Behe: How DNA Science Undermines Evolution, 3/1/19

I’d be curious to hear any thoughts on the interview…

1 Like

Before I spend almost an hour can you summarize the key points? Is it anything besides Behe pimping his new book with the same cherry-picked examples and canards about actual evolutionary theory?

I’m at around 33 minutes of this 54 minute piece.

To me, it sounds like very standard creationist skepticism.

He sees Lenski’s experiments as evidence against evolution. He sees the neutral theory as evidence against evolution.

I’d suggest that likely there won’t be anything you’ve not heard if you’re familiar with the conversation. However, I thought it helpful to hear the man himself in his own voice discuss the ideas.

1 Like

Thanks, fair enough.

1 Like

It also happens to be the radio station that is associated with a church body (LCMS) that is a sister church body to my own. The Creation/Evolution discussion is growing in intensity among us…

1 Like



I don’t even understand his position!

the point of the book [Darwin Devolves] "…it turns out that we’re discovering that Darwin’s mechanism works chiefly by squandering genetic information for short-term gain. It will throw things away in a minute so that it can out-compete anything in its immediate neighborhood."

"But breaking genes doesn’t tell you how they got there in the first place…"

[Host’s question on Natural Selection as “Self-Limiting”:]
"… it turns out that adaptation… will come about mostly by this degradatory process. That natural selection that will select some genes that have been broken by random mutation… because they help it adjust to a particular environment.

But as you start to throw out genetic information to adapt to one environment, then if a change in the environment comes along then you are less able to adapt because you don’t have as much flexibility as the species did at the start. So eventually the species becomes limited to its ability to change and … becomes stuck where it is." ENDING TIME: 34:01

So, let me try on his logic for “fit and comfort”:

  1. Four-Limbed fish clambers onto land to escape predators and find new food sources;

  2. This creature starts to experience more fish-centric genetic degradation, because there are no BAD consequences of losing (for example) its gill slits, since it is using new body adaptations to breath air; and it loses lots of body moisture through those gills;

  3. So now the tetrapod has lots its flexibility to go back in the water… so eventually the tetrapod species loses its ability to change and becomes STUCK as a land-based creature.

WOW… perfect. And that explanation explains whales too!

So… how does this help Intelligent Design theory?

1 Like

Yes, exactly. So land creatures are devolved fish.

That’s further devolving. The land creatures lost their ability to stay on land, so had to go back to the water. (Never mind that they had supposedly already lost the ability to go back to the water).

It doesn’t make much sense. But I suppose Behe’s claim is that there must have been some divine intervention somewhere in between.

It depends.

If ID is supposed to be a scientific theory, then it does not help that at all. But if ID is an apologetic theory to keep people in the pews – maybe that still works.

@nwrickert ( and you too, @swamidass ! ):

Well, yes, divine intervention in between … but also divine intervention on the DEVOLVING!!!

Why would God’s design NOT include DEVOLUTION by Behe’s definitions?

Would God really want mammals with GILL SLITS? Would he want Adam and Eve to have gill slits?

If God designs evolutionary steps, that would include the parts of evolution that Behe wants to call devolution!

I guess those should really be questions for Behe. But I’m doubting that he will address them.

1 Like


Adam - - UN-DEVOLVED? Is this what Prof. Behe had in mind? And just why does Jehovah hide his throat with a beard?

1 Like

I don’t read minds. However, what Behe says there is puzzling.

Does anyone know why this thread doesn’t show up on the main discussion page? Or is it just me?

1 Like

It’s not just you. The board is still behaving strangely after the latest “improvements”. You have to select “conversations” to see this thread, selecting “all” and it’s still hidden.

1 Like

Ah. Hmmmm…

1 Like

Oh geez. I hope my name doesn’t come up in a bad way with them over this.

How is neutral theory evidence against evolution?

Who’s the Zeus character on the right?

1 Like

You would have to listen to the podcast. I don’t want to listen a second time.

As best I recall, his point was that neutral mutations are not relevant to selection. Behe is still tying his ideas about evolution to selection.


There’s nothing wrong with that.


That’s a Renaissance perception of the Face of Yahweh!

What is rarely discussed is that the artist deliberately placed the God of Abraham on a cloak that is in the shape of the human brain…

equating God with WISDOM or KNOWLEDGE!

1 Like