in ignoring evidence they don't like. And, anyway, we are should be free to think our own thoughts. On the other hand, "Intelligent Design" is supposed to be a theory presenting an alternative explanation for life's diversity. There is supposed to be at least one testable hypothesis according to some who post on this site. To date, however, I have seen no summary, text or link to any such theory or hypothesis. Why, if such things exist, is it so hard to demonstrate them. With regard to YEC, the knots people tie themselves into trying to reconcile the irreconcilable can be painful (and, yes, funny) to watch. It seems even the silver-tongued Lane-Craig can't argue for a six thousand year old Earth.Alan Fox
August 14, 2013
August
08
Aug
14
14
2013
12:37 AM
12
12
37
AM
PDT
I ask again, is Craig arguing for or against the proposition that Young-Earth Creationism is an Embarrassment?
Listen to the video. He is arguing for the proposition. He says the young earth proposition is not good science. Start at 1:10 into the video. He thinks that by taking the young earth position one is actually undermining the bible. He is also arguing against the Darwinian process. He is also challenging Francis Collins. He is also arguing that the actual creation story is not an exact science or known story and a particular story is not something that is necessary to believe for a Christian. He thinks all the sides should be taught including the Neo Darwinian story. There is nothing to fear in teach Darwinism. It sounds by doing that one will see it is nonsense (my interpretation of what he is saying.) The whole video is an argument against YEC but wants to include them in the big tent.jerry
August 8, 2013
August
08
Aug
8
08
2013
06:06 AM
6
06
06
AM
PDT
I ask again, is Craig arguing for or against the proposition that Young-Earth Creationism is an Embarrassment?Mung
August 7, 2013
August
08
Aug
7
07
2013
07:55 PM
7
07
55
PM
PDT
Hi Joe, I think we need to distinguish between moron and troll. Alan is intelligent enough to know there's no evidence for his position, which is why you will never see him arguing for it.Mung
August 7, 2013
August
08
Aug
7
07
2013
07:54 PM
7
07
54
PM
PDT
Ah! When is A not A. Depends where you draw the boundary.
Essentially this is rule by fiat. Or power makes right. It is not the expression of free ideas. I grant you that modern science and modern scientists are not into the free expression of ideas any more than some 15/16th century monarchs were. But here we do not have any facade of the divine right of kings. We have just brute power through control of the purse strings. Which is very similar to how those monarchs practiced their divine rights.jerry
August 7, 2013
August
08
Aug
7
07
2013
06:02 AM
6
06
02
AM
PDT
Alan Fox:
Until somebody can come up with a workable hypothesis that is more than “Theory A does not explain B therefore ID” a design inference is not warranted.
Only a moron would think that is what is happening- and here we have Alan.
Any theory or hypothesis must stand on its own merits.
Evolutionism doesn't.
For ToE? Fits the evidence quite well.
There isn't any "ToE" and evolutionism doesn't have any merits. Alan is lying.Joe
August 7, 2013
August
08
Aug
7
07
2013
05:40 AM
5
05
40
AM
PDT
Logically derived from confirmable evidence, evolution is understood to be the result of an unguided, unplanned process of random variation and natural selection. (Emphasis mine – VJT)
That’s “Darwinism,” in a nutshell.
It's a reasonable summary, agreed.
But it’s not science.
Ah! When is A not A. Depends where you draw the boundary.
And it has nothing to do with whether the design inference is warranted or not.
Until somebody can come up with a workable hypothesis that is more than "Theory A does not explain B therefore ID" a design inference is not warranted. Any theory or hypothesis must stand on its own merits. The Sherlock Holmes default argument cannot deal with explanations you haven't thought of.
The assertion must stand or fall on its own merits.
Well, of course! Evidence is key to science.
The merits are?
For ToE? Fits the evidence quite well. For ID? As there is no theory it fits any evidence equally well.Alan Fox
August 7, 2013
August
08
Aug
7
07
2013
02:21 AM
2
02
21
AM
PDT
KN @ 132
I mean, c’mon people!, is it really so hard to be clear about what the debate is even about?
Yes, apparently. I think the difficulty arises from the facts of evolution and the theories that attempt to explain those facts and make further testable hypotheses on the one hand and an unqualified default assertion that "design is the best explanation" without telling us what that explanation is or how it works on the other. I assert that it is impossible to present us with a theory of "Intelligent Design" because no such theory exists. Much time and energy is expended on claims about the efficacy of evolutionary explanations and the quality of the evidence that support them. There seems little effort expended in advancing ID theory to the level of even having a working hypothesis.Alan Fox
August 7, 2013
August
08
Aug
7
07
2013
02:09 AM
2
02
09
AM
PDT
Kantian Naturalist:
I would hope that it would be perfectly clear that the relevant question is not “is there a Designer or not?” but rather “is the design inference warranted from the available biological facts?”
Well, you'd be wrong. :) It's not perfectly clear. KN:
All that “Darwinism” (loosely and broadly construed) is committed to is that there is insufficient evidence for positing an intelligent designer for explaining available, observable biological facts
Let me quote again from VJ Torley's recent (and oh so timely) post:
Logically derived from confirmable evidence, evolution is understood to be the result of an unguided, unplanned process of random variation and natural selection. (Emphasis mine – VJT)
That's "Darwinism," in a nutshell. But it's not science. And it has nothing to do with whether the design inference is warranted or not. The assertion must stand or fall on its own merits. The merits are?Mung
August 6, 2013
August
08
Aug
6
06
2013
09:10 PM
9
09
10
PM
PDT
Having been round and round the question of "Darwinism" and "Intelligent Design" numerous times, I would hope that it would be perfectly clear that the relevant question is not "is there a Designer or not?" but rather "is the design inference warranted from the available biological facts?" All that "Darwinism" (loosely and broadly construed) is committed to is that there is insufficient evidence for positing an intelligent designer for explaining available, observable biological facts; "design theory" (loosely and broadly construed) holds that an intelligent designer is the best explanation for those facts. I mean, c'mon people!, is it really so hard to be clear about what the debate is even about? Sheesh!Kantian Naturalist
August 6, 2013
August
08
Aug
6
06
2013
07:11 PM
7
07
11
PM
PDT
Once again Lizzie proves that she is clueless.
Not clueless Joe. Factless. Willfully blind. She chooses to believe as she does. As vjt was so timely in reminding us:
... evolution is understood to be the result of an unguided, unplanned process ...
Even keiths agrees and argues that position vociferously (with no supporting science), over at Elizabeth's own blog. Never hear a peep from her when he does so.Mung
August 6, 2013
August
08
Aug
6
06
2013
06:48 PM
6
06
48
PM
PDT
F/N: That oh so inconvenient October 13th, 1880 letter to Edward Bibbins Aveling, by Darwin, again:
. . . though I am a strong advocate for free thought [--> NB: free-thought is an old synonym for skepticism, agnosticism or atheism] on all subjects, yet it appears to me (whether rightly or wrongly) that direct arguments against christianity & theism produce hardly any effect on the public; & freedom of thought is best promoted by the gradual illumination of men’s minds, which follows from the advance of science. It has, therefore, been always my object to avoid writing on religion, & I have confined myself to science. I may, however, have been unduly biassed by the pain which it would give some members of my family [--> NB: especially his wife, Emma], if I aided in any way direct attacks on religion.
