OK, this video is 6 years old, but I just noticed it. Previously Behe was known for his admission that the evidence for common descent was strong, even incontrovertible. But here he downplays all that. He accepts common descent “for the sake of argument” because he’s just not interested in it. And he goes so far to say that many IDers have proposed strong evidence against it, though he doesn’t mention who or what that may be. This seems a serious departure from his previous position. Can anyone elaborate? Is there a more recent and/or less coy statement from him? What would be that evidence against common descent that he’s thinking of?
1 Like
Let me add that the video does very little to justify the subtitle.
Bill Cole outed Behe on this many months ago in a conversation that is probably somewhere in a Side Conversation (where it belongs). There was some speculation that Bill was singing without Behe’s knowledge/permission, but we were probably wrong about that.
Edit: here is that conversation.
Hi John
This is the same position he had 9 years ago when I first met him. He thinks common descent explains the similarities between species but design is required to explain the differences. He grants common descent for arguments sake.
Discussion starts 1:23 minutes in…
1 Like
I always felt like Behe was always doing things for argument’s sake. These people are, in my best and honest assessment, dishonest people. They speak out of both sides of their mouthes and say whatever they think they have to say in the situation if it is politically or socially convenient. In order to get a foot in the door, etc.
What has Behe really said in the past that gave you the impression he considered common descent incontrovertible? I have only ever heard or read him say or write rather mealy-mouthed things in favor of common descent.
4 Likes
From Darwin Devolves Chapter 1 (fourth paragraph in the section “The Future Starts Now”:
Although its components are often unwittingly conflated, Darwin’s theory
of evolution is actually an amalgam of a handful of separate ideas, several of
which do not depend as strongly as others on an understanding of
biochemistry. For example, the ideas that life has changed over time and that
organisms are related by common descent (both of which were controversial
in Darwin’s time) are supported by evidence from geology, paleontology, and
comparative anatomy. Those parts of his theory have withstood the test of
time very well.
The book was published in February 2019, so a little before the video at the top of the thread.
FWIW, here is a discussion between Behe and @swamidass where Joshua asserts that, among other subjects, he and Behe agree that humans and chimpanzees share common descent and then asks Behe to correct him if he is mistaken, and Behe doesn’t. It’s a bit later thatn the video you posted, John, but still not unequivocal.
If common descent explains the similarities, which is quite a lot of data, why reject or even doubt it?
The Wikipedia page on The Edge of Evolution says this:
Sadly, it cites no source.
I found a video from 2009 in which he advances two lines of evidence against common descent:
- Variant genetic codes.
- Some unspecified features of embryology.
The first is incompetently argued, and the second is too vague to talk about.