Imaginary conversation between Michael Behe and Mike Gene
by BilboFor some time now, I've wanted to write a thread comparing and contrasting the views of Michael Behe and Mike Gene with regard to Intelligent Design. But the standard, "Here's what Behe says, and here is what Mike says…" seemed boring. More and more I've imagined the two of them having a discussion while the rest of just listened in. Since I don't know if that has ever happened, I decided to make up such a dialogue on my own. Let me issue a very loud WARNING! Except where I quote one or the other of them (with reference), the following conversation has been completely fabricated by me. It's quite possible that all the views I represent either of them as having could be completely mistaken.
Behe: I'm glad you included that caveat, Bilbo. But you should also have included the fact that you are doing this entirely without consulting us, and without our permission. At the very least, this is extremely rude behavior. I expected better of you, though I don't know why. You lash out at Dembski as if he's part of a religious cult, and on top of that, you're one of those 9/11 whacko conspiracy theorists. I'm not sure if there are any legal remedies available to us, but if there are, you'll be hearing from our lawyers.
MG: Or at least from our rabbits.
Behe: Speaking of rabbits, why exactly are you wearing that bunny suit, Mike?
MG: Bilbo's idea. And I assume that's why you're in a white lab coat?
Behe: Ditto. Well, the sooner we get this over with, the sooner Bilbo will let me go back to Lehigh and you to your…uh…hole in the ground. Where should we start?
MG: Why don't we start with what we both agree on regarding evolution and ID? We both accept the notion of common descent, natural selection, and that at least some events in biological history are random.
Behe: Yes, and we both believe that the origin of life was a designed event.
MG: Well, perhaps it would be more accurate to say that I suspect the OOL was a designed event. And I incorporate that into my working hypothesis of front-loaded evolution.
Behe: Yes, we might begin to part company rather early. Perhaps by looking at the chart (opposite the Title page and on p.218) I include in my book, The Edge of Evolution, we can get an idea of where our views come close and where they diverge. I think evidence of ID begins with the Laws of Nature and works its way down through the origin of life, and at least to the origin of Classes in the Taxonomic categories.
MG: I agree that there are intriguing clues that raise suspicions of design of our Universe, and of the Earth, but I confine my speculations to biotic reality. And looking at your chart, I would say I suspect design for the origin of life, cells, the genetic code, multiprotein complexes (unicellular), and molecular machines (unicellular). After that I suspect that Darwinian processes, acting upon the information front-loaded in these categories, can explain the rest.
Behe: Yes, and this is probably where we differ the most. I think, and believe that I have proven, that even with all that information, natural selection acting upon random mutations couldn't have resulted in most of what we see at the multi-cellular level.
MG: Ultimately, you might be right. But in the meanwhile, I'm going with my hypothesis, and see how far it can get me.
Behe: So you're not convinced by the arguments in my book, EOE?
MG: Not yet.
Behe: Do you have any counter-arguments or counter-examples?
MG: On p.159 of my book, The Design Matrix, I note that "since the history of evolution is one filled with contingency, it would seem that we can no more design evolution such that mammals would appear about 200 million years ago…than we could design human history such that Michael Behe would win the Pennsylvania lottery on January 8, 2008." And it certainly seems to me that the history of evolution is one filled with contingency.
Behe: I agree with you there, believe it or not. I suggested a way of dealing with this. Either God or an uberphysicist could simply choose to activate a universe where the right random events occur.
Bilbo: May I interrupt?
Behe and MG (together): Do we have a choice?
Bilbo: Not really. But Professor Behe, I've been wanting to ask you about that example of yours.
Behe: Yes?
Bilbo: If the events in a given universe are really random, how would an uberphysicist know ahead of time which universe she should activate?
Behe: Good question. Perhaps the uberphysicist, being "outside" of our time, would be able to see all the events that would occur in it.
Bilbo: Your uberphysicist begins to sound more God-like. She would be omniscient and omnipotent — at least in regard to our Universe.
Behe: Perhaps. Yet the uberphysicist wouldn't be a necessary being — as we usually think God is. Nor omnibenevolent, nor omniscient, nor omnipotent in her own level of existence. So I think we could still make a meaningful distinction between God and the uberphysicist.
Bilbo: Oh. I guess you're right. Sorry. Carry on.
Behe: Where was I?
MG: Offering a way for a designer to design a random Universe that still contains certain events.
Behe: Right. So it seems to me that we can have a history of evolution that is filled with contingency, but that is also designed.
MG: Still, in order for your version of design to work, the designer must exist outside our Universe. I'm curious to see whether there could have been a designer within our Universe, who simply seeded our planet with unicellular life some time in our planet's ancient past.
Behe: Such as Crick's directed panspermia or Hoyle's panspermia?
MG: Exactly.
Bilbo: Excuse me.
Behe and MG (together): Now what?
Bilbo: Actually, Hoyle thought that the cells in outer space might be continually raining down on Earth, even at the present time. So for him, the design events may be occurring even now, as sub-routines being added to a computer program.
Behe: Interesting. Do you think this might add a wrinkle to what Mike and I have been discussing?
Bilbo: Perhaps. If additional information is being fed into evolution, it might explain our history as well as God or an uberphysicist.
Behe: Let me think about that one. Should Mike and I discuss other topics, such as whether or not ID is science and should be taught in school?
MG: I think Bilbo has imagined enough for one thread.
Bilbo: Agreed.
March 23rd, 2009 at 6:31 am
Good post, Bilbo. Nice to see ID getting discussed on TT. I was hoping imaginary-Behe and imaginery-Gene might discuss IC more. For one thing, I still do not understand what mechanism Behe is proposing to get around IC (given that he accepts common descent).
However, the discussion on random events is interesting. How would the supposed designer handle events like the KT-extinction, which might have been caused by a meteor impact? I think the KT-extinction is absolutely vital to allow mammals to establish themselves as the dominant group; without it there would be no humans. Perhaps the front-loaders would have been happy with intelligent dinosaurs? Or perhaps the meteor was sent by the uberphysicist to help evolution in the right direction?
Comment by The Pixie Again — March 23, 2009 @ 6:31 am
March 23rd, 2009 at 12:18 pm
The Pixie Again wrote:
This is only the case if one defines "human" phylogenetically (i.e. as members of the order Primates in the class Mammalia). However, if one defines "human" functionally — that is, as bipedal, big-brained, highly social endothermic vertebrates having opposable thumbs, the mental capacity for abstract reasoning, and neuroanatomy for linguistic communication, there is absolutely nothing that would necessarily prevent (nor require) the evolution of such animals in the absence of the K-T mass extinction event.
Furthermore, if one wishes to invoke mass extinction events as tools for "directed" evolution, one should be careful about whose interests the "director" has in mind. Humans were very nearly driven to extinction as the result of the Toba supervolcano eruption (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toba_catastrophe_theory for more), and there is no guarantee that another biosphere-level catastrophe will not finish what Toba started.
Comment by Allen_MacNeill — March 23, 2009 @ 12:18 pm
March 23rd, 2009 at 12:20 pm
Or, to paraphrase J. B. S. Haldane, nature is not only scarier than we imagine, it is scarier than we can imagine.
Comment by Allen_MacNeill — March 23, 2009 @ 12:20 pm
March 23rd, 2009 at 4:54 pm
Sure, that was why I was speculating that the front-loaders might be happy with intelligent dinosaurs. Of course, this all gets into the area of pondering what the purpose of the designer was, and IDists tend to shy away from any discussion about the nature of the designer.
Comment by The Pixie Again — March 23, 2009 @ 4:54 pm
March 23rd, 2009 at 5:23 pm
Yes, that is worth a part II discussion in itself. I'm hoping this thread inspires the real Behe and Mike to have a real discussion of their own, that we can listen in on. But briefly, I think Behe's view is that God or the uberphysicist would have chosen to activate a rare universe where all the necessary mutations would happen concommitantly, so that an IC system would suddenly appear.
One of the events that Behe thinks was included in the choice of universes was the collision that caused the formation of our moon. I imagine that choosing a universe where a meteor impacts the Earth at a certain time in history would also be an option. But as Prof. MacNeill pointed out, if the designer only wanted human-like beings, that might not have been necessary.
We're still trying to figure out what the purpose of Stonehenge was.
Comment by Bilbo — March 23, 2009 @ 5:23 pm
March 23rd, 2009 at 9:18 pm
FWIW, I've posted a commentary on an extended quote on the subject of engineering metaphors from Mike Gene's The Design Matrix at my blog:
http://evolutionlist.blogspot.com/2009/03/analogies-metaphors-and-inference-in.html
I think that some of you might enjoy it. You can leave comments there.
Comment by Allen_MacNeill — March 23, 2009 @ 9:18 pm
March 23rd, 2009 at 10:07 pm
Just Another One of the Boyz in the Banned…
A quick note to say that I have apparently once again been "moderated" off of the threads at Uncommon Descent. Apparently my comments were cutting a little too close to the bone. One could almost say I'd been Expelled (No intelligence Allowed)…
And to Timaeus and others from UD: I will be indirectly responding to some of the posts at Uncommon Descent at The Evolution List (time and weather permitting, of course).
Comment by Allen_MacNeill — March 23, 2009 @ 10:07 pm
March 23rd, 2009 at 10:38 pm
Allen M,
Mike Gene is quite clear that the analogies within cells to human engineering are grounds for suspicion. They're not scientific proof.
Comment by kornbelt888 — March 23, 2009 @ 10:38 pm
March 23rd, 2009 at 10:41 pm
That's a shame. It's why I don't waste my time there.
Comment by kornbelt888 — March 23, 2009 @ 10:41 pm
March 23rd, 2009 at 10:45 pm
I realize that; indeed, that was my point as well. Analogies between biological objects and processes and objects and processes designed by humans could be purely "semantic", and not "real" at all. Simply observing an analogy isn't "proof" of anything, and it's difficult to determine how analogies by themselves could constitute any kind of proof.
Also, analogies between biological objects and processes and objects and processes designed by humans could just as easily be "the other way around". That is, human designers are inspired in their designs by observations of the way living systems are organized. In such a case, the analogy between the biological "model" and the engineered "mimic" would be a "real" analogy, but would say absolutely nothing about whether the biological object/process itself had been designed.
Comment by Allen_MacNeill — March 23, 2009 @ 10:45 pm
March 23rd, 2009 at 10:46 pm
BTW, kornbelt, it's nice to have a civil conversation with you! I promise to continue to be "nice" if you will, too.
Comment by Allen_MacNeill — March 23, 2009 @ 10:46 pm
March 24th, 2009 at 9:31 am
Bilbo
Do you mean rare as in where the laws of nature are fine tuned to such a degree that it will happen, or are you thinking of a sort of many worlds scenario, in which random events split off to make new universes, and this uberphysicist picks the one he likes?
If the former, then IC is no obstacle at all; we patently live in this rare universe in which supposedly IC structure will form. Indeed, this scenario is perfectly compatibl;e with modern evolutionary theory.
If the latter, then the claim comes down to the uberphysicist selecting supposedly random events at the quantum level. To make a new IC structure, how many "random events" are required? I would guess a few handfuls. How many possible attempts were there that might have resulted in an IC structure? I would guess countless. So how can we tell if these quantum events were directed rather than random?
Okay, that fits with Behe's selection of rare universes. How about Gene's FLE? Can we assume that Gene's designer had a larger target of human-like beings?
Are you saying IDists should not even try until we are completely certain what the purpose of Stonehenge was?
