I read this latest Behe article at EN and my jaw just dropped. According to Behe yes God designed all the nasty viruses like Ebola, HIV, SARS-CoV-2 but did so because those viruses actually help us. We just can’t figure out how.
So, do I think viruses were designed? Yes, I most certainly do! The viruses of which we are aware — including the coronaviruses, Ebola, and HIV — are exquisitely, purposively arranged, which is the clear signature of intelligent design. Well, then does that mean the designer is evil and wants people to suffer? No, not necessarily. I’m a biochemist, not a philosopher. Nonetheless, I see no reason why a designer even of such things as viruses should be classified as bad on that basis alone.
I started this post with an analogy of a storm on the ocean. Certainly, if we were on a ship in a powerful storm, we might be excused for thinking storms are bad. But in calmer moments we understand that on balance the ocean is very good and that, given an ocean and the laws of nature, storms will arise from time to time. What’s more, we just might get caught in one. In the same way, most viruses do not affect humans and may well have a positive, necessary role to play in nature of which we are currently unaware.5 (I would bet on it.) From time to time a storm arises in the virosphere and affects humans. But that’s no reason to think either that viruses weren’t designed or that the designer of viruses isn’t good
Giving millions of humans a slow agonizing death is a good thing purposely designed by God. Sometimes words fail me.
IIRC, he said much the same thing about malaria in The Edge of Evolution. though there he simply said we have to live with the fact that malaria was designed to kill us, and who knows why?
TBH, I don’t see the as any more problematic than many other issues arising from theism. I don’t really see how we can assume human lives count for than any other organism in the biosphere.
My maternal grandmother’s sister (my great aunt) died in 1919 in the influenza epidemic when my mother was 6 years old. My great aunt was engaged to be married but died about one month before her wedding day. My great grand parents had bought a bedroom suite (bedstead and dressers) as wedding gifts for her, but after her death gave them to her sister, my grandmother.
My grandparents kept the bedroom suite until I was married in 1973, when they gave them to me and my wife for a somewhat belated wedding present.
We got up from that bed this morning and again, as I have often tried to imagine, thought about the pain and helplessness that family felt as their daughter died in an overfilled hospital in rural Appalachia.
If I ever meet Dr. Behe I do not think that words will fail me.
Yes. He has been consistent on this topic. And more importantly…
I’ll go one step further and say that attacking Behe on this issue is ridiculous. The milieu here is natural evil, and no believer has a good answer to it. Behe is taking one of a few well-worn and (I guess) respectable paths.
Considering that Behe’s god kills innocent children just to make a point, e.g., Exodus chapter 11, and directs the slaughter of whole peoples, e.g., Numbers chapter 31, I don’t see why this should be regarded as any more problematic. The notion of a morally good god is already wholly inconsistent with the Bible.
I’m not sure that an opinion that says child murder or genocide is sometimes good would be very useful, though it certainly might be instructive as to the opinion-giver’s proclivities. But I do know Christians who acknowledge that the Bible was written by humans of a deeply flawed moral character, and who therefore do not attribute the tales contained therein to a god.
It also bears mentioning that not everyone thinks these things actually happened. The question where to draw the line between history and non-history in the OT isn’t an easy one.
Of course I don’t agree, but theodicy is a complex topic which I haven’t studied enough to debate in an informed manner. In addition, the problem of evil is less of a problem in a classical theistic view of God, which most atheists here don’t even have a clue about, and I don’t have the time to educate them on it.
From Behe: most viruses do not affect humans and may well have a positive, necessary role to play in nature of which we are currently unaware.5 (I would bet on it.) From time to time a storm arises in the virosphere and affects humans.
Seems to be along the lines of “the same gravity which keeps you tethered to Earth can make you go splat” type theodicy. I do not think it is very convincing, and infectious viruses are among a great many exhibits of the pitiless quality of supposedly designed nature. I would expect that life would get along fine without coronaviruses, and fail to see how the best of all possible worlds requires their existence.
Well, then does that mean the designer is evil and wants people to suffer? …But that’s no reason to think either that viruses weren’t designed or that the designer of viruses isn’t good.
I find it interesting that Behe even acknowledges that design would have inferences as to the moral quality of the designer. That topic is usually avoided.
I think Behe’s position raises important theological questions that deserve exploration. It is good to see him beginning to stake out his theological claims here. I have a hard time agreeing with him, but I’m no theologian.
This description of viral innovation does not seem consistent with ID defined as the action of a mind.
If you look at the simulation Mike used in his presentation of the bacteriophage and its molecular complexity I see evidence of design here also. As far as the theological questions you may not be a theologian but you are lightyears ahead of me. I can only rack up the destructive nature of viruses to mystery but I do remember how much I used to hate streptococcus bacteria but now it has become an important technology enabling crisper.
How is this any different from when ID folks mock evolutionary biologists for claiming while there might not be an explanation now there may be one in the future?
I think that each such claim, in either direction, has to evaluated on its specific merits. As far as viruses go in general, it is known that they have played a role in nature and in genomes common to us and other creatures, but ID does not seem to be very comfortable with that. So far as coronavirus in particular is concerned, it is difficult to envision that as positive and necessary, although others may hold out the possibility.