Answering The Rhetorical Genius of Behe

[swamidass (S. Joshua Swamidass)]

Continuing the discussion from Did Swamidass Punt on Innovation?:

I explained my rhetorical response to Behe at Behe and Swamidass: Texas A&M on Feb 20, 2020…

@swamidass

Honestly, there is a rhetorical genius to Behe’s argument, and I think he deserves an immense amount of credit for this.

Rhetorically, his approach shifts the burden of proof to the evolutionary scientist.

1. He expresses incredulity at the idea that “darwinism” could produce a complex structure, and asks for an account.
2. He is upfront about not considering how design works, which is actually reasonable if we are talking about divine design.
3. Whatever is offered, he asks for more detail and more evidence, and usually objects to anything but positive selection as an explanation, thereby constraining the explanations to a strict darwinistic account.

Rhetorically, this is brilliant for several reasons. First, his request for an account is usually met because it seems reasonable and evolutionary science often does give a partial account. Evolutionary science usually offers accounts that are:

1. Plausible, given a sophisticated understanding of how biology works.
2. Partial, not seeking to be total or sufficient.
3. Complex, appealing to several mechanisms, not just positive selection.

Behe means something different when he asks for an account. He wants an account that is,

1. Demonstrated, often by ruling out other alternate pathways at every step.
2. Complete, in that we can drill down to arbitrary detail with out losing certainty.
3. Simple, relying only or primarily on positive selection and easy for a crowd of non-specialists to understand.

Behe now has a great rejoinder every time something plausible rather than demonstrated, partial rather than complete, or complex either than simple is used in the account provided by his interlocure.

The thing is, evolutionary science (really any science) does not produce “demonstrated+complete+simple” explanations of anything. The rhetorical genius, however, is that most people think that science does produce explanations like this, so Behe’s rejoinders seem imminently reasonable. Of course, if he is asked to give a detailed account, he does not, but he returns to his chorus “purposeful arrangement of parts.” When pressed further, as he did in Texas, he rightly notes (indirectly) that God’s design is inscrutable.

I understand (and agree with) the scientific critique of this approach to reasoning, but do not miss the point. Behe’s pattern here is pure rhetorical genius, and it is not surprising that it convinced masses. With Darwin Devolves, there is a similar rhetorical genius, but it works in a different way.

Any how, that is why I focused on common ground, and did not give a step-by-step account of flagellum in public (but I did privately to Tour regarding his question). He agrees that neutral theory provides strong evidence for common descent (contra @BenKissling) and never explains it. I explained it, and he agreed with my explanation, but somehow felt compelled to dispute it? Any how, that approach granted legitimacy to a valid scientific argument with which he agrees but rarely explains.

As @Jordan responded:

@Jordan

The whole ID vs evolution debate is really theism vs atheism, so as @gbrooks9 likes to regularly point, what’s the point? Why should evolutionary biologists even care about ID, let alone spend hours and hours banging their head against the wall trying to refute it? There are much better arguments in that battle than ID and evolutionary science. This is what, in my opinion, @swamidass is showing in all of this. The ID folks expect a defense of an essentially atheistic worldview and @swamidass doesn’t give it to them. I think that confuses and frustrates them. He sort of dismantles the faux battle lines and exposes the “debate” as largely irrelevant.

What do you think @art?

[John_Harshman]

@Jordan

Why should evolutionary biologists even care about ID, let alone spend hours and hours banging their head against the wall trying to refute it?

Because IDers are trying to turn the public against evolutionary biology (even more than is currently the case), which has repercussions for acceptance of science in general, funding, education, and the future of science.

[Timothy_Horton]

@John_Harshman

Because IDers are trying to turn the public against evolutionary biology (even more than is currently the case), which has repercussions for acceptance of science in general, funding, education, and the future of science.

This needs repeating. In their constant attacks against evolutionary biology the ID-Creationists are sowing doubt among layman about the reliability of all science. That’s why we get the AGW deniers, the anti-vaxxers, etc. This country desperately needs a scientifically literate electorate and scientifically literate leaders to compete in a 21st century global marketplace. Yet we get the ID-Creationists trying to dumb-down and undermine science education at every turn. In their rush to force their Christian God back into science classes they are causing a large amount of collateral damage.

[Faizal_Ali]

@John_Harshman

Because IDers are trying to turn the public against evolutionary biology (even more than is currently the case), which has repercussions for acceptance of science in general, funding, education, and the future of science.

That is certainly what is at stake.

It remains up for debate whether direct engagement with them is helpful in this regard. I suspect that respectful, “peaceful” discussion of the sort that @swamidass attempted in his recent debate with Behe is counterproductive, in that it reinforces the IDC position that whether evolution is true is a question that is up for legitimate scientific disagreement.

[T_aquaticus]

@John_Harshman

Because IDers are trying to turn the public against evolutionary biology (even more than is currently the case), which has repercussions for acceptance of science in general, funding, education, and the future of science.

Perhaps it is the bias of the recent, but post-modernism and a post-fact world seem like they are becoming more popular. More and more, I see people who think facts are established by the emotions they engender. If you feel something is true, then it’s true. I don’t know if ID/creationism, flat Earth, anti-vaxx, or other such movements are part of the cause or a symptom of something deeper in society.

[swamidass (S. Joshua Swamidass)]

@Faizal_Ali

It remains up for debate whether direct engagement with them is helpful in this regard.

I agree, but was my engagement direct?

[RonSewell (RonS)]

@Jordan

Why should evolutionary biologists even care about ID, let alone spend hours and hours banging their head against the wall trying to refute it?

As a theist, because all truth is God’s truth and we should have nothing to fear from it.

[stlyankeefan]

Why should evolutionary biologists even care about ID, let alone spend hours and hours banging their head against the wall trying to refute it?

I can’t speak for evolutionary biologists, but I can tell you why I do it. As someone who teaches science at an Evangelical Christian university, because this is what future Evangelical leaders are being taught and taking into the mission field. I spend a good part of my time outside of class trying to convince people that evolution is not a “theory in crisis” and that no, science doesn’t need to “catch up” with ID research (an actual statement one of my colleagues made last week.) On the first day of class I tell my students “Evangelicals have a reputation for being stupid. We can feed that stereotype or change it. If we want to effectively evangelize, we need to change it. We can start changing it by becoming scientifically literate.”

[Giltil (Gilbert Thill)]

@Timothy_Horton

This needs repeating. In their constant attacks against evolutionary biology the ID-Creationists are sowing doubt among layman about the reliability of all science

Maybe there are some good reasons to doubt the reliability of scientists, if not of science.
For example, see this:

Is Joe Blow “Anti-Intellectual”? | Evolution News

Or this:
https://cei.org/blog/wrong-again-50-years-failed-eco-pocalyptic-predictions

[Timothy_Horton]

@Giltil

Maybe there are some good reasons to doubt the reliability of scientists, if not of science.
For example, see this:

LOL! Do you have any evidence all our studies and empirically observed examples of back mutations are flawed science? Or are you just squirting more squid ink to hide the fact your claim was dead wrong?

[T.j_Runyon]

@Giltil

Or this:

Were any of those consensus views? I see a lot of single scientists in those articles.

[John_Harshman]

Talk about shooting yourself in the foot. @Giltil manages to confirm that ID undermines public confidence in science and to link ID to anti-environmentalism, confirming two more claims of his opponents.

[Giltil (Gilbert Thill)]

@T.j_Runyon

Were any of those consensus views? I see a lot of single scientists in those articles.

I would say yes, for most of them. For example, eugenics was the consensus view among the scientific community at the dawn of the 20th century.

[Timothy_Horton]

@Giltil

I would say yes, for most of them. For example, eugenics was the consensus view among the scientific community at the dawn of the 20th century.

According to you everything science knows about evolutionary biology, genetics, paleontology, physics, chemistry, geology, etc. is suspect because some scientists supported genetics 100 years ago?

That’s a new world’s record for grasping at straws.

[Rumraket (Mikkel R.)]

@Timothy_Horton

According to you everything science knows about evolutionary biology, genetics, paleontology, physics, chemistry, geology, etc. is suspect because some scientists supported genetics 100 years ago?

That’s a new world’s record for grasping at straws.

It also doesn’t make sense. Some scientists used to support eugenics, a morally reprehensible sociopolitical idea about who should get to have offspring, therefore “science” or “scientists” are unreliable? Talk about a complete non-sequitur.

[Faizal_Ali]

I wonder how Dr. Egnor would feel about Joe Blow rejecting his advice to have surgery on a brain tumour in favour of using healing crystals?

[Faizal_Ali]

@Giltil

Modern doomsayers have been predicting climate and environmental disaster since the 1960s. They continue to do so today. None of the apocalyptic predictions with due dates as of today have come true.

Maybe 'cuz people listened and made the necessary changes?