Is ID science? Redux

Which is why ID isn’t science. Any possible evidence could be the work of an undetectable supernatural Designer just using natural evolutionary processes, and there’s no falsification possible.

The same is not true of evolution which has many potential falsifications, like finding an actual barrier preventing speciation beyond Biblical “kinds”. Evolution is falsifiable, it just hasn’t been falsified.


Does anyone really know what Behe believes? I mean, I know he refuses to admit that evolution is a sound and unrefuted scientific theory, and that he believes God did or does something, somewhere, at some time, that was or is required for life to exist as it does. But beyond those generalities, exactly what is the model he proposes?

1 Like


Agreed! The more things he writes, the more convoluted it all becomes.

He says this bear or that has corrupted DNA … so, did God create the bear 6000 years ago or not?

How do we know when God applies his miraculous designs or not? I’m not sure Behe even has an explanation…

Behe is reputed to accept common descent.


Yes, he is on record about that. Most of his creationist fans just try to overlook that inconvenient point.


That’s my non-conclusion as well. :wink:

There is something to be said for being vague or non-committal, but at some point Behe’s statements almost become contradictory. In an ID context, God guided evolution is an oxymoron. How many times have we heard ID supporters (and even Behe in the past) say that ID does what evolution can not? I fully understand and accept that there are very different views on the interaction of God’s guidance and evolution, but the ID view seems to draw a sharp line between evolution and God’s guidance.

Why is irreducible complexity evidence for ID? Because it can’t evolve. What is the “edge of evolution”? The point at which evolution can not produce an adaptation and ID must step in. Why didn’t Behe expect there to be “constructive” adaptations in the polar bear genome? Because evolution can’t do it. So how can Behe turn around and say that he accepts God guided evolution when he has put such a stark line between God’s actions and evolution?


And then he demands that those who accept evolution provide a detailed, step-by-step, molecule by molecule account of how the flagellum evolved before he’ll believe it happened.

Such hypocrisy.


He also seems to have attempted a weak and mealy-mouthed walkback on that lately.
See what you can make of this standard-politician answer:

1 Like

Well, there’s the usual random mutation/natural selection strawman, and incorrectly associating random mutation with Darwin (Darwin knew that he didn’t have a worked out theory of variation, but believed in some definitely non-random sources, such as inheritance of acquired traits); but he doesn’t seem to have pulled any nails out of the mast of common descent - it was noticeable that he didn’t specify any of his colleagues arguments against common descent, but perhaps someone cut off the video at the wrong point.

1 Like

The most pro common descent thing he said there was that he accepts it for the sake or argument, and that it “explains the similarities”. Not exactly a ringing endorsement.

And with such a weak statement he can of course always just say that’s all he ever did, accepted it for the sake of argument, and in private he can deny it to friends and colleagues.

It’s a politician’s answer and he’s playing to appease the Big Tent here.

1 Like

@Jordan, relevant to our discussion elsewhere, note that any naive person listening to Behe will not understand that Darwin said nothing whatsoever about mutation. He simply saw existing variation and that at least some of that variation was heritable.

It is very hard to see these concerted attempts to tie the horror of random mutation around Darwin’s neck as honest errors.

I’m afraid you’re lulling yourself with sweet illusions

1 Like

For once I agree with @Giltil. No I’m quite sure Behe is knee-deep in the dead.

I bet you paid good money for every one of Behe’s popular press pseudo-science books, right? :slightly_smiling_face:

Why do you suppose Behe never published any of his supposed ID evidence in any professional science journals where actual biologists and geneticists could review it?

1 Like

He did. He didn’t write his ID conclusions in those articles, but he has in fact published papers that he claims give evidence in support of his ID position in mainstream journals.

1 Like

Where? The only paper I remember (besides the shoot-self-in-foot with Stoke) was his literature review a few years back claiming the work of others supported ID-Creationism.

Yeah that’s the one, his “first rule of adaptive evolution”-paper. The one that supposedly inspired him to write a whole book about it, called “Darwin devolves”.

What about this one?

Or this one?

Yeah those are the ones. He has maybe one more I think? That’s his output.

Any day now, any day, we will witness the imminent demise of evolution.

Where in either of those is the positive evidence for ID?