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.
Michael Shermer publishes a magazine!
He must believe what he publishes…or better yet, he has to pretend 😉
Has anyone been to Swami vs Behe debate, or seen it?
Damn, J-Mac.
Here’s Adapa reporting.
I got tired of reading his blather 🙁
Thanks!
Well, theatre, yes. Swamidass started with the local university sporting chant & hit the audience repeatedly with multiple “tag questions”. But I’m not so fatalistic re: the power to change peoples’ views at live events. It might not be immediate conversion of position, but a link in the conversion chain.
The video is available on FB. I took notes & may come back to it later. Joshua stated: “My goal is just to be honest.” For me, that’s not a goal, just a way of acting with dignity & integrity. For Swamidass, apparently, it’s part of the act, as we saw with the way he interacted here. I was quite appalled by what I saw in the relationship between Swamidass and Behe. They both said things to each other that I wouldn’t have sat quiet for if I were *either* of them!
Overall, it had some interesting moments. Swamidass borrowed & didn’t give credit again, but that is expected by now. Behe went further with a couple of new (at least to me) definitions of “Intelligent Design” using the “purposeful arrangement of parts” phraseology. It was otherwise quite predictable & uneventful, with Swamidass not speaking almost at all about TGAE & Behe not bringing up MNism. Oh well.
Good point, that’s funny.
Gregory,
Could you provide a link?
keiths,
https://www.facebook.com/RatioChristiTAMU/videos/2607832099499398/
Thanks.
No wonder there are so many disagreements between Behe and Swamidass, and their supporters as they hold debates for low-talkers only… as nobody can hear them… 😉
Not only that, it was held at the Rudder Theater, as Gregory already observed…
How much more rudder could this be for Swami and Behe to be so puffed up? All they needed were puffy shirts 😉
Here it is for those who don’t know what I mean, or aren’t low-talkers… lol
ETA: No wonder Swamidass demanded a New Voice on Human Origins…
He realized everyone is a low-talker… 😉
I have to admit that I was so looking forward to Swamidass’ solid argument for the evolution of flagellum, which I’m sure he presented at the debate…
Otherwise, what’s the point of Behe’s same old, same old every Darwinsit is afraid to discuss other than; it must have evolved..somehow…
I have a question for those who watched the debate, Swami vs Behe:
Has anyone seen Behe dangling a clove of garlic in front of Swamidass?
Here is what I mean:
You mean the blatant lie Behe told that “no one has even attempted to explain flagellar evolution in the 20 years since Darwin’s Black Box came out”?
There have been over 600 published papers on the evolution of all parts of the flagellum in the last 20 years. Look for yourself.
Flagellum evolution
Why do blindly swallow the lies and bullshit of con men like Behe and the other DI clowns?
What’s the evolutionary mechanism to explain irreducible complexity?
You know what irreducible complexity means, eh?
Just in case, it means that all the parts of the interdependent system have to be there and fully functional for the systems to function… like a lock…
I don’t have to check any of them because it’s not there…(see above).
I don’t, as you have witnessed it many times at TSZ…
Irreducible complexity of the flagellum has not been REALLY EXPLAINED….
600 papers of crap is not worth my time but I’d be glad to see myself proven wrong… 😉
It’s called the Mullerian Two Step. Add a part, then make it necessary. With biology it also involves co-option of function and genetic scaffolding.
So you’d rather be a willfully ignorant dumbass and stay ignorant. Aren’t you the jerk who just yesterday was bitching that people don’t know how to use Google? 😀
Swamidass and Adams rib recreation into Eve:
“I advocate for the empty chair. To this end and for this purpose, I made a fairly radical claim at a public lecture at Urbana Seminary, then at a scientific seminar at the ASA conference, then in an online symposium for The Creation Project. This claim is consistent with the genetic evidence in which it appears (1) our ancestors arise as a population, not a single couple, and that (2) we share ancestry with the great apes.
Entirely consistent with the genetic evidence, it is possible Adam was created out of dust, and Eve out of his rib, less than 10,000 years ago in a divinely created garden where God might dwell with them, the first beings with opportunity to be in a relationship with Him. Perhaps their fall brought accountability for sin to all their descendants. Leaving the Garden, their offspring blended with their neighbors1 in the surrounding towns. In this way, they became genealogical ancestors of all those in recorded history. Adam and Eve, here, are the single-couple progenitors2 of all mankind. Even if this scenario is false or unnecessary, nothing in evolutionary science unsettles this story. So, evolution presses in a very limited way on our understanding of Adam and Eve, only suggesting (alongside Scripture) that their lineage was not pure.”
https://peacefulscience.org/genealogical-rapprochement/
I would like to start off by focusing on the fundamentals, before I take your Mullerian two step nonsense apart, which you clearly do not understand…
But, as Behe says, let’s accept it, for the sake of the argument 😉
How did bacteria swim to the food to survive before evolving the flagellum?
You can use as many steps as you want even, Mullerian or Harshmanian, but I must warn you, for the sake of the argument, there is a trap awaiting you… 😉
Hope you don’t mind?
And while we’re at it, how did millions of suburbanites drive across town to Walmart before cars were invented? Ah, they probably all starved.
I know you are talking about someone else, and, I have a pretty good idea that it will be proven, not only for the sake of the argument, to be you… 🤣
Mabe they used skip the dishes coupons? 😂
No, I’m talking about you. You made a big stink about how people should use Google and do your work for you.
Willful dumbassery seems to be a common trait among Internet Creationists.
Ah yes, J-Mac, I had assumed that, when you claimed:
in your deligthful way, that this was what you were referring to.
Glad to see you confirm it, but I think you might want to ponder on the inclusion of the words “it is possible” in that sentence of Swamidass’s.
I encourage you to read more carefully.
In other news, you do know that there are bacteria without flagella, right?
Hello phoney theist!
Please introduce yourself, if you have the guts…
BTW: I like Alan and Neil better as mods.
At least they don’t hide their true identity that they don’t want the pink dress…
DNA-joke is ashamed to make it public…
Maybe his wife is watchin.. 😂
Pathetic…
Well, maybe you should have your head shrapnel checked out?
I’d recommend MRI right away…
Don’t delay!
It could be serious, yeh know…
I just had a flashback to another Creationist moron named Karl Crawford. The dimbulb claimed the evolution of woodpeckers was impossible because the first bird who tried it would knock himself out and not be able to reproduce. 😀
Creationists – what good is half a brain? 🙂
Do others agree? How about you Jock, what is your opinion about willful dumbassery, when you see willful dumbassery, what is your first thought usually? Do you have one?
Do you ponder willful dumbassery? Or perhaps do you more often think about unwillfull smartassery, and what you think about that?
If you do think.
Sorry for your pain phoodoo. We chipped in and bought this for you.
I’m utterly amazed that Joshua has not appeared yet to rebuke you for speaking in his name. Nevertheless, I think I am in general agreement with you.
Swamidass has no scientific evidence for his belief, and knows it. Behe at least believes there is scientific evidence for his belief.
The problem with Joshua’s position, if you have accurately represented what he believes, is that “evolution” is somehow distinct from God’s action in the world, and it (evolution) is something God can choose to twiddle with when he feels like it and which otherwise operates independently of God.
Basically, Joshua Swamidass is an IDist. 🙂
Not at all. Evolution operates independently of God until God decides to intervene.
I seriously doubt that Swamidass has done any more reading than Behe when it comes to non-IDist, i.e. real “design theories”.
People use the word design to talk about all kinds of other topics besides the emergence of life, just as people use the word emergence to talk about all kinds of things besides the emergence of Justin Bieber on the music science or the TV series. Why it is of importance that the same word gets used for many topics is a problem that Gregory has that I am pretty sure almost no one else in the world is concerned about.
The fact that no one else is concerned about that also seems to be of great concern to Gregory. But I don’t mean concerned like worried, I mean concerned like interested. But in Gregory’s case I mean concerned like worried. In the others I mean concerned like interested, for who it may concern (interest, not worry).
Do you mean “design theories”, as opposed to “Design theories”, as opposed to “design Theories” as opposed to Design Theories”?
Also, when you say you seriously doubt, do you mean the doubt you have is very serious, or do you mean you are not joking about the doubt you have, or do you mean the kind of doubt that is different from people doubting something is serious? Or perhaps you mean the opposite of farcical doubt. Or Farcical Doubt, which is a movement, that is just emerging.
I think this might be a good place to start, for those interested in design theory or Design Theory or even dEsign tHeory:
The Non-Designer’s Design Book (Non Designer’s Design Book)
I for one am amazed that someone can actually survive with both a straightforward and a light heart, PLUS a Designer Eye!
Yes, or yes. Or YEs, or yEs. Or YeS, or yeS. Or YES or yES.
Mung,
I found it rather funny, when Gregory was relaying his story about his discussion at a conference or something, with Behe about the use of the word design as opposed to capital design or design theory or whatever, and Behe’s response was one of perplexed disinterest. And Gregory couldn’t seem to fathom how this wasn’t of great importance to him.
Dammit, why doesn’t the Discovery Institute talk about design theory!!! Or change their name! Or change the name of intelligent design! Or something! Who knows!
Yes, that’s fair to say. And most people prefer to speak of Creation. In ‘western’ countries (I live in one, not sure about phoodoo), this is usually within the Abrahamic monotheistic traditions, or in the Indigenous religions.
