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.
So that’s what you found convincing?
Patrick Trischitta,
How was it light years ahead of Behe? What scientific arguments did you think Josh made?
Did these issues resonate at all.
-Josh agreed that the Darwinian mechanism did not explain complex structures.
-Josh agreed that neutral theory did not explain complex structures.
-Josh’s main argument was the difficulty concluding Devine design from human design.
phoodoo,
Sir, you seem troubled, so I’ll end here & bother your ideological confusion no more.
One of my complaints about Behe is that he speaks about “design theory” yet without having read the Literature about “design theory.” That simply makes him a weak and insignificant scholar. Ask any academic you know if the way to make a breakthrough in a field is to not study it. The same applies to “concept transfer” from one field to another. One had better make sure the analogy fits before pushing it, otherwise it might embarrass the person who proposes it. However, it turns out with the massive EGOs of IDists, none of them feel embarrassment for this hoax of ideology they are trying to dress up as “strictly scientific.”
Yes, that’s precisely what IDists do to the term ‘design’. They are for the most part fanatical, unhinged, imbalanced persons. I am one of the more balanced voices pushing back at their ideology. What we are witnessing here in phoodoo is a person who has a problem in that he sees no limits to using the term ‘design.’ Simply put, I find limitations to using that particular term & self-limit my usage of it, as do most people I interact with. IDists have stained the term with their ideology. Quite sad, but it is what it is.
They would have committed a category error to approach their study that way, insisting on “design” as a conclusion before the investigation. We’ve seen it happen countless times already. The only people trying to get “Intelligent Design” into biological theories are ideologues, pure & simple; no exception to this rule. Behe continues taking money from evangelicals and generic theists to regurgitate the same things he’s been saying for 25 years. He actually showed Mt. Rushmore AGAIN in this recent presentation. To consider Michael Behe a scientific hero is to admit one doesn’t even have a place at the table of good scholarship, & sound theory, thus denying oneself a place alongside Abrahamic monotheists like Francis Collins, Stephen Barr, Owen Gingerich, & many others.
Some IDists are so aloof, they look down on the best scientists in the world. Shame on them.
colewd,
Sir, are you broken in your brain somewhere that you don’t know how to spell the word “divine”? It’s at least the 3rd time in the last few days.
I ask because you wrote: “Josh’s main argument was the difficulty concluding Devine design from human design.”
Well, as everyone here knows, Swamidass borrows that argument. At the event, he used the awkward & more ambiguous term “creaturely design”. I do agree though, it quickly became one of his main arguments against Behe, and which none of the leading IDists has the integrity, courage or honour as a person to openly face in public.
Patrick Trischitta,
No, it wasn’t. And it certainly wasn’t a “debate.”
It was, however, a weird display of ego-trip from the get-go. Swamidass started with “My name’s Joshua Swamidass. Let’s give Mike a big hand”. The ongoing attempt to try to lift himself up into “the next Behe” was too obvious.
Not even a question that Swamidass got the upper hand in the discussion. More importantly both Behe & Swamidass identified common ground, which seems to have left the audience, largely Christian from the sounds of them cheering at the apologetics section from Swamidass, “feeling good”, which seems to have been as much Swamidass’ goal as the “science” he was conveying.
Thus, though Patrick may not like it himself, as an evangelical atheist, the purpose of the event I believe was nevertheless served by both men, rather than only one being a “victor” and the other a “loser.” Others are free of course to disagree with this assessment of the event & provide their own instead.
Gregory,
Divine….thanks for the correction.
The audio on Facebook was pretty bad so I did not get Mike’s response. I will re listen his answer when we get a crisper version on YouTube in a couple of weeks.
Gregory,
Science (Swamidass) clearly won the debate over creationism non-science (Behe) ID. The audience recognized the uselessness and emptiness of both Behe and ID. Behe looked old and unable to connect with the scientifically advanced college crowd. Behe has never recovered from the devastating negative review of Behe’s book in Science by Swamidass, Lents, and Lenski.
Patrick Trischitta,
Were you at the debate?
Patrick Trischitta,
It must be blissful to hold such a polarizing, ignorant & condescending view: “Science (Swamidass)” vs. “non-science (Behe)”. = P
Patrick is Swamidass’ favorite atheist stooge for ideological scientism. He’s right where Swamidass wants him to be, while remaining largely ignorant of the philosophical (just like Swamidass) and theological conversation, which is where all of the real action is.
That would leave two options, the alien was not intelligently design or the alien had to be designed. The first is bad for ID( mtiism), the second requires at some point , an undesigned being, an uncaused cause.
So? That is not the humans on Earth who are trying to figure out the things they CAN see’s problem to resolve.
Its like asking what shoes is God wearing. Why bother.
Does Behe put quotes around the words whenever he speaks about design theory? Are you sure he even says the words “design theory”? Where and in what context?
I think that is you doing that.
Do you always capitalize literature?
phoodoo,
All of the IDM’s leadership, Meyer, Dembski, West, Behe, Axe, Nelson, et al. have used “design theory” and “design theorist” in their printed works as a “looks like it, but actually isn’t it” way of describing IDT. I’m suggesting this is part of their grandiose self-victimisation (academic freedom for IDism!) narrative, which is solely what makes the funding network pump & flow with donations, i.e. how their project stays afloat. There are plenty of examples of them misusing language this way for whatever ulterior purposes. Sorry, I’m just going by the evidence.
Strange question. Umm, if it’s in a bibliography or normal sentence, yes. I follow standard usage as much as possible.
Otherwise, if on the rare case when a neologism is needed, such is great what English is suited for, there are a select few that I apply, and try to do so regularly and consistently. At the very least, please don’t distort what I’ve been quite clear about in making a few simple, but important distinctions.
What? It looks like “design theory.” Who would say that, it doesn’t even make grammatical sense?
Gregory,
I suspect the reality is that every time they used the word design, you immediately jump out of your chair and say, “Why are they talking about design theory. They are not designers. Leave that for Ralph Lauren!” “
They use the word design for self-victimization!
Hahahaha.
I am sure glad you don’t do that!
Alrighty then, have fun figuring out the terms, phoodoo. = P
I just wrote a thread with definitions available for you to wrestle with there. Done with you here.
If one didn’t know what a bait & switch technique is, the IDM is rife with it. Behe does it like breathing by now. Like others have mentioned here & at PS, I’m quite sure that came across in the recent event to the young evangelical-heavy (according to applause) student audience.
Gregory,
Well, now you are back to your DI paranoia, but without any actual complaint, other than you just feel they are self-victimizing. What that has to do with using the word design or “design theory” which you have not even given any evidence of, is beyond me (and just about everyone I imagine).
I see no reason to believe they use the word incorrectly. As if that is relevant.
Design is a word, not a term. There is not much to figure out.
Perhaps you believe there is some conspiracy that the word contains both an “I” and a “D”. That’s it!
The philosophical and theological conversations are irrelevant. The secular scientific millennial Nones are ready to run things now. Baby Boomer Christian Nationalists are retiring and dying out and with them will go YEC, OEC, EC, and ID.
Patrick Trischitta,
Sorry mate, I know its hard for you.
https://www.theguardian.com/news/2018/aug/27/religion-why-is-faith-growing-and-what-happens-next
They aren’t irrelevant to me, to Behe, or to Swamidass. Or to sincere people who care about human life and people deeply. It’s a sign of decadent brokenness that you could be against those two grand realms of knowledge! As such, I’m just fine if you self-exclude, which means we’ll have better conversations, unless or until you’re ready to empty yourself out a bit to come and join us.
What you’re doing at PS is not uncommonly poisoning the water & thus holding back a lot of good conversation with your atheism activism there. You certainly wouldn’t be interrupting things here at TSZ, because it would be just more of the same.
https://www.pewforum.org/2019/10/17/in-u-s-decline-of-christianity-continues-at-rapid-pace/
Patrick Trischitta:
Not to that audience. The title of the discussion was God and/or Evolution, and it was sponsored by the Veritas Foundation, whose mission statement includes this:
Patrick:
According to Pew, the Nones will be declining as a global percentage over the next 50 years:
PS is doing a great job advancing real evolutionary science in contrast to the creationism pseudo science and non-science at AiG (YEC), Discovery Institute (ID), RTB (OEC), and Biologos (EC). Swamidass represents a new generation of evolutionary scientists who adheres to MN while doing advanced science research. This generation of evolutionary scientists realize that science is neutral on the existence of any God or God action. The science literate audience at both Texas A&M and at Columbia University understood this well. No longer can the religious con-jobs taint science inquiry and understanding.
Science is neutral on theism or atheism. Swamidass, Lents, and Lenski show that excellent science can be done regardless of having a faith or not. Creationism in all its forms (YEC, OEC, EC and ID) is not science.
Swamidass:
“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
https://peacefulscience.org/genealogical-rapprochement/
Can someone let me know by what evolutionary mechanism has Eve evolved from Adam’s rib according to Swamidass?
I am mainly interested in the mechanism leading to the new body plans evolving from a peace rib into a fully evolved woman…
I have a distinct feeling that Swamidass could have demolished all Behe’s claims for ID, if he actually presented the evidence for this kind of turbo-macro-evolution at the recent debate…
Could anybody actually hear Swamidass making argument for this claim?
If not, he’d better get to work on the mechanism or some could accuse him of being a creationist …
Everyone here probably knows how quick Darwinists are to accuse anyone of being a creationist…😉
J-Mac,
From what I have read from Swamidass, he seems wholly unable to explain his life origins worldview in any coherent manner whatsoever.
I frankly think it is an impossible task, trying to claim that there is a divine relationship between Man and God, that arose from a random process that has no direction. Kind of hard to blend the two.
J-Mac,
Josh is simply trying to separate science from making negative claims against the Bible. He has a proposed a model that makes room for evolution and genesis. All this being said is their truth to his claims? I will grant you that his model is unlikely reality.
colewd,
Which means it fits right in with other religious claims.
J-Mac,
He doesn’t make that claim.
Patrick Trischitta,
This contradicts what Swamidass himself writes, since he claims that many, not a few, “old generations” already adhered to MNism. What he’s promoting is nothing new. I believe he retrodicts MNism back to Francis Bacon, in line with Garvey & Wybrow. His views of MNism are, of course, warped through the narrow and focussed mindset of a practitioner, rather than a theorist, which is what the topic properly requires.
Yet he does indeed sometimes appear to tout himself as an “evolutionary scientist” (rather than merely a computational biologist & MD), who is promoting in particular “evolutionary science”, yet without recognizing or openly voicing *any* proper limits for his own “evolutionary” thinking. I guess that kind of “scholarly” behaviour is acceptable to Patrick & probably applauded by him, though it comes across to me as thick, thuggish & excessively broad brushing.
Yet Swamidass is openly religious, an evangelical Protestant. And you are saying he’s “not a con-job.” So, how do you distinguish a “religious con-job” from “religious not con-jobs”? Is Francis Collins a “con-job”, as you accuse BioLogos of being, while STILL psychologically unable or more likely unwilling to properly spell the term that Collins coined with capital-L for Logos? It’s much more likely someone reading your words might think there is a reason you keep using such language about others, probably without much of a resume to show for yourself, which is why you are the most voluminous poster spending so much of your “promote atheism among religious” time at PS.
It sounds like you’ve been drawn into adherence to some kind of near worship of Science, using Reason, as your dividing line for “reality”. But that is outdated, boring & flat nowadays. Not living in colour. Just fuzzy pixels.
The audience that you somehow seemingly didn’t hear applauding at Swamidass’ apologetics, that activity where usually you go silent or into more cynical than usual mode, was interested in more than just what he had to say about biology or even nature alone. They don’t think Science always holds the final answer in their life, and frankly, they’re ok with the uncertainty that brings along with it.
Maybe that’s just not your thing (life Alan’s Pink Dress), Patrick, but it sure does seem to be where you self-exclude from conversation that continues on without you. I am most thankful for that conversation, involving philosophy and theology as mutual partners in human knowledge and understanding, with many different sciences.
Patrick,
None of which responds to the points I made in my comment.
Sort of how I met my wife
God has all the time in the world. Something was bound to come along.
newton,
Presumably Swamidass believes that it could have turned out that God had a divine relationship with moss. The moss just wouldn’t ever be able to realize it.
I have a suspicion that should mean something. If not humans ,who?
Part of Him spent a while in sandals.
newton,
All of him, heretic. God doesn’t have parts, though he has persons.
Makes perfect sense.
Chances are the moss would still be in the Garden of Eden with loads of whipped cream.
Don’t get me started.
I see the Father and Son but why a Holy Ghost ? Just seems fake.
The Holy
TrinityDuo doesn’t have the same ring to it.The Carpenters?
Of course not!
The more confused people are about his world view, the better…
How else can he make a claim of affirming evolutionary biology and the creation of Adam from dust and Eve from his rib, unless he spreads confusion?
He certainly chose a “funny” way to do this …
At what cost, Bill? Do you even know?
Of course it’s not!!!
Swamidass wants to build a bridge between two separate, independent and contradictory world views…and he wants to sit on the fence as a modern day Moses…
That’s why he gets shot from both sides of the world views and will continue to be ignored no matter whom he debates, even the devil himself…
Gregory,
Dr. Swamidass is doing excellent scientific research that may help many people. You mentioned Dr. Francis Collins. Dr. Collins is an excellent NIH Director. Both of these men are doing fine work and use their faith to achieve their purpose and provide meaning to their efforts. In Today’s secular scientific world it is finding one’s purpose and meaning in one’s lives that matter while being free FROM Religion’s dogma, doctrine, and myths.
Unless he has a third option, he is a creationist then…😉
phoodoo,
https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/finding-purpose/202002/spirituality-not-just-religion-may-be-declining
keiths,
Religion is not the source of purpose, meaning, and morality.
You will hear pretty much the same propaganda😉
I’m particularly interested in in the evolution of the soul…😉