A lot of people are out of favor with BIoLogos; BioLogos is out of favor with a lot of people. They are a surprisingly contentious organization. I wouldn’t make to much of it @Eddie
1 Like
I wasn’t making much out of it – merely responding to your remark. You indicated (as if giving a correction to my earlier remark that they didn’t like Denton at BioLogos) that Sy Garte liked Denton. I was responding to you that Sy Garte isn’t really part of BioLogos (even if he occasionally posts comments there), and in fact is out of favor with them right now – so the fact that he likes Denton doesn’t contradict my point about BioLogos generally.
However, I will now say a bit more about BioLogos and Denton. If you look at the top executives and regular or frequent science columnists at BioLogos since its inception – Collins, Giberson, Falk, Venema, Applegate, Haarsma – you’ll see that none of them ever so much as mentioned Denton on the website (unless perhaps in response to comments from me or others).
The only exception, and really it’s only a qualified exception, would be Darrel Falk’s Amazon.com positive review of Denton’s 2016 book. Falk praised the book and praised Discovery for publishing it, but that was long after Falk had stepped down as head of BioLogos and no longer had anything to do with its daily operation. And even then, the review was only up for a few months because Falk took it down. And BioLogos made no mention of Falk’s positive review, even though I put up a notice of it on the BioLogos discussion board – a notice which drew no response from Haarsma, Venema, Applegate, etc. How can we explain their indifference to a rave review of Denton by their former President?
True, they once let a non-regular columnist, Sy Garte, say some nice things about Denton in a book review. But again, none of them responded to Sy’s favorable remarks. There was dead silence from them about the Denton book and the fact that Sy liked parts of it. Why? Who knows? Maybe none of them had read the book. Maybe they didn’t like it, but didn’t want to say it out loud and appear to undermine Sy (who at the time they still seemed to hold in high esteem). Or maybe they agreed with some of Denton’s ideas, but couldn’t bring themselves to say so out loud, given that Denton is a Discovery Fellow and the book was published by Discovery.
To a detached observer, it must appear odd that BioLogos has no enthusiasm for someone who accepts molecules-to-man macroevolution and doesn’t slip in any miracles or interventions of God into the process; one would think that such a position would not be far from their own. But I’ve given up trying to figure out the motivations of the BioLogos crew at this point.
2 Likes
It is hard to square this statement with his book “Edge of Evolution” and his other statements involving multi-residue adaptations. Behe seems to imply that God has to step in and create mutations that nature is incapable of producing. Is that how you read it?
That doesn’t change the fact that the phrase “descent with modification” has always meant natural processes. People who completely disagree with this definition are trying to hijack the term in order to create the appearance that they are being scientific, when they aren’t.
2 Likes
Descent with (natural) modification is inseparable from descent with design in every formulation of ID I have encountered. Nothing excludes natural evolution itself from creating the design, and ID simply being a renaming of evolution.
2 Likes
I highlighted the first word of the last sentence i quoted (above) from you: the word is THIS.
What is meant by THIS?
You and @Eddie are going back and forth in the most unproductive manner… and i have to say that i think Eddie makes better sense.
There is Science.
There is Theology.
When most religious ID folks invoke Design, even if they dont agree on what i will now say, they are making a theoligical assertion.
By definition, religious I.D. cannot be pure science. They might even start out looking for ANY design… as in the cinematic Prometheus scenario where “engineers” from another planet design Earth’s life.
But if at any time they start finding or discussing divine design… we are back to a theological discussion.
I dont find this confusing…its just a little awkward to remember where you are and what topic one is engaged in!
1 Like
@T_aquaticus and @Dan_Eastwood
( @pevaquark )
Huh?
Look: the phrase "descent with modification” has always referred to Evolution. This is fine.
But we have already ascertained that some religious ID folks (like Behe) propose as a possibility that God could well have DESIGNED life using the Evolutionary principles involved in “common descent with modifications”!
This IS a legitimate category of speculation.
So there is always going to be a need to qualify Evolution (or Common Descent) to distinguish the scenario that involves God from the version that does not.
1 Like
THIS = the debate over intelligent design.
ID supporters have stated quite clearly that ID is science. The same people have tried and tried to get ID into science programs across the country. Therefore, they should be held to the standards of science, not colloquial versions of beliefs and definitions.
Perhaps that is an example of how scientists see things differently than lay people.
At least from what I have read of Behe’s work he has God intervening and directly changing genomes. That is what his book “Edge of Evolution” was all about. That’s not descent with modification as it is understood in biology. That’s the point I was trying to make.
We can take the theological/philosophical aspects out of it. We can say that Evolution, descent with modification, and common descent involves the observed process of mutagenesis, natural selection, speciation, and the like. If people believe that God is a part of those processes then that still fits. If people think those mechanisms are incapable of producing the biodiversity we see, then it needs to be called something else.
And true to the title of the thread … MASSIVE CONFUSION continues to
reign. I’m just a little surprised to see that you, @T_Aquaticus, are
involved in more of its furtherance!
Mr. T, you wrote: “. . . from what I have read of Behe’s work he has
God intervening and directly changing genomes. That is what his book
“Edge of Evolution” was all about. That’s not descent with
modification as it is understood in biology.”
Mr. T, that is not what Dr. Behe was describing just 1 hour and 23
minutes into his now notorious YouTube video! Referred to on this list
as “God’s Pool Shot Scenario”. With an additional “helpful” (?)
clarification from @Eddie , Behe’s model only runs up to the point
of human creation! Because Free Will is a complication to the model
that most around here think Behe did not intend to represent in his
Pool Shot analogy.
In this scenario, God does not directly change anything. He has
arranged every detail of the Universe, at the very moment of the Big
Bang, and after that, the natural laws and the “appearance of
randomness” run their course. This is not a Deist scenario because
once Humans appear, God is in constant engagement, compensating for
Free Will operations that have the unavoidable characteristic of
throwing “chain reactions of natural laws”’ into a mess.
So, in Dr. Behe’s case, the Dino-Killing Asteroid that slams into the
Earth is something that was produced through the combination of
“natural laws” and the “appearance of randomness”, going all the way
back to the Big Bang. And there is virtually no way to distinguish
between this, and the Dawson /Atheist version of the very same
sequences.
Sure, Mr. T., there must be some religious folks somewhere who think
that God is more liberal with his “miraculous engagements”
(non-natural events). And for those kind of people, they are inclined
to think God “poofed” the asteroid into existence … just beyond
Saturn’s orbit (or wherever you want to put it). But this “miraculous
version” of it is not what Behe’s scenario includes, and it is not what I
have been discussing when someone asks me about God-Guided genetic
mutations: I have never said, nor implied, that God waived his pinkie
finger and just “poofed” the mutation into existence. No sir-ree!
You should know by now that my deal, my gambit, is the Cosmic Ray!
Was the Cosmic Ray aimed down the 14 billion year barrel of creation
since the Big Bang? Or did God “poof” the cosmic ray into existence
somewhere out by Saturn? I think the former makes more sense, and it
dove-tails with Behe’s Pool Shot model. And, again, it is virtually
impossible to distinguish between the “With-God” vs. the “Godless”
versions!
So… instead of being in such a hurry to throw a wooden shoe into the
syntax of Evolution, check in with me first. I might have offered a
good-natured chuckle over the notion of “God directly changing
genomes”, but I would have kept you out of the quandary. Now let’s
suppose you don’t believe a thing I say - - I’m sure @Jongarvey would
offer his own rendition of the very same analysis.
1 Like
But it is what he described in his book. That’s why there is massive confusion. If Behe has changed his position since writing “Edge of Evolution” then that’s fine. Here is an excerpt from the description of “Edge of Evolution” at Amazon:
1 Like
Well, now you can see the problem I’m having with George. George is telling me that Behe’s preferred model of evolution is a mechanistic, front-loaded one, where God doesn’t have to intervene after setting up the initial position and striking the cue ball (Big Bang). You are telling me that Behe’s preferred model is an interventionist one, where God has to insert new information every so often, by miraculous action. So I’m being hit from two sides, by people who have very different interpretations of Behe.
I will answer your question about The Edge of Evolution momentarily, but first let me restate what I think Behe has to say about possibilities allowed by ID. Without some exposition, I can’t clarify what I’m saying, so please allow me to take this slowly.
Behe (in my reading of his work taken as a whole – his books, articles, podcasts, columns on Discovery, etc.) thinks that ID is in principle (whatever might be the difficulties in practice) compatible with two different models of God’s relation to evolution:
-
A “front-loaded” model. God sets up the evolutionary process in advance, so that his preferred outcomes follow inevitably from his initial set-up (whether that initial set-up is the configuration of the first cell, or of the universe at the time of the Big Bang, is a point over which front-loading models could vary). The divine pool shot model we are discussing on another thread here is an example of a front-loaded set-up.
-
An “interventionist” model. God sets up the universe so that evolution will happen, but leaves evolution as an open-ended process, not designed to produce a specific set of determined outcomes, so it wanders as it pleases, as variation, mutation, lateral gene transfers, selection, etc. all combine in unpredictable ways (as Gould stresses in his rewind the tape analogy). But God isn’t happy with just any old set of outcomes, so from time to time he “twigs” the process (whether by manipulating mutations, or sending an asteroid crashing into the earth, or whatever), to steer evolution back onto the path he wants it to take.
Note that both models produce designed outcomes. Chance is not the final determiner of what happens; God’s designs are. That’s why Behe thinks they are both legitimate ID models.
Note that so far I have talked only about what Behe allows as logically possible within the ID family of hypotheses. I have not said anything about what Behe personally thinks is the most likely hypothesis.
Now, you read The Edge of Evolution as demanding mutations that nature is incapable of producing, and therefore you read Behe as holding to an “interventionist” model, whereby evolution, which by itself would not produce the specific set of outcomes we see today, is manipulated by a designing intelligence. That is what you are saying, is it not?
I actually don’t see that view as demanded by the book, though I can see why people read it that way. Indeed, even the title of the book suggests that design is something over against “evolution”. However, you will notice that, despite the title, Behe usually qualifies “evolution” with “Darwinian” or “neo-Darwinian” (those words you don’t like again – they keep cropping up!). He rarely if ever says that “natural” processes can’t produce something, or even that “evolution” can’t produce something (except where the context makes clear that he has in mind evolution as driven by random mutations). So I read the book as saying: If evolution works the way classical neo-Darwinism says it does, it wouldn’t be adequate to produce radically new body plans, etc. But evolution might work some other way. It might be supplemented by interventions (option 2 above), or designed outcomes might be built into it that are realized by natural means other than Darwinian mechanisms (option 1 above). So I take the book as saying, not that “evolution” can’t produce certain things, but that evolution without design involved somehow can’t produce those things.
If Behe had wanted to say that evolution could not produce new body plans, etc., without miraculous intervention, it would have been quite easy for him to say so in the book. He could have stated up front that the only way to get the necessary multiple mutations is by miraculous interventions acting on the genetic material. But I don’t see any statement of that kind in the book.
Still, let’s say for the sake of argument that Behe’s preferred hypothesis is that God intervenes, manipulates, violates natural laws, etc., in order to produce the outcomes he wants. That wouldn’t undercut Behe’s general statement that a front-loaded version of ID is logically possible. It would just mean that Behe thinks option 2 is much more likely than option 1.
So whatever conclusion you come to about Behe, don’t impute Behe’s personally preferred view to all ID proponents. Don’t say “ID insists on interventions” merely because you feel sure that Behe insists on interventions. Just say, “Behe believes in miraculous interventions to steer evolution,” or, more cautiously, “I think Behe’s position in The Edge of Evolution logically requires him to believe in interventions,” and leave it at that.
I agree that a case can be made that Behe believes in interventions, or that his arguments sometimes imply interventions. All that I am asking of you is that you allow the ID people to define their own terms and their own theory. The ID people at Discovery have stated many times that naturalistic evolution would be in principle compatible with design, and Behe has said so, too. So you can’t insist that ID rules out a wholly natural evolutionary process (after an initial divine set-up). Let Discovery define what Intelligent Design theory is and is not. Then, if you want to, show why the theory is not good, or doesn’t work, or whatever. But don’t take it upon yourself to tell them what their theory is, what it does or does not allow. That shows a fundamental conversational disrespect.
I have yet to see an official statement on Discovery that says that ID requires miraculous interventions. I have not even seen a direct statement in Behe that requires miraculous interventions. However, I grant that Behe may privately strongly suspect that God has intervened in the evolutionary process. But in the end, what one suspects he believes is irrelevant to assessing his argument. He argues for design, not for miraculous interventions, and so to refute him one needs to show that the outcomes he discusses could occur without any design. The question of miraculous interventions is a distraction.
1 Like
I think this is exactly right. He is not trying to interpret history. He is making an inference on what he is observing in extant species.
1 Like
No, it wouldn’t, because it would not indicate where Behe significantly differs from ID supporters who are YEC or OEC.
If you won’t allow that Behe accepts “evolution”, what term would you use to cover the fact that Behe accepts that human bodies are modified descendants of ancient bacteria? What should we call that transformation, if not “evolution”?
2 Likes
You write:
“But it is what he described in his book. That’s why there is massive
confusion. If Behe has changed his position since writing “Edge of
Evolution” then that’s fine. Here is an excerpt from the description
of “Edge of Evolution” at Amazon:”
Quote from Behe’s book: “As a result, for the first time in history
Darwin’s theory can be rigorously evaluated. The results are shocking.
Although it can explain marginal changes in evolutionary history,
random mutation and natural selection explain very little of the basic
machinery of life.”
Ahem, Mr. T… but what is it that you think is a smoking gun. The
first sentence doesn’t seem to say anything particularly astonishing.
So I’ll proceed to the last part of the quote:
“The “edge” of evolution, a line that defines the border between
random and nonrandom mutation, lies very far from where Darwin
pointed. Behe argues convincingly that most of the mutations that have
defined the history of life on earth have been non-random.”
Mr. T,
When did you start getting so confused about the term non-random?
When Behe says “non-Random”… it doesn’t necessarily mean “special
creation”, right? And when you listen to his Pool Shot Scenario (you
HAVE heard his own words on the video, right?) … he clearly
talks about God arranging all the pool balls of the Cosmos at the
moment of Creation, the Big Bang! And it is this arrangement, this
planned out sequence of pool ball collisions, that drive the model.
Why is this important? Because if you are saying God is veiled by the
appearance of natural lawful operations, how can you possibly
insist that God-Guided advocates (such as myself) can’t use the word
Evolution? My God-Guided, and your Not-Guided, are completely
indistinguishable from the perspective of a mortal observer - - but
not from the perspective of God (you know, if there is one).
@Eddie (@T_aquaticus , @swamidass )
Your ability to establish a “speculation as a possible outcome” never ceases to surprise me! Why do I say that?
Because i suddenly realized that you were NOT saying what i thought you were saying! Please look at the section i quoted for this posting.
If i hadnt already thought through to this point (using my own vocabulary), i never would have recognized the very same idea couched in your own words!!
@eddie, you would have made a great lawyer! You wrote this:
“If Behe had wanted to say that evolution could not produce new body plans, etc., without miraculous intervention, it would have been quite easy for him to say so in the book.”
More than once, i have pointed out the impossibility of using science to confirm an ID stance - - IF the stance is stated like this:
[1] What if God could see for Himself that natural/lawful evolution COULD create flagella for one-celled life with ENOUGH time.
[2] For the flagella case, ENOUGH time could be a VERY VERY long time, while for other modifications, it could simply be a matter of a few years or a few hundred years. The exact time it takes isnt the issue… and SO: one could argue that Behe is not saying these difficult “modifications” are not possible for natural law (and thus, @Eddie, your statement to @T_aquaticus is technically true!
[3] But so what!? This is a duck or weave!!! The real question you are not addressing is that an I.D. researcher (but not, Behe, in my view) could argue that without miraculous (non-lawful) engagement by God (the so-called moment referred to as an “intervention”!) the purely natural way for “un-guided” mutation might take 1 million years longer than God’s purpose allows for! It could be a million years late, or a century too late, or a year or even just a second!
[4] If the I.D. researcher sees God as one who performs miracles all the time, then if the “all natural” mutation is even a second too late for God’s game plan, he can engage in the miraculous to keep the game plan on track!
[5] The Conclusion? There are 2 ways that the mutation in question can be handled:
(i) If we follow the Pool Shot model, God keeps the desired flagella mutation On-Track by programming the outcome at the moment before the Big Bang!; or
(ii) God DOES use miraculous mutation to [intervention] keep his olan exactly on track, but no human (without God’s complete knowledge of Cosmic natural law) would be able to devise a test that would exclude ALL the non-miraculous ways the mutation in question might be accelerated!
And this is why some categories of the miraculous
(as in Paragraph [5] Option “ii” above)
can only be “indicated” … and never confirmed… by Science.
It’s precisely because Behe rejects this stipulation of yours that the argument of your whole post in invalid. He doesn’t think it’s impossible to use science to confirm intelligent design.
Remember, I have been trying to get you to focus on what Behe means, not what you think science allows.
T. aquaticus thinks that “what Behe means” is that God is tinkering miraculously with the evolutionary process. Most readers of Behe think that. A minority of readers of Behe think that he is pushing for a front-loaded position in which God sets up the universe but then lets evolution run entirely according to natural laws. My own reading of Behe (supported by Behe’s own self-interpretation in the Discovery article I linked to several days ago) is that he isn’t pushing for either option, but allows both of them as legitimate options within an ID framework.
That said, if we take into account the total body of Behe’s work and all his public statements, and wanted to speculate on his private view (as opposed to what options ID allows, according to him), I would guess that he probably thinks God did some tinkering with natural processes along the way. But I cannot provide any direct statement to that effect anywhere in his works, which is why I offer it only as my private speculation. As far as public statements go, he seems to be non-committal. It’s as if he doesn’t want readers to focus on his own personal speculation about how God put design into the world, but only on the fact that God did put design into the world.
And indeed, I think that is exactly why he does not pin himself down to any particular option. He thinks the most important thing at this stage is to convince the world that the design is there in nature to be seen. If he could convince the world of that, then there is all the time in the world, until the sun grows cold, for people to argue about the divine means by which the design got there.
1 Like
That’s pretty standard for all the professional ID pushers. Never commit to anything that can be tested and falsified. That way you can keep gulling the scientifically uneducated public with your vague claims and empty blustering rhetoric. The propagandists employed by the DI have made vague hand-waving into an art form.
2 Likes
Aren’t both things important? To lay out what Behe means, and how we might agree or disagree with it?
3 Likes
I am aware of the differences.
But the difference doesnt invalidate what I do with the Pool Shot Model.
To satisfy your concerns i now limit my statements about Behe’s intentions. I am using your version for now… because it is sufficient.
1 Like
Ironically, @swamidass and i would argue that he has the optimum sequence wrong:
The reason academia resists his ideas is the suggestion that science can affirm design.
Joshua uses the opposite approach: there is nothing to argue about if God uses “lawful/or/non-supernatural” means to execute his designs (up to the appearance of humans).
This is much less threatening to academia… because the Design and non-Design scenario would look identical.
I asked you to wrangle @jongarvey on this particular part: he seems to want to say that it is impossible for the results to be the same - - because the natural order will not cooperate.
How odd…
1 Like