Behe vs. Dress
by BradfordAn article of The Times entitled Professors discuss intelligent design vs. evolution shows interviews of Michael Behe and William Dress, an assistant professor of science who teaches biology at Robert Morris University. Their viewpoints contrast with each other. Here's some snippets:
The Times: What are the most important challenges to the theory of evolution?
Behe: The most important challenge to the Darwin theory of evolution is the complexity of life. In Darwin's day, scientists thought that all foundations of life would be simple. That has turned out to be the opposite of what we see. Even in its tiniest component, life is complicated and functional, like a computer chip, and Darwin's theory does not easily explain that.
A theory, based on incremental changes, has not produced plausible explanations for how life came about. More:
The Times: How would you respond to the following quote?
Intelligent design is "essentially a religious proposition. I understand it to be a reformulation of an old theological argument for the existence of God." "” John F. Haught, a Georgetown University theology professor testifying in 2005 at a trial over whether the theory of intelligent design belongs in a public school science curriculum as an alternative to evolution.
Behe: All scientific theories that try to explain where the universe or life comes from will have philosophical and theological implications. The Big Bang Theory has such implications. The Darwin theory has philosophical and theological implications. There's no reason why intelligent design should not have such implications. If science can bring evidence that seems to point against there being a God, then science can bring forth evidence that there is a God."
Does John Haught object to comments about religion when they come from Dawkins or PZ Meyers or is it only a problem with IDists? A question for Dress:
The Times: How would you respond to the following quote?
"The most beautiful system of the sun, planets, and comets, could only proceed from the counsel and dominion of an intelligent and powerful Being." "” Isaac Newton, in "Philosophiae Naturalis Principia Mathematica" (mathematical principles of natural philosophy).
Dress: I think that in this quote, Isaac Newton was probably talking about his beliefs. I think one of the big problems with this debate is that people see it as two sides "” that you understand and accept concepts of evolution, or you believe in God and creation and the two cannot be intermingled. I see this quote as saying you can do both.
Evolution deals with science, and it has nothing to do with faith or what you believe. I think that quote from Isaac Newton, who is one of the pre-eminent scientists in all of history, illustrates that. He was a great scientist, but he clearly also has his beliefs
Dress started out on the right foot but believes that data necessarily points to non-teleological explanations for life and the universe. That is his own belief.
February 11th, 2008 at 12:10 pm
Behe:
Why the duck would Behe restrict that definition to animals? There are such things as plants for example. Could it be because humans are animals and he just can't stomach the idea of our humble origins? Or am I reading too much into this? And what about "the Charles Darwin theory". Never seen it referred to that way.
Comment by Raevmo — February 11, 2008 @ 12:10 pm
February 11th, 2008 at 12:27 pm
What about bacteria? Bacteria are more numerous, more diverse, more widespread, more durable, and have way more biomass than animals. You couldn't even digest your lunch without bacteria. This metazoa-centrism sure is irksome.
Comment by Zachriel — February 11, 2008 @ 12:27 pm
February 11th, 2008 at 12:44 pm
And how about this:
Behe:
WTF? That interview is a real gold mine.
Comment by Raevmo — February 11, 2008 @ 12:44 pm
February 11th, 2008 at 12:49 pm
Rigel 7 doesn't count you nerd.
Comment by Doug — February 11, 2008 @ 12:49 pm
February 11th, 2008 at 12:55 pm
Well, since he's a Roman Catholic, I doubt he agrees with Dawkins about science providing evidence for a lack of faith.
Which Meyers? Stephen C.?
Comment by One Brow — February 11, 2008 @ 12:55 pm
February 11th, 2008 at 12:57 pm
Pretty sure it's PZ Myers.
Just a typo.
Comment by Doug — February 11, 2008 @ 12:57 pm
February 11th, 2008 at 1:09 pm
Hi Bradford,
You wrote…
Wow. You got that from the words you quoted?!?!?
It appears to me that Dress was talking about how science and religion are two separate subjects.
I think Jessica Bruni of Beaver County Times & Allegheny Times was ethical in her approach to this article.
For example, she asked both sides the same questions. Here was Behe's response to the Newton quote…
"Newton didn't realize that the solar system could be set up using the same math principles that he himself discovered. What he didn't know is that our solar system seems uniquely situated for the existence of intelligent life."
It appears to me that Behe is backing away from the obvious. Newton had no trouble detecting design because, to Newton, everything was designed by God.
Unless you are willing to embrace NOMA, then ID's quest to detect design is trivial. The single, OMA truth for people of faith is that GodDidIt making the details irrelevant to detecting design.
Science is about hypothesizing details and testing the hypotheses.
Newton was both a man of science and a man of faith which is what Dress was saying.
Comment by Thought Provoker — February 11, 2008 @ 1:09 pm
February 11th, 2008 at 1:11 pm
Doug:
Why not? It's on TV!
Comment by Raevmo — February 11, 2008 @ 1:11 pm
February 11th, 2008 at 1:28 pm
TP:
I think Dress is saying more than that. He is implying that physical evidence could not support a designed explanation for life arising or for FLE. If one made a claim that it did he would call it religion IMO.
Comment by Bradford — February 11, 2008 @ 1:28 pm
February 11th, 2008 at 1:29 pm
LOL!
Good point.
Comment by Doug — February 11, 2008 @ 1:29 pm
February 11th, 2008 at 1:30 pm
OB:
Sorry about that. PZ was added to the amended post.
Comment by Bradford — February 11, 2008 @ 1:30 pm
February 11th, 2008 at 2:16 pm
Hi Bradford,
You wrote…
and…
RogerRabbitt often accuses me of trying to read minds.
Are you challenging me for the title of Telic Thought's official mind reader?
Comment by Thought Provoker — February 11, 2008 @ 2:16 pm
February 11th, 2008 at 2:16 pm
No big deal. I'd be rich if had a penny for every typo or misspelled word I have produced over these past few years. For the record, I believe PZ only has one "e" in his last name.
Comment by One Brow — February 11, 2008 @ 2:16 pm
February 11th, 2008 at 2:41 pm
And Stephen Meyer has but one "s".
For the record.
Comment by Pez — February 11, 2008 @ 2:41 pm
February 11th, 2008 at 3:58 pm
Maybe he sees a rabbit where you see a duck.
Comment by Mung — February 11, 2008 @ 3:58 pm
February 11th, 2008 at 4:04 pm
TP:
But Newton didn't point to "everything" to support his theory of design.
Everything may be designed, but that does not mean you can detect design in everything. Therefore ID is not trivial.
Everything is matter, but not all matter forms patterns. Science is the search for patterns in the material world. And that's why science is not trivial.
Comment by Mung — February 11, 2008 @ 4:04 pm
February 11th, 2008 at 4:20 pm
I think you got me on that score. I'm lucky if I read my wife correctly.
Comment by Bradford — February 11, 2008 @ 4:20 pm
February 11th, 2008 at 4:23 pm
Mung:
Good point. Not having empirical evidence for design does not equate to non-design particularly at origin levels where often so little real data is available.
Comment by Bradford — February 11, 2008 @ 4:23 pm
February 11th, 2008 at 4:24 pm
You must mean the DI guy. There is a Stephen C. Meyers who has written on this subject as well.
http://www.bibleandscience.com...
Comment by One Brow — February 11, 2008 @ 4:24 pm
February 11th, 2008 at 4:33 pm
Did you seriously mean THAT Stephen Meyers?
I've been following these debates since 2004 (not too long, granted), but… I've rarely heard his name come up…. if ever.
Comment by Doug — February 11, 2008 @ 4:33 pm
February 11th, 2008 at 4:46 pm
Mung:
Can I quote you on that?
Comment by Raevmo — February 11, 2008 @ 4:46 pm
February 11th, 2008 at 5:45 pm
I'm not going to lie about it, there was absolutely zero amount of prior knowledge of Meyers involved. When I read the post, I googled on "Meyers evolution" and he is the guy who turned up. I had no idea who he was before the google, hence my confusion. I also didn't realize he had the same first name (not to mention middle initial) as Meyer, who did not appear in the Google search, for obvious reasons.
Comment by One Brow — February 11, 2008 @ 5:45 pm
February 11th, 2008 at 6:05 pm
Could we not then also say that the OMA truth for athiests is GodDidn'tDoIt making their insistence on nauralistic causes irrelevant?
Comment by 0112358 — February 11, 2008 @ 6:05 pm
February 11th, 2008 at 11:47 pm
Hi Raevmo,
You wrote to Mung…
You beat me to the punch, but you were a lot more subtle that I would have been. Maybe something like "a MATERIALIST! Get the firewood and stake."
To me all "matter" is just patterns in the 4D spacetime wavefunction that is our universe.
Comment by Thought Provoker — February 11, 2008 @ 11:47 pm
February 11th, 2008 at 11:52 pm
Hi 0112358,
To be equivalent, you could say…
Unless you are willing to embrace NOMA, then Atheists' quest to disprove the existance of God is trivial. The single, OMA truth for Atheists is that GodDidn'tDoIt, making the details irrelevant to proving the non-existance of God.
Which is why I embrace NOMA.
Comment by Thought Provoker — February 11, 2008 @ 11:52 pm
February 12th, 2008 at 10:45 am
Hi Thought Provoker,
What about the person who has no OMA? What if there really is a person who comes to the question of origins with no preconceived notions? What if he is truely open to where the knowledge gained by scientific investigations leads? What if he has no fear of the consequences of the outcome? He does not fear meaninglessness if there is no God and he does not fear the requirements of his Maker if there is a God? Although I agree that science cannot answer the question of origins beyond a shadow-of-doubt I believe it can at least point us in the direction of a right conclusion.
Comment by 0112358 — February 12, 2008 @ 10:45 am
February 12th, 2008 at 11:52 am
Hi 0112358,
Would you be interested in hearing about some significant scientific evidence that provides insight into understanding the shape and mechanisms of our universe?
It combines cosmology (4D spacetime) and Quantum Mechanics (quantum effects interconnected in spacetime).
Yes, it will take some hard work to understand it, but I suggest hard work is just one of the necessary costs of thinking for yourself.
A belief in something that happens to be true isn't knowledge.
Comment by Thought Provoker — February 12, 2008 @ 11:52 am
February 12th, 2008 at 1:52 pm
I'm surprised no one is disagreeing with you (yet) on this. Are you using knowledge as a synonym for understanding?
"To know is to understand."
Comment by Mung — February 12, 2008 @ 1:52 pm
February 12th, 2008 at 3:03 pm
Hi Mung,
Actually, I would say it the other way around…
"To understand is to know".
Fifth Monarchy Man indicated that I sound like Alvin Plantinga when I say things like this.
As uncomfortable as it might make me, I have to agree. This is similar to Plantinga's concept of warrant. Belief just isn't enough.
Comment by Thought Provoker — February 12, 2008 @ 3:03 pm
February 12th, 2008 at 7:46 pm
Given a materialist view of the world, what is the difference between belief, knowledge, and understanding?
Comment by Mung — February 12, 2008 @ 7:46 pm
February 12th, 2008 at 7:49 pm
I recommend Stanley L. Jaki, John Pokinghorne, and Paul Davies.
Comment by Mung — February 12, 2008 @ 7:49 pm
February 12th, 2008 at 9:11 pm
Hi Mung,
You asked…
I'm not the materialist.
You were the one that said "Everything is matter…"
I posit that everything is patterns in the 4D spacetime wavefunction.
Comment by Thought Provoker — February 12, 2008 @ 9:11 pm
February 13th, 2008 at 7:00 pm
I posit that everything is patterns in the 4D spacetime wavefunction.
And that's not materialism how, and how is it even coherent?
What sort of pattern does chaos have?
Comment by Mung — February 13, 2008 @ 7:00 pm
February 13th, 2008 at 7:46 pm
Hi Mung,
"I posit that everything is patterns in the 4D spacetime wavefunction."
You asked…
There is no "matter" only quantum effects.
But let me answer a question with a question. Does matter curve spacetime or is matter just curves in spacetime?
That, detective, is the right question.
Comment by Thought Provoker — February 13, 2008 @ 7:46 pm
February 14th, 2008 at 1:07 am
Forgive me if I am being dull.
It may be true that there are only quantum effects, but it does not follow that there is no matter. For matter could be the effect.
Comment by Mung — February 14, 2008 @ 1:07 am
February 14th, 2008 at 1:22 am
I've found that matter can be damn well anything materialists want it to be, personally. I'm pretty sure if Penrose proves the platonic realm to be real, arxiv will have articles about the new theoretical platonium matter.
Comment by nullasalus — February 14, 2008 @ 1:22 am
February 14th, 2008 at 1:59 am
It has occurred to me, that in saying there is no matter, you are also saying, there is no energy.
Comment by Mung — February 14, 2008 @ 1:59 am
February 14th, 2008 at 12:58 pm
Hi Mung,
Let me apologize up front for my overly cryptic responses. I have overextended myself badly. So my answers will be short.
I see is the other way around. It is quantum effects that give the illusion of particles and matter.
E=mC^2 tells most of average public that matter can be converted into energy and visa versa.
What it really means is that matter IS energy. There are no particles. This is no solid matter. Just curves in 4D spacetime.
Some people call separation of curves in 4D spacetime "gravitational energy". Now, it becomes a semantics discussion.
The point is solid matter (even to the smallest particle) does not exist.
That is why I find the term "materialist" amusing
Comment by Thought Provoker — February 14, 2008 @ 12:58 pm