# Is ID science? Redux

**URL:** <https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/is-id-science-redux/9063>\
**Category:** Side Conversation\
**Created:** [December 17, 2019, 4:22pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/is-id-science-redux/9063 "2019-12-17T16:22:58Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 20\
**Page:** 1

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Timothy\_Horton](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/timothy_horton/32/9410_2.png) [@Timothy\_Horton](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/Timothy_Horton)\
**Post date:** [December 17, 2019, 4:22pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/is-id-science-redux/9063/1 "2019-12-17T16:22:58Z")

</div>

> [@How Does Biological Evolution Deal With This?](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/how-does-biological-evolution-deal-with-this/8579/328):
>
> i cant think of any evolution evidence that can falsify ID.

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.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Faizal\_Ali](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/faizal_ali/32/12416_2.png) [@Faizal\_Ali](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/Faizal_Ali)\
**Post date:** [December 17, 2019, 6:21pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/is-id-science-redux/9063/2 "2019-12-17T18:21:19Z")

</div>

> [@How Does Biological Evolution Deal With This?](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/how-does-biological-evolution-deal-with-this/8579/331):
>
> Behe believes in God-Guided Evolution… do you?

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?

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![gbrooks9](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/gbrooks9/32/7979_2.png) [@gbrooks9](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/gbrooks9)\
**Post date:** [December 17, 2019, 6:27pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/is-id-science-redux/9063/3 "2019-12-17T18:27:31Z")

</div>

> [@Faizal\_Ali](#):
>
> 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?

@Faizal_Ali

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…

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Robert](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e95f7d/32.png) [@Robert](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/Robert)\
**Post date:** [December 17, 2019, 6:29pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/is-id-science-redux/9063/4 "2019-12-17T18:29:08Z")

</div>

Behe is reputed to accept common descent.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Faizal\_Ali](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/faizal_ali/32/12416_2.png) [@Faizal\_Ali](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/Faizal_Ali)\
**Post date:** [December 17, 2019, 6:36pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/is-id-science-redux/9063/5 "2019-12-17T18:36:23Z")

</div>

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

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![T\_aquaticus](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/t_aquaticus/32/1249_2.png) [@T\_aquaticus](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/T_aquaticus)\
**Post date:** [December 17, 2019, 6:48pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/is-id-science-redux/9063/6 "2019-12-17T18:48:59Z")

</div>

> [@gbrooks9](#):
>
> Agreed! The more things he writes, the more convoluted it all becomes.

That’s my non-conclusion as well. 😉

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?

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Faizal\_Ali](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/faizal_ali/32/12416_2.png) [@Faizal\_Ali](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/Faizal_Ali)\
**Post date:** [December 17, 2019, 7:28pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/is-id-science-redux/9063/7 "2019-12-17T19:28:00Z")

</div>

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.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Rumraket](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/rumraket/32/9328_2.png) [@Rumraket](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/Rumraket)\
**Post date:** [December 17, 2019, 8:47pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/is-id-science-redux/9063/8 "2019-12-17T20:47:18Z")

</div>

> [@Faizal\_Ali](#):
>
> Yes, he is on record about that.

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:

[![](https://us1.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/uploads/peacefulscience/original/3X/0/d/0d1b264f8f6222fbf4a3f5a05d2707edc01034bb.jpeg "Michael Behe Answers Hard Questions: What do you think of the idea of common descent?") ](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zvS7t-Buwik)

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Robert](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e95f7d/32.png) [@Robert](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/Robert)\
**Post date:** [December 17, 2019, 9:07pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/is-id-science-redux/9063/9 "2019-12-17T21:07:02Z")

</div>

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.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Rumraket](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/rumraket/32/9328_2.png) [@Rumraket](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/Rumraket)\
**Post date:** [December 17, 2019, 9:24pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/is-id-science-redux/9063/10 "2019-12-17T21:24:17Z")

</div>

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.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Mercer](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e274bd/32.png) [@Mercer](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/Mercer)\
**Post date:** [December 17, 2019, 9:48pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/is-id-science-redux/9063/12 "2019-12-17T21:48:58Z")

</div>

> [@Robert](#):
>
> Well, there’s the usual random mutation/natural selection strawman, and incorrectly associating random mutation with Darwin (Darwin that knew he didn’t have a worked out theory of variation, but believed in some definitely non-random sources, such as inheritance of acquired traits)…

@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.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Giltil](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/5f8ce5/32.png) [@Giltil](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/Giltil)\
**Post date:** [December 17, 2019, 10:29pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/is-id-science-redux/9063/13 "2019-12-17T22:29:24Z")

</div>

> [@Timothy\_Horton](#):
>
> I’ve had the feeling for a few years now Behe realizes he backed the wrong horse with ID-Creationism. Rather than admit he was wrong Behe has decided to milk the IDC faithful for as much cash as he can with his wishy-washy books before the whole thing crumbles and blows away.

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

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Rumraket](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/rumraket/32/9328_2.png) [@Rumraket](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/Rumraket)\
**Post date:** [December 17, 2019, 10:35pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/is-id-science-redux/9063/14 "2019-12-17T22:35:18Z")

</div>

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

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Timothy\_Horton](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/timothy_horton/32/9410_2.png) [@Timothy\_Horton](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/Timothy_Horton)\
**Post date:** [December 17, 2019, 10:35pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/is-id-science-redux/9063/15 "2019-12-17T22:35:22Z")

</div>

> [@Giltil](#):
>
> I’m afraid you’re lulling yourself with sweet illusions

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

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?

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Rumraket](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/rumraket/32/9328_2.png) [@Rumraket](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/Rumraket)\
**Post date:** [December 17, 2019, 10:37pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/is-id-science-redux/9063/16 "2019-12-17T22:37:45Z")

</div>

> [@Timothy\_Horton](#):
>
> 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?

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.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Timothy\_Horton](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/timothy_horton/32/9410_2.png) [@Timothy\_Horton](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/Timothy_Horton)\
**Post date:** [December 17, 2019, 10:39pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/is-id-science-redux/9063/17 "2019-12-17T22:39:26Z")

</div>

> [@Rumraket](#):
>
> 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.

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.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Rumraket](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/rumraket/32/9328_2.png) [@Rumraket](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/Rumraket)\
**Post date:** [December 17, 2019, 10:40pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/is-id-science-redux/9063/18 "2019-12-17T22:40:43Z")

</div>

> [@Timothy\_Horton](#):
>
> 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”.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Giltil](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/5f8ce5/32.png) [@Giltil](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/Giltil)\
**Post date:** [December 17, 2019, 10:46pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/is-id-science-redux/9063/19 "2019-12-17T22:46:24Z")

</div>

> [@Timothy\_Horton](#):
>
> 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?

What about this one?

> **[Simulating evolution by gene duplication of protein features that require...](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2286568/)**
>
> Gene duplication is thought to be a major source of evolutionary innovation because it allows one copy of a gene to mutate and explore genetic space while the other copy continues to fulfill the original function. Models of the process often...

Or this one?

> **[Experimental evolution, loss-of-function mutations, and "the first rule of...](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/21243963/)**
>
> Adaptive evolution can cause a species to gain, lose, or modify a function; therefore, it is of basic interest to determine whether any of these modes dominates the evolutionary process under particular circumstances. Because mutation occurs at the...

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Rumraket](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/rumraket/32/9328_2.png) [@Rumraket](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/Rumraket)\
**Post date:** [December 17, 2019, 10:49pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/is-id-science-redux/9063/20 "2019-12-17T22:49:11Z")

</div>

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](http://answersinscience.org/demise.html).

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Timothy\_Horton](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/timothy_horton/32/9410_2.png) [@Timothy\_Horton](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/Timothy_Horton)\
**Post date:** [December 17, 2019, 10:51pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/is-id-science-redux/9063/21 "2019-12-17T22:51:34Z")

</div>

> [@Giltil](#):
>
> What about this one?

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

[Next page](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/is-id-science-redux/9063.md?page=2)