I think he is agnostic here and not far off your position.
Which is NOT something that can be measured… and we get to argue about it for decades. This is not a helpful line of inquiry.
@Colewd, if you ever get a chance to talk to Behe again, ask him WHEN does God help Evolution and when does God NOT help evolution?
During a laboratory or field test… if we see an amazing evolutionary event unfolding … is that because Evolutionists “really got lucky”?
Or is it because God is at work in the field test?
George I already know his answer. He does not know.
@Then how does he expect to convince people of Intelligent Design’s most difficult assertion: that science can prove God is behind creation … when he has a whole BUILDING of fellow believers who accept that God applies his intelligence to all creation …
… but with the additional understanding that science cannot provide any confirmation of the matter.
But, in contrast, look at this brand new book!:
In the very same book he argues that Evolution is cleverly assisted by God… AND … no less!.. that when Evolution occurs without God’s help, it’s a mess!
stupidest thing I’ve seen…
2 Likes
George you are not understanding his argument. You are manipulating it and then defeating your own version of it. This is about evidence of design in nature hard stop. The how is not part of the argument.
Now you are just spinning in place.
The only way Behe can convince people that science can confirm his statement (“there is design in nature”)… is to explain what is different about:
[1] evolution that causes “loss of adaptation”
versus
[2] evolution that does NOT cause “loss of adaptation”?
Bill, you DO agree that we see both kinds of evolution, right?
Or are you suggesting that Behe is arguing against ALL Evolution … like those who endorse Special Creation argue?
1 Like
He is simply arguing that Darwinian evolution is limited. It does not explain complex adaptions (eyes brains etc). It does explain finch beak variation. I happen to agree with him.
Clearly you can see where your view is taking you, yes?
Evolution is TOO DIFFICULT to do… to create Eyes and Brains as we know it … without God assisting.
But Behe also says that when we try to simulate evolution, we get “compromised” and “broken” traits… evolution that isn’t very smart or capable.
So: Behe is arguing about 2 kinds of Evolution!:
There is BRILLIANT evolution, where God assists in the production of flagella, brains, eyes, and so forth…
And there is STUPID evolution where, apparently, there is no God at work.
Would you agree with this simple analysis, Bill?
Hey…I’m someone who AGREES with you and Behe on a basic issue: God guides all creation, including Evolution!
But I’m not going around writing books about how this aspect of INTELLIGENT creation comes and goes without any explanation …
2 Likes
The design argument is limited as you state. That does not mean it has no value. Science is currently working with a reductionist paradigm. As we observe more evidence of design in nature the chance to get science back on course is improved.
Here is a discussion between me a Perry Marshall on Behe’s book. I hope this helps.
That’s the point I am trying to make. Behe seems to think that once you lose the ability to live in a specific environment then you can never go back to that environment. It’s as if a species has all of the adaptations it will ever have and can never have new adaptations.
It’s important to me.
I call “foul” on your sentence: “As we observe more evidence of design in nature the chance to get science back on course is improved.”
Behe’s book doesn’t accomplish this at all.
Imagine a one-armed magician!: He starts with a single playing card in his hand. On one side, it shows the Ace of Diamonds. And on the other side, he shows the Ace of Spades.
He says: “Ladies and gentlemen to the right of me, please put your eyes on this amazing playing card in my hand!”
Remember, he is a one-armed Magician! He shows the Diamonds side to the thousands of people in his audience. Then he turns to the other side of the audience: “And now you members of the audience on my LEFT side, please notice that the card shows an Ace of Spades!”
Hey… pretty interesting so far, right?
“Let me explain one aspect of this card, not to introduce fear and loathing into your hearts, but to keep you informed of the progress of this illusion! - - please note that this is ONE card … with 2 different aces… the Diamond on one side and the Spade on the other!”
Then he bows to the audience!: “Thank you, kind folks! The illusion is complete. Have a great weekend.” He then walks off the stage, with the audience now buzzing with incomprehension.
Behe hasn’t shown us anything that we didn’t already know… and the one thing that he DOES propose that would be new… he doesn’t explain how one side is different from the other!
I have shown examples of evolution going beyond the limits Behe has defined.
@T_aquaticus, And to those examples, Behe would say: God did that!
You made this point perfectly well months ago… and I have been using it ever since!
Behe discredits the formation of new genes to the point of naming a “First Rule” that ignores it.
2 Likes
You have not shown anything close the limit Behe has set. His claim is that Darwinian process can explain differences up to the genus level.
Sometimes fish to tetrapods get their fins back.
Sometimes fish to tetrapods have not yet got their gills back.
Forensically, it is simpler to say: “So what?” to Behe, rather than to argue the semantics of his assertion.
1 Like
Chimps and humans are in different genera, so can you cite a genetic difference between us and chimps that you think goes beyond what evolution can produce? Can you cite any genetic difference between any vertebrate in the same taxonomic family that have genetic differences evolution can’t produce? If not, this claim seems to be very hollow.
2 Likes
Splicing code differences are very unlikely to be produced from random change given all the problems splicing errors cause.
Why would we expect random change to the genome to produce an increase in conceptual ability or the ability to produce complex language.
If we analyzed this concept… what someone might interpret this “rule of thumb” to mean is that Behe thinks God doesn’t plan evolution until he is within what might be considered a GENUS difference of different populations!
And yet… his critique is usually regarding some fine point that would not differentiate a population in terms of GENUS… but would be a difference between species.
Wouldn’t you agree, Bill?
Heh. Another day, another case of Silly Billy Cole claiming evolution is just random change and ignoring the feedback provided by selection. Some people are just incapable of learning. 
1 Like