Behe does deny that evolution has occurred in any significant amount. That’s the whole point of his edge of evolution idea - that significant evolution cannot happen. Behe cannot be distinguished from creationists using this criterion.
All you are doing is redefining “evolution” to something that includes Behe’s view.
No, he denies that “Darwinian” evolution has occurred in any significant amount. By “Darwinian” he seems to mean “undirected by unknown designers1”. So, is directed evolution really evolution, or is it creationism by definition? That’s what this is all about.
1 Just kidding. There’s only one and it’s God.
He thinks that we are descended from one-celled creatures. Is that a “significant” enough amount for you?
No, I’m defining “evolution” in the way that the man on the street has always understood it: life forms have descended via modification from earlier life forms, going all the way back to simple original forms.
In that context he’s talking about “Darwinian” evolution. He almost always puts the adjective “Darwinian” in front of evolution, and even when he doesn’t, the context makes it clear that he’s talking about “Darwinian” or “neo-Darwinian” processes (or other unguided, unplanned processes).
In lay language, for Behe, evolution happened, but not for exactly the reasons that evolutionary theorists think that it happened. In addition to the causes they adduce, which he accepts as part of the explanation (mutation, selection, etc.) there was also design, i.e., the process was somehow biased in favor of certain outcomes.
It’s the same for Denton, except that in his case, he adds that that the cause of the bias was some form of “natural law” rather than any kind of miraculous intervention – whereas Behe does not rule out intervention as a cause (though he never explicitly calls for it, either, notwithstanding T. aquaticus’s repeated [and undocumented] claims to the contrary).
The difference of opinion between Behe and many other ID proponents on this point, i.e., that descent with modification from the simplest antecedents actually occurred, is so well-known, and so many times acknowledged by both Behe and the other ID proponents, that I can’t help but think that you don’t know the ID literature very well, but get your idea of it from hearsay.
Note that John Harshman here, who is academically trained in phylogeny, agrees that Behe thinks that evolution, understood as a process of descent with modification, actually happened.
I’ve never yet met a creationist (where that term is used alone, without modifying adjectives) who thinks that we are descended from one-celled creatures. All the creationists I’ve ever met or read say that we were specially created (usually out of the dust of the ground) by a miracle, and that we have nothing in us of fish, reptiles, or even apes. So by normal usage, Behe is not a creationist. Of course, if you want to twist normal usage (as Faizal Ali does, regarding “evolution” and “creationism”), you can give anyone any label that you like. (Some people call a man who with premeditation murders millions of unarmed people in death camps a “Christian”, for example.) But in general conversation, departures from normal usage serve only to create confusion. Behe has a maverick (from a professional biologist’s point of view) view of why evolution happened, but he does think that it happened.
Sure, Behe accepts macro-level common descent from unicellular ancestors, but he firmly rejects the same (common descent) for molecular systems such as flagella from much simpler precursors. Creationists reject common descent at both levels, but Behe only rejects the former so that puts him in between both camps. We can probably call him a pseudoevolutionary-creationist.
This is nothing more than a semantic argument over the definition of “evolution”.
I disagree John. Evolution occurs at multiple levels, from molecules to entire organisms and modern evolutionary thought acknowledges that all existing species (macromolecules, cells, tissues, organ-systems and entire organisms) are descended from typically more simpler ancestors. Behe seems to agree that the weight of evidence overwhelmingly supports the universal descent of all existing lifeforms, at the level of whole organisms, from simpler unicellular ancestors. We have no reason to think this does not apply to extant molecular systems including the flagella, blood clotting system, etcetera, but Behe strongly disagrees. That places Behe in some netherworld between evolution and the brand of creationism that rejects common descent at any level.
Like I said: a semantic argument over the definition of evolution.
Doesn’t appear so to me. Organismal and molecular evolution are part of evolutionary history. Behe accepts the former, but rejects many aspects of the latter. There is no semantic argument here.
Great. Now we have to have a semantic argument over what “semantic argument” means. Not interested.
Regarding molecular systems, he doesn’t reject the “simpler precursors” part, only the suggestion that the movement from “simpler precursors” to later forms was accomplished wholly by “Darwinian” means, with no role played by design. So it’s not “evolution” that he questions, but “Darwinian” evolution.
We’re not discussing whether Behe’s view is internally coherent or scientifically tenable; we’re discussing only what he affirms and denies. He affirms common ancestry, while denying that the road to later forms was entirely undesigned. Roy said that Behe denies that “evolution has occurred” “in any significant amount”. And that’s simply a false statement about what Behe believes. Good faith conversation with an opponent requires the attempt to accurately describe an opponent’s claims. Behe’s claims are not being accurately described by Roy.
Right, but let’s be clear that to Behe any form of evolution that does not explicitly include an intelligent designer, is “Darwinian” evolution.
The whole debacle about to what extend different processes and mechanisms (like neutral theory, constructive neutral evolution, species selection, structuralism, physiology, horizontal gene transfer, “natural genetic engineering”, and all the rest) contribute to evolution is to Behe neither here nor there because it all falls under the rubric of “Darwinism” to him, because it’s all at bottom a sort of blind and random change subject to natural selection.
He has directly stated as much rather unambigously.
That depends on what one means by “significant amount” doesn’t it? Behe is on the record as stating there’s a significant waiting time problem with evolution(the Edge of evolution book was about that), and that adaptive evolution can essentially only find and fix degenerative mutations that destroy functions(his whole Darwin Devolves book was about that).
Whatever you might mean by “significant amount of evolution” what Behe thinks evolution can do isn’t all that much. But hey, there’s that semantics argument again. A total waste of time.
Approximately correct. To be precise, by “Darwinian” mechanisms Behe usually has in mind primarily random mutations filtered by natural selection (a combination sticklers might say is more “neo-Darwinian” than Darwinian, since Darwin didn’t talk much about “randomness”), and he usually explicitly focuses on those, but he also indicates that other purported mechanisms of evolution, to the extent that they are unguided and unplanned, would fall under the same criticism that he levels against “Darwinian” mechanisms. But roughly speaking, I’d agree with what you are saying.
Yes, but always the context of those “waiting times” (waiting for the right random mutations) is what he calls “Darwinian” evolution; the book would have been more accurately titled “The Edge of Darwinian Evolution.”
Denton had the same problem with his “Evolution: A Theory in Crisis” book; the title makes it sound as if Denton thought that common descent was in doubt, but, as he clarifies in his third book, that is not what he meant, and the first book would have been more accurately titled “Darwinism: A Theory in Crisis” (see page 111). Of course, publishers aiming at popular or semi-popular audiences have a financial interest in giving their books short, catchy, and not-too-academic-sounding titles. “The Edge of Darwinian Evolution” sounds very academic, and so does “Darwinism: A Theory in Crisis”, so publishers aiming at a broad audience are going to sacrifice accuracy for marketability. This doubtless explains why Discovery, despite Denton’s explanation in his third book that he had never meant to challenge common descent, chose to stick with just plain “Evolution” in the title of the third book. So “Evolution” is “Still a Theory in Crisis”, even though what Denton meant in the third book was that the classical neo-Darwinian formulation of evolution is still a theory in crisis (to the point where in its pure form it is hardly held by anyone anymore, being seriously modified, according to Denton, by conceptions such as evo-devo).
The same point applies to your comment about adaptive evolution, which again in Behe assumes the (neo-)Darwinian context. That is, according to Behe, if the only thing going on were Darwinian mechanisms, we would expect degeneration of existing structures rather than the building of new ones. But if there is design involved anywhere in the evolutionary process (whether front-loaded at the beginning or inserted later), we would be in a whole new ball game.
The same applies to your summary statement, “what Behe thinks evolution can do isn’t all that much,” and for the same reason.
Some might protest that if “design” is introduced into the mix of causes, we are no longer talking about “evolution” as Darwin (with his naturalistic insistence) intended it (he did eventually adopt the term “evolution”), and I concede the historical point regarding Darwin; but the term “evolution” has been in the popular language for so long now that for many lay people it means primarily “descent with modification” from earlier, simpler forms", and within that framework, one can speak of Behe and Denton as affirming evolution. Indeed, if we denied the term “evolution” to any scheme of descent with modification in which there are genuine teleological factors, we would no longer be able to say that Lamarck or Bergson affirmed “evolution,” which seems to me to be an unnecessary, and even silly, restriction of language. I see Darwin, Lamarck, Bergson, Mayr, Gould, Dawkins, Coyne, Wagner, Behe, Denton, Shapiro, etc. as all affirming “evolution” while having quite a range of views regarding its causes.
Yup. It’s about endless redefining of terms in order to pretend that ID is somehow legitimate science. Worthless rhetorical tricks that go nowhere and fool no-one.2
There’s never any discussion of what IDers actually think happened, or of the available evidence.
The normal way to resolve technical disagreements is to first define the relevant terms, then, once a common vocabulary has been agreed, to move on to facts and data. But Eddie never gets to stage 2. His only goal seems to be to get people to redefine evolution and creationism so that isome IDers are not creationists, as if that matters. If the only goal is to sneak creationism into science classes, that may suffice. But if so, it’s yet another admission that ID is cargo-cult science.
Ah, but which God?
2Except those who want to be fooled.
He thinks we are descended from single-celled creatures. He doesn’t think we evolved from them.
If you’re going to keep insisting others use precise terminology, the onus is on you to do the same - and that doesn’t include substituting different terms when you think it’s convenient.
The “man on the street” definition of “evolution” does not include frequent intervention by a supernatural genetics tinkerer, or even a pre-planned cosmic billiard-shot.
You are redefining “evolution” (or choosing a minority definition) so that it includes Behe’s view.
Which is exactly what I’d expect the “man on the street” to mean by “evolution”. It even matches the definition given in dictionaries.
Really? How did you find out what Behe thinks happened? He’s remarkably reluctant to describe his own view, often to the extent of seeming unsure what his view is.
If you would describe what Behe thinks happened, instead of weaselling around with definitions, avoiding specifics, and concentrating on what he thinks didn’t happen, you might get somewhere.
Until then, you’re just bloviating.
Why the split quote?
No, it is not. Behe definitely denies that Darwinian evolution has occurred in any significant amount, and as you yourself note, sometimes omits the adjective “Darwinian”. Behe accepts common descent, but denies (Darwinian) evolution.
Poppycock.
Since you’ve raised the subject of accurately describing an opponent’s claims, I’ll once again highlight this inaccuracy:
AFAIK neither Behe nor Denton objected to those titles being used, so either they considered the titles accurate, or they were also sacrificing accuracy for profit.
Perhaps Denton should have titled that book “Evolution: Still a theory I don’t understand.”
No, my goal is to show that as the terms “evolution” and “creationism” have been typically used over the past 100 years in popular discussions of origins, neither Behe nor Denton would count as creationists, and both Behe and Denton think that evolution happened. And they are not the only ID proponents of whom this can be said, though they are the best-known examples. Others who appear to believe that “evolution happened” (though not primarily via “Darwinian” means) would include Michael Flannery and Richard Sternberg, and, to speak of those who are not part of Discovery, the former moderator of Uncommon Descent, Dave Scot. Indeed, there are among the silent body of ID proponents many who, 100 years ago or so, would have been called “theistic evolutionists,” and would have called themselves that, but do not employ that term to describe themselves nowadays because it has come to mean something different from what it used to mean.
I have no desire to sneak creationism, as that term has been typically understood over the past 100 years in American popular discourse, into the science classes, and would oppose its introduction there. For that matter, I would oppose mandating ID in the science classes, as it would in most cases end up being explained by people who did not understand it and/or would conflate it with creationism. Far better to teach evolutionary theory critically – to teach all science critically, so that students learn to give pragmatic and tentative rather than permanent and slavish assent to what the science teacher and textbooks tell them. In other words, teach science as we teach history, social studies, etc., as a fallible body of human conclusions.
By reading. See, for example, A Mousetrap for Darwin, p. 62.
QED.
Behe doesn’t think Darwinian evolution happened, and that’s the most widely used sense of the term, especially among scientists.
Again the blatant bait-and-switch from teaching creationism (which IDers want) to mandating teaching creationism (which no-one has ever suggested).
Which is already done.
Of course what IDers actually mean by “teach evolutionary theory critically” is to teach bogus DI garbage about evolution, such as the rubbish found in their more recent ‘textbooks’.
Excellent!
So, what does Behe say happened, on p62 of A Mousetrap for Darwin?
So what’s the fundamental difference between Behe and a creationist like Jeanson who also accepts a limited evolutionary history for modern kinds?
Behe accepts there is a (non-Darwinian) lineage from single celled organisms to modern animals (i.e. common descent), while Jeanson doesn’t.