The biggest news of this week for the “conversation” this blog is in some small way a part of will likely be the discussion between Drs. Michael Behe and S. Joshua Swamidass in Texas. The answer for both men to the polemical question above is not “God w/out evolution”, but rather “God with evolution,” iow both God and evolution. So what else important is there left for them to disagree about? http://www.veritas.org/location/texas-a-m-university/
For Behe, “evolution” has a narrower meaning than it does for Swamidass. One key question, that likely won’t be asked, is: how wide is Swamidass’ meaning of “evolution” and where does it stop (i.e. what doesn’t ‘evolve’)? Is Swamidass, who somewhat incredulously claims to be neither a creationist nor an evolutionist, actually both? One of the biggest challenges unaddressed still by Swamidass regarding his evolutionism will be met when he starts describing or explaining the “limits of evolutionary theories”, rather than only “the great possibilities of evolutionary theories”, now as we live in a post-Darwinian, extended synthesis scenario.
We may nevertheless hope for some reconciliation, or even a moment or two of peace amidst an artificial storm in the USA involving “Intelligent Design”, evolution, and creationism. Those moments will likely constitute a rare pause in their otherwise contrary apologetics approaches, both taking a “public understanding of science” attitude of pedagogical communication to the stage. We may thus, purely on the communications front, simply get either a parody of abstract intellectualism driven by “religious” or “quasi-religious” agendas, or more positively, a few simple concessions of common ground that shouldn’t be too difficult for either of them to find, or to make towards each other.
Over the years, Behe has been on tours of evangelical churches and apologetics events, which suits Swamidass’ background and religious leanings. The current venue with Veritas Forum should present a familiar opportunity for Behe and Swamidass to establish common ground as Abrahamic monotheists, with at least some shared ideas that they both oppose, such as identifying limits to scientific methods and practises in understanding human life and meaning. A key issue will be how much “confident public confessing” Swamidass does in contrast with how much he will stick to a “strictly natural scientific” approach to the topic. Just opposing “Intelligent Design” theory alone on natural scientific and computational biology grounds should be enough to win audience points. Yet if Behe can show where Swamidass’ excesses often veer, seemingly unknown to himself, into scientism, that would surely lead to a different ball game. Behe is much clearer, or at least simpler in his “philosophy/philosophistry of science” than Swamidass, through training at the Discovery Institute, which he got from Stephen C. Meyer, William Dembski, Paul Nelson, and a few others.
We know already that Swamidass is weak to a pushover regarding the ideology of “methodological naturalism” (MNism). He admits that MNism is a misnomer, but not yet that it is also an exclusionary ideology usually simply boiling down to anti-supernaturalism. Behe can and will exploit this, though he’s not really pro-supernaturalism, even as a religious theist. Instead Behe’s against those who would put restrictions on natural science, such as excluding “intelligence” (or poof, “Intelligence”) from strictly scientific theories. At this point, if Swamidass pushes Behe to distinguishes types of “design/Design”, it will go a long way, since Behe told the author of this OP a few months ago, that he doesn’t know about and doesn’t read non-IDist, i.e. real “design theories”. The “design universalism” coming from the DI has gone too far, and Swamidass will likely push this button in the debate, already busy flashing on the table.
Behe will surely let Swamidass take the lead proselytising in his more evangelicalistic way because the hosts are evangelicals, in the framework of apologetics. At the same time, the recent review of Swamidass’ book from the highly evangelical organisation, Creation Ministries International, does not bode well for his posturing. Swamidass, as usual, acted as if a highly critical review were actually a supportive one, but such an amoral charade likely cannot carry on for too much longer. It seems that journalist Jay Johnson is well placed to show how that has been playing out, also through his posting at BioLogos. Nevertheless, if Behe doesn’t let Swamidass skip away lightly from his relativizing of the Catholic Church’s teachings on Adam and Eve’s genealogy, doesn’t get stuck with his “anything goes” attitude, then it could get much more interesting quickly.
My concern is that the comparatively low philosophical acumen of both participants (on the scale of leading figures in science, philosophy, theology dialogue) will likely lead to terminological confusion, and thus accusations or displays of needless semantic subtlety and avoidance. Swamidass’ case, where it strays from traditional Catholic and Orthodox teachings, strays quickly into groundlessness through ideological relativism. Nevertheless, they will agree on the most important teachings regarding Adam and Eve on a personal level, as Swamidass is really only trying to be as orthodox as possible, while dragging his backwards evangelical Protestant brothers and sisters along with him starting to catch up.
What are the main things people at TSZ think could be accomplished at the “God and/or Evolution” debate? My suspicion is that with two theists involved, most of the skeptics here don’t really care.
The hosts label Behe as “one of the leading Intelligent Design advocates”, not just “in the USA,” but rather, “in the world”, which might just mean Texas. = P In any case, doesn’t that sound flashy? And they call Swamidass, “one of the rising stars at the intersection of [evangelicalistic] faith and [naturalistic] science.” Yes, Swamidass certainly is at the intersection of something unusual after the BioLogos fiasco; must credit their vision about that.
Let’s see what results from this curious match-up after such noise following Swamidass’ co-authored review of Behe’s Darwin Devolves & Behe now being featured in a new DiscoTute video series about bio-chemical “secrets”. Can the two men make up after harsh words in the past, both coming from Swamidass towards IDT/IDism and from IDists towards Swamidass’ sometimes cringeworthy YECist compromise?
Surely this encounter will mark a welcome opportunity, as the organizers hope, “to come together and examine the big-picture questions of life.” May the conversation elevate beyond where it has so far reached, and is currently stuck, in a way that gets the best out of participants, hosts & audience.
There is a huge difference between Swamidass and Behe. Swamidass is evolutionary scientist, tenured Professor at a cutting edge secular university who does novel research in computational biology. Behe is a discredited biology professor at Lehigh University where the department has a disclaimer against Intelligent Design on the Biology department website. Swamidass represents state of the art science that is producing benefits for the good of mankind. Behe, on the other hand, represents a failed non-science ideology. ID is creationism, plain and simple. ID is not cutting edge science, it is not science at all. Students at Texas A&M will see clearly what science like that being done by Swamidass will bring to their future. Behe will show the uselessness and emptiness of ID. The students will readily see the difference.
Gregory,
Here’s a major difference: Swamidass thinks that God operates through evolution in a scientifically undetectable way. Behe thinks we can demonstrate God’s (or at least a designer’s) involvement scientifically.
That said, the two also share a big problem: If God is responsible for evolution, then he is also responsible for a huge amount of suffering and waste. It’s hard to reconcile this with Christian notions of a perfectly loving God.
You’ve nailed, keiths! 🤣
Unfortunately, none of them will even mention it today, unless someone in the audience asks them: why would God guide evolution by causing some mutations, inserting new genes, and more, to evolve one kind of organism into another, and at the same time allow other mutations to cause diseases? 🤗
This is exactly right. Josh made a big step recently affirming that evolutionary theory was a limited explanation. If he then says all scientific theories are limited as an equivocation he is back to practicing scientism.
Mike Behe is unique in how he approaches ID and I see him as an important contributor to bring rational discussion to the table.
Which can mean only one thing: Swamidass promotes an oxymoron idea because he doesn’t even want to imply the obvious: God guide evolution can mean only one thing…
Behe is another one who either doesn’t realize it (I doubt it), or was prompted by his publisher, to promote an oxymoron of guided evolution contradiction because it sound more scientific…
This doesn’t lead to any rational discussions at all, but as I have indicated in my recent OP on common descent, it leads to confusion not only in the general public and abuse by evolutionists…
J-Mac,
You and I both agree that evolution is a limited explanation. Behe and Swamidass both agree to this. What is the biggest limiting issue for evolution?
Glad we agree on that part, Bill. _/\_
It would be helpful if you could either quote this “big step” or link to where you believe Joshua affirmed “evolutionary theory [i]s a limited explanation”.
I don’t know how to make sense of “all scientific theories are limited as an equivocation”. Can you try again with what is being equivocated with what, if that is what you wish to focus on, i.e. the equivocation? (If it helps, an overview: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/analogy-medieval/)
IDists normally engage in univocal predication of Divine design with human design. If you miss this part, or refuse to address it, e.g. via Feser & Fuller, then the ball game is simply happening without you.
First, I LIKE Michael Behe. Big hugs: no “angry sunshine” coming there. Second, he is far from an intellectual idol or hero to me. He is a third-rate philosopher, who has stuck by his guns on a single concept duo, in ways that I simply couldn’t have imagined a person doing, that has jeopardized his career and turned him into a travelling quasi-science (IDT) salesman, rather than elevating himself as a serious scientist, scholar or public intellectual. Francis Collins is the appropriate polar opposite to Michael Behe here; one is a real scientist, the other is largely an *ideologue on the salary of a think tank with politicians & links to funding at its helm. Collins serves the US government and people of the USA; Behe serves his family’s table & the protestant evangelicals he prefers above his fellow Roman Catholic thinkers, whose approach to design, change, purpose, evolution, creation, origins, process, time, space, law, science, philosophy, theology, simply differs by being more mature and well-rounded than his or Stephen C. Meyers’.
Directly to me in one-on-one conversation a few months ago with no one else around, and again the next day with 2 IDists at his side to defend him or provide with/for him an answer, Behe had a fair chance, and simply failed to recognize or acknowledge the difference between Divine Design and human design.
How do you explain that, Bill? Please, take your time, as I’m not accusing anyone here, just relaying the key points in the exchange and where communication broke down on Behe’s side. And asking to understand: why?
The Behean way seems to be: now you see it; now you don’t – poof! Today, his pony and dog show is at Texas A&M University. Swamidass is part of the “next generation” that Behe has been trying to woo to the IDM’s side. I simply don’t think Swamidass will let Behe get away with many of the things he has gotten away with in the past. Behe is not as strong as some of the more radical IDists seem to think, in a kind of Movement-emergent scientistic idolatry of the man.
Did you know Swamidass tried to attend the Discovery Institute’s Summer Program, but was turned down? Don’t you see what he has in his arsenal against IDism, Bill?
*Note that if Swamidass does or doesn’t use the term “ideology”, and if so in what way, during this evening’s discussion, will also serve a key marker for the results. Are both men unwilling to look at their own ideas in the mirror, taking a break to reflexively consider themselves as other than “steelmen”, instead showing how their own ideologies have guided them to where they stand on that very stage together? It’s both a question of will & self-understanding of one’s own voice, it’s proper place, and role in the broader conversation.
Swamidass’ “limits of evolutionary explanation” are not yet clear to me. He has written about things supposedly “evolving” that to me commit category errors. It does not seem that Swamidass’ relationship with ideological evolutionism has yet been spelled out. Behe otoh commits IDism, the exaggeration of “Design”, i.e. in short, occasionalism.
What are you saying you believe Behe & Swamidass agree to? Why not make a short list?
Why assume it is necessary to guide evolution?
Patrick Trischitta,
What’s the difference between a “secular university” and a “private research university”? Are they actually being used as synonyms by this “freedom from religion” advocate?
It seems that Patrick either cannot or will not identify ANY common ground bewteen Behe & Swamidass. Hmm, why not? Yet that’s not difficult or hard to do at all!
Both Behe & Swamidass stand on the same ground as religious men, as Abrahamic monotheists, who reject ideological secularism, and who both at least posture themselves as being against ideological scientism, materialism, physicalism, and a few other basic ideologies. I’m not sure why Patrick thinks that Swamidass in particular is “on his side” in the promotion of ideological “secularism”. Perhaps that’s just a fantasy fixation with Swamidass?
newton,
Live in a God-filled world, and it just makes sense. Live denying the “spiritual realm”, turning against the Indigenous spirituality in oneself, and there may indeed be never or little of any felt need to even search for that Guidance.
Easy, blame the victim, emphasize the perfectly Just aspect.
Gregory,
The equivocation is to try and equate evolutionary theories limitation with other theories limitation vs a detailed discussion of the limitation. When you make a sweeping statement to create an equivalence when there isn’t one you are practicing scientism.
Evolutions shortfall in explaining life’s diversity is unique to evolution and different than other theories limitations. General Relativity explains gravity and assigns a mechanism but does not provide the detail of how the mechanism functions. It provides a tested model of how it works.
Evolutions weakness in explaining life’s diversity is identifying how living innovation happens. Both the mechanism and the detail are missing the ability to model and test their innovative power.
There are many subjects it’s hard to get Mike to discuss. Common descent is another one. The difference between Devine design and human design is an interesting subject but not one I think he is ready to take on at this point. Since there are similarities we can use human design as a test bed.
Gregory,
-the both agree in common descent
-They both agree we do not have a complete mechanistic explanation for life’s diversity
This is about it that I can tell. We will see if the discussion adds to the list.
colewd,
As a test bed? No, that’s the univocal predication. Not interested in that quasi-blasphemous IDism. Btw, you seem to be using a family name “Devine” for a rather different signifier.
That’s not very much. Swamidass already listed more than that on his site. You don’t sound informed or interested in “common ground” between them. Why not?
colewd,
Sorry, please first directly address & back up what you stated: “Josh made a big step recently affirming that evolutionary theory was a limited explanation.”
Please quote or link to this. His words, not yours. Thanks.
Show us where he addressed this.
The rest of what you wrote is too noisy. Thanks for focusing.
p.s. for small-g guidance: https://wmpeople.wm.edu/asset/index/cvance/univocal
It may be more comforting thought, but seems to bring an omniscient ,eternal Being down to the level of Charlie Allnut banging on the engine of the African Queen. Mutation here, meteor strike there. Fine if you want to assume a bad craftsmanship but still see no reason to assume it is necessary.
Search away, but I hardly see how having to mutate this or that provides Guidance. Maybe doubt the Big Guy is at the top of His game.
I doubt we have the same degree of agreement on the limits… Or I can’t remember, Sorry.
Why would they have a public debate then?
It makes no sense to discuss to what extent God got involved in evolution since neither of them have any evidence for their point of view…
Again, guided evolution is an oxymoron, get it?
BTW: are you going to be at the debate?
Because he doesn’t know it yet! It depends who asks. Once he commits to it, he will hear from me… 😉
bias
Oxygen!!! Oxygen, pleeeease!!!
Taking it back would be hard…
I finally agree with you on something! 🙂
I’d suggest you do an OP on this particular issue unless you are worried …
The difference being Dr. Swamidass says “we don’t know” about the gaps in our knowledge. Behe tries to cram his Christian God into the gaps. That’s why Dr. Swamidass is considered an honest scientist while Behe isn’t taken seriously by the scientific community.
Well, Swamidass also says that Adam was created form the dust and Eve from Adam’s rib?
Does this constitute honesty in your scientific view?
Please don’t be afraid to elaborate … 😉
Please provide a reference for Dr. S. making that claim.
This good point should be expanded. Those who live in a magic-filled world see magic embedded in everything, and see no need to ring in any gods at all. Those who live in a world entirely dependent on cause and effect (even if the many causes interact in ways that defy good modeling) feel no need for either magic or gods.
The god-filled see purpose lying in their search for Guidance. Those believing in magic are fulfilled by their knowledge of the Vast Unknowable. Those who believe science can explain everything find meaning in their search for explanations. And while none of these may have grabbed the brass ring, it’s still the case that belief in science has done more for human living standards in 300 years than magic or gods accomplished in 100,000 years. This might be considered an important clue, except being pre-filled with gods or magic makes the clue hard to understand.
Adapa,
How many people did you poll on this?
He is confused… He didn’t know Swamidass believes in de novo creation of Adam and Eve from rib either… 😉
So you can provide no reference. You were just making it up like you usually do.
J-Mac,
https://www.pewresearch.org/ft_19-02-11_darwinday420px/
Guided evolution is the most popular belief among the US population according to Pew research.
Are you saying that a mind providing guidance for evolution could be a valid mechanism?
I did a clean up.
My time has value to me, so commenters who fail to take it to Noyau may regret their lack of self-control.
colewd:
I wonder how often Behe gets pestered by creationists like Bill who are desperate for reassurance.
I don’t have to poll people. I’ve read a considerable amount of both of their writings.
Why do you know so little about Behe’s religious claims concerning evolution?
dazz,
Umm, are you not aware of multiple sub-fields across several disciplines that do indeed operate on that very assumption? Human minds guiding development with testing, planning & design, prototyping, improvement, etc. Don’t worry, most biologists, or narrowly focussed “practising” natural scientists aren’t aware of this, so there’s nothing to be ashamed of for simply not knowing about it.
If you mean “just biological evolution”, then please specify up front: “I am not talking outside of biology”, so that it will be clear. It’s up to you to provide necessary qualifications for communicative clarity. If you don’t, likely too much misunderstanding will ensue. Behe makes the same error, with his design universalism. Please improve communication habits, above low standard biological level. = )
Holy schnikes!
How does this belief compare with Americans’ belief that Canada is 51st State?
Maybe I should reconsider, then? 😉
keiths,
What reassurance?
dazz,
I am saying a poll has stated the majority of the US population believes in guided evolution.
colewd:
The reassurance — which you don’t get — that Behe doubts common descent.
Adapa,
Religious claims?
Yes Bill. That the Christian God is the Designer is a religious claim. Do you not understand that either?
keiths,
For what its worth I am fine with Behe’s position. I think it’s smart as guys like you that have an emotional attachment to evolution endorse him.
I don’t know of anyone with an emotional attachment to evolution, any more than anyone has an emotional attachment to plate tectonics or gravity. I know plenty of people who have studied and accept the scientific veracity of evolution.
I do know several scientifically illiterate IDiots who don’t understand the evidence for evolution so reject it solely due to their emotional religious beliefs.
You didn’t even bother to google, eh?
If science were politics, this would be a valid point. In politics, public opinion is determinative. In science, not so much. As the story has it, when it was published that 100 physicists disagreed with Einstein’s theory, he said “Why so many? If I’m wrong, all it takes is one.” This may be apocryphal, but the point is clear – relativity is not tested by popular vote.
I would guess that if this poll were taken in Sweden, or maybe India, the results would be very different — and any such results would be irrelevant to how biology actually works anyway. In the US, I suppose people must rectify a belief in their god with their knowledge that evolution happens, and this is the resulting mashup.
I know, I know. But doesn’t that mean that those people, including Behe, believe that a mind is therefore a valid evolutionary mechanism?
I’m not watching a 45 minute video. Provide a reference directly to a Dr. Swamidass quote.
I’m not watching it to find the quote, just because you don’t want to…
Here is a tip:
OK, you can provide no reference. That’s pretty strong evidence it was a false claim on your part.