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

Jerry states: "He [Behe] is explaining that a remarkable design feature can change species in extremely small amounts so as to adapt some species to changing environments... All ID accepts this and accepts Darwinian processes. But they work down from the family level to possibly form genus or species." (emphasis added) Let's pare down the passage to show how Jerry, likely unwittingly, has also conceded the game: "Darwinian processes (i.e., natual selection) work to form species." Thus, the title of Darwin's masterpiece: The Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life. Once you concede that Darwinian processes "work" to form species, you have conceded the thesis of The Origin. Game over......chuckdarwin_{September 1, 2022
September
09
Sep
1
01
2022
09:03 AM
9
09
03
AM
PDT}

AF at 12, Evolution is slow except when it's fast. For all intents and purposes, proteins appear out of nowhere and "Know" exactly what to do. Do you expect anyone to buy that?relatd_{September 1, 2022
September
09
Sep
1
01
2022
09:00 AM
9
09
00
AM
PDT}

AF at 9, At this point, I should tell people about the comic book you star in. It's called The Evader. No great fight scenes. The character just evades, evades, evades, evades and evades. Really boring.relatd_{September 1, 2022
September
09
Sep
1
01
2022
08:58 AM
8
08
58
AM
PDT}

Besides that there are no examples of it actually changing anything except trivial things and certainly not creating new proteins.
Nobody who understands and promotes evolutionary theory suggests that adaptation proceeds by leaps and bounds. It is a slow accumulation of small steps due to selection by the niche. New proteins do not drop out of the sky.Alan Fox_{September 1, 2022
September
09
Sep
1
01
2022
08:44 AM
8
08
44
AM
PDT}

Has been done several times.
Tell me about the best time.Alan Fox_{September 1, 2022
September
09
Sep
1
01
2022
08:38 AM
8
08
38
AM
PDT}

Proposing something that could be tested would be the first step to a testable hypothesis.
Has been done several times. You fail to understand the difference between ID and naturalized processes. ID indicates a one time event or a series of one time events. Naturalized processes indicate an ongoing process that would be working 3.5 billion years ago as well as today. So to support the ID hypothesis, one would have to show the lack of an alternative especially a natural alternative. Which Behe has done. Given that, the answer is as I said above testable. Would require a lot of time and resources. https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/do-nylon-eating-bacteria-show-that-new-functional-information-is-easy-to-evolve/#comment-631468 Aside: the concept of a niche driving Evolution is a non-starter. It is self refuting. It would destroy the ecology in which the niche exists. Besides that there are no examples of it actually changing anything except trivial things and certainly not creating new proteins or complex systems.jerry_{September 1, 2022
September
09
Sep
1
01
2022
08:30 AM
8
08
30
AM
PDT}

There is no fictional bias.
Of course not. Bias is real.Alan Fox_{September 1, 2022
September
09
Sep
1
01
2022
08:15 AM
8
08
15
AM
PDT}

Yes, common descent, whatever the definition, is compatible with ID and always has been.
Is there anything ID is incompatible with? Proposing something that could be tested would be the first step to a testable hypothesis.Alan Fox_{September 1, 2022
September
09
Sep
1
01
2022
08:13 AM
8
08
13
AM
PDT}

AF at 6, Ha, ha, ha, The Niche. Ha, ha, ha. There is no fictional bias. Evolution has no brain and no goals.relatd_{September 1, 2022
September
09
Sep
1
01
2022
08:10 AM
8
08
10
AM
PDT}

But whatever happened in the past, blind, unguided chance cannot be the answer.
Thank goodness then that there is selection that produces the bias that results in adaptive change. Remember the niche, Duke, remember the niche.Alan Fox_{September 1, 2022
September
09
Sep
1
01
2022
08:09 AM
8
08
09
AM
PDT}

CD at 3, "Behe has pretty much conceded the game" The Game. How careful certain commentators are to twist words. To find some chink in the armor to exploit. How careful. But whatever happened in the past, blind, unguided chance cannot be the answer. The codes living things use to carry out life processes are denied. Denial will not make them go away.relatd_{September 1, 2022
September
09
Sep
1
01
2022
08:03 AM
8
08
03
AM
PDT}

the possibility” of common descent
Yes, common descent, whatever the definition, is compatible with ID and always has been. It is just how the various species appeared. Common descent does not imply natural. If someone takes it that way, they have a basic misunderstanding.
Behe has pretty much conceded the game
No, just the opposite. He is explaining that a remarkable design feature can change species in extremely small amounts so as to adapt some species to changing environments. And nothing more. All ID accepts this and accepts Darwinian processes. But they work down from the family level to possibly form genus or species only and how much there is in question. The technology to answer these questions exists but evolutionary biology is not investigating them. Behe is saying the forming of family level entities are beyond natural processes. Eventually you will understand the issues. You are at the dotting "i's" and crossing "t's" objection level and believe that is meaningful. Keep it up though and you may get beyond the supercilious.jerry_{September 1, 2022
September
09
Sep
1
01
2022
07:25 AM
7
07
25
AM
PDT}

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...
Behe says two things here that should cause concern among ID proponents. First, he acknowledges "the possibility" of common descent. At the time of the Kitzmiller trial he unequivocally testified that he accepted common descent. Behe is apparently smart enough to hedge his bet on common descent. Second, and this is more important, Behe claims that evolution "beyond the level of genus" cannot be achieved by Darwinian mechanisms, which I interpret to mean natural selection. With this statement, Behe has pretty much conceded the game. Natural selection always operates at the level of the individual organism; thus, it makes no sense to say that "Darwinian mechanisms" do not operate above the level of genus. The more I read this blog and the associated DI articles, the more convinced I become that there is a fundamental misunderstanding of basic evolutionary biology in the ID world. I think this is a big reason that the academic world in evolutionary biology chooses not to engage with ID proponents......chuckdarwin_{September 1, 2022
September
09
Sep
1
01
2022
06:38 AM
6
06
38
AM
PDT}

Okay, he has narrowed to roughly the genus level, I guess origin of family is a key threshold, e/g/ dogs vs cats.kairosfocus_{September 1, 2022
September
09
Sep
1
01
2022
06:22 AM
6
06
22
AM
PDT}

Guaranteed it will be ignored except for supercilious comments. For one thing it can’t be argued that it’s atheists against Christianity here. Both are Catholic and both accept Darwinian processes. So the normal insanity that goes on here may not operate. It’s roughly 30 minutes long but the link is to part 3 only. Part 1 is here https://idthefuture.com/1641/ Part 2 is here https://idthefuture.com/1643/jerry_{September 1, 2022
September
09
Sep
1
01
2022
05:58 AM
5
05
58
AM
PDT}

Prev 1 … 3 4 5

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply