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

Yes, Related, I had just re-read that section in 72 before you posted it, and am familiar with it. When it mentions ““several theories of evolution” that are “materialist, reductionist and spiritualist” and thus incompatible with the Catholic faith”, it seems to me it is referring to metaphysical perspectives, and so of course the Catholic perspective would reject a materialist metaphysical perspective about the nature of human beings, including the evolution of our physical being. But, to go back to your post at 56, the TE perspective, which I think is represented in the quote you offered, fully accepts that “divine providence [plays] a causal role in the development of life in the universe,” and in fact Providence does so continuously and exhaustively in everything that happens. However, in 56 you say that “so-called Theistic Evolution” is flawed, and contrast it with the Catholic position that you quote. Can you explain how you think TE differs from the Catholic position, and what the flaw is?Viola Lee_{September 4, 2022
September
09
Sep
4
04
2022
01:53 PM
1
01
53
PM
PDT}

Jerry at 73, Wha... what? "So I would not expect to find too many Christians including Catholics upset with naturalized evolution as true or false." Sorry Jerry. Catholics only get to pick one. I'll let you guess which one.relatd_{September 4, 2022
September
09
Sep
4
04
2022
01:32 PM
1
01
32
PM
PDT}

the Catholic position on YEC
There is probably no official position on evolution by the Catholic Church. This is beginning to be a red herron. Of no particular value. The above OP is just one third of the discussion by three Catholics and I doubt any of them think they are not orthodox Catholics. ID is compatible with Christianity, Young Earth is compatible with Catholicism/many Christian faiths and so are many of the TE positions compatible with Christain/Catholic theology. Which means that evolution except for some basics is not part of Christian/Catholic Theology. For nearly 1800 years of Christianity, most Christians believed the young earth scenario. When the science questioned this, few thought that this affected the theology of Christianity. So I would not expect to find too many Christians including Catholics upset with naturalized evolution as either true or false. Either way it does not matter. For example, I believe in Darwinian evolution prior to finding out some were questioning it. I then attended a conference on ID and my views on Evolution changed dramatically. My religious views did not change one iota. As I said above ID is much more than Evolution. Again whatever one's religious beliefs, they should watch the video of the discussion. It is much more than religion. Religion is a side show. It is here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iRfLladHO9U Aside: Behe has a real problem with Thomist theologians (theology of Thomas Aquinas), not because of their theology but because they are generally unread on ID and its findings but pronounce on it anyway usually negatively.jerry_{September 4, 2022
September
09
Sep
4
04
2022
01:25 PM
1
01
25
PM
PDT}

VL at 71, Everything modern related to evolution began with the document Humani Generis, issued by Pope Pius XII in 1950. The document Communion and Stewardship was prepared by the International Theological Commission at a number of plenary sessions held between 2000 and 2002. "64. Pope John Paul II stated some years ago that “new knowledge leads to the recognition of the theory of evolution as more than a hypothesis. It is indeed remarkable that this theory has been progressively accepted by researchers following a series of discoveries in various fields of knowledge”(“Message to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences on Evolution”1996). In continuity with previous twentieth century papal teaching on evolution (especially Pope Pius XII’s encyclical Humani Generis ), the Holy Father’s message acknowledges that there are “several theories of evolution” that are “materialist, reductionist and spiritualist” and thus incompatible with the Catholic faith. It follows that the message of Pope John Paul II cannot be read as a blanket approbation of all theories of evolution, including those of a neo-Darwinian provenance which explicitly deny to divine providence any truly causal role in the development of life in the universe. Mainly concerned with evolution as it “involves the question of man,” however, Pope John Paul’s message is specifically critical of materialistic theories of human origins and insists on the relevance of philosophy and theology for an adequate understanding of the “ontological leap” to the human which cannot be explained in purely scientific terms. The Church’s interest in evolution thus focuses particularly on “the conception of man” who, as created in the image of God, “cannot be subordinated as a pure means or instrument either to the species or to society.” As a person created in the image of God, he is capable of forming relationships of communion with other persons and with the triune God, as well as of exercising sovereignty and stewardship in the created universe. The implication of these remarks is that theories of evolution and of the origin of the universe possess particular theological interest when they touch on the doctrines of the creation ex nihilo and the creation of man in the image of God."relatd_{September 4, 2022
September
09
Sep
4
04
2022
01:08 PM
1
01
08
PM
PDT}

I agree, and stand corrected, about the Catholic position on YEC. I understand that the Catholic position does not use the term theistic evolution. That doesn't mean that the phrase doesn't apply to the Catholic position, as I mentioned in 57. Also, I think I know that one of the important documents (I forget which one) makes a distinction between the development of the body, which can be accepted as having evolved (in the Providential sense) and the creation and nature of the soul in man, the latter being outside the domain of science.Viola Lee_{September 4, 2022
September
09
Sep
4
04
2022
12:20 PM
12
12
20
PM
PDT}

VL at 67, I don't know why you think this. A Catholic can be a Young Earth Creationist. "In fact, the Catholic Church does not have a position on a particular age of the Earth or the physical universe. This is a matter about which Catholics can legitimately disagree." Source: Catholic Answersrelatd_{September 4, 2022
September
09
Sep
4
04
2022
11:48 AM
11
11
48
AM
PDT}

Jerry at 64, Quit posting crap, OK? The Catholic Church can do something science cannot. It can combine science and theology. The following is part of an Op-Ed published by the New York Times and written by a Catholic Cardinal. • The Church “proclaims that by the light of reason the human intellect can readily and clearly discern purpose and design in the natural world, including the world of living things.” • “Any system of thought that denies or seeks to explain away the overwhelming evidence for design in biology is ideology, not science.” ---------------------------- I hope that's clear enough for you.relatd_{September 4, 2022
September
09
Sep
4
04
2022
11:44 AM
11
11
44
AM
PDT}

Jerry at 62, What is wrong with you? "There seems to be no real Catholic view other than God created the universe and man." There is a HIGHLY DETAILED Catholic view, You read it. Now you're being vague? The Church does not use terms like THEISTIC EVOLUTION - got that? It does not. Atheists watch the Church like a hawk. When Pope John Paul II in an address to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences said something positive about the theory of evolution, atheists all over the internet declared "The Church accepts evolution! The Church accepts evolution!" Wrong. If you read the address the Pope references "Theories" of evolution - got that? The Church breaks down the theory into multiple versions and some are not compatible with Church teaching. You should read the entire document titled Communion and Stewardship - Human Persons Created in the Image of God.relatd_{September 4, 2022
September
09
Sep
4
04
2022
11:40 AM
11
11
40
AM
PDT}

Another point. There may be many variations of positions held by Catholics, but that doesn't mean they are orthodox: Catholicism, more than any other position, has an orthodox position because of the belief in the special authority of the Pope and the papal hierarchy. From that point of view, a Catholic YEC would be an unorthodox position.Viola Lee_{September 4, 2022
September
09
Sep
4
04
2022
11:35 AM
11
11
35
AM
PDT}

nit-picking
Sometimes nit-picking helps.
unless there is something which distinguishes the “one Catholic” from TE
Probably most TEs are different from each other on specifics as is apparently many Catholic positions. This says to me there often isn’t a hard core difference. But there are Catholic positions that support ID and as I said some Catholic young earth creationists. Aside: It was interesting to see Ramage fold sometimes based on what Behe was saying. For some people, evidence and logic are hard to argue with. For others, it’s no problem. They create some other nonsense or just assert they are right. But mostly just ignore.jerry_{September 4, 2022
September
09
Sep
4
04
2022
10:04 AM
10
10
04
AM
PDT}

I apologize for nit-picking, because I appreciate that we agree on your last sentence. But the "one Catholic" you mention is a TE position, so contrasting the "one Catholic" with the other two is not correct unless there is something which distinguishes the "one Catholic" from TE. It seems to me that your statement would be better as "There are two contrasting positions, TE (of which one particular Catholic view is a member) and materialistic.Viola Lee_{September 4, 2022
September
09
Sep
4
04
2022
10:00 AM
10
10
00
AM
PDT}

there are really three positions here – Catholic, TE, and materialistic” isn’t really supported
Just change it to “one Catholic, TE and materialistic” and it is supported. They are all metaphysical claims not supported by science. Aside: the Christian claim and thus also a Catholic claim that God created the universe and man is supported by science. But they are based on metaphysicsjerry_{September 4, 2022
September
09
Sep
4
04
2022
09:41 AM
9
09
41
AM
PDT}

I understand your view, but then saying that "there are really three positions here – Catholic, TE, and materialistic" isn't really supported. I think in this context we can contrast three metaphysical views (although there are others): TE (of which the Catholic view represented in 56 is an example), ID, and philosophical naturalism (or materialism).Viola Lee_{September 4, 2022
September
09
Sep
4
04
2022
09:11 AM
9
09
11
AM
PDT}

How would you distinguish the Catholic view from TE
I’m not going to try and answer this since I am certainly not qualified. There seems to be no real Catholic view other than God created the universe and man. The three people in the Behe/Ramage discussion are all Catholics. In the past there was a discussion of Catholic young earth advocates here. This is also mentioned in the discussion. So TE’s can be Christian, YECs can be Christian and ID people can be Christian. Since there are multiple parts of ID, all three could be the same or different depending on the science being discussed.jerry_{September 4, 2022
September
09
Sep
4
04
2022
09:05 AM
9
09
05
AM
PDT}