It’s called over-using a metaphor. phoodoo & many IDist bathe in over-use of one concept: ‘design.’ That’s on them, while most normal people remain more balanced. It was a similar problem that Michel Foucault suffered from: “search for power everywhere you will find it.” IDists search for and push the notion of “design” everywhere, which reveals their idolatry of this concept.
Well, this attempt at insult should be explained, if one were to entertain it. First, there are not a few people who have expressed the same concerns that I have and do about the IDM, IDT, and DI. I use the terms IDism & IDist for accuracy of what we are actually dealing with as a result of DI IDT IDM. For a sociologist, this is a logical conclusion that simply expresses what anyone with eyes and ears can see and hear.
My recent definition of “Intelligent Design” from the other thread:
The insulting part from phoodoo is the attempt at psychology. phoodoo, please tell what you think supposedly makes me “concerned like worried”, while others are supposedly “concerned like interested”? Please quote whichever words you have read from me which suggest “worry”, rather than mainly “interest”? One would think doing research for a prolonged period of years on a single broad topic (at least also) constitutes “interest”.
phoodoo,
Please don’t retell my story wrong, silly troll. = P
I asked Behe how to distinguish Divine Design from human design. Simple as that. One question. He refused to acknowledge any difference, almost as if not understanding the question that was being asked. (Any Abrahamic monotheist in reading this should have alarm bells going off.) Iow, he wants the supposed “science” of IDT, of which he is the poster boy, to be “theistic science”. I warned him about this, and he was perplexed that someone would say it to him. The same with Brian Miller the next day standing right beside Behe, interested, trying to see, hear, listen, earnestly it seemed even, to try to understand what both I and the young man who had just been on stage with them, were saying and asking them. In the conversation, I backed this up with the names of other people who have indeed already asked for the same distinction, credible scholars, names that they both already know and surely respect. It is simply a distinction that for professional reasons, not as a man of Roman Catholic faith, Michael Behe simply cannot make or it would inevitably mean he must stop going to the DI’s well as “chief scientist of the IDM”. In short, even if it began out of goodwill, Michael Behe is now trapped by his own language of choice.
Conflation of Divine Design with human design is common fare in the IDM. This is part of the univocal predication of divine action, the occasionalism, and ultimately, the idolatry of IDism. To an eclectic non-Abrahamist like phoodoo, that might not be important. To many others, it is important and we won’t be compromised this way.
[phoodoo is unusual in the blogosphere on this particular topic & gets triggered by capitalisation issues. The cursing is part of his apparently unique-in-the-world religious syncretism or generic theism, that he never seems finally able to convey in a comprehensible manner to people he is in discussion with. Surely we are not speaking with phoodoo as a “traditional theist”, rather as an eclectic IDist.]
First, I use capital letters to signify a Divine Name, as Abrahamic monotheists often do in certain contexts. I am suggesting this is the right context. Do you have a problem with that, in itself? Yes or No. If Yes, then perhaps the problem is with your particular “religious” views in contrast with Abrahamic monotheism, rather than my attempt to fairly balance science, philosophy, theology as an Abrahamic monotheist? It would seem that you do not honour or dignify Divine Names (or just divine names), while I do. Is that correct, or have I missed something about your views? If No, then what’s the problem? Just watch & let it pass. I am speaking purposefully, so don’t react emotionally as if I promote “non-design” or anything like that.
It just reveals a shocking lack of sincerity, dignity, humility & humanity on the part of DI Fellows, like Behe. Yet the same holds for so many other IDists, who use the term “design theory” as if it were “theirs”, and the term “design theorist” as if it were a persecuted entity, when that is surely false. Yet they don’t study “real design theory” or look to “real design theorists”! This reveals themselves as double-talking impostors. The perpetuation of such intentional and proud distortion haunts the current “theory” being touted by the IDM & the DI. Cleansing is need from the fountain of deceptions flowing out of Seattle.
I am not sure, is No divine?
Or the word Name for that matter, because I usually don’t capitalize it, but I could.
What is “real design theory” and what is design theory without the parenthesis. I am not sure. What mes one real?
How does one distinguish design from a beaver from design from a human? Is that an important ability if one is going to study humans? Or beavers?
Perhaps Behe was just every bit as perplexed as I am over why that should be an important topic for him. Maybe humans designed the cell? Ok. So? Doesn’t that make it still designed?
I think he has acknowledged the designer could be an alien.
Gregory,
I take issue with you saying I was insulting you. I was perplexed by your obsession with the importance of capital letters and use of the word “design.”
People also use the word “thing” quite a lot, I have noticed. I personally don’t mind. I find that less people use the word colander, particularly as a metaphor. I am fine with that.
Sigh, now recalling why I don’t usually engage with syncretistic phoodoo; one gets very few straight answers from him.
It seems from above that phoodoo doesn’t or won’t acknowledge Divine Names. Is that correct, or not? I don’t like to assume things about people from their words that are not true, nor to shade phoodoo improperly here. While one wouldn’t expect an atheist to capitalize Divine Names, given they don’t accept the existence of (a) God or gods, nevertheless, as phoodoo “appears” to loosely take the side of some kind of theism, in his confusing defense of IDT & the DI, one might wonder doesn’t he at least use a capitalized first letter to address his deity?
First, zoologists study beavers and what beavers make. One doesn’t go to an architect of skyscrapers asking the minimal question, “er, what der ya think, huh, was it designed, ur not?” Wrong question. Second, human design is studied & done (praxis) by 1,000s of people worldwide. I both ask them, and follow some of the same principles they use in my own work. Yet just because I “design” as a human being, doesn’t mean I must accept the IDM’s idolatrous claims with IDT conflating Divine Design and human design into a single design universalist ideology. That, phoodoo, isn’t acceptable.
Why do you appear to be defending IDist ideology? Or do you simply not understand or yet see when or how exaggeration of ‘design’ into an ideology, which must properly be called “designism”, is even possible? Refusal to see even the possibility of their own ideology among IDists is one of the ongoing chronic features of “expelled syndrome.” I hope phoodoo chooses differently.
Umm, very different ball game here. Swamidass is a programmer, a computational biologist. He designs. He actually does “real designing”. Behe doesn’t. Real designing here must be understood as, “We have no use for IDT”, as it differs profoundly, in subject, object & motivation, from IDT.
So do you design also, Mung, right? We’ve been over this. What’s still missing?
And our real truth seeker, adapa, didn’t even last to the second round of the challenge of how bacteria evolved the flagellum; i.e. how it had swum before it evolved a flagellum…
Obviously, there Is another level of irreducible complexity to this clear, evolutionary contradiction, as some here already know…😉
This example proves again, and again, the confirmation bias principle: you can’t convince anyone who doesn’t want to be convinced, no matter what the evidence…
It’s quite a phenomenon of pitiful religious beliefs…
I made a lamp in highschool. Do I design?
I am willing to bet that Behe has at least cooked dinner before, does that count?
“I made a lamp in highschool. Do I design?”
Not on a scientific level.
“I am willing to bet that Behe has at least cooked dinner before, does that count?”
Not on a scientific level.
IDT is being proposed as a “strictly scientific” theory in natural (& sometimes applied) sciences. If the DI suddenly were to drop that requirement of the “theory”, then the conversation would change dramatically.
Then how can they know anything about what beavers design?
I suppose arachnologists have the same issue. So I am still at a loss as to what it matters if someone has designed things, designs things, thinks about design, thinks about design in a particular field but not another, likes design, hates design, but knows what it is, like the design of cars, but doesn’t like the design of tables, is a computer designer, but can’t draw or even fix a broken coffee cup…
Sorry Gregory, but I am still not convinced that your obsession with how the word designed is used is a rational concern in the slightest.
Its like if someone said, Gregory, you are talking about a computer program, maybe you are just talking about a program you use, and someone complained, but how can you talk about computers, you are not a computer engineer. Or if someone was talking about falling and breaking their leg, and you said, well, you are not a doctor, what do you know about broken legs? This is the same complaint you are making about Behe.
First, you don’t know if he is a designer. Maybe he likes to paint, how do you know? Maybe he likes to make origami figures. What in the world does that have to do with anything? If he was a certified architect, in wouldn’t have even the slightest bearing on his ability to theorize about the origins of a cell.
You have taken one word, design (he could have used another word, fabricated, it wouldn’t matter) and you have tried to hijack that word and demand that it only gets used the way you like to use it. Its completely nonsensical. That’s not an insult, that is just a fact. Fabrication Theory! There ya go. Some people fabricate stories, some people fabricate cars-what do they share in common? What does it matter.
On that’s ridiculous, what is a scientific level? I didn’t have to measure when I made my lamp? I didn’t have to use electricity theory to make the wires?
And cooking isn’t scientific? And if he had trained as a professional chef, that would somehow matter? Oh boy.
Gregory,
Which aspect of design would someone have to have studied in order to qualify in your eyes, to be able to study the design of a cell? Would car design qualify? Rug design? Interior design?
Dr. Swamidass did great to support science especially evolutionary biology. It was very convincing to all that evolutionary science is science and ID isn’t science at all.
Patrick Trischitta,
What about his argument did you find convincing?
Patrick Trischitta,
How do we know is evolutionary science is correct?
By using evolutionary science.
But what if evolutionary science is wrong?
You have to use evolutionary science to find out
Huh?