Intelligent design proponents are careful to say that they cannot identify the designer at work in the world, although most readily concede that God is the most likely possibility. And they offer varied opinions on when and how often a designer intervened. Dr. Behe, for example, said he could imagine that, like an elaborate billiards shot, the design was set up when the Big Bang occurred 13.6 billion years ago. “It could have all been programmed into the universe as far as I’m concerned,” he said.
I am skeptical that this can actually be incorporated into Behe’s typical arguments for Intelligent Design Creationism.
To be specific: He argues that we can determine specific biological systems or structures that indicate “intelligent design” by the fact that, in his view, they could not have arisen thru undirected evolutionary processes. So, for instance, chloroquine resistance in the malaria parasite falls within what he calls “the edge of evolution” and does not require “design.” On the other hand, the bacterial flagellum lies beyond this edge.
How can this distinction exist if all natural processes are the result of a “billiard shot” that the “designer” instigated prior to the Big Bang?
Does Behe even attempt to reconcile these claims into a coherent model or hypothesis? Or is this further evidence that ID Creationism is just a set of vague talking points that do not even aspire to cohere into a defined model?
ID-Creationism has never tried to produce any sort of coherent model. It’s not a scientific idea so they have no need for scientific things like models or testable hypotheses.
What Behe says depends on the audience he’s addressing, not caring if he often directly contradicts something he’s said before. Generally speaking he says whatever he thinks will sell more of his pseudoscience books.
I agree. Behe has stated many times that we should not see biological objects like irreducibly complex systems emerge in the lab through natural processes. If this billiard’s shot analogy is correct, then there why shouldn’t we see the results of this process emerging in the lab? In Behe’s most recent book he doesn’t expect to see any mutations that improve function (according to Behe’s definition) in the polar bear genome since their divergence from the brown bear population. Again, if front-loading is true then why shouldn’t we see these types of mutations emerge in that lineage?
Behe is strongly implying that mutations which improve function require intervention, not front-loading.
We would also have to ask what mechanisms Behe is suggesting for the production of mutations, and how those mechanisms differs from the mechanisms proposed in the standard theory of evolution. How is Behe able to distinguish between mutations caused by what he describes as Darwinian mechanisms and those caused by the billiard’s shot?
We have been through this before… BEFORE Behe came out with his sillier-than-average book featuring polar bear evolution.
Mutations are incredibly easy to trigger at the molecular level:
too many water molecules can trigger a mutation;
too few water molecules can trigger a mutation;
various wavelengths of light can trigger a mutation;
particle radiation can trigger mutation;
I have often been quoted as saying Cosmic radiation could come directly from God (let’s say, his binoculars?), or from deep space by purely natural means. But who did the targeting?
Behe’s problem is that he cannot tell us how to know whether God designed this mutation or that mutation.
MY solution is much simpler: God designs ALL mutations!
Take your pick. Why shouldn’t we be seeing new mutations that functionally improve proteins if the billiards analogy holds true? Why shouldn’t we see new irreducibly complex systems emerging in living populations if it is front-loaded?
Exactly. These are the questions to ask, and to corner Behe over. There is nothing wrong with the Billiard Ball scenario by Behe. What is wrong is what he thinks the Billiard Ball scenario allows him to say about Polar Bears!
To each their own. If someone wants to believe in billions of supernaturally caused mutations poofing into genomes, then all the more power to them. If anything, we are trying to find some consistency in what ID supporters are saying.
The root of this discussion is trying to find some sort of border between creationism and theistic evolution (or evolutionary creationism if you prefer). From everything I have read from Behe, he appears to be supporting a scenario where God directly intervenes in nature and supernaturally creates mutations through some process. In addition, Behe claims that we can detect this intervention. That sits on the creationist side of the border on the continent of @T_aquaticus, and clashes with the billiards analogy.
Behe appears to be of two minds, and it may come down to a bit of cognitive dissonance. He wants to distance himself from supernatural miracles to appear more scientific on one hand, but he can’t retreat from the position he already holds which is that evolution can’t produce these designs. As you say, Behe has painted himself into a corner.
Behe’s Billiard Ball Scenario is NOT describing billions of supernaturally caused mutations… [I am absolutely bewildered that after all this time you could come up with such a poor grasp of what we have discussed - - on and off - - for months!].
They are NATURALLY caused mutations, divinely arranged before the Big Bang.
I wasn’t implying that the Billiard Ball scenario is describing billions of supernaturally caused mutations, and I apologize if I caused any confusion. All I was saying is that there is also nothing wrong with believing in supernaturally caused mutations as opposed to the billiards analogy. People can believe as they want, and they shouldn’t feel as if they have to believe in the billiards analogy in order to be a proper Christian or believer. Again, I apologize if my prose led to confusion.
The point of Peaceful Science is to understand how we can accept fulsomely the body of science that explains how common descent works, and how speciation arises out of common descent.
Why would a Christian supporter of Evolutionary theory ever need to support millions of supernaturally caused mutations - - rather than millions of naturally caused mutations per the “Billiard Ball Shot” scenario?
To design, or to implement the design? I wouldn’t think that God, sitting in eternity thinking, would have to use any “random processes” to design the world he is going to create. He would just think the design. Getting the design to appear in matter, in the world of space and time, is another thing.