This letter makes it utterly clear that a key background motive for Darwin's theorising on origins science was to put God out of a job, thus indirectly undermining the plausibility of believing in God. In thinking and acting like this, he probably believed that he was championing enlightenment and science-led progress in their path to victory over backward, irrational but emotionally clung-to beliefs. And so his strategy was to lead in a science that was in his mind showing just how outdated and ill-founded the Judaeo-Christian theism that had dominated the West since Constantine in the 300's was. Others, such as Huxley, would carry forward the debating in public, but the intent could not be plainer. But, now that we know the world of life is based on FSCO/I, not plausible for blind chance and necessity, and also now that we see the fine tuning of the cosmos for life, a very different picture from blind mechanisms working by chance and mechanical necessity emerges. KFkairosfocus
August 5, 2013
August
08
Aug
5
05
2013
06:21 AM
6
06
21
AM
PDT
Darwinism is the claim that nature didit without a designer. That is according to Darwin, Mayr, Dawkins, Simpson, Coyne, et al. IOW it does claim that goddidntdoit. Once again Lizzie proves that she is clueless.Joe
August 5, 2013
August
08
Aug
5
05
2013
04:07 AM
4
04
07
AM
PDT
Mung:
And if Darwinism is the claim that goddidntdoit
It isn't. hth.Elizabeth B Liddle
August 5, 2013
August
08
Aug
5
05
2013
02:51 AM
2
02
51
AM
PDT
WJM: I remarked in outline on the relevant history. Nazism did not mysteriously come out of nothing, nowhere for no reason. Indeed, this is what a perceptive man, Heine, had to say a full century before the event, on reflecting on dangerous, skepticism rooted philosophical-theological trends in German culture:
Christianity — and that is its greatest merit — has somewhat mitigated that brutal German love of war [--> notice the cultural reference], but it could not destroy it. Should that subduing talisman, the cross, be shattered [--> the Swastika, visually, is a twisted, broken cross . . .], the frenzied madness of the ancient warriors, that insane Berserk rage of which Nordic bards have spoken and sung so often, will once more burst into flame [--> culture, history and trends, through a metaphor]. … The old stone gods will then rise from long ruins and rub the dust of a thousand years from their eyes, and Thor will leap to life with his giant hammer and smash the Gothic cathedrals. [--> Do I need to elaborate on Nazism's fascination with nordic paganism, using Wagner's cycle, onwards? IIRC, C S Lewis commented in response to Nazism on the death of the gods, that here we have a theology of fighting for the right knowing it to be doomed, just because it is the right, where of course CSL had a great deal of respect for how nordic pagan myths were a providential means of awakening him to the strange unappeasable Joy of longing [the German term is Sehnsucht] that could not be satisfied on earth, showing us made for more than earth. The Wiki article says this:
Sehnsucht took on a particular significance in the work of author C. S. Lewis. Lewis described Sehnsucht as the "inconsolable longing" in the human heart for "we know not what." In the afterword to the third edition of The Pilgrim's Regress he provided examples of what sparked this desire in him particularly:
That unnameable something, desire for which pierces us like a rapier at the smell of bonfire, the sound of wild ducks flying overhead, the title of The Well at the World's End, the opening lines of "Kubla Khan", the morning cobwebs in late summer, or the noise of falling waves.[4]
Because the concept of Sehnsucht is so important in Lewis' writing, the Arizona C. S. Lewis Society titled their annual journal Sehnsucht: The C. S. Lewis Journal. The German poet Siegfried August Mahlmann published a poem titled Sehnsucht in 1802.
] … … Do not smile at my advice — the advice of a dreamer who warns you against Kantians, Fichteans, and philosophers of nature. Do not smile at the visionary who anticipates the same revolution in the realm of the visible as has taken place in the spiritual. Thought precedes action as lightning precedes thunder. German thunder … comes rolling somewhat slowly, but … its crash … will be unlike anything before in the history of the world. … At that uproar the eagles of the air will drop dead [--> cf. air warfare, symbol of the USA], and lions in farthest Africa [--> the lion is a key symbol of Britain, cf. also the North African campaigns] will draw in their tails and slink away. … A play will be performed in Germany which will make the French Revolution look like an innocent idyll. [Religion and Philosophy in Germany, 1831.]
He had it dead right, 100 years before the fact. That should tell us, this did not come from nowhere, but rather that the trends in Schaeffer's Line of Despair spoke truly, in ways that should warn us today. (Cf here on.) And, the relevance of this specific remark was already being publicly commented on in the aftermath of the invasion and despoliation of Belgium in 1914, starting with the burning of the university library at Louvain, retaliatory killings and the like, which BTW also went on to include retaliatory mass killings, rape, and forced transportation of workers to Germany etc. I can point to even earlier events in Namibia, as well. Nor, should we allow rhetorical barking and growling to distract us from this in Ch 6 of Darwin's Descent of Man:
Man is liable to numerous, slight, and diversified variations, which are induced by the same general causes, are governed and transmitted in accordance with the same general laws, as in the lower animals. Man has multiplied so rapidly, that he has necessarily been exposed to struggle for existence, and consequently to natural selection. He has given rise to many races, some of which differ so much from each other, that they have often been ranked by naturalists as distinct species . . . . At some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilised races of man will almost certainly exterminate, and replace, the savage races throughout the world. At the same time the anthropomorphous apes, as Professor Schaaffhausen has remarked, will no doubt be exterminated. The break between man and his nearest allies will then be wider, for it will intervene between man in a more civilised state, as we may hope, even than the Caucasian, and some ape as low as a baboon, instead of as now between the negro or Australian and the gorilla.
And yes, yelping over his aversion to slavery etc notwithstanding, he then cooly went on to his next point, seemingly failing to see the major moral hazard he exposed here. By contrast, in War of the Worlds, Wells highlighted this problem, transposing to fictional Martians and an invasion of England. This problem, then, did not come out of nowhere from nothing. Lines of cultural and intellectual influence can be clearly seen. Let us take due warning. KFkairosfocus
August 5, 2013
August
08
Aug
5
05
2013
01:16 AM
1
01
16
AM
PDT
It seems a long, contrived way to go to avoid accepting that absolute truths exist. You will never imagine, see, or experience a 4-sided triangle. That is absolute. Torturing children for fun is never right, for anyone, in any culture. If there is a "conceptual framework" that holds such activity to be moral, it is an incorrect conceptual framework. There's only one way that self-evidently true (in the absolute sense) moral statements exist - and that's under theism. You just can't get it out of naturalism or materialism. All you are left with is trying to hide utter moral relativism nihilism from yourself via intellectual self-deceits.William J Murray
August 4, 2013
August
08
Aug
4
04
2013
10:10 PM
10
10
10
PM
PDT
By my lights, a conceptual framework according to which it is not wrong to torture people would be a framework that we cannot understand as being about morality.
What does "by my lights" mean? If it means "in your opinion, by your particular beliefs", then all you're doing is evading the question and hoping I don't notice. The question wasn't in regards to how you personally organize your view of morality, but about how you have explained morality in general in terms of being dependent on conceptual frameworks. Thus, whether "by your lights" or not, IF there was a conceptual framework where torturing children for pleasure was moral, and THEY understood it as such, then by your defiition of morality and what its basis is, torturing children for fun would be as moral, for them, as anything else is for anyone else. Also, are you saying that there has been no culture that considered torture moral? Surely you know you're wrong about that.
So here we have a conundrum — a society that is astonishingly similar to ours rapidly invents a ‘moral’ code that we today are unable to comprehend as being about morality at all.
What conundrum? Under your pragmatic, relative conceptual framework explanation of morality, for one culture it is moral to annihilate a whole group of people, and for another, it is immoral to do so, simply because their conceptual framework are different. It's only a "conundrum" if one requires that "annihilating a whole race or ethnic group" be immoral for all conceptual frameworks - which contradicts the whole premise that morality is something that emerges from "conceptual frameworks". Or are you claiming that some conceptual frameworks are true, and produce sets of acceptable moralities, while others are false, and produce unacceptable moralities?William J Murray
August 4, 2013
August
08
Aug
4
04
2013
10:03 PM
10
10
03
PM
PDT
Elizabeth Liddle: I think he is saying that if God is responsible for the entire universe, it is bootless to attempt to distinguish god-made things from non-god-made things. Have you not heard that this is my own position? Except I'd have not bothered with the lower case g's. But what makes you think ID is about distinguishing God-made from not God-made? And if Darwinism is the claim that goddidntdoit, as keiths so often reminds us, why would McCabe think such a view is scientific?Mung
August 4, 2013
August
08
Aug
4
04
2013
05:34 PM
5
05
34
PM
PDT
I do so love the truth. I crave it. I desire it. I miss it when it's absent. I fight for it. It's so refreshing. More please.Mung
August 4, 2013
August
08
Aug
4
04
2013
05:30 PM
5
05
30
PM
PDT
“I’m rather addle-headed right now.” – Elizabeth Liddle Elizabeth Liddle:
You really like that quote, don’t you, Mung?
It's not the quote that I like so much Elizabeth, it's the sheer unadulterated HONESTY of it. For someone who has been around you as long as I have, it's such a welcome spot of light. The TRUTH, for once.Mung
August 4, 2013
August
08
Aug
4
04
2013
05:27 PM
5
05
27
PM
PDT
1 2 3 6

Leave a Reply