At Evolution News: Behe Debates the Limits of Darwinian Evolution

_{Eric Hedin

August 31, 2022

Evolution, Intelligent Design}

Share: Facebook; Twitter; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

Connecting with an earlier post at UD, Michael Behe speaks to the limits of naturalism and when a “designing intelligence” is needed.

A new ID the Future episode wraps up a debate over evolution and intelligent design between Lehigh University biologist Michael Behe and Benedictine College theologian Michael Ramage. Both Behe and Ramage are Catholic, and they carry on their conversation in the context of Catholic thinking about nature and creation, in particular the work of Thomas Aquinas and contemporary Thomist philosophers. Ramage seeks to integrate his Thomistic/personalist framework with modern evolutionary theory’s commitment to macroevolution and common descent. Behe doesn’t discount the possibility of common descent but he lays out a case that any evolution beyond the level of genus — for instance, the separate families containing cats and dogs — cannot be achieved through mindless Darwinian mechanisms and, instead, would require the contributions of a designing intelligence. Behe summarizes both the negative evidence against the Darwinian mechanism of change and the positive evidence in nature for intelligent design. This debate was hosted by Pat Flynn on his Philosophy for the People podcast. Download the episode or listen to it here.
Evolution News

Comments

VL at 104, Please make up your mind. On Question 1. The words theology and theological do not apply - at all. The Catholic Church provides an accurate and true description of how God works in the development of life on earth. On Question 2. What I just stated is not a starting point but the whole point. Richard Dawkins, whose words are worshiped by some, stated that given enough time, anything is possible. That is Dawkins kicking God out of the picture and replacing the ACTUAL work of God with time and chance events, which, according to him and Biology textbooks, is all that is needed to create human beings and all living things.relatd_{September 5, 2022
September
09
Sep
5
05
2022
11:25 AM
11
11
25
AM
PDT}

Relatd writes, "There is no such thing as atheist evolution where God pops in on occasion to make a few adjustments." That makes no sense. Atheists don't believe in a God, so obviously they don't think a God "pops in" ever. But, if you are continuing our conversation from last night, we aren't talking about "atheist evolution", but rather about TE. Question 1: do you think the Catholic theology described in the quote you posted at 56 is a defensible and reasonable theological understanding about God's presence in the world? Question 2. if so, do you think it can be a foundation for understanding how God “guides evolution”: that is, how God has directed the development of life on earth since the beginning?Viola Lee_{September 5, 2022
September
09
Sep
5
05
2022
11:16 AM
11
11
16
AM
PDT}

OK. Here we go. There is no such thing as atheist evolution where God pops in on occasion to make a few adjustments. There is God Guided Creation where God works infallibly in a process that is little defined. What I can say for certain is this: I saw two birds on a TV program. They lived in the same area. They both had highly specialized beaks. One beak was used to get nectar out of flowers, the other was used to dig grubs out of wood. It was OBVIOUS that they were both given infused knowledge. Atheist evolution would have you believe that these beaks developed in small steps over time. They would have starved to death if that was true. So atheist evolution is right out.relatd_{September 5, 2022
September
09
Sep
5
05
2022
10:57 AM
10
10
57
AM
PDT}

You think all of the existing and extinct species just popped into existence at that same time?
Same time. Except life was engineered not "popped" from under a rock.Lieutenant Commander Data_{September 5, 2022
September
09
Sep
5
05
2022
10:51 AM
10
10
51
AM
PDT}

Cd at 92, Put another sock in it.relatd_{September 5, 2022
September
09
Sep
5
05
2022
10:29 AM
10
10
29
AM
PDT}

LtComData: What various times? All strata have the same age Children can do this experiment and draw the corect conclusion but “smart” people are not able . Um . . . you think all of the existing and extinct species just popped into existence at that same time? If I've got that wrong then please elucidate.JVL_{September 5, 2022
September
09
Sep
5
05
2022
10:18 AM
10
10
18
AM
PDT}

So presumably you think species just pop into existence at various times?
:lol: What various times? All strata have the same age Children can do this experiment and draw the corect conclusion but "smart" people are not able .Lieutenant Commander Data_{September 5, 2022
September
09
Sep
5
05
2022
10:15 AM
10
10
15
AM
PDT}

Jerry: There aren’t any. Thanks for taking the time to reply. Darwinian processes only work on a genome or the modern day science of genetics. But no one has shown how it can go past genetics which it must to build anything really new. When a lifeforms is growing/maturing (in most forms from a collection of few or even one cell) as the cells replicate control genes turn on and off different functional sections which produce different proteins. So, changing the control genes can change when certain proteins are synthesised which can lead to changes in morphology. Roughly.JVL_{September 5, 2022
September
09
Sep
5
05
2022
10:14 AM
10
10
14
AM
PDT}

I was hoping you might give an example of an unguided explanation or argument that was particularly good and couldn’t just be dismissed but I can see I didn’t really phrase the question well.
There aren’t any. The best there is so far is exaptation. But that falls far short. And then there is the body plan dilemma.
Isn’t it all ‘at the genetic level’?
Yes. Darwinian processes only work on a genome or the modern day science of genetics. But no one has shown how it can go past genetics which it must to build anything really new.jerry_{September 5, 2022
September
09
Sep
5
05
2022
10:00 AM
10
10
00
AM
PDT}

Jerry: The issue is two fold. By far the most important issue for those who believe in naturalized Evolution is the origin of proteins. How did they arise? I have never seen how adaptation leads to new proteins. An important step for sure. The second is that for any meaningful change to happen several (sometimes hundreds or thousands) proteins are necessary. How did these proteins get together once they have been formed? Where were they in the meantime? I think there is a partial/possible answer to that . . . let me have a think. Behe has shown that micro evolution happens using Darwinian processes but only at the genetic level. Isn't it all 'at the genetic level'? Actually, I was hoping you might give an example of an unguided explanation or argument that was particularly good and couldn't just be dismissed but I can see I didn't really phrase the question well.JVL_{September 5, 2022
September
09
Sep
5
05
2022
09:43 AM
9
09
43
AM
PDT}

I’m not asking in order to berate you or make fun of your view
I have no problem with defending my views. I continually ask questions and put forth ideas that I believe are logical and supported by the evidence. So I am looking for criticism that is honest and stands up. But I usually don’t answer inane or disingenuous remarks unless they can be used to make a point or ask a question.
Is there one particular argument of unguided evolutionary theory you consider at least worthy of consideration? One you think actually needs to be addressed rather than just dismissed?
Yes and no. The issue is two fold. By far the most important issue for those who believe in naturalized Evolution is the origin of proteins. How did they arise? I have never seen how adaptation leads to new proteins. That is why Gould introduced the concept of exaptation into Evolution. Exaptation can theoretically work but so far no one is making a big case for it. There are too many probabilistic hurdles to surmount. The second is that for any meaningful change to happen several (sometimes hundreds or thousands) proteins are necessary. How did these proteins get together once they have been formed? Where were they in the meantime? ———————- Behe has shown that micro evolution happens using Darwinian processes but only at the genetic level. Or most new species are just the rearranging of allele distribution or the devolving or elimination of alleles. This can form new genera which as indicated above may be an illusion that something new has formed. Easiest example are the Galapagos finches which all can inter breed and questions just what does it mean to be a different species. But again this is trivial in the Evolution debate. If anything has developed beyond the genus level it is checkable by DNA analysis at the family level and above. See my link (#10) above which I continually make. I suggest using bovidae but there are plenty of other families that could be used. For example, canid and felidae would be interesting. Then there is the final hurdle of how doesn’t gestation happen. No one knows. It is here that something new would have to happen. It is unlikely to be in the genome and if there not in coding DNA. Yet all the theories for naturalized Evolution is coding DNA based. So are they non-sequiturs from the start?jerry_{September 5, 2022
September
09
Sep
5
05
2022
09:37 AM
9
09
37
AM
PDT}

LtComData: Without species there is no natural selection so species come first then natural selection happens So presumably you think species just pop into existence at various times? (Not saying how that happens but to an observer they just appear.) Enough of them to form a viable population . . . when the climate is okay and there's stuff for them to eat . . . yeah?JVL_{September 5, 2022
September
09
Sep
5
05
2022
07:45 AM
7
07
45
AM
PDT}

natural selection can form species.
:lol: Without species there is no natural selection so species come first then natural selection happens. To have a horse race(natural selection) you need horses first but somehow you think that horse races create horses .Lieutenant Commander Data_{September 5, 2022
September
09
Sep
5
05
2022
07:34 AM
7
07
34
AM
PDT}

Those bloody Papists, always screwing with the stew. It gets really convoluted when the Papists are also IDers. That's like mixing water and oil. The paradox is amusing. Catholics are required to believe in the trinitarian version of the God of Abraham, then they can believe whatever they want about evolution. IDers, on the other hand are required to reject the theory of evolution but can believe in any God they want, or no God at all, as long as that no-God is an immaterial "intelligent designer." How this second alternative works is beyond me. The point in this OP (and reinforced by Jerry), however, is that Behe, irrespective of his personal religious beliefs, concedes that natural selection can form species. And that's all that Darwin said....chuckdarwin_{September 5, 2022
September
09
Sep
5
05
2022
07:03 AM
7
07
03
AM
PDT}

Jerry: Not sure where to put this comment really . . . You are frequently critical of arguments and statements made by everyone at UD; in fact you seem to be pretty objective that way. And perhaps you've already addressed my question but . . . Is there one particular argument of unguided evolutionary theory you consider at least worthy of consideration? One you think actually needs to be addressed rather than just dismissed? I'm not asking in order to berate you or make fun of your view; I'm just really curious as to how you view the current state of the general debate. Thanks. I hope.JVL_{September 5, 2022
September
09
Sep
5
05
2022
06:27 AM
6
06
27
AM
PDT}

From the first comment
Guaranteed it will be ignored except for supercilious comments
This discussion has so much to offer but as advertised, nonsense has been the result. Aside: relevant to theistic evolutionist - From an article written by John West on theistic religion.
Defining “Theistic Evolution” Theistic evolution can mean many things, including a form of guided evolution, but many contemporary proponents of theistic evolution are more accurately described as theistic Darwinists. That is, they do not merely advocate a guided form of common descent, but they are attempting to combine evolution as an undirected Darwinian process with Christian theism. Although they believe in God, they strenuously want to avoid stating that God actually guided biological development. For example, Anglican John Polkinghorne wrote that “an evolutionary universe is theologically understood as a creation allowed to make itself.” Former Vatican astronomer George Coyne (a Catholic) claimed that because evolution is unguided “not even God could know… with certainty” that “human life would come to be.” And Christian biologist Kenneth Miller (who I believe claims to be a Catholic) of Brown University, author of the popular book Finding Darwin’s God (which is used in many Christian colleges), insists that evolution is an undirected process, flatly denying that God guided the evolutionary process to achieve any particular result — including the development of us. Indeed, Miller insists that “mankind’s appearance on this planet was not preordained, that we are here… as an afterthought, a minor detail, a happenstance in a history that might just as well have left us out.”
https://evolutionnews.org/2021/10/c-s-lewis-and-theistic-evolution/ This discussion in OP by three Catholics has much to offer for understanding ID but theistic evolutionist or a so called Catholic position is at best a side show. Catholics are a major part of ID. For example Denyse is a Catholic. But Catholics are a major force against ID. Also by a Catholic - Jay Richards if one is interested
Is Theistic Evolution a Viable Option for Christians?” In Comprehensive Guide to Science and Faith
https://www.amazon.com/Comprehensive-Guide-Science-Faith-Exploring/dp/0736977147 Again not what the discussion in OP is mainly about. The science supporting IDjerry_{September 5, 2022
September
09
Sep
5
05
2022
04:20 AM
4
04
20
AM
PDT}

You ask, “Where does nature act on its own and when does God act? That is the issue.” TE does not make that distinction. God’s action is throughout all of existence, both in those things that happen by necessity and those that happen through contingency. Nature never “acts on its own”. TE doesn’t claim that “nature can do whatever it wants. God’s providences is always active.That’s what your quote in 56 says, and it is what TE’s believe. Why do you think TE makes a distinction between the “nature acting on its own” and “God acting”. Perhaps you could describe your understanding on what TE claims.Viola Lee_{September 4, 2022
September
09
Sep
4
04
2022
06:03 PM
6
06
03
PM
PDT}

VL at 87, You are? Then why do you mention TE? Where does "natural evolution" fit in? Where does nature act on its own and when does God act? That is the issue. I don't want to confuse readers by saying Theistic Evolution allows "nature" to do whatever it wants. That's atheist evolution. Do you understand?relatd_{September 4, 2022
September
09
Sep
4
04
2022
05:28 PM
5
05
28
PM
PDT}

I'm confused: You posted a good statement at 56 that I say expresses the TE position well. Isn't that a clear statement? As I said, its fine if you think I'm wrong about what TE is and/or don't want to discuss it any more. But I don't understand when you say "I literally do not know what you’re talking about." I'm talking about exactly the same thing your quote in 56 is saying.Viola Lee_{September 4, 2022
September
09
Sep
4
04
2022
05:11 PM
5
05
11
PM
PDT}

VL at 85, I literally do not know what you're talking about. Thank you for your time and effort.relatd_{September 4, 2022
September
09
Sep
4
04
2022
04:56 PM
4
04
56
PM
PDT}

I'll stay out of the political and sociological issues. I have explained TE: it is very much like what you quoted in 55 and that I highlighted in 79. Perhaps you think I am incorrect, and if so I'd be interested in what you think is true about TE. But that may not be anything you want to pursue any further. I've appreciated the discussion.Viola Lee_{September 4, 2022
September
09
Sep
4
04
2022
04:52 PM
4
04
52
PM
PDT}

I don't know what TE is. I think you're wrong about those textbooks. Students who trust their teachers and the textbooks they work with, would see those quotes - 20 years is not the point - and see them as a threat to their beliefs. I don't care what teachers may or may not have said in class. If I saw any of those quotes in my Biology textbook, I would be alarmed. Things have not gotten better regarding science. It is atheist in nature and there are too many Marxists in higher education.relatd_{September 4, 2022
September
09
Sep
4
04
2022
04:45 PM
4
04
45
PM
PDT}

Yes, there are some famous statements like that in some biology books. Two points: 1. All of those are at least twenty years old. I think people became aware of that bias in the last twenty years and textbooks have changed some, although I don't have examples. As I mentioned above, a short section on the metaphysical issues could be inserted in the textbooks to help clarify this issue, although I doubt that it has been for the reasons I mentioned (For what it's worth, when I taught high school sociology my textbook book had a short section of the history of human beings, including our evolutionary background. I had many religious students in my class, so I wrote a one page handout and we spent some class time discussing the issue. But not many teachers probably had the background to do so that I did.) 2. Despite a few sentences in the textbooks, I am sure that most teachers do not emphasize the metaphysics, and that the religious ones (who are in the majority among high school teachers, I am sure, based on the percent of Christians in our society) point out, with greater or lesser skill, the religious perspective. I think this is an example (there are many) where notable and infamous statements distort what actually happens in public education. But we have wandered away from what I am interested in: TE is consistent with the Catholic point of view concerning Providence, as expressed in your quote at 55.Viola Lee_{September 4, 2022
September
09
Sep
4
04
2022
04:37 PM
4
04
37
PM
PDT}

[QUOTE=reggieM;5374741]I did a little research and I think we can prove quite easily that mainstream evolution does not support the evidence of intelligent design in nature at all. Evolution is defined as a blind, undirected process built mainly on randomness. There is no plan or purpose for evolution -- this contradicts the claim that "everything is designed" and that there is design to be found in nature. We can see this in current biology [B]textbooks[/B]: [B]“[E]volution works without either plan or purpose — Evolution is random and undirected.”[/B] ([I]Biology[/I], by Kenneth R. Miller & Joseph S. Levine (1st ed., Prentice Hall, 1991), pg. 658; (3rd ed., Prentice Hall, 1995), pg. 658; (4th ed., Prentice Hall, 1998), pg. 658; emphasis in original.) “[B]Humans represent just one tiny, largely fortuitous, and late-arising twig[/B] on the enormously arborescent bush of life.” (Stephen J Gould quoted in Biology, by Peter H Raven & George B Johnson (5th ed., McGraw Hill, 1999), pg 15; (6th ed., McGraw Hill, 2000), pg. 16.) “By coupling [B]undirected, purposeless [/B]variation to the [B]blind, uncaring [/B]process of natural selection, [B]Darwin made theological or spiritual explanations of the life processes superfluous[/B].” ([I]Evolutionary Biology[/I], by Douglas J. Futuyma (3rd ed., Sinauer Associates Inc., 1998), p. 5.) “Darwin knew that [B]accepting his theory required believing in philosophical materialism[/B], the conviction that [B]matter is the stuff of all existence [/B]and that all mental and spiritual phenomena are its by-products. Darwinian evolution was [B]not only purposeless but also heartless[/B]–a process in which the rigors of nature ruthlessly eliminate the unfit. Suddenly, [B]humanity was reduced to just one more species in a world that cared nothing for us[/B]. The great human mind was no more than a mass of evolving neurons. Worst of all, [B]there was no divine plan to guide us[/B].” ([I]Biology[/I]: Discovering Life by Joseph S. Levine & Kenneth R. Miller (1st ed., D.C. Heath and Co., 1992), pg. 152; (2nd ed.. D.C. Heath and Co., 1994), p. 161; emphases in original.) “Adopting this view of the world means accepting not only the processes of evolution, but also the view that the living world is constantly evolving, and that [B]evolutionary change occurs without any goals[/B].’ The idea that [B]evolution is not directed [/B]towards a final goal state has been more difficult for many people to accept than the process of evolution itself.” (Life: The Science of Biology by William K. Purves, David Sadava, Gordon H. Orians, & H. Craig Keller, (6th ed., Sinauer; W.H. Freeman and Co., 2001), pg. 3.) “The ‘blind’ watchmaker is natural selection. [B]Natural selection is totally blind [/B]to the future. “[B]Humans are fundamentally not exceptional [/B]because we came from the same evolutionary source as every other species. It is natural selection of selfish genes that has given us our bodies and brains “Natural selection is a bewilderingly simple idea. And yet what [B]it explains is the whole of life[/B], the diversity of life, the apparent design of life.” (Richard Dawkins quoted in [I]Biology [/I]by Neil A. Campbell, Jane B. Reese. & Lawrence G. Mitchell (5th ed., Addison Wesley Longman, 1999), pgs. 412-413.) “Of course, no species has 'chosen’ a strategy. Rather, its ancestors 'little by little, generation after generation' merely wandered into a successful way of life through the action of random evolutionary forces. Once pointed in a certain direction, a line of evolution survives only if the cosmic dice continues to roll in its favor. [B]“[J]ust by chance[/B], a wonderful diversity of life has developed during the billions of years in which organisms have been evolving on earth. (Biology by Burton S. Guttman (1st ed., McGraw Hill, 1999), pgs. 36-37.) “It is difficult to avoid the speculation that Darwin, as has been the case with others, found the implications of his theory difficult to confront. “The real difficulty in accepting Darwins theory has always been that it seems to diminish our significance. Earlier, astronomy had made it clear that the earth is not the center of the solar universe, or even of our own solar system. Now the new biology asked us to accept the proposition that, like all other organisms, [B]we too are the products of a random process that, as far as science can show, we are not created for any special purpose or as part of any universal design[/B].” (Invitation to Biology, by Helena Curtis & N. Sue Barnes(3rd ed., Worth, 1981), pgs. 474-475.)[/QUOTE]relatd_{September 4, 2022
September
09
Sep
4
04
2022
03:55 PM
3
03
55
PM
PDT}

Relatd, you write, “Science is inadequate to completely explain human persons created in the image of God” and previously you wrote, “the “ontological leap” to the human ... cannot be explained in purely scientific terms.” Yes, the TE perspective would agree with both these statements. TE is a theistic viewpoint, and believes in a God who is present in both the material and the spiritual aspects of the world. Science deals only in the material aspects, so of course from the TE perspective, science cannot account for critical spiritual aspects of human nature: those are outside the domain of science. You write, “ Students who think nothing – literally – made them and that nothing happens after you die are being taught a purely materialist perspective.” I have been around a lot of science teachers, and a lot of biology teachers, and I don’t think those ideas are taught. I know there are famous statements made by certain materialistic biologists, but materialism is a metaphysical perspective and is not a part of science per se. I have known religious biology teachers who have mentioned that they have a religious perspective as they taught evolution, but made clear the distinction between the science and their metaphysics, and I have know materialist science teachers who have mentioned their perspective and likewise separated the science from the metaphysics as they taught. I have also known a few teachers with enough skill and background to briefly bring up some of these philosophical points with older students, such as in honors biology classes, but given that biology is usually taught in the 8th or 9th grade, this aspect of the situation is seldom taught. It is wrong for a teacher to insert their metaphysics into their teaching irrespective of whether it is religious or materialistic, and I think the vast majority of science teachers handle this well. That has been my experience.Viola Lee_{September 4, 2022
September
09
Sep
4
04
2022
03:46 PM
3
03
46
PM
PDT}

VL at 79, So where does evolution as described in Biology textbooks fit in? No, science cannot detect anything that God wills. That is the issue. Science is inadequate to completely explain human persons created in the image of God. Students who think nothing - literally - made them and that nothing happens after you die are being taught a purely materialist perspective.relatd_{September 4, 2022
September
09
Sep
4
04
2022
03:25 PM
3
03
25
PM
PDT}

Everything, not just about evolution but about all causal chains of natural events. From your quote at 55 (I bolded key sentences):
But it is important to note that, according to the Catholic understanding of divine causality, true contingency in the created order is not incompatible with a purposeful divine providence. Divine causality and created causality radically differ in kind and not only in degree. Thus, even the outcome of a truly contingent natural process can nonetheless fall within God’s providential plan for creation. According to St. Thomas Aquinas: “The effect of divine providence is not only that things should happen somehow, but that they should happen either by necessity or by contingency. Therefore, whatsoever divine providence ordains to happen infallibly and of necessity happens infallibly and of necessity; and that happens from contingency, which the divine providence conceives to happen from contingency”.
This is the TE position. All that happens happens as God wills. Our limited human perspective may see some aspects of events as necessary and some as contingent, but as the bolded sentences above point out, both the necessary and the contingent events are part of God’s providence.Viola Lee_{September 4, 2022
September
09
Sep
4
04
2022
03:15 PM
3
03
15
PM
PDT}

VL at 77, Then explain TE to me. Can someone, anyone, point to an exact event or series of events that qualify as theistic during evolution then please point them out.relatd_{September 4, 2022
September
09
Sep
4
04
2022
02:35 PM
2
02
35
PM
PDT}

But TE doesn't posit any "tinkering: at all: that is in fact the objection TE lodges against ID. This is what Jerry wrote:
So many topics covered and Ramage who is closed [sic: probably meant just "close" or "closet"] to a theistic evolutionists feels uncomfortable with the implications of ID. Namely, God had to intervene thousands maybe millions of time in life. He seems to not want a God who has done this. This is the basis for a lot of theistic evolutionists objections to ID. They don’t want a tinkering God.
I don't think "tinkering" is part of the TE perspective.Viola Lee_{September 4, 2022
September
09
Sep
4
04
2022
02:32 PM
2
02
32
PM
PDT}

VL at 75, Jerry points it out in post 55: "Namely, God had to intervene thousands maybe millions of time in life. He seems to not want a God who has done this." That is the problem. God did not set a wind-up toy on the floor called evolution to go wherever it wanted but had to intervene whenever it took a wrong turn. God acted constantly from the first day of creation. Thomas Aquinas makes it quite clear. Things don't just happen somehow. God works infallibly in Creation. He does not "tinker" - another wrong word and idea. The following appears in Communion and Stewardship: "... the “ontological leap” to the human which cannot be explained in purely scientific terms." So "evolution" as defined in biology textbooks is an insufficient explanation. The Church combines science and theology to provide the full, complete answer. And it is critical of materialist theories. The Church does not use the term Intelligent Design but it does recognize the actual design in all living things.relatd_{September 4, 2022
September
09
Sep
4
04
2022
02:25 PM
2
02
25
PM
PDT}

Prev 1 2 3 4 5 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply