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.
I don’t see how that would be scientism, but ironically, that’s exactly what you do all the frigging time when pressured for an ID mechanism. You know the drill: You say ID is limited but so is gravity cause we don’t know how matter curves space-time, or how magnetic fields do their thing, and yada, yada
Adapa,
You are emotionally attached as most the atheists on this blog are. Thats why you end with anger problems and call people who disagree with you liars. Keiths is also emotionally attached as most of the pro evolution people here.
But you found Behe accepting common descent confusing…
You said it in the video.
Are you over it now?
I think that’s what keiths was looking for when he mentioned you looking for reassurance…
dazz,
I tell you ID is limited and explain exactly why. The scientism team here has trouble with this concept.
J-Mac,
I think Behe is doing a great job ridding the world of scientism. Who am I to question his strategy.
LOL, do I need to provide link to one of those instances where you do exactly what I described? OK, here you go
https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/kitzmiller-the-universe-and-everything/9427/97
By what mechanism? Promoting confusion and oxymoron ideas?
You don’t have to be “somebody” to agree, or disagree. All you need is a logical argument leading to the best explanation.
Oxymoron ain’t that…
J-Mac,
I hear what you are saying and I felt the same way but Behe is getting his ideas heard. I know the common descent claim is iffy as is genealogical A and E but they are both getting heard because they are not telling mainstream science that they a completely full of it. I am comfortable the scientism is evaporating.
dazz,
The limit of ID is not the mechanism its what you do after you make the conclusion. Its designed now what do I do. Evolution does not have a mechanism that can account for the significant innovation we are observing. Thats its limitation. Until the mechanism accounts for the observation there is no point in a more detailed explanation.
Whatever, Bill.
Heard? By whom? People like Larry Moran who twist it to support their views?
If this is true, this is where and why I’d disagree. The building of bridges over chasm that can’t be bridged… wishy… washy shmoltz…
Perfect! At least we know what Swamidass and Behe have in common…
Where is the justice, Bill?
J-Mac,
The most important point that the design guys have going for them is the organized complexity of life is not explained by current evolutionary theory. Whether common descent is involved is only confusing to the public who doesn’t have a solid grasp of the theory.
Only 33% of the public believes in unguided common descent and that’s just asking the origin of man question.
I’ll admit that I have anger problems when I’m talking with people who are too stupid and ignorant to realize that they have been lied to.
Then again, that’s pretty much everyone.
IDiots have nothing going for them but your blind faith in them, despite obvious demonstrations of their scientific and philosophical illiteracy (when not plain dishonesty).
The “organized complexity of life” is explained by current evolutionary theory, you just won’t accept it because you don’t understand how it works and won’t even try and understand how it works. You don’t understand the IDiots apologetics strategies, or “arguments,” either, which is why you just accept them on blind faith and reject scientific explanations on blind denialism.
That’s what they keep claiming, yes. It’s false, but you’re right that’s the primary falsehood being regurgitated over and over again that keeps the ID circus going.
Yeah, if he’d of said the organized complexity of life is explained by current intelligent design theory they he might have had a point.
But if your best claim is that something else does not explain what you also cannot explain, then, well, pack up and go home eh colewd?
No that’s because they’re knowingly telling falsehoods. We call people who knowingly tell falsehoods liars. That’s the definition of a liar, a person who says things he knows to be false.
And we can prove that they know it is false, because they were present to read our posts when we wrote and posted them.
You don’t have the moral standing to make this claim Bill. Until you get to see the beam in thy own eye, you better stop pretending to be able to judge. Got it now or you wan’t me to use puppets to get this into your head?
I doubt it Bill. I’m inclined to call you a lair too. Reason being that I repeat the same answers time and again to you, yet you keep saying the very same, already dealt with, bullshit. I suspect though, that you don’t lie about your position, you just have some depply ingrained dishonesty that prevents you from looking at yourself and see that you really have no idea and that maybe you should try and learn before continuing repeating the very same bullshit time and again.
The emotions come after the fact of seeing people like you repeating and repeating the very same bullshit as if we have never tried to explain anything to you. The emotions come after realizing that you just don’t read the answers. You jump over them.
Yes it does.
When you tell this lie, you deserve the charge of a liar. Because you’re telling a falsehood. I have personally explained to you how the mechanisms of evolution explain all the “significant innovation” you’ve brought up before. That means that when you keep saying there is no such mechanism, you are telling falsehoods.
What you must mean to say is more that you don’t accept or don’t believe this mechanism. But you can’t claim that there are no mechanisms in evolutionary biology that are innovative and can be used to explain complex adaptations. That is simply, flatly, wrong. There are. Mutations of all their various types, horizontal gene transfer, combined with natural selection, genetic drift, population mechanics, and endosymbiosis, are all mechanisms that are capable of explaining complex adaptations.
Philosophically, I have to disagree with you here. I would argue that a lie must meet THREE criteria: that it be false, that the claimant knows it’s false, and that the claimant says so anyway with the intent to deceive. I have no difficulty with the notion of telling deliberate falsehoods without such an intent. We say such things to small children all the time. And I strongly suspect some of our religious types are saying deliberately false things in the hopes of convincing themselves, but who fear that maybe they know better. These are the “Mark Twain Devout” – believing what they know ain’t so.
Sounds like a whole lot of yawning from folks here about whatever actual content or result was achieved at the Behe vs. Swamidass event this evening in Texas. Does it not make much difference which side gave a stronger or more convincing presentation? Or are they simply both wrong by default coming from two positions that are at the end of the day both promoting one variety or another of theism?
What say others, you agree?
It was about what I expected. Behe presented the standard ID arguments from personal incredulity (“this looks purposely designed so it must BE purposely designed!”) sprinkled with the occasional outright lie. Dr. Swamidass pointed out numerous errors and logical fallacies with ID reasoning but took it very easy considering how Behe led with his chin. Dr. S emphasized how Christians should be working together but that science wasn’t the proper tool to investigate God.
James Tour was in the audience and made an ass of himself in the question session by claiming no one knows anything about the biochemical working inside cells. What a pompous egotistical jerk.
Adapa,
Right, right, what would James Tour know? He is just a doctor of organic chemistry. What an egotistical jerk! Ask Adapa . Jocks muse!
A doctorate in organic chemistry doesn’t prevent one from being a pompous egotistical jerk. Tour made a fool of himself a few years back the same why by claiming no one alive understood macroevolution. Numerous evolutionary biologists offered to explain it to Tour but he chickened out and ran.
These events are mostly theater. They have very little effect on changing people’s views.
Well apparently he knows nothing about biochemistry(which is distinct from Tour’s field of synthetic organic chemistry), as he proved with his incredibly inane question. Go figure.
Right, right, right, how could he? When would he have time! You are funny.:
And there’s nothing there about him having qualifications in biochemistry or molecular biology. In that list there’s nothing. He is not trained as a biochemist or molecular biologist. All his qualifications are in synthetic organic chemistry.
Thanks for confirming what I just said. Nice own-goal there phoodoo.
Hey I have a suggestion. When James Tour starts to act confused and ignorant (okay perhaps he’s not acting) about the chemical causes of evolutionary change, someone can perhaps just send him some links such as: Induction of transition mutations by spontaneous tautomeric shifts.
As a synthetic organic chemist with his qualification, I take it (I could be wrong) he knows what tautomers are.
Rumraket,
Good thing he doesn’t need to know anything about biology to do his job:
Ha!
He is just the inventor, no need to understand it.
Better listen to Dawkins instead. or Chris Hitchens. or Daniel Dennet. or Neil Degrasse Tyson….or, or….
.
Imagine how good his inventions would be if he knew bio-chemistry!!
The longer you wait, the more unlikely a bio-chemical reactions are to take place, as Tour has experimented many times…
That’s probably why a bolt of lightning, or thermo-vents have appeal to many, as mindless processes continue to outwit intelligent re-designers, like Jack Szostak 😉
So you’re saying Tour does understand the chemistry inside the cell, then why is he asking questions as if nobody knows? You can’t have your cake and eat it too.
Also, those articles all have co-authors, so it’s not at all clear what role Tour specifically had in writing them. Tour may be synthesizing particular molecules, while doctors then test them in cell cultures. You really have no idea how any of these things work do you?
Rumraket,
Yea, he has probably never studied it…hahahaha!
So that’s a yes, you have no idea whatsoever how it works, or what Tour actually knows about anything. Okay, I accept your tacit concession.
Rumraket,
Yea right, better ask Daniel Dennett.
You’ve already implicitly conceded, no need to keep going.
Rumraket,
You have conceded you are a skeptic.
And you are certainly not, that much is clear. Tour says something, you are instantly glued to his noisy orifice as if God himself was speaking to you.
Just out of curiosity phoodoo, did you even hear the question Tour asked? Do you even know what this current argument is about, or did you feel compelled to defend him just because, as the true ideologue you are?
Rumraket,
When did I defend him? I am laughing at the oh so typical skeptic smear campaign.
“Oh he knows nothing”
“Well, so what if he does”
“Well, even if he does, that doesn’t matter to the theory.”
“We already knew that anyway”
“We predicted it!”
I take virtually nothing self-identified skeptics say seriously.
But that’s Tour claiming that you anti-skepticism genius. Please try to keep up.
James Tour asked a question that appeared to suggest nobody knows anything about the chemistry that goes on in living cells. Which is all the more weird if, according to you, he’s an expert in biochemistry.
So now you’re saying you’re not at all defending him and his qualifications, despite having just spammed the thread with all the things you think shows he has qualifications in the field of biochemistry.
Can you make up your mind?
Someone is clueless…
“…Other notable awards won by Tour include the 2008 Feynman Prize in Nanotechnology, the NASA Space Act Award in 2008 for his development of carbon nanotube reinforced elastomers, the Arthur C. Cope Scholar Award from the American Chemical Society (ACS) for his achievements in organic chemistry in 2007, the Small Times magazine’s Innovator of the Year Award in 2006, the Southern Chemist of the Year Award from ACS in 2005, the Honda Innovation Award for Nanocars in 2005, the NSF Presidential Young Investigator Award in 1990, and the Office of Naval Research Young Investigator Award in 1989. In 2005, Tour’s journal article “Directional Control in Thermally Driven Single-Molecule Nanocars” was ranked the Most Accessed Journal Article by the American Chemical Society.[44] Tour has twice won the George R. Brown Award for Superior Teaching at Rice University in 2007 and 2012. In 2016, Tour was listas as an ISI highly cited researcher.[45]”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Tour#Awards
J-Mac,
Yea, but Richard Dawkins and Danniel Dennett have written some books!
J-Mac,
Michael Shermer publishes a magazine!
Because there is a demand: people what to hear ‘truth” as they would like it to be…
Who’s fault it it?