William Lane Craig calls Michael Behe a theistic evolutionist

_{News
July 31, 2013

Christian Darwinism, News

1}_{Categories
Christian Darwinism
News}

Share: Facebook; Twitter/X; 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

I agree with Mark, that is very helpful, Timaeus. One further unpacking, on the "other" side, of the term "neo-Darwinism", might be of use: It seems to have originally meant the synthesis of genetics with Darwin's theory, and to that extent it is still a reasonable way of describing modern evolutionary theory. However, there has been a recent (and welcome!) shift away from the very gene-based approach taken by the early "neo-Darwinians", towards a much broader approach to heritability, including such concepts as symbiosis; HGT, the evolution of evolvability (Shapiro); neo-Lamarckianism and heritable epigenetic effects; evo-devo and the role of non-coding sequences; population-level evolution, etc, and some of these people (e.g. Margulis, Shapiro, Noble) have rejected "neo-Darwinism" in favour of something closer to "Darwinism". Also the Crick's "Central Dogma" ("DNA makes RNA makes protein") is no longer dogma (dogmas ain't healthy in science). So there are plenty of "Darwinists" who are certainly not "IDists", but who nonetheless have plenty of holes to pick in "neo-Darwinism" as in genes-are-everything. They clearly aren't! Also, I'd say the one thing Darwin really didn't get right was the role of drift. I'd say evolutionary thinking has moved away from extreme adaptionism, to a much a more general formula that says that populations evolve because in heritable variance, and adapt because of heritable variance in reproductive success, the latter resulting in a biased sampling of the former. So there are nuances in the Darwinian position too, I'd say :) As for me, I think that the pattern that IDists are picking up in biology is a very real and interesting pattern, and it signifies something very special. I just don't think it signifies intentional design. It's pretty darn smart though.Elizabeth B Liddle_{August 1, 2013
August
08
Aug
1
01
2013
05:37 AM
5
05
37
AM
PDT}

Hi Gregory, Unsurprisingly, I disagree with your analysis. On the contrary, it demonstrates the kind of hostility to ID I was talking about, are you a theistic evolutionist too? As Timaeus pointed out “the TE insistence on randomness and the TE denial of the possibility of design detection” particularly the latter where “they reject the idea that scientific knowledge (e.g., of molecular biology) could ever point, even indirectly, to a designer” is the bone of contention. From this stems so much hostility that they join forces with atheists to attack ID science. It is a truly unholy alliance. Though I admit, I doubt that all theistic evolutionists doubt the possibility of design detection. Many Theistic Evolutionist must be aware that many of the greatest scientists who ever lived detected God’s design in nature. What’s more important: the question of whether or not God exists or the (technical) question of how God created life on Earth? ID + TE are much more likely to agree on the first question, and there will even be a lot of agreement amongst the more evolution-friendly ID proponents when it comes to the second question. In answer to your question, Gregory, I don’t see YEC as an embarrassment. I don’t agree with it on theological grounds, but I am very open to a young Earth… maybe not as young as the YECs say it is, but far younger than 4.6 billion years old. I also think the theory of evolution is completely wrong, so creation is much more reasonable to me than evolution.Chris Doyle_{August 1, 2013
August
08
Aug
1
01
2013
04:29 AM
4
04
29
AM
PDT}

Timaeus Congratulations on a neat and rather useful summary!Mark Frank_{August 1, 2013
August
08
Aug
1
01
2013
04:27 AM
4
04
27
AM
PDT}

Gregory, did you or did you not promise to never visit UD again not so long ago?bornagain77_{August 1, 2013
August
08
Aug
1
01
2013
03:44 AM
3
03
44
AM
PDT}

"Which raises the question again, why so much hostility to ID, especially if theistic evolutonists fall under the ID banner ultimately?" - Chris Doyle The notion of 'hostility' is a personal projection, Chris. It does not reflect reality, but rather a strange phenomenon called 'Expelled Syndrome,' which holds the delusion that *everyone* is out to get IDists, even fellow Abrahamic believers. It's simply not true. A curious feature of this conversation is that 'theistic evolutionists' are actually not 'evolutionists' in the proper technical sense of the term. Yes, they accept limited 'evolutionary biological theories' as do most normal people. The RCC has already made clear, however, that 'universal evolutionism' is not consistent with Christian faith. The IDM has simply gone overboard with it's pseudo-anti-evolutionary theory and hyper-anti-Darwinism. The history of 'evolution vs. creation' in America also explains why a vast majority of IDists are Protestant evangelicals, many of whom are YECs looking for a more 'scientific' umbrella in the 'strictly scientific' IDT. I'm not really interested in Ken Miller, though he has be vocally against IDism. However, folks like Stephen Barr, Edward Feser, Francis Beckwith (formerly associated with DI), Ted Davis, Randy Isaac, Owen Ginerich, et al. reject IDism openly, calmly and rationally, as 'orthodox' Christians and they are worth listening to. None of these people is 'hostile' to IDists or their IDT; they just think it is an exaggeration ('Revolution Baby!'), and in many cases academically bankrupt. "if theistic evolutonists fall under the ID banner ultimately" They don't, but there are a few IDists who exaggerate their so-called 'big tent' (it is actually quite little, sociologically speaking) and who would therefore like you to believe that. See here for an important distinction that a few unruly IDists at UD don't want you to acknowledge in public or accept in your heart. Their 'theory' (and don't forget that it is supposed to be a 'strictly scientific' theory) actually demands ambiguity and their movement has depended on double-talk (Church-State-Education separation), 'Wedge-oriented' PR tactics and legal strategies. A sprinkling of science in the mix doesn't change this situation. What about you, Chris, do you think YECism is an embarrassment, as does W.L. Craig?Gregory_{August 1, 2013
August
08
Aug
1
01
2013
03:33 AM
3
03
33
AM
PDT}

Timaeus, I know you're trying to be helpful, but you come across as very patronising and uptight. Please modify your tone accordingly. I've been visiting this site for years, I've been following the debate and studying the subject for longer still. I am very comfortable with the terminology. I didn't need your clarification post, though I will take it as well-meaning. Don't forget what the OP was about and why I was commenting in the first place. I refer you to post 1. Then look at post 2 where the idea that anyone, including Behe, who believes that "God could have worked through evolution" is a theistic evolutionist. I then pointed out in post 4 that if an Intelligent Design proponent can be a theistic evolutionist (as post 2 implied) then that would make Matzke and Miller ID proponents too. It turns out I was wrong about Matzke - I thought he was a Christian and a neo-Darwinist. It turns out he is an ex-Christian, now an agnostic and a neo-Darwinist... or an Agnostic Evolutionist. Post 22 was written before I found the quote produced in post 23 and before I had read Julian's link in post 21. I hope that clears things up for you! Incidentally, I disagree with your definition of macroevolution. People more commonly use that term to describe evolutionary change (via NS+RM) from one species to another (as opposed to microevolution which describes evolutionary change (via NS+RM) within the same species). I would argue that Michael Behe is open to, or even accepts, universal common descent: but rejects macroevolution. Anyway, the most important point is this: aside from the fact that theistic evolutionists can be very stubborn when it comes to neo-Darwinism, they nonetheless have much more in common with ID proponents than they do with atheistic evolutionists. What puzzles me the most is why they don't see it that way!Chris Doyle_{August 1, 2013
August
08
Aug
1
01
2013
03:29 AM
3
03
29
AM
PDT}

Chris: Your comments in 22, 23, and 24 above still seem to show some confusion. I think you won't get the most out of this site until you get comfortable with the terminology that is used here, and in these debates generally. Please read the following note carefully, and take it to heart. It will save you, and the rest of us, much time in the future. A. ID ID = intelligent design = the view that the astounding, integrated complexity of biological systems couldn't have arisen purely through chance mutations and natural selection, but required intelligent design ID is *neutral* regarding the fact of "evolution", i.e., ID does not take a side on whether or not evolution happened, but it does say that *if* evolution happened, it was either guided/steered or somehow preprogrammed, not left to chance mutations and natural selection. You *can* be an ID proponent while holding to any of the following distinct and incompatible positions: 1. Macroevolution (common descent of all species from one or a few original forms) 2. Old Earth Creationism (the earth is old, old enough for some evolution to have occurred, but there was special creation of major types of creatures) 3. Young Earth Creationism (the earth is young, and there isn't enough time for anything but modest microevolution to have occurred; most creatures we know were specially created An ID proponent of type 1 is Michael Behe. ID proponents of type 2 are Stephen Meyer and William Dembski. An ID proponent of type 3 is Paul Nelson. B. TE TE = theistic evolution = the view that evolution was God's means of creation. *All* TEs think that God created exclusively through evolution, not through direct acts of creation. So there are *no* TEs of type 2 and 3 above. There is potential overlap between TE and type 1 of ID above. However, most of *today's* TEs (as opposed to the TEs of 100-125 years ago), go further than the generality that God created through evolution. Most of them believe that God created through a neo-Darwinian process in which random mutations are the main generator of new forms. So new forms depend largely upon chance. This means that God used a chancy, iffy method for generating new species. And this is one of the sore points between ID and TE people. The other sore point between ID and TE is that TEs do not believe that God's design in nature is detectable. They reject the idea that scientific knowledge (e.g., of molecular biology) could ever point, even indirectly, to a designer. They think that we can impute design to nature only through faith, based on revelation. So for Michael Behe, nature pretty well shouts "I'm designed, you idiots!" at people who have studied her in any detail, but for Francis Collins, nature is mute, and has nothing to say to us one way or the other about whether or not she was designed -- but we can know she was designed because Jesus tells us so. So while ID and TE have an overlap zone in principle, and *could* overlap today, in practice there is little to no overlap, because of the TE insistence on randomness and the TE denial of the possibility of design detection. The TEs of 100 or so years ago (e.g., Warfield, Asa Gray) were quite different. They believed that God used evolution, not as a chance process but as a directed process, to produce all species, and especially man; and they had no objection at all to inferences of design from the complex organisms which evolution produced. So 100 years ago, Michael Behe would have called himself a TE with a clear conscience; today, he doesn't, because he doesn't agree with the restrictions the modern TEs have put on the concept. The leading modern TEs are: Francis Collins, Darrel Falk, Karl Giberson, Ken Miller, George Murphy, Ted Davis, Simon Conway Morris, Dennis Venema, Denis Lamoureux, Denis Alexander, Loren and Deb Haarsma, Randy Isaac, and several other people associated with either BioLogos or the ASA. The leading ID people are: Michael Behe, Stephen Meyer, Paul Nelson, Jonathan Wells, William Dembski, Richard Sternberg, Michael Denton, John Sanford, Doug Axe, and others associated with the Biologic Institute or the Discovery Institute. Though Michael Behe and Richard Sternberg support macroevolution, the TE people have been mercilessly critical of them, which shows you that to be TE in the modern sense, you must do more than accept evolution: you must accept neo-Darwinism, and you must deny that design in nature is detectable. When William Lane Craig calls Behe a theistic evolutionist, he either does not understand the current nomenclature in these debates, or else he is using an older, common-sense vocabulary, in which you are a theistic evolutionist if you believe God used evolution to create. But the older vocabulary, while reasonable, is confusing to modern readers, who think that TE means the position sketched out by organizations like BioLogos. Behe certainly is not a TE of the BioLogos type. So don't trust Craig's terminology. Matzke, as one who does not believe in God, cannot be a TE. Matzke will, however, not criticize TEs as long as they toe the neo-Darwinian line in biology and continue to mock the idea of detecting design. He will work with people who believe in God, but are against ID, on the old principle: "The enemy of my enemy is my friend." Matzke and the TEs have a common enemy in ID. Does this clarify matters for you?Timaeus_{August 1, 2013
August
08
Aug
1
01
2013
02:44 AM
2
02
44
AM
PDT}

A better link - the jumps straight to the comment highlighted above - is as follows: http://pandasthumb.org/archives/2012/11/god-as-a-superh.html#comment-296197Chris Doyle_{July 31, 2013
July
07
Jul
31
31
2013
11:08 PM
11
11
08
PM
PDT}

Thanks Julian, Okay, that makes more sense now: neo-Darwinism first, then completely agnostic on the question of God. I went back to the Panda's Thumb blog - not a lot of fun, let me tell you - to do some more "research" and then found these comments by Matzke:
The theist claim isn’t that Harry Potter created the universe, it is that some mind-bogglingly stupendous eternal being did it. I don’t find this idea particularly convincing. Like some have pointed out, the evidence is debatable at best. But is it wildly, clearly more rational to say that the universe just happened? If true, this would be equally mind-bogglingly stupendous, in my view... To me, it all looks like a matter of opinion where the evidence is insufficient to reach much of a resolution, and it is likely to always remain so. So I have never seen good grounds for high confidence, strident rhetoric, invocations of scientific authority, etc., on either side. If someone really wants to insist that the scientific method be dragged into such ultimate, cosmic questions, I think that the best scientific position on the theism vs. atheism question is agnosticism."
Which is actually a very fair comment... it would also be a true comment, if Intelligent Design science wasn't so persuasive. Nonetheless, agnosticism is much more respectable than atheism. And, to be fair to Matzke, he does defend religion when all those around him are blaming it for wars and child abuse. Those comments by the way were here: http://pandasthumb.org/archives/2012/11/god-as-a-superh.html#comment-panels The OP they relate to was mostly written by Robert Asher. I saw this guy on BBC1 several months ago now and I was actually very impressed with him. Again, he strikes me as someone who has much more in common with ID proponents than he does with ID opponents. Anyone who believes, or is even open to the possibility that "God could have worked through evolution" cannot fail to be impressed by ID science.Chris Doyle_{July 31, 2013
July
07
Jul
31
31
2013
11:05 PM
11
11
05
PM
PDT}

I checked your link. It was not Nick Matzke who wrote those words, but Richard B. Hoppe.
My mistake, apologies all around. Like I said, it was the dispute between Coyne and Matzke that I was aware of, I couldn't understand the bitterness between them. But I guess if Matzke isn't an atheist after all, he really is a theistic evolutionist or something like it... Which raises the question again, why so much hostility to ID, especially if theistic evolutonists fall under the ID banner ultimately?Chris Doyle_{July 31, 2013
July
07
Jul
31
31
2013
10:21 PM
10
10
21
PM
PDT}

Nick Matzke was raised a Lutheran but now is an agnostic. http://www.sfgate.com/magazine/article/Nick-Matzke-in-the-evolutionist-s-corner-faces-2624853.phpjulianbre_{July 31, 2013
July
07
Jul
31
31
2013
09:46 PM
9
09
46
PM
PDT}

When Behe published the Edge of Evolution, Matzke reviewed it for Panda's Thumb. Here is the link: http://www.pandasthumb.org/archives/2007/10/full-text-of-th.html The lies, tone and how Matzke replies to other commenters is not someone who is religious in any sense of the word that I know of. Behe is probably the most gentlemanly person in this debate and how Matzke treats him in this review says more about Matzke than about Behe or his ideas.jerry_{July 31, 2013
July
07
Jul
31
31
2013
05:50 PM
5
05
50
PM
PDT}

Chris Doyle: I checked your link. It was not Nick Matzke who wrote those words, but Richard B. Hoppe. A little more care in research is recommended. In any case, there is no reason to think that Matzke believes in any God at all. If he did believe in some sort of God, whether Christian or Deist or Jewish or any other, it would make sense for him to announce that belief, to deflect the charge that his hostility to the idea of design springs from atheism. But he's never availed himself of that opportunity -- as far as I know. More specifically, he cannot believe in the Christian God, since Christians are commanded to bear witness to their faith; silence about faith implies, therefore, that one is not Christian. When called an atheist on this site: Matzke replied: "I'm not an atheist." When asked what his religious position was, he would not answer. Assuming Matzke was not lying about not being an atheist, the safest bet is that he an agnostic, and given his general tone and attitude, he falls on the "practical atheist" side in the spectrum of agnostics. (I.e., he does not positively affirm atheism to be the theoretical truth, but lives his life as if God does not exist; i.e., atheism is the default position if proof of God's existence is not provided.) I of course will retract any error in any of this the moment Nick Matzke speaks up and gives us more accurate information about his religious beliefs. As for accommodationism, we can take it that Matzke's position is this: there are theists who imagine (rightly or wrongly) that Darwinian evolution is compatible with theism; atheists can work with theists like that against critics of Darwinian evolution, and the atheists and theists can put aside their religious differences to do so. Thus, unbelievers like Coyne and Scott can and should work together with believers like Ken Miller for the cause of evolution. But the fact that Matzke thinks that such joint efforts are worthwhile does not imply that he thinks there is any merit to Ken Miller's religious beliefs. It merely means that he is willing to remain silent about any disagreements he has with Miller.Timaeus_{July 31, 2013
July
07
Jul
31
31
2013
05:21 PM
5
05
21
PM
PDT}

Is Craig arguing for or against the proposition that Young-Earth Creationism is an Embarrassment?Mung_{July 31, 2013
July
07
Jul
31
31
2013
04:25 PM
4
04
25
PM
PDT}

Chris, An atheist cannot be an IDist (in the sense of a 'positive' case for 'I+D'). IDism actively discriminates against atheists. That's the 'transcendent' part of Dembski's theistic 'quasi-science,' just as it was of Johnson's. "Now I know why he is so hostile towards ID: atheism has a lot to answer for." There are many/most theists who are against IDT. Hostile? Not most. But critically and reasonably against it, yes, of course. [Now watch the subject change to 'Darwinism' - flip to the other side of the 'Wedge'] "theistic evolutionists are ultimately ID proponents too." No, Big-ID scientism is abhorent to traditional Christianity. TE/EC advocates need not be/become 'proponents' of IDism, even if they oftentimes sympathise with their fellow Christians' desire to 'revolutionise' science with Abrahamic theology. The major players have realised this already; the Discovery Institute CSC is a business that cannot bring itself to see or admit this. Know this, Chris: the day the IDM, meaning leaders such as Meyer, Dembski, Behe, West, Wells, Nelson, Axe, et al., openly and publically acknowledge that 'Intelligent Design Theory' is not and cannot be properly thought of as a 'strictly scientific' theory, their game is up. W.L. Craig seems to be well ahead of the IDM on this, apologising as he does, even though he is also a Discovery Institute Fellow just like Behe (Senior Fellow).Gregory_{July 31, 2013
July
07
Jul
31
31
2013
04:16 PM
4
04
16
PM
PDT}

Collins is certainly better known for his contributions to science than Behe. Behe just happens to have gotten swept up in the 'Revolution Baby!' of the 'Intelligent Design Movement.' One might wonder if he calls himself 'comrade' with Meyer, Wells and Nelson as they call themselves martyrs in the name of 'Intelligent Design Theory' (and claim many UDists with them). I imagine Behe is smarter than that, though he is certainly not a philosophical sophisticate. For Behe, as a Roman Catholic Christian, the standard view accepts 'evolutionary theory' as "more than a hypothesis." The notion of 'thousands, not millions of years' thus stinks to him, even if he keeps quiet publically about it. Behe should be better known for speaking out against YECism, like Collins and Craig do than he is so far. Indeed, he should actually do it, the DI's major YEC funding channels be damned for obscurantism. Yes, young earth creationism is an embarassment. Who here doesn't agree? DI people are still generally not ready or courageous enough to say this. But W.L. Craig is and does, credit to him. YEC is "scientifically nonsense" - W.L. Craig Yet the DI isn't concerned, feels no need to take a position on the age of the earth, while out the other side claiming to have a 'revolutionary' new science about life's origins, biological information and even 'human origins'. Go figure! Bait & switch, anyone? Re: "Darwinism is a correct science" as if that is BioLogos' main mission. One word: hogwash. BioLogos has learned from crticism and cleaned up its language. It does not address Darwinism as it used to. Yet 'Darwinism' is still (and likely will be until the American Movement eventually wanes) an IDist grand fetish, without doubt, evangelise that! It is notable that former BioLogos President D. Falk openly denied being a 'Darwinist'. Yet IDists, ready to sling mud at TE/ECs, don't care and didn't accept it. If Denyse O'Leary cared to be fair, perhaps she would reach out to D. & L. Haarsma & BioLogos (Catholics will notice the capital 'L'). C. Crocker has been able to reconcile with ASA. Perhaps News at UD might finally wise-up to how silly and needlessly damaging the phrase 'Christian Darwinists' is. But a positive case for 'BioLogos' as a 'strictly scientific' concept would be as difficult for the BioLogos Foundation to 'prove' as it has been for the IDM to 'prove' Big-ID 'Intelligence + Design' scientifically. In BioLogos' case, at least they are openly dealing with "Science and Faith" and courageously challenging YECism, a scourge in American 'thought.' Qua 'theory,' however, IDists still only admit that ID is really, at the conceptual roots of the coinage of IDT, mainly about 'science & faith' covertly.Gregory_{July 31, 2013
July
07
Jul
31
31
2013
03:53 PM
3
03
53
PM
PDT}

Thanks Johnny, you're right, I missed it. I'll check it out. Cheers.Chris Doyle_{July 31, 2013
July
07
Jul
31
31
2013
03:31 PM
3
03
31
PM
PDT}

Hi Timaeus, I became aware of a row that Matzke had with Coyne, where it appeared that Coyne was insulting Matzke for being an accommodationist. I want back to the link to post it here for reference and then found that although Nick was in favour of accommodationism, he never actually described himself as one. Then I dug a bit deeper and found this:
Because on the ground, where the battles are fought about what is to be taught in public schools (search on ‘Freshwater’ for an example), having the ability to say to the Christians who are the overwhelming majority “There are Christians who accept evolution” or at least accept common descent is politically critical. And I write that as one of the very few out atheists in this conservative rural community...There are times when I’m a gnu, times when I’m an accomodationist politician, and where on that spectrum I fall at any given time is an adaptation to the immediate circumstances. That’s not hypocritical, it’s pragmatic, and pragmatism, not dogmatism, wins political battles.
(My emphasis. Source: http://pandasthumb.org/archives/2010/12/stuck-in-modera.html#more ) So, I was wrong: Matzke is not a theistic evolutionist after all, he's an atheistic evolutionist. Thanks for asking the question, Timaeus: it meant I got my facts right. Now I know why he is so hostile towards ID: atheism has a lot to answer for. It makes you blind to the facts and closes your mind. Oh, and pretend to be something you're not depending on the "immediate circumstances". Shameful stuff.Chris Doyle_{July 31, 2013
July
07
Jul
31
31
2013
03:30 PM
3
03
30
PM
PDT}

Call Behe anything you like. The fact remains that he is a true gentleman and a dedicated researcher. He has earned the admiration he receives.Upright BiPed_{July 31, 2013
July
07
Jul
31
31
2013
03:13 PM
3
03
13
PM
PDT}

Chris - I think you are too new to have seen this, but you might be interested in an old thread we did here titled ID and Common Descent. The comments are very good, too, though there are a lot of them.johnnyb_{July 31, 2013
July
07
Jul
31
31
2013
02:36 PM
2
02
36
PM
PDT}

I believe at one point that Behe said the mechanism for the creation of new forms was a mystery. That is what I personally believe. In the Edge of Evolution Behe refutes that Darwinian processes could be the mechanism. There are several non Darwinian positions held by theists as to the mechanism by which new forms arrived. One was through quantum mechanics. But that seemed to be a cop out.jerry_{July 31, 2013
July
07
Jul
31
31
2013
02:15 PM
2
02
15
PM
PDT}

Chris Doyle: You wrote: "But the likes of Matzke and Miller, who say God did work through evolution" -- Can you please tell me where Nick Matzke says that God worked through evolution? I can imagine Matzke saying, for the sake of argument, that God might have worked through evolution, but I have never seen him make that claim as a statement of his own personal belief. In fact, when asked about his own religious beliefs on this site, he would not answer. Nor have I ever seen a statement of his religious beliefs anywhere else.Timaeus_{July 31, 2013
July
07
Jul
31
31
2013
01:59 PM
1
01
59
PM
PDT}

"I would not disagree with [Bill Nigh] that we ought not to teach our children that the world is only ten thousand years old...With regard to how human life and biological complexity came to be on this planet, I think we need to teach the children the controversy, teach them the various views that are held today..." Com' on, Bill. You are a smart guy. You understand the law of non-contradiction.tragic mishap_{July 31, 2013
July
07
Jul
31
31
2013
01:40 PM
1
01
40
PM
PDT}

"You need first and foremost to do your Biblical hermeneutics responsibly and objectively. You need to not interpret the Bible in light of modern science, but interpret it according to what its original author and its original audience would have understood...The second task will be trying to integrate what we learn from the Bible with the worldview of modern science, so as to have sort of a synoptic worldview that takes into account all that we've learned..." HAHAHAHAHAHA!tragic mishap_{July 31, 2013
July
07
Jul
31
31
2013
01:34 PM
1
01
34
PM
PDT}

Behe states his exact position here at the 126:10, more specific at 128:20, minute mark of this following video: Theistic Evolution - Michael Behe - video https://vimeo.com/69602914 Although they titled the video Theistic Evolution, as you note News, Dr. Behe is about as far from traditional Theistic Evolution, i.e. BioLogos, as can be. As Dr. Behe states in the video: "My life is complicated enough just talking about Intelligent Design without questioning evolution as a whole" - Dr. Michael Behebornagain77_{July 31, 2013
July
07
Jul
31
31
2013
01:17 PM
1
01
17
PM
PDT}

The problem with most so-called theistic evolutionists is that, as noted above, they are really just Darwinists dunked. Behe isn't a Darwinist. He thinks that God could use evolution but that the question must be decided on evidence. That is what makes him poison to Darwin's followers' ears. they know their own weaknesses best. O'Leary for NewsNews_{July 31, 2013
July
07
Jul
31
31
2013
01:04 PM
1
01
04
PM
PDT}

Hi JohnnyB, That makes sense. Behe is a pure and true theistic evolutionist while the rest lack the courage of their convictions. But Behe is definitely an ID proponent and it is not often that we acknowledge that theistic evolutionists are ultimately ID proponents too.Chris Doyle_{July 31, 2013
July
07
Jul
31
31
2013
12:24 PM
12
12
24
PM
PDT}

"God could have worked through evolution", even in the strict neo-Darwinian sense, is entirely compatible with Intelligent Design. But then that would make Nick Matzke and Ken Miller Intelligent Design proponents! When push comes to shove, that's exactly what they are. They just place all the emphasis on minor technical details (to do with the lesser 'how' question) which creates disagreement. But the likes of Matzke and Miller, who say God did work through evolution have much more in common with ID proponents than atheistic evolutionists.Chris Doyle_{July 31, 2013
July
07
Jul
31
31
2013
12:21 PM
12
12
21
PM
PDT}

Chris - Theistic evolution has a bit of a fuzzy definition. Most people who claim to be theistic evolutionists are usually theistic Darwinists (or, even more often, deistic Darwinists). Behe, however, is in fact a theistic evolutionist in the broad sense. He believes in a materialism-based evolution. He believes that the potential for evolution is pre-programmed into the universe via its original configuration at the big bang. Rather than accidents, the mutations that brought life from the beginning to now were part of a plan that was organized and implemented at the moment of creation. What's funny is that most theistic evolutionists try to get their positions to sound like Behe's position, but Behe is the only one who really means it. The other's mean "really Darwinism, and God didn't necessarily know what was going to happen, but we like the concept of God generally, so we think He had something to do with developing evolution." Now, "developing evolution" is a bit of a misnomer, since they often don't think that God created the first life. You don't have evolution without life, so I'm never sure in what way God created evolution if He didn't create the first life. So, all in all, many people claim to be both strong theists and evolutionists, but Behe is one of the few who actually mean that, and not something else.johnnyb_{July 31, 2013
July
07
Jul
31
31
2013
12:17 PM
12
12
17
PM
PDT}

Behe does not accept neo-Darwinism and has openly stood against it, almost alone in his field. He does think common descent a reasonable idea. That would make him a theistic evolutionist in one key sense. God could have worked through evolution. Then the next question is not "All hail Darwin!" but "Did he? How? Evidence?"News_{July 31, 2013
July
07
Jul
31
31
2013
12:13 PM
12
12
13
PM
PDT}

Prev 1 … 3 4 5 6 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply