I suspect that Behe is willing to allow God to do whatever God wants to do…as am I. That’s why, if God chose to create life through completely random processes, it’s okay with me. It just doesn’t look to me as if that is the way he chose to create.
You write: “I suspect that Behe is willing to allow God to do whatever God wants to do…as am I. That’s why, if God chose to create life through completely random processes, it’s okay with me. It just doesn’t look to me as if that is the way he chose to create.”
Bilbo, I understand that view. But can you name a single Christian participating here on PeacefulScience.Org who endorses Creation-by-Random-Processes? I am rather skeptical that you can. But if find one, we should all know, so that the man or woman can serve as a benchmark “outside the norm” for PeacefulScience.
My question to you, Bilbo, is if you can accept the idea that God only used Special Creation for Adam & Eve?
I’m of two minds on this one, but I have taken your comments seriously and they do have merit. As you say later in your post, it really comes down to the proposed scientific claims. More to the point, Behe’s claims lack traction at the level of detail biologists work at.
The topic of the debate between Behe and Larry Moran is a really good example of what I am talking about. To sum up Behe’s position, drug resistance in malarial parasites requires two improbable mutations, but the improbability of these mutations occurring together is overcome by the sheer number of parasites. Behe uses this as a model for the improbability of evolution in other lineages that don’t have as many organisms in their population, such as the human lineage.
This begs a HUGE question. What human adaptations required two specific and rare mutations? Behe doesn’t say. In fact, Behe can’t point to a nearly impossible adaptation in any species. The whole argument lacks traction because he can’t come up with a single real biological example where it can be applied.
From a philosophical and theological I can certainly see the problem with putting God under the scientific microscope. The other problem is that Behe’s science is just bad.
Seriously? I just finished telling you that I allow God to do whatever God wants to do, and you ask me if it’s okay with me if God specially created Adam and Eve?
Meanwhile, no Christian here may believe that God has created life solely by random events, but given that they think it looks like he has done so, why should it be a problem for them if in fact he actually did? It’s not a problem for me if he actually did. It just doesn’t look to me as if he did.
You write: “Seriously? I just finished telling you that I allow God to do whatever God wants to do, and you ask me if it’s okay with me if God specially created Adam and Eve?”
Agreed. I can see that, in your case, the question was superfluous (in some ways). But I have encountered many a Creationist who use your sweeping statement (“God does whatever God wants to do!”), and then insists that God would never want to use Evolution to do anything. So try to be a little patient with the seemingly silly questions. I ask them because of all the seemingly silly answers I have received from those before you.
Now, here, you are being quite circular! You write: “… no Christian here may believe that God has created life solely by random events, but given that they think it looks like [He] has done so…” Frankly, it sounds like you are describing many of the folks at BioLogos… rather than here.
Please find me one, Bilbo! Please find me a Christian participant at PeacefulScience, who thinks it looks like God has created life by random events - - rather than by His direct engagement in natural events.
To be more precise and less misleading, Behe embraces a notion of science that says science can (in some cases) detect design in nature, and that admitting design detection into science makes for better science, regardless what religious implications the discovery of design in nature might have.
That’s what he said when he told Stephen Barr in debate why he was involved in Intelligent Design theory. You can hear it on the recording of the debate, easily findable by Google search. In the same place he explicitly denied that his purpose in doing ID was to prove anything about God. And this is corroborated by his output, which shows a remarkable restraint, in comparison with many other ID proponents, when it comes to invoking his results to aid in Christian apologetics.
Those of us who have been in these debates for a long time, and know Bilbo’s contributions to Telic Thoughts and many other websites, know that he doesn’t hold to the “silly answers” given by some creationists. He seems to be trying to hold a middle ground between ID and TE, and to be trying to be fair to both. I have often found his comments on the mark.