Jerry writes, "There are really three positions here – Catholic, TE, and materialistic." How would you distinguish the Catholic view from TE? As the quote from relatd seemed to state, the Catholic view is a TE view.Viola Lee_{September 4, 2022
September
09
Sep
4
04
2022
08:54 AM
8
08
54
AM
PDT}

From the Dust of the Earth: Benedict XVI the Bible, and the Theory of Evolution – published June 2022
https://matthewramage.com/my-book-from-the-dust-of-the-earth-is-now-out/ My guess 98% theology/metaphysics and 2% science. I have no plans to read it and find out. From the page
Anyone who reads the book will also appreciate the irony that this book debuted as the #1 new release on Creationism on Amazon (apparently they lump anything to do with creation into that category)!
One of the topics discussed mainly by Behe is that ID is constantly dismissed with false information/accusations. In other words the anti ID people who dominate the media use fake news/ narratives/ and other nonsense to refute ID. One has to be dishonest to be anti IDjerry_{September 4, 2022
September
09
Sep
4
04
2022
07:48 AM
7
07
48
AM
PDT}

So, I think the Catholic position you state is supportive of the TE perspective, and clearly contradicts the materialistic perspective. Both are metaphysical beliefs that go beyond what science can demonstrate
There are really three positions here - Catholic, TE and materialistic All three are metaphysical and go beyond what science can demonstrate. The Darwinian position works in genetics but does not work in Evolution. ID accepts this. There is discussion of this in the conversation by Behe and Ramage and Flynn.jerry_{September 4, 2022
September
09
Sep
4
04
2022
05:28 AM
5
05
28
AM
PDT}

So, I think the Catholic position you state is supportive of the TE perspective, and clearly contradicts the materialistic perspective. Both are metaphysical beliefs that go beyond what science can demonstrate
Amen! Matthew Ramage is a Catholic theologian. Since I try to keep theology out of discussions of ID, I will only say that he has recently written a book on evolution. From the Dust of the Earth: Benedict XVI the Bible, and the Theory of Evolution - published June 2022 I recently made the point that ID does not discuss how often the creator has to have intervened in our universe especially in our little corner of it. Millions? Behe continually makes the point about the impossibility of species creation above the genera level. For example, the Galapagos finches. In some places they represent more than one genus but all can inner breed. So what do all these classifications mean and just what is a species? As I said this particular interview is full of ideas rarely discussed on UD. I am in the process of making a transcript using YouTube’s transcript process. Aside: from the discussion - there really is no clear Catholic position on Evolution. You can believe in ID, be a young earth creationist or a TE and be Catholic. You have to believe God is the creator.jerry_{September 4, 2022
September
09
Sep
4
04
2022
04:48 AM
4
04
48
AM
PDT}

Relatd, I remember when you posted this before. It seems to me that the statement you posted reflects well the position of theistic evolution: that everything that happens is because of the providence of God, despite the fact that from our human perspective some things appear to happen by necessity and some by contingency (actually, usually by some continuous interplay between the two). The TE would agree that those who believe "the process of evolution is absolutely unguided are straying beyond what can be demonstrated by science." I think likewise the TE would believe that stating that any aspect of the world, including evolution, is specifically guided is also beyond what can be demonstrated by science. So, I think the Catholic position you state is supportive of the TE perspective, and clearly contradicts the materialistic perspective. Both are metaphysical beliefs that go beyond what science can demonstrate.Viola Lee_{September 3, 2022
September
09
Sep
3
03
2022
07:36 PM
7
07
36
PM
PDT}

Jerry at 55, This shows the obvious flaw in so-called theistic evolution. When did God act? They can't say, making this idea worthless. A useless distraction. Here is what the Catholic Church has to say: Part 69) "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” (Summa theologiae, I, 22,4 ad 1). In the Catholic perspective, neo-Darwinians who adduce random genetic variation and natural selection as evidence that the process of evolution is absolutely unguided are straying beyond what can be demonstrated by science. Divine causality can be active in a process that is both contingent and guided. Any evolutionary mechanism that is contingent can only be contingent because God made it so. An unguided evolutionary process – one that falls outside the bounds of divine providence – simply cannot exist because “the causality of God, Who is the first agent, extends to all being, not only as to constituent principles of species, but also as to the individualizing principles....It necessarily follows that all things, inasmuch as they participate in existence, must likewise be subject to divine providence” (Summa theologiae I, 22, 2).'relatd_{September 3, 2022
September
09
Sep
3
03
2022
04:01 PM
4
04
01
PM
PDT}

Finished the Behe/Ramage discussion on ID. There is a YouTube of this discussion which is here https://chroniclesofstrength.substack.com/p/intelligent-design-debate-dr-behe This means there is a transcript but like most YouTube transcripts will be off by a few words here and there as the transcriber gets things wrong. But if one wants to watch the whole thing, then the above is the best way to do it. The downside for some is that it is on a Catholic site. Both Behe and Ramage are Catholics but Catholicism rarely comes up. So many topics covered and Ramage who is closed 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. As I go through this discussion and understand just what each are saying, I will use this OP to post the content and if possible the timing in the YouTube video.jerry_{September 3, 2022
September
09
Sep
3
03
2022
03:06 PM
3
03
06
PM
PDT}

I am through 2/3 of the Michael Behe/Matthew Ramage discussion and there is more interesting stuff there than in the last 500 OPs on UD. As I said earlier no one here will listen. Pro ID don’t care and anti ID don’t want to be shown how shallow their thinking is. It’s between three Catholics so that’s an obstacle for many. But there is nothing in the presentation justifying Catholic theology. Ramage constantly refers to it but does not attempt to justify it. It’s not a discussion justifying Catholicism. Behe does an excellent job of showing how objectors make things up to discredit ID. Including the false objections by Matthew Ramage. Part 3 tomorrow and then when there’s time a transcript for myself to read.jerry_{September 2, 2022
September
09
Sep
2
02
2022
07:35 AM
7
07
35
AM
PDT}

Mind you, I can sympathize a little. The evidence or ID as an explanation for biological reality that I’ve asked for has not been very convincing to me. Though, to be fair, it has so far been non-existent.
The role of ID is a method to infer design in nature. The problem with evolutionary theory is it can no longer defend the evolutionary claim of a single origin of life or a universal common ancestor.bill cole_{September 1, 2022
September
09
Sep
1
01
2022
05:42 PM
5
05
42
PM
PDT}

In the first section of the discussion between Michael Behe and Michael Ramage most of the discussion was by Behe. It’s a good presentation of what ID is and what it is opposing. ID does not oppose Evolution but opposes that there is a mechanism that can explain it. So far none have appeared. He explains what he understands by Darwinian processes and that ID states there is no evidence to suppor these processes as having the explanatory power for complex changes. At the end of the first part, Michael Ramage has not spoken very much. Part 2 later tonight.jerry_{September 1, 2022
September
09
Sep
1
01
2022
04:36 PM
4
04
36
PM
PDT}

Another generic claim. How about some specifics?
As I said, the paper is about the existing consilient evidence. It's not a lot to read. But if you aren't prepared to read the primary papers see my link to Wikipedia. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_the_eyeAlan Fox_{September 1, 2022
September
09
Sep
1
01
2022
02:13 PM
2
02
13
PM
PDT}

Meanwhile zero about Behe and what he found and the debate. The debate is over 90 minutes and no one has listened to it. Work is pressing; introducing a new product next week. Maybe listen to part of it tonight. One of the rules of Dale Carnegie’s book,
The only way to get the best of an argument is to avoid it.
State your point. Share logic and evidence. Answer any sincere question (they’re rare.) Ignore nonsense.jerry_{September 1, 2022
September
09
Sep
1
01
2022
02:03 PM
2
02
03
PM
PDT}

"yet clear evidence of their occurrence remains." AF, Another generic claim. How about some specifics? Andrewasauber_{September 1, 2022
September
09
Sep
1
01
2022
02:00 PM
2
02
00
PM
PDT}

Oh, I just noticed your quote-mine: You left off the phrase after the semicolon: ...yet clear evidence of their occurrence remains. Which is the substance of the paper. ETA and changed the semicolon to a full stop, tut tut.Alan Fox_{September 1, 2022
September
09
Sep
1
01
2022
01:55 PM
1
01
55
PM
PDT}

"If you dismiss all that, then I can’t see I can help you." AF, I'm not dismissing it as much as just waiting for you to put some specific info in front of me, rather than me having to slog through a paper that admits up front that the important evidence for the claims of the paper doesn't exist. Andrewasauber_{September 1, 2022
September
09
Sep
1
01
2022
01:49 PM
1
01
49
PM
PDT}

Mind you, I can sympathize a little. The evidence or ID as an explanation for biological reality that I've asked for has not been very convincing to me. Though, to be fair, it has so far been non-existent.Alan Fox_{September 1, 2022
September
09
Sep
1
01
2022
01:42 PM
1
01
42
PM
PDT}

Prev 1 2 3 4 5 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply