If you are convinced that Behe is in a giant muddle, I agree with you.
But your description of his muddle is not accurate.
Please enlighten me.
LOL! Eddie trots out the “NUH-UH!” defense one more time. If Eddie doesn’t approve of the dictionary definition of a word that word usage must be wrong. He just can’t ever say why. 
3 Likes
Behe’s billiard ball shot is fine.
Design is planned prior to the big bang.
Behe’s muddle is that he cannot differentiate which mutations are from God, and which ones are not.
Behe never mentions a billiard ball shot in the interview, nor does he mention planning prior to the Big Bang.
On top of that, Behe does hint at being able to differentiate between design and mutations produced through natural causes:
Again, Behe describes it as natural mutations vs. design.
1 Like
Behe’s discussion of billiards is in the video that you and i have already discussed.
His muddle becomes apparent in his latest book featuring polar bears.
Behe is wrong about detecting design…and has been from the start.
At our current state of human ignorance, mutations that were planned by God can be naturally caused or supernaturally caused. There is no way of knowing all the reasons for a mutation.
I am talking about the interview at Biola.
That’s fine, but what we are trying to determine is Behe’s position with respect to design and natural processes as discussed in the Biola interview.
The Biola interview is an incomplete statement of his views AND it is muddled. Behe was on much firmer ground BEFORE he published his latest book.
It looks complete to me. The interviewers flat out stated that design does not happen through natural causes according to Behe, and he leaned right into it:
“Are you saying Darwin delves that … Darwin’s mechanism and/or other natural mechanisms can account for species and genus level changes, but not higher levels of classification. Could you clarify that for our audience?”
“Number one is, you’re convinced that natural causes, Darwin’s mechanism in others, can’t account for the complexity and diversity of life down at DNA.”
Behe never corrects them.
2 Likes
Oh, really? So… in your view, what does he mean?
“A”: Is the Mutation (or multiple mutations) that made a flagellum possible something that magically appeared (either all at once or in steps, each time a new magical step)?
Or
“B”: Or does he mean that God divinely planned the steps of that mutation?
If he means the former (“A”), he is clearly rejecting the Billiards Shot Model.
I do not think Behe means what you think he means.
He doesn’t think “random evolution” can produce crucial mutations (because the odds are so astronomically against such mutations!). He thinks ONLY DIVINE DESIGN can make such things.
The way you are interpreting his words doesn’t even make sense to me. I’ve never heard of ANY YEC or I.D. person describing miraculous mutations, within a context of Common Descent and Speciation… have you?
From the interview:
Behe is saying that the mutations we see happening in nature are not able to produce the designs he sees in nature.
1 Like
Is that what you think he means? Or is he saying that without God’s design, randomized mutations would never create the creatures we see today?
I have never once heard Prof. Behe describe mutations as “super-natural” in creation. He has ONLY described mutations as “super-natural” in design, in their plan, in their goal. And God arranges the natural order to combine together to create what he has planned.
If you want to label the two different scenarios clearly - - at least clearly from your viewpoint - - that would be great. Because this is going to come up again and again and again until he finally says something definitive:
In his view, are the mutations for flagella “micraculously occurring” according to His divine plan?
OR
are the mutations for flagella “naturally occurring” according to His divine plan?
From the interview:
He just says mutations. Period.
And ignores existing variation, of which there’s a million-fold more than new mutations…
2 Likes
Behe has been dodging specifics for decades… and now you think, suddenly, he is spilling his guts?
You say he is talking about miraculously making mutations. I say he isn’t.
Now… find a tie breaker.
Behe says design can not be produced by naturally occurring mutations. That’s the tie breaker.
1 Like
What about all the variation THAT ALREADY EXISTS, George?
Why would Darwinian evolution ever depend on new mutations?
Nope. Because he could be meaning exactly what he said in that video years ago:
Behe is really saying: “… design cannot be produced without Divinely planned naturally occurring mutations.”
I don’t think Behe is staking down any important ground about “new mutations” vs. “old mutations”.
I think you could say that Behe think Darwinian evolution is equally vulnerable to ANY category of mutations.