Behe and Theistic Evolution
by MikeGeneMany critics insist on labeling Michael Behe a creationist. But in doing so, the critics, as a community, end up sending a confused double message, that I highlighted by noting, "Combine the logic of the two scientists and we find that acceptance of the fact that we are African apes, cousins of monkeys, descended from fish is transparent creationism." The critics, who find it important to label Behe a creationist, are thus put in the awkward position of looking for ways to explain why it is that someone who accepts human evolution is a creationist. To accomplish this, the critic invariably ends up promoting the creationist fabrication. And it is at this point that we should consult the wisdom of George Orwell:
Many political words are similarly abused. The word Fascism has now no meaning except in so far as it signifies "something not desirable""¦.Words of this kind are often used in a consciously dishonest way. That is, the person who uses them has his own private definition, but allows his hearers to think he means something quite different. – George Orwell, "Politics and the English Language," from Shooting an Elephant and Other Essays (Harcourt, 1950), p. 83.
To make their political word stick, the critics typically have to water down the definition of "˜creationist' and employ guilt-by-association. What they never do is factor the way the term "˜creationist' is commonly understood. And this, according to Orwell, is dishonest.
Whenever you seek to label someone, you are trying to communicate something about that person. The act of labeling people is typically a political and/or sociological act, and thus we are rationally obligated to consider how the average person will interpret that label. If a critic labels Behe a creationist, what is he trying to communicate about that person? Does the critic convey the information that Behe accepts that we are African apes, cousins of monkeys, descended from fish? No. On the contrary, the critic is communicating the exact opposite. Given that denial of human evolution is a central tenet of creationism, it would be wrong to label Behe as a creationist because most people, upon hearing the label, will think it means that Behe denies human evolution.
In reality, it is more accurate to label Behe a theistic evolutionist, as this label would accurately communicate that a) Behe is an evolutionist and b) believes God was involved in the process of evolution. And in fact, this is how most people interpret theistic evolution, as some sort of God-guided process. How most people interpret a label is the most important point.
Consider a recent survey on origins:
God created humans in present form – 51%
Humans evolved, God guided the process – 30%
Humans evolved, God did not guide process – 15%
As you can see, the general public (those who would hear and interpret the label), guided by mainstream pollsters, have three basic categories in mind when it comes to the question of human evolution (note that only 4% of respondents did not feel comfortable adopting one of these descriptors). I think it rather obvious that this breaks down as 51% creationists, 30% theistic evolutionists, and 15% atheistic evolutionists. And while the pages of obscure philosophy or sociology journals may attempt to break these down some more and explore the different sub-types in each group, all that matters is the common perception among the large audience that hears the label. In essence, the label serves to tell people which of these three tribes someone belongs to.
Better yet is this report that is actually hosted by the NCSE. Here it becomes obvious that Behe's position is much better described as theistic evolution than creationism:
While most US scientists think humans are simply smarter apes, at least 4 in 10 believe a creator "guided" evolution so that Homo sapiens are ruled by a soul or consciousness, a new survey shows. Scientists almost unanimously accept Darwinian evolution over millions of years as the source of human origins. But 40% of biologists, mathematicians, physicians, and astronomers include God in the process"¦"¦"I am surprised to find that so many are theistic evolutionists" Duncan Porter, a Virginia Tech botanist and Darwin scholar, said in an interview"¦"¦. The belief that God creates through evolution has been called "theistic evolution" though there are different views on how much God intervenes in the process.
So as you can see, the belief that God creates through evolution is theistic evolution. Of course, just as there may be different types of creationism, so too are there different types of theistic evolution, where the nature and frequency of interventions differ (even to the point where there is no intervention). Thus, if we label Behe a theistic evolutionist, we tap into this common understanding and more accurately communicate.
July 12th, 2007 at 12:32 am
That's it in a nutshell. Honest useage of words would ascribe the term theistic evolutionist to Behe. Creationist is simply not accurate although it has the advantage tagging an opponent with a preferred connotation.
Comment by Bradford — July 12, 2007 @ 12:32 am
July 12th, 2007 at 5:24 am
Mike, could you define what "creationist" means? That would seem to be the very first thing we need to do in a discussion about labelling. Are you equating "creationist" with "Biblical creation" Do you mean someone who believes each "kind" was created in isolation?
Hmm, maybe ID skeptics should be making more of the fact that Behe argues against creationsm?
Comment by The Pixie — July 12, 2007 @ 5:24 am
July 12th, 2007 at 7:43 am
To The Pixie,
You might be missing the point of this exercise. The idea is to pick on the ID skeptics by claiming THEY are being unreasonable and inconsistent. Heaven forbid that we analyze the ID Movement for consistencies in their motives and methods.
Hmm, then again, you might not be missing the point after all.
Comment by Thought Provoker — July 12, 2007 @ 7:43 am
July 12th, 2007 at 7:57 am
Semantics can often be a distraction, but in this case, the conflation is at least in part due to Behe's own voluntary participation in the Dover trial. The text at issue in the trial, Of Pandas and People, was purposefully changed to avoid a legal challenge, with "creationism" being replaced by "intelligent design" (Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District).
Behe claims that Irreducible Complexity requires direct intelligent intervention (even though the claim is unsupported), and that some biological structures are Irreducibly Complex. Such purported discontinuities might be considered non-evolutionary.
Comment by Zachriel — July 12, 2007 @ 7:57 am
July 12th, 2007 at 8:52 am
Hi Pixie,
I think you missed the point of the whole essay. If we are talking about labeling someone (which is a political/sociological act), the way to determine the definition of the label is to consider how it is commonly defined. Thus, this is not a philosophical exercise in us "˜carefully defining our terms.' It should be a sociological exercise that measures how the term is defined. I suggest re-reading my post and reading the Creationist Fabrication.
Hi TP,
Now that's a good one. Critics insist on attaching the misleading C-word to Behe (with all its negative connotations) and somehow it is the critics who are being victimized?? I suggest you too read the Creationist Fabrication.
Hi Zachriel,
Your point about the Dover trial strikes me as quite fair. As for this point:
But it would only be a discontinuity from a non-teleological perspective. If you take away intelligent intervention, there is also a discontinuity between wolves and Toy Poodles. Just as artificial selection can be part of evolution, so too can artificial variation.
I appreciate all these comments, but I don't think any of them deal with the arguments I laid on the table.
Comment by MikeGene — July 12, 2007 @ 8:52 am
July 12th, 2007 at 8:54 am
Quoting myself:
Actually, we really need to go a little further, as there are at least two populations of potential interpreters of the word. We would need to measure not only how it is commonly defined among the general population, but also among the academic population.
Comment by MikeGene — July 12, 2007 @ 8:54 am
July 12th, 2007 at 9:13 am
Hi MikeGene,
Since you are being brutally frank by saying ID critics are being dishonest, I will be as well. By trying to relabel Behe as a "theistic evolutionist" IDists are trying to create the impression that his positions are scientific and mainstream, like those of well-known TEs such as Ken Miller and Francis Collins. In fact, Behe, though he says he accepts common descent, stands solidly with the creationists in believing that evolution is impossible without divine intervention:
Calling Behe a TE is like calling a YEC a TE because he believes life on earth is related by common descent from dust. His disagreements with YECs are not scientific, but theological: he simply thinks God performed different miracles than they do. But it is dishonest to claim Behe is standing with Miller and Collins against the creationists when the reverse is true. During the Kitzmiller v. Dover trial, Behe testified on the side of those in favor of the textbook promoting "cdesign proponentists" views.
Comment by Aagcobb — July 12, 2007 @ 9:13 am
July 12th, 2007 at 9:22 am
Hi Aagcobb,
Actually, I said according to Orwell this would be dishonest. Orwell: "Words of this kind are often used in a consciously dishonest way. That is, the person who uses them has his own private definition, but allows his hearers to think he means something quite different." From there, you need to actually deal with the arguments I lay on the table.
You again evade all the arguments I laid on the table in order to pyschologize about motives. As I pointed out, if there can be many kinds of creationists, there can be many kinds of theistic evolutionists (in fact, I'm not sure even Miller and Collins are the same type of TE). But most important, how is the term TE commonly interpreted? I posit that it is most commonly interpreted as I explained above.
Comment by MikeGene — July 12, 2007 @ 9:22 am
July 12th, 2007 at 10:00 am
There is no evolutionary discontinuity in the transition from wolves to poodles. Each puppy in the lineage can be reasonably considered a viable organism within its environment; such variation and selection being typical of evolutionary processes.
As the term "theistic evolutionist" includes "evolution", then my comments concerning such discontinuities seemed relevant. But I'm not one to argue semantics. I would suggest that clear definitions can avoid most of these problems, and I am willing to take ID claims on their face.
Comment by Zachriel — July 12, 2007 @ 10:00 am
July 12th, 2007 at 10:03 am
Hi MikeGene,
I agree, especially since the general population has such a limited grasp of what evolution is. I believe that academics such as Ken Miller who self-identify as "theistic evolutionists" do not believe that science can detect acts of God in the course of evolution, and believe mutations are random in regard to fitness. Behe clearly disagrees with Miller on these issues, and agrees with creationists.
And as I pointed out, your position effectively drains the terms "theistic evolutionist" and "creationist" of all meaning, such that every theist is both a "theistic evolutionist" and a "creationist" at the same time. I thought you were opposed to EAs labeling all theists as creationists, but you are effectively agreeing with them.
Comment by Aagcobb — July 12, 2007 @ 10:03 am
July 12th, 2007 at 10:06 am
Hi Mike,
Your point concerning common usage is well taken. Within that context Behe would not be a creationist. But, it would be nice to get to an agreed upon set of definitions. For instance, I do understand how ID critics use the term 'creationist' generally, to refer to a person who believes in some kind of supernatural intervention during the development of life. I also understand why they use it within a political context fully knowing how the general public is going to interpret that word in a negative sense. It's a tactic. On the other hand, it's not as if the DI doesn't have it's own tactics. There are a lot of 'on the other hands' in this debate.
But, I could go for defining creationist as you do. Considering common and historical usage, I think the term 'theistic evolution' is usually understood of those who think life developed via Darwinian mechanisms and that whole system was designed by God. In that sense, I wouldn't call Behe a theistic evolutionist. I would call him an interventionist evolutionist.
What do you think of the chances we will ever get to clarity on this?
Comment by bj — July 12, 2007 @ 10:06 am
July 12th, 2007 at 11:19 am
MikeGene: If you take away intelligent intervention, there is also a discontinuity between wolves and Toy Poodles. Just as artificial selection can be part of evolution, so too can artificial variation.
Zachriel: There is no evolutionary discontinuity in the transition from wolves to poodles. Each puppy in the lineage can be reasonably considered a viable organism within its environment; such variation and selection being typical of evolutionary processes.
The selection process, in the case of dog breeding, entailed an intelligent design component. The process is also instructive in that it demonstrates that intelligent design need not be the "poof" that its detractors are fond of. It also shows that ID need not entail a conflict with natural mechanisms. In fact an alien visitor to earth who encountered and studied dogs might be unable to detect the ID component in their biological features. In such case the conclusion that the dogs evolved solely through an unguided selection process would be an erroneous conclusion.
Comment by Bradford — July 12, 2007 @ 11:19 am
July 12th, 2007 at 11:45 am
Clearly. But there is still no evolutionary discontinuity.
Comment by Zachriel — July 12, 2007 @ 11:45 am
July 12th, 2007 at 11:52 am
Zachriel:
I added to the previous comment the point that ID need entail no evolutionary discontinuity or "poof" to be realized.
Comment by Bradford — July 12, 2007 @ 11:52 am
July 12th, 2007 at 12:26 pm
Exactly!
One can presume for the sake of argument ID proponents are scoundrels, it does little to hinder the strength of their arguments. See Scoundrel? Scoundrel..I like the sound of that.
But since Darwinist rely heavily on the "argument from authority", discrediting them with respect to their integrity goes a long way. That's why there is a double standard at play.
What's the attitude of a typical seeker:
See. The ID proponents can afford to lose even in the face of character assasinations. They can be vile scoundrels but their ideas will still have traction.
On the other hand, if Darwinists are shown to be bungling, biased, bigoted, oppressive, snotty, mean-spirited, puppy-beating, arrogant, and otherwise unwholsome characters, they will be deprived of their strongest argument, namely, the argument from authority.
Not at all. I highly recommend Barbara Forrest's book if you want an "analysis" to persuade you ID proponents are scoundrels. You're invited to believe the worst about ID proponents motives and methods. To quote Bill Dembsk:
See: Dembski States it Plain
There you have it TP, Dembski has given you a self-analysis of methods and motivations.
:cool:
Comment by Salvador T. Cordova — July 12, 2007 @ 12:26 pm
July 12th, 2007 at 1:04 pm
Hi Mike,
You wrote…
A counter attack is still an attack no matter how justified. Nobody is right if everybody is wrong.
I read Creationist Fabrication the first time and my reread makes it the second time. This time I dug deeper. Your two-year old post occurred during the early stages of the Dover trial (July 2005). The article you were quoting was written around 2000 in reply to the back and forth responses to Behe's Darwin's Black Box. Behe has subsequently had multiple opportunities to defend himself including at the Dover trial and in his latest book, Edge of Evolution.
Comment by Thought Provoker — July 12, 2007 @ 1:04 pm
July 12th, 2007 at 1:09 pm
BTW, does anyone know if Behe is calling himself a "theistic evolutionist" or is it just MikeGene's idea?
Comment by Aagcobb — July 12, 2007 @ 1:09 pm
July 12th, 2007 at 1:17 pm
Aagcobb said:
Perhaps the tossing of loaded terms as if they were Molotov cocktails NEEDS to be drained of meaning. If the survey is any indication of how people self-identify on the issue, that is. The atheistic 15% cannot really hope to convert the theistic 81% (who knows where the other 4% might fall) by means of intellectual sniping. They simply marginalize themselves further in the public mind.
Which is also fairly meaningless, given that for the snipers, it's all about gathering wealth from the constituency to make their own lives more comfortable and personally 'meaningful' per self-aggrandizement and something to do with their time that doesn't much resemble hard work. Out in the adult world it's just noise.
Eventually the successful group can tune out the noise. Mere gnats on the back of a horse, whose coat of hair insulates well enough that he can't feel them at all (flies being a far more pesky problem).
EAs are pests. Tolerated as such, ignored for the most part, at-risk only in their possible vulnerability to pesticides that might be developed and deployed against a more considerable problem at some point. For example, the general failure of public education in this country is something that will either be dealt with by the government that mandates it, or it will be eradicated in favor of more localized market forces that compete to produce better results for communities. Secular and religious, with subsidy from local taxes that used to go into the general fund going directly into the most successful local options for the community's benefit.
If public education falls due to governmental unwillingness and inability to address the growing problems (distraction from 'more important' issues of corruption government also hasn't been dealing with), the exclusive NDS hegemony over science classrooms now enforced by law will end. The NDS will still be taught, since scientific consensus should be taught as part of instruction in the field. It just won't be immune from critical analysis, weighing against the broader instruction in philosophy of science, and the mention of extant developing alternatives. Science will be better for it in the long run.
IOW, the current metaphysical corruption will fall to sociopolitical necessity rather than to what should have been proper scientific restraint exercised against the corruption. Because the metaphysically corrupt forgot to care that public education was failing generally all the way down the line, they just wanted hegemony to impart their metaphysics. Bad choice.
Comment by Joy — July 12, 2007 @ 1:17 pm
July 12th, 2007 at 1:21 pm
Such clear (and correct) thought. You're quickly becoming one of my favorite contributors, Joy.
Comment by Atom — July 12, 2007 @ 1:21 pm
July 12th, 2007 at 1:44 pm
The words "fascist" and "creationist" are used as conversation stoppers. Here are my definitions:
fascist – A conservative who is winning an intellectual argument with a left winger.
creationist – A well informed individual who raises even the slightest questions concerning Darwinism.
Comment by Stuart Harris — July 12, 2007 @ 1:44 pm
July 12th, 2007 at 1:44 pm
[blush] Thanks, Atom. Though I should warn you that I can get as frustrated as anybody at times… §;o)
I just see this happening, per the public education example. If the kids can't read or write, find California (or Iraq) on a map, and have never been instructed in American political history (they don't even include the Constitution or any amendments in the appendices of civics books anymore), how can they expected to take science seriously? And that's not even considering that high school is glorified baby-sitting anyway, for kids more concerned about who's getting laid (or not) than with how moldy Darwin's corpse is this semester.
Sometimes one-issue die-hards need to take a back seat to those who at least try for the broader view. This issue of dueling metaphysics is NOT the most important conflict facing humanity – or even Americans – at this particular point in history. Those who refuse to understand that will inevitably get left in the mud when necessary changes start happening.
Comment by Joy — July 12, 2007 @ 1:44 pm
July 12th, 2007 at 1:46 pm
Creationism is like pornography: I knows it when I sees it.
Comment by BoZ3MaN — July 12, 2007 @ 1:46 pm
July 12th, 2007 at 1:49 pm
Hi Aagcobb,
First off your characterization that Behe supports interventionism should be dispelled by his new book. He has a section in it against the interventionist idea.
Secondly, with regard to theistic evolution Behe offers a mechanism for intelligent design that was very surprising to me for which I haven't seen any comments on yet. I would characterize his approach as an überfrontloading. His exposition of this position is a bit subtle but apparently Behe sees the intelligence frontloaded into the very creation of the universe like the fine tuning of various forces, constants, etc. What Behe seems to be implying is that the combinations of mutations for IC (which would be difficult for randomness) are frontloaded from the beginning (i.e. predestined). Then from that point natural processes would just do their thing. His main point of contention is then that those mutations were not random, they were frontloaded from the beginning and thus intelligently designed.
It seems to me that the only real difference between Behe and someone like Miller is that Behe claims that the mutations or combinations of mutations are not random. I wonder how Miller would feel about his scenario.
Comment by Steve Petermann — July 12, 2007 @ 1:49 pm
July 12th, 2007 at 1:56 pm
Hi bj,
You write:
I don't think we will ever get agreed upon definitions because a) this topic is too politicized and emotionally-charged and b) the act of labeling is a political/sociological act. The key here to remember is that we are not defining a concept or term, but a label. Because of this dimension, I think we are rationally obligated to defer to common understanding of these labels, even if they fail to capture all the shades of gray that come with a higher resolution analysis.
You could also call Miller and Collins interventionist evolutionists. Miller thinks some sort of intervention occurs, but it is hidden behind the curtain of quantum reality and thus not scientifically detectable. Collins "sounds like a creationist" when trying to account for the origin of human morality (as his critics have quickly noted). So again, we're lost in the maze of complexities that are generated by complex human beings and their beliefs. The best way to resolve this is the scientific way "“ measure how the terms are commonly interpreted (since such labeling is a political act). As such, I think the CBS poll with its three options best captures common understanding among the options: God created humans in present form (creationist), Humans evolved, God guided the process (TE), Humans evolved, God did not guide process (atheistic evolution).
Next to zero, because of points a) and b) above. I'm just pointing out that if we label Behe a theistic evolutionist, we tap into common understanding and more accurately communicate. And since the notion of there being many different types of creationists has not been all that controversial, I don't see why there should be problems about acknowledging the existence of different types of TEs. As the linked article above notes, "The belief that God creates through evolution has been called "theistic evolution" though there are different views on how much God intervenes in the process." That's an independent person talking.
Comment by MikeGene — July 12, 2007 @ 1:56 pm
July 12th, 2007 at 2:15 pm
MikeGene,
Very good point. We do need an agreed upon labeling system to help in a communication process which is difficult enough. Perhaps we could get a commission on the order of the Iraq Study Group or like the Social Security Commission a few years ago. Or, perhaps, most folks have better things to do.
Strangely, I view having some kind of higher levels talks concerning just how all the diverse groups in this country are going to get along not that bad an idea.
Comment by bj — July 12, 2007 @ 2:15 pm
July 12th, 2007 at 2:38 pm
Steve Petermann wrote:
Francis Collins has written:
*Francis Collins renamed theistic evolution as "BioLogos" (Bios through Logos) (p. 203).
Collins looks like another überfrontloading advocate.
Comment by Analyysi — July 12, 2007 @ 2:38 pm
July 12th, 2007 at 2:53 pm
Collins per our (Finnish?) friend Analyysi:
How utterly boring it must be to be God (who knew I would write this). Unbelievably boring in fact. Just like this hypocritical thread.
Comment by Raevmo — July 12, 2007 @ 2:53 pm
July 12th, 2007 at 3:04 pm
What's the difference between pointing out an inaccuracy and a counter attack?
Comment by Bradford — July 12, 2007 @ 3:04 pm
July 12th, 2007 at 3:10 pm
Hi Raevmo,
Yes. I'm from Finland.
You wrote:
God "knew"
If God is outside of space and time, then He perhaps knew, know, and will know, what you wrote/write…
Comment by Analyysi — July 12, 2007 @ 3:10 pm
July 12th, 2007 at 3:19 pm
Analyysi:
You got me there. I should have written "he shall haved knewed".
The double y made me suspicious. I love the sound of the Finnish language (but I don't understand it all except for a word or two, like kaksi olut or perkele saatana vitu or something like that…)
Comment by Raevmo — July 12, 2007 @ 3:19 pm
July 12th, 2007 at 3:24 pm
What Mike Gene calls a fabrication, we in science call a fact. LOL
MikeGene Says: I don't think we will ever get agreed upon definitions because a) this topic is too politicized and emotionally-charged and b) the act of labeling is a political/sociological act.
We don't have to get anyone to agree with anyone, and it has nothing to do with politics and emotion. Ask Michael Behe if he's a creationist and he'll tell ya. That should add some clarity. I bet the answer will be utterly unsurprising.
I bet every one of the TelicThinkers is a creationist too. (Gambling's legal on the Web, isn't it?)
Are you a creationist, Mike Gene?
It's no wonder so many creationists hide in the closet and shun the very label "Creationist," since modern science has… Well, you know the story.
The only Orwellianism I see here is believing in creation and and not calling it creationism.
Comment by Rock — July 12, 2007 @ 3:24 pm
July 12th, 2007 at 3:28 pm
LOL!
Comment by Analyysi — July 12, 2007 @ 3:28 pm
July 12th, 2007 at 4:09 pm
Am I a creationist or a theistic evolutionist? Decide for yourselves. Here are some propositions I believe to be true:
1) God (in a single activity which is timeless in God's perspective) creates, sustains, and orders the physical world at all spacetime points.
2) Life on Earth was intelligently designed.
3) Life on Earth evolved over hundreds of millions of years in accordance with its basic design.
4) Human beings are purposely intended by God to be special physical creatures, and are therefore endowed with distinctive spiritual properties of a rational intellect and moral autonomy, which properties are intended by God through intelligently designed psycho-physical laws to supervene on, and to interact with, the physical bodies of modern homo sapiens that eventually resulted from the operations of evolutionary processes.
5) God purposely intended that human beings have some awareness of, and a rational basis for believing in, God's presence, while still possessing the moral autonomy to love God and neighbor freely. As a result of sin, humans experience God's presence much more ambiguously and are alienated from that presence to a greater or lesser degree. But there still remains a rational basis for detecting design in both the cosmological and biological data.
6) Some 'miracles' do occur, but these should be viewed not as 'violations' of exceptionless cast-in-cosmic-stone Impersonal Laws, but rather as being, together with the regular physical order, expressions of God's wise and providential will.
The question may be asked: why didn't God just 'pop' us into existence, along with a suitable universe, 'ready made' in an instant, with each kind of star, atomic element, planet, natural kind, and living species hitting the road running, as it were? Why rely on cosmic and biological evolution?
I think the answer is this: 'popping' or 'poofing' physical, spatiotemporal things into existence 'ready-made' is not a rational way of doing things. It's a magical one. And God wants the created world to reflect God's perfectly rational nature. To create spatiotemporal things by magical acts"”-acts, in other words, that don't 'respect' the mathematics inherent in spacetime and physicality"”"“rather than by a supremely rational modus operandi, would either cause rational creatures to be deceived, or else would undermine their rationality by revealing a Creator who acts, not rationally, but magically, one who does not respect the inherent nature and rules of spacetime and physicality. Such a creator, one who acts not by creating the greatest variety combined with simplicity,and the greatest autonomy with the greatest order in a rationally intelligible way, but who violates the norms of mathematical reason and displays an inconsistency between creating physical beings and then frequently interfering in ways that oppose their physicality cannot be the perfectly rational reality posited by classical and contemporary theism. For theism standardly holds that such a grossly inconsistent way of acting violates a content in, and attribute of, God's own mind, namely reason as such. Such a God could not be, well, God.
This is compatible with, and might even help to explain, the somewhat indeterministic quality of the physical world, for it would provide some rationale for God to opt for a quantum mechanical rather than Newtonian design. A QM design generates more variety and autonomy, and allows for 'miracles' construed as low probability, and hence rare quantum events.
Comment by stunney — July 12, 2007 @ 4:09 pm
July 12th, 2007 at 7:43 pm
Here is what the label of "creationist" conveys to many: Billy Bob
There are certain creationist organizations that have done much to make that stereotype credible. I can't entirely fault the critics for the negativity toward that stereotype.
The critics are very disingenuous affixing to Michael Behe, however.
Comment by Salvador T. Cordova — July 12, 2007 @ 7:43 pm
July 12th, 2007 at 8:12 pm
Over the past week or so, the IDers, TelicThinkers, and other creationists (such as Salvador T. Cordova), have made me a bigot (guilt by association), just plain stupid, and now, a liar.
Either grow up, get in the game, or kiss my ass!
Michael Behe is a creationist.
Comment by Rock — July 12, 2007 @ 8:12 pm
July 12th, 2007 at 10:40 pm
Hi Aagcobb,
You write:
So what? Why do you ignore that Behe agrees with Miller and disagrees with creationists in that he believes we are we are African apes, cousins of monkeys, descended from fish? Because you are fabricating. Recall the demonstration – your inability to come up with a list of creationists who accept that we are African apes, cousins of monkeys, descended from fish. That was not a trivial failure on your part Aagcobb; it signaled the inherently vacuous nature of your position.
This is why all the quibbling and rhetorical games are a waste of time. What matters is how these terms are commonly defined. My essay above clearly explains this and not one critic has put the slightest dent into it.
It looks to me like most people out there have fairly solid meanings associated with these labels (as highlighted in my essay above). Why do you insist on ignoring these data?
Furthermore, are you trying to erect an arbitrary fence around the term "theistic evolution?" As I said, if there can be many kinds of creationists, there can be many kinds of theistic evolutionists. Another untouched point. The only true counter-argument would be to argue, "While there can be many different types of creationists, there can only be one and only one type of theistic evolutionist because"¦.."
As the linked article above notes, "The belief that God creates through evolution has been called "theistic evolution" though there are different views on how much God intervenes in the process." Why ignore this?
Comment by MikeGene — July 12, 2007 @ 10:40 pm
July 12th, 2007 at 10:49 pm
BTW, I should link to another reply to Aagcobb, as it (and he) was the inspiration for this essay "“ here.
It occurred to me that Behe was better labeled a TE after Aagcobb himself challenged me as follows:
My reply:
Now, for those with a sharp eye, notice what happens in the mind of Aagcobb. He asks me a question. I, as a participant in a cyber-discussion, answer his question. It then occurs to me that I have a good point here*, so I write up a blog entry about it. Note carefully how this is all interpreted by Aagcobb:
Did you notice that? Suddenly, MikeGene becomes "IDists" and my answer to his question becomes "trying to create the impression that his positions are scientific and mainstream." Huh? Aagcobb's brain is so saturated with politics that he doesn't notice himself morphing me into a population and my rational, un-refuted, well-supported replies into some political act.
Later, Aagcobb has second thoughts and asks, "does anyone know if Behe is calling himself a "theistic evolutionist" or is it just MikeGene's idea?" Yet just a day-or-two ago, Aagcobb writes, "Mike, it doesn't really matter what lable Behe applies to himself in the end." Yes, it is my idea Aagcobb, sparked in response to your question. And it is an idea that is both rational and well-supported.
*I think I can now declare it is indeed a good point backed up by a solid argument judging from the way it was been untouched by all the hand-waving.
Comment by MikeGene — July 12, 2007 @ 10:49 pm
July 12th, 2007 at 11:59 pm
Hi Rock,
The act of labeling is inherently a political/social act.
Okay, I followed your lead, as I vaguely recalled Behe denying he was a creationist somewhere. So I Googled "Michael Behe "not a creationist"" and lookie what I found on the third entry:
Wow.
I'm struck by the way this seamlessly matches my essay. Perhaps I unconsciously was influenced by it or perhaps it's because truth has a way of bringing about convergence. So there y'go Rock "“ the very clarity that you wanted. It validates what I was saying. LOL
Nope. I used to be. Perhaps that is what gives me the clearer vantage point on this "“ I know how creationists think. For example, the acceptance of human evolution is not some trivial, give-away point. My bet is that most creationists would be quite content if science validated all of evolution at the same time as invalidating human evolution. It's the origin of humans, not life or species, that matters most.
Now, if a critic labels Behe a creationist, what is he trying to communicate about that person? Does the critic convey the information that Behe accepts that we are African apes, cousins of monkeys, descended from fish? No. On the contrary, the critic is communicating the exact opposite. Given that denial of human evolution is a central tenet of creationism, it would be wrong to label Behe as a creationist because most people, upon hearing the label, will think it means that Behe denies human evolution.
Every Establishment needs its C-word. It brings order to the tribe.
You're missing the points. First, this is not a matter of philosophy, but of sociology. Assigning labels to other human beings is a political/social act. As such, we need to measure, rather than conceptualize, the meaning. How is the label interpreted by most people? And that's where the real Orwell comes into play: "Words of this kind are often used in a consciously dishonest way. That is, the person who uses them has his own private definition, but allows his hearers to think he means something quite different." What is Orwellian is to gloss over this dynamic and pretend the issue is resolved by arguing whether a private definition can defended with words.
Secondly, consider the quote from a 1999 newspaper article: "The belief that God creates through evolution has been called "theistic evolution" though there are different views on how much God intervenes in the process." Creating through evolution is commonly interpreted as theistic evolution, as evidenced by the way this mainstream journalist reports.
Comment by MikeGene — July 12, 2007 @ 11:59 pm
July 13th, 2007 at 6:39 am
As I understand the term, "theistic evolution" implies that there is no scientific evidence for God's part in the process. I seem to remember Dembski saying "ID is no friend of theistic evolution". The difference is that ID asserts such evidence exists. On that basis, Behe is no theistic evolutionist.
Comment by The Pixie — July 13, 2007 @ 6:39 am
July 13th, 2007 at 8:03 am
Certainly. (Though much of dog evolution is not what we would call Intelligent Design in the sense of planning for a distant future, but more akin to sexual selection, picking among available traits most sought for close upon generations.)
That is correct. Maybe the Designer just gives it a gentle "push" in a specific direction. There is no scientific evidence to support this, however.
Maybe God stacked the deck, but carefully made it look random. (This could be done by repeatedly shuffling until He got the deal He wanted.) Many people would consider this Theistic Evolution"”scientifically indistinguishable from plain-vanilla evolution. Or maybe there have been multiple deals and this is the one we observe.
But let me point out that Behe's claim does require "poofs" as he (incorrectly) asserts that Irreducible Complexity cannot evolve in a stepwise fashion and that such systems are extant in biology. According to Behe's thinking, someone has to hold the arch up to put in the keystone. (Of course, a natural arch can be created through erosion of a more complex assembly of stones.)
This is an interesting example. They would, of course, determine design by studying the causal relationship between the dog and its human; between the artifact, the art and the artist. You can't understand dogs without understanding their complex relationship to their human companions.
That is how I believe the terms are most often used. Behe helped bring about the definitive conflation of ID and Creationism with his part in the Dover Trial.
PS. They're looking for you over at AtBC. They thought I was posting in your name over at Uncommon Descent. I'm not sure if that is meant to be complimentary to me or to you.
Comment by Zachriel — July 13, 2007 @ 8:03 am
July 13th, 2007 at 9:37 am
The Pixie wrote:
I suspect it's not the idea that there is no scientific evidence for God's part in the process. It's really the scientific establishment's way of signaling its refusal on a priori grounds to countenance anything as qualifying as 'scientific evidence for God's part in the process'. They don't mean there is none right now, but we're open to the notion that we might find persuasive evidence tomorrow. They're saying that regardless of what we might find tomorrow, we scientists will do whatever we need to do to interpret it naturalistically, because God forbid that there be any fuzziness in the line demarcating 'scientific' from 'philosophical' reasoning.
This has the following consequences:
1) The charge that IDers have not provided evidence is essentially disingenuous, for nothing could count as evidence for ID in the mindset of the scientific establishment.
2) Naturalistic evolution is immunized against falsification while still being touted as a genuinely scientific theory.
3) Methodological naturalism can be used as a Trojan Horse by which philosophical naturalism can appropriate for itself the intellectual and cultural kudos that the term 'science' enjoys.
Comment by stunney — July 13, 2007 @ 9:37 am
July 13th, 2007 at 9:49 am
Hi Pixie,
If we are to attach labels to an another person, it doesn't matter how you and Dembski personally define TE. What matters is that a) Behe explicitly includes himself among the "40%" that are commonly viewed as TEs and b) how most people commonly interpret the words "theistic evolution" (Behe's position clearly falls within this domain). And just as there can be many different kinds of creationists, so too can there be many different kinds of TEs. All of this has been explained.
Comment by MikeGene — July 13, 2007 @ 9:49 am
July 13th, 2007 at 10:15 am
Hi Zachriel,
Yes, that would be one form of TE (opnions may be differ about the existence of "evidence").
These would be other forms of TE.
Not really. Behe asserts that it is the unguided walk that cannot find IC, but if the steps were guided (in some manner), IC can be achieved. Also, the pushing could exist at the scale Miller (another TE) argues for, meaning that while we cannot detect individual pushes, a net sum of pushes may elicit a pattern that indirectly betrays its source.
All of this could be easily incorporated into a perspective of theistic evolution.
Comment by MikeGene — July 13, 2007 @ 10:15 am
July 13th, 2007 at 10:31 am
I don't believe that is correct. According to Behe an irreducible system must either be "poofed" during a single generation, or a non-viable organism must exist during the interim. Someone has to hold the arch together while the keystone is put in place, or they are thrown together at a single time improbably falling neatly into place.
According to Behe's notion of Irreducible Complexity, they can't *walk* into position. There is no previous place to stand to take the final step.
An example of an actual transition might be the evolution of the air bladder into a lung. How could half a lung function? The gills acted as the scaffold or bridge in organisms that had two independent respiratory systems. This allowed time for the lungs to develop, then the gills were coopted for other functions as the organism further adapted to a terrestrial existence.
I don't want to quibble semantics, but the discontinuity would tend to be seen as non-evolutionary.
Comment by Zachriel — July 13, 2007 @ 10:31 am
July 13th, 2007 at 11:16 am
I apologize for being dense, but did Professor Behe either affirm or deny that God created life?
Comment by Rock — July 13, 2007 @ 11:16 am
July 13th, 2007 at 11:30 am
Hi MikeGene,
I'll just say what I think about Behe. I don't know what he really believes. The IDism of the DI is a legal strategy to get creationist anti-evolutionary arguments into public school science classrooms. (BTW, we now appear to be in the post-post-wedge world with a new textbook and legal strategy). Someone has to serve as an expert witness who isn't a YEC, because if the guys testifying for you all say they think the earth is 6,000 years old and humans aren't related to other apes you've already lost. Behe's that guy, because he makes the exact same arguments against evolution YECs make, but then claims he believes in common descent, which allows him to retain some shred of scientific credibility. Does Behe really believe everything he says, or is he just positioning himself to serve the cause? I'll never know for certain and I don't care, but I do know who he's marketing his services to.
Comment by Aagcobb — July 13, 2007 @ 11:30 am
July 13th, 2007 at 11:45 am
Behe affirmed that he believes God is the Intelligent Designer, however, Behe might be considered a believer in a form of front-loaded evolution (akin to Denton), not special creation (where Eve was made from Adam's rib, etc.).
I think his identification of God as the Intelligent Designer was in the Dover trial. He offered it as a personal belief, not a scientific inference.
Comment by Salvador T. Cordova — July 13, 2007 @ 11:45 am
July 13th, 2007 at 11:47 am
In that case, Darwin was a creationist too. LOL!
Comment by Salvador T. Cordova — July 13, 2007 @ 11:47 am
July 13th, 2007 at 1:56 pm
Mike
In that case I hereby explicitly include myself among the people that are commonly viewed as geniuses. Or to put it another way, is that really a good way to decide? People might have all sorts of reasons for identifying themselves as a part of an inappropriate group.
How do most people interpret the words "theistic evolution" How is it different to how I defined it? As I said before about "creationist" it might be useful for you to state how you define this term, rather than leaving us with the vague impression that you disagree with me.
What exactly is Behe's position? Does he suppose that the Designer intervenes in the running of the universe? I have the impression he does, but perhaps you can clear this up for me. Clearly he does believe there is evidence for the Designer that is ameniable to scientific investigation, which I still would say was the hallmark of an IDist.
Comment by The Pixie — July 13, 2007 @ 1:56 pm
July 13th, 2007 at 2:05 pm
Pixie:
So why can't Behe be an IDist and a theistic evolutionist at the same time?
Comment by Bradford — July 13, 2007 @ 2:05 pm
July 13th, 2007 at 3:50 pm
I am not sure he cannot. It depends on the definitions. My understanding is that TE is consistent with mainstream biology (and geology, physics, etc.), and holding that while there is a creator, there is no evidence for that, while ID asserts that there is such evidence. That would make them mutually exclusive.
Denton's position is interesting in this context. As far as I can tell Denton's belief is entirely consistent with mainstream biology (and geology, physics, etc.), and as such would indicate no evidence for the designer, and yet he still claims there is evidence for the designer.
Comment by The Pixie — July 13, 2007 @ 3:50 pm
July 13th, 2007 at 4:07 pm
Hi Pixie,
You write:
Once again, consider the words of Orwell: "Words of this kind are often used in a consciously dishonest way. That is, the person who uses them has his own private definition, but allows his hearers to think he means something quite different." First, do you agree with Orwell or not? If you don't, explain why. If you do, then let's move on. Second, if we agree with Orwell, then we are rationally and ethically obligated to consider what the "hearers" think the labeler means. Do you disagree with this?
Great question! Since I don't know of any study that attempts to measure this, we have to gauge this indirectly. As such, we should look to related surveys that tap into public perception, how it is defined in the mainstream media, and how it is defined in something like a dictionary. These will reflect common usage.
According to this academic glossary, theistic evolution is defined as follows: The belief that God operates through the natural process of evolution. This conforms fairly well with the CBS survey above (Humans evolved, God guided the process) and the 1999 newspaper article which observes, "The belief that God creates through evolution has been called "theistic evolution"."
You add an extra ingredient: "no scientific evidence for God's part in the process." This may be helpful to distinguish different types of TEs, but it is not the core that defines TE as it is commonly understood.
I define TE and creationist as most people do. In the case of TE, simply read what I wrote above:
I also think Larry Witham nails it: "The belief that God creates through evolution has been called "theistic evolution" though there are different views on how much God intervenes in the process."
He laid it out, as I provided it above: "[Eugenie] Scott refers to me as an intelligent design "creationist," even though I clearly write in my book "Darwin's Black Box" (which Scott cites) that I am not a creationist and have no reason to doubt common descent. In fact, my own views fit quite comfortably with the 40% of scientists that Scott acknowledges think evolution occurred, but was guided by God." (Intelligent Design Is Not Creationism by Michael Behe)
I'm not sure either, but this is irrelevant. TEs can differ in their opinions as to the frequency of such intervention.
That's irrelevant too. The only question of relevance here is whether it is more accurate to publicly label Behe a creationist or a theistic evolutionist. As far as the label "˜creationist' goes, I suggest people read The Creationist Fabrication for mainstream, common interpretations of this term. Let me add couple more:
Creationism is the doctrine that earth's different kinds of life were created separately by God. It is opposed to the theory of evolution, which states that humans and other species are ultimately descended from common ancestors.
creationism (the literal belief in the account of Creation given in the Book of Genesis) "creationism denies the theory of evolution of species"
As far as theistic evolution is concerned, mainstream, common interpretation seems to be that of God-guided evolution or God creating through evolution.
Dawkins is correct in noting that Behe accepts we are African apes, cousins of monkeys, descended from fish (and even realizes this puts him at odds with creationists, explaining why critics can't come up with a list of prominant creationists who accept human evolution). Given that Behe accepts we are African apes, cousins of monkeys, descended from fish, and given the common understanding of "˜creationist' and theistic evolutionist', it is clearly more accurate to label Behe a theistic evolutionist.
Comment by MikeGene — July 13, 2007 @ 4:07 pm
July 13th, 2007 at 4:12 pm
Hi Zachriel,
I suggest you read Steve's comment. In fact, even in DBB, Behe admits it is possible for IC to evolve. He just thinks such evolution is beyond the reach of a random walk (something that should be increasingly clear from the topic of his new book).
As for discontinuity, we shouldn't conflate evolution with non-teleology. Behe might argue that such discontinuities (the "edge") exist only as a function of non-teleological forces, but can be bridged through guidance. Guided evolution is one form of evolution. Artificial selection, artificial environments, and artificial variation can all be fitted within an evolutionary view.
Comment by MikeGene — July 13, 2007 @ 4:12 pm
July 14th, 2007 at 8:56 am
Adaptation is not random, but opportunistic.
Behe is here claiming that an Irreducible Complex System "could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications". He is incorrect on that, but that is his claim.
Artificial selection *is* evolution and requires only stepwise evolutionary change.
Origin of Species, Chapter I: Variation Under Domestication.
Clearly. When there is doubt, it is important to define our terminology. I would not consider Behe an evolutionist of any sort, as that implies a general acceptance of evolutionary theory. But call him whatever you want. His arguments remain specious.
Comment by Zachriel — July 14, 2007 @ 8:56 am
July 14th, 2007 at 10:18 am
Hi Rock,
It's not dense, as it is quite obvious you are exceptionally intelligent and knowledgeable (more so than me). Yet despite all this, you have skipped over the core point of my original essay:
Why would you do this? What's ironic here is that even after I have clearly pointed out that the critics never factor the way the term "˜creationist' is commonly understood, what has been the underlying theme of all the replies from all the critics who have responded in this thread? They still don't factor the way the term "˜creationist' is commonly understood. LOL This leads me to think I am dealing with conditioning, not thinking. I could understand all these side-issues if one critic would have replied by arguing, "We don't need to factor the way the term, "˜creationist' is commonly understood because"¦." But there is none of that. It's as if the critics want to rewrite history as if I never brought that point to the table.
Anyway, I'll walk another extra mile and deal with the watered-down approach. First, how do you define "affirm?" Second, how do you define "create?" Third, why did you arbitrarily choose "life" instead of say, "the universe" or "physical reality?"
Comment by MikeGene — July 14, 2007 @ 10:18 am
July 14th, 2007 at 10:21 am
Hi Zachriel,
I wrote, "we are rationally and ethically obligated to consider what the "hearers" think the labeler means."
You replied:
Can you thus show me where the critics consider what "hearers" think when they label Behe as a creationist?
When they label Behe as a creationist, can you show me the common examples where they also clearly define what they mean by creationist?
Thanks.
Comment by MikeGene — July 14, 2007 @ 10:21 am
July 14th, 2007 at 11:01 am
Hi MikeGene,
Labels are a double-edged sword. What does Behe mean when he calls people "Darwinists" who practice "Darwinism".
Is there anybody but Darwin who agrees 100% with Darwin.
I can point to Behe's latest book Edge of Evolution where he uses these terms extensively.
Can you thus show me where Behe and his supporters consider what "hearers" think when they label mainstream biologists as Darwinists?
When they label mainstream biologists as Darwinists, can you show me the common examples where they also clearly define what they mean by Darwinists and Darwinism?
Please don't suggest "Darwinst" is less derogatory than "creationist" because I would argue otherwise for a large percentage of the population who happen to believe in the bible.
Thanks
Comment by Thought Provoker — July 14, 2007 @ 11:01 am
July 14th, 2007 at 11:25 am
TP, you make some good points about the use of the term Darwinist. Sometimes a term can have such a strong effect that it deters people from even considering the statements of one so labled. A closed mind is most receptive to the Orwellian word game.
Comment by Bradford — July 14, 2007 @ 11:25 am
July 14th, 2007 at 11:34 am
Hi TP,
Just bashing more shields, I see.
The situations are not analogous since mainstream biologists such as Dawkins, Miller, Margulis and Mayr use the term Darwinist/darwinism and apply it to themselves, as does mainstream philosopher Michael Ruse.
Behe doesn't have to figure out how it applies.
Additionally, your challenge is a failure because if you read Behe and any ID proponent you will find that they do define for the hearer what they mean by Darwinism in almost every major piece they write.
You said you could point to his use in the book. Can't you also point to his explanation of his use? Why do you read so selectively?
Comment by Pez — July 14, 2007 @ 11:34 am
July 14th, 2007 at 11:36 am
Hi Bradford,
You wrote…
Thank You:shock:
Things have probably gone too far for a cease fire on name calling. The only possibily that has a chance will be models like EAM or the Third Choice.
Comment by Thought Provoker — July 14, 2007 @ 11:36 am
July 14th, 2007 at 11:44 am
Hi Pez,
You wrote…
Because I don't have the book in front of me.
Pointing to Behe's use of Darwinism is easy, it is in his table of contents (available on the web). Behe uses "Dariwinist" in his defense, link
Since you have the book, you could tell us the page his definition is on. If you really what to embarrass me, you could post Behe's definition for all.
And, yes, that was shield bashing.
Comment by Thought Provoker — July 14, 2007 @ 11:44 am
July 14th, 2007 at 12:31 pm
Hi Pez,
You wrote…
Did I mention I like challenges? Since you decided my other data search was "quite unnecessary" I decided to look up your claim here. I didn't want to say anything until I did a little rechecking. Here is what I found…
Here is Dawkin's web site. I found no self descriptions of being a Darwinist but I found this…
"[D]o not mistake passion, which can change its mind, for fundamentalism, which never will. Passion for passion, an evangelical Christian and I may be evenly matched. But we are not equally fundamentalist. The true scientist, however passionately he may "believe", in evolution for example, knows exactly what would change his mind: evidence! The fundamentalist knows that nothing will."
Here is Miller's web site, it isn't much but no mention of Darwinism or Darwinst.
Here is an interview I found where Miller says…
"I think the biggest difference, and the most direct way to pinpoint that difference, is to say that creationists inevitably look for God in what science has not yet explained or in what they claim science cannot explain. Most scientists who are religious look for God in what science does understand and has explained. So the way in which my view is different from the creationists or intelligent design proponents is that I find knowledge a compelling reason to believe in God. They find ignorance a compelling reason to believe in God."
Your reference to Lynn Margulis is comical. Her SET model is contrary to Darwinian Theories. From her biography…
"Dr. Margulis has also proposed that eukaryotic flagella and cilia may have arisen from endosymbiotic spirochetes, but these organelles do not contain DNA and do not show any ultrastructural similarities to any prokaryotes, and as a result this idea does not have wide support. Margulis claims that symbiotic relationships are a major driving force behind evolution. According to Margulis and Sagan (1996), "Life did not take over the globe by combat, but by networking" (i.e., by cooperation, interaction, and mutual dependence between living organisms). She considers Darwin's notion of evolution driven by competition to be incomplete." link
Ernst Mayr can be appropriately attributed to Darwinism. I don't know if he ever called himself a "Darwinist. That makes two known Darwinists, Darwin and Mayr, both deceased. By the way, note that there are plenty of people alive who proudly call themselves Creationists.
So you are off the hook for Mayr, but I would be interested in where you think the other three refer to themselves as "Darwinists".
Comment by Thought Provoker — July 14, 2007 @ 12:31 pm
July 14th, 2007 at 12:43 pm
To any TT Moderator.
I have another comment stuck in purgatory.
Thank you in advance.
Comment by Thought Provoker — July 14, 2007 @ 12:43 pm
July 14th, 2007 at 1:00 pm
Hi TP,
It's not my intention to embarrass you – just to encourage you to think for yourself a little bit.
Yep. As you said, that goes on a lot around here. Not the least of which is perpetrated by you – the thread police and ever-vigilant shield-bashing monitor.
Just going for the easy way again, huh? Nobody denied he used the word.
You have read him, right? What with all the times you ridicule his positions, one would think you had. And the fact that you cite his work to support your model against the failure of the status quo would make me think you would at least know what it is about the status quo that Behe argues against.
Since you at least refer to the table of contents (available in the book) you saw that the first one is entitled "The Elements Of Darwinsm". What do you think Behe might discuss there?
pages 1-3
===
Oh, look, as I get ready to post this I see you have 'answered my challenge'.
Well, since you think your selective reading is supposed to settle the matter let me add my two cents.
Here, I'll just pull off a section from a page a put together on this subject…
Comment by Pez — July 14, 2007 @ 1:00 pm
July 14th, 2007 at 1:08 pm
Hi TP,
Off the hook? Who said I wanted off the hook?
I didn't bring this up to get off the hook.
Funny how you think your teeny little search has given us "two known Darwinists".
Your work just gets lazier and lazier.
You bet there are.
Is Behe one of them?
Comment by Pez — July 14, 2007 @ 1:08 pm
July 14th, 2007 at 1:15 pm
In modern scientific parlance, the term "Darwinism" refers to the importance of Natural Selection. As such, Margulis considers herself "definitely a Darwinist", while biochemist Larry Moran explains "why he is not a Darwinist".
By lumping, Behe attempts to create a false dichotomy. He will be able to reject his strawman "Darwinian thinking" leaving only his own preferred explanation. One can be a Darwinist (asserting the importance of Natural Selection), but not believe that naive random mutation is sufficient to explain the sources of variation. One can also be a non-Darwinist (minimizing the importance of Natural Selection and adaptation), and believe that random mutation is sufficient to explain most variation.
Now think about it. You have just pointed to someone who is a self-proclaimed Darwinist, but who would reject Behe's statement above.
Comment by Zachriel — July 14, 2007 @ 1:15 pm
July 14th, 2007 at 1:22 pm
Thanks Zachriel,
Please look at TP's point and what I've responded to.
You can argue with Behe's definition all you want,but that has nothing to do with what TP asked or I answered.
Now think about it.
Behe tells us what he means when he uses the term Darwinism and the hearer can judge from there.
Behe tells us what he is arguing against and defines it every step of the way.
Comment by Pez — July 14, 2007 @ 1:22 pm
July 14th, 2007 at 1:31 pm
Behe has purposefully associated his views with Creationism. The conflation is of his own doing when they scratched out "Creator" throughout Of Pandas and People and replaced it with "Intelligent Designer". It came across as highly deceptive to then say it was about Intelligent Design and not Creationism"”and deception is exactly what the court found.
I have no doubt that labels are sometimes used to shortcircuit discussion. But there was good reason to believe that the Intelligent Design Movement was a dishonest cover for religious and social organizations. Most of that is now being rolled back. That should be a relief for those who actually want to explore the validity of Intelligent Design within a non-political context.
Comment by Zachriel — July 14, 2007 @ 1:31 pm
July 14th, 2007 at 4:58 pm
Mike
Yes! That is why I am so keen for us to be explicit in what definitions you are using. And that is why self-identification is NOT a certain way to determine if someone belongs to a group. Do you accept that I amn a genius, just because I say I am? I doubt it. So why should I accept that Behe is a TE just because he says he is? Is it possible Behe has a personal definition at odds with mine or at odd with the one he uses in other contexts?
Excellent. I especially applaud the use of the term "natural process". I would suggest Behe proposes evolution is not just natural, but supernatural as well.
Well, okay, we disagree on the definition. This is why it would be good to state the definition. As I understand the term TE implies that evolution occurs through naturalistic processes that can be studied by methodological naturalism.
So Behe is a TE. So what does that prove? According to your definition Behe's TE is incompatible with, say, Miller's. Looks like we have established that TE is not a useful term to differentiate between ID-TE and MET-TE. So let us all stop making a big deal about Behe being a TE.
See I think you are doing an Orwell. Who cares if Behe is labelled a theistic evolutionist if the term covers supports of ID and supports of MET? Is it a helpful term when it causes more confusion than understanding?
Does Behe side with Miller or with Meyer? According to your labelling he should align himself with Miller, he should target his books at the same audience as Miller. I suggest calling Behe a theistic evolutionist is as misleading as calling him a creationist.
Comment by The Pixie — July 14, 2007 @ 4:58 pm
July 14th, 2007 at 5:11 pm
Hi Pez,
You wrote…
For the record, I concede I made a mistake and stepped into your trap.
However, Zachriel is not me.
I am much more reckless than Zachriel. Frankly, I don't mind making a mistake or two with political and philosophical arguments because I would really rather do science.
Comment by Thought Provoker — July 14, 2007 @ 5:11 pm
July 14th, 2007 at 5:45 pm
Hi TP,
Trap?
How did I set a trap that made you come along bashing shields and making erroneous comparisons?
Oh yes, retrocausation.
Comment by Pez — July 14, 2007 @ 5:45 pm
July 14th, 2007 at 9:41 pm
Hi Pixie,
If you familiarize yourself with my arguments, self-identification has never been a crucial piece of the puzzle. It all started when Richard Dawkins accurately picked up on Behe's position: Behe's acceptance of the fact that we are African apes, cousins of monkeys, descended from fish. From there, I have demonstrated that, if we are to label Behe, it is more accurate to label him as a TE than a Creationist.
I never claimed it proved anything. As I explained, this whole subject has arisen because I was asked a question. I have thus answered it and successfully defended it.
Yes, I think it has now become clear to many people that there is more than one kind of TE. This has been a net positive, because I suspect that many people have simply assumed TE's represented some sort of monolithic block.
I'm not making a big deal out of it. Over the years, the critics have made a HUGE fuss when it comes to labeling Behe with the C-word. I have now shown that this is a misleading label.
No definition is perfect. I'm just pointing out that we are obligated to factor common understanding of labels and then when we do this, TE is a more accurate label than Creationist when it comes to someone who accepts we are African apes, cousins of monkeys, descended from fish. That should be a no brainer.
I suggest that you might want to re-think the diversity that may exist among the TEs. For example, did you notice that Michael Denton has returned to give Behe's new book an endorsement? Or that Simon Conway Morris wrote an endorsement for Gonzalez's book? If 40% of scientists are indeed TEs, why would anyone think such a large population would all think alike?
Comment by MikeGene — July 14, 2007 @ 9:41 pm
July 14th, 2007 at 9:55 pm
Hi Zachriel,
I think I already agreed with you that this is the most reasonable explanation for the conflation among sincere people. Behe's participation in the writing of Pandas and the Dover trial are certainly not trivial facts. Yet ultimately, it is still a guilt-by-association argument and thus a logical fallacy. What we apparently have with Behe is a theistic evolutionist who finds common ground with creationists as far as the socio-political movement goes. But you should expand your way of thinking about this dynamic. Consider a simple question. Who is more likely to get more creationists to accept evolution? Michael Behe or Richard Dawkins? Michael Behe or Ken Miller? Public answers are not needed, as it would be better for you to privately contemplate and answer it to yourself.
Comment by MikeGene — July 14, 2007 @ 9:55 pm
July 15th, 2007 at 4:08 pm
Mike
Ah, but then may be that is because many people define TE as I do, rather than as you do. Is it possible that my definitionis the common one?
How do we pick a definition? Who gets to choose? You admitted that for many people TE excludes Behe's position – is that not a common understanding of the label?
Sorry, but this argument is spurious. How does the definition of TE affect how these people consider one another? Are you suggesting they would only do these things if they all fell under the same label? What you seem to be doing is [i]assuming[/i] your definition is correct, showing all these people belong to that definition, and then saying that this shows your definition is correct. What if my definition is correct, and Denton, Behe and Gonzalez are not TEs. Is it unreasonable then for Denton to endorse Behe's book or for Morris to endorse Gonzalez? I do not think merely a change in labelling would make that so.
That would depend on the options in that prticular survey.
I will note again that Dembski said "ID is no friend of theistic evolution" (1995 "What every theologian should know about creation, evolution, and design." Center for Interdisciplinary Studies Transactions 3(2):3. , from here). Sounds like Dembski agrees with me and many people.
Comment by The Pixie — July 15, 2007 @ 4:08 pm
July 17th, 2007 at 5:37 pm
LOL, Mike Gene, I don't GAS what your critics say, and you know that.
I think your missing half the socio-political equation.
I think I have factored all the elements of the equation, Mike Gene, and its not that difficult. I think that is exactly the problem with your analysis"”You haven't.
The labels we accept or assign to ourselves are not solely a one-way function from our "critics" to us. Neither are they a function of what we say about ourselves. (It is certainly understanbable why some IDers may think so.)
Who we believe we are is not just who we say we are, but also what other people say (believe) we are. We all know that. For me the label "creationist" is not a criticism. I do not substitute labels for criticisms. That's the idiots way, and I don't mind saying so"”Many of ID's critics are idiots! LOL (In case you hadn't guessed.)
None of us says who we are. We are not even a Who! But a How! How do we relate to others"”that's who we are.
Michael Behe may not accept the designation (label) "creationist" not because it does not accurately reflect his beliefs, but because of what those "critics" say is "creationism."
The socio-politcal dynamic works bith ways. You know that.
Just tell me what you really believe, Michael Behe.
Comment by Rock — July 17, 2007 @ 5:37 pm
July 18th, 2007 at 12:08 am
Hi Rock,
But it's not about assigning labels to ourselves. It's about publicly assigning labels to others. Does publicly labeling Behe a 'creationist' convey the fact that he thinks we are African apes, cousins of monkeys, descended from fish?
Yes, that's you. But labels are not private affairs. The hearer of your label also has a meaning for "˜creationist.'
Comment by MikeGene — July 18, 2007 @ 12:08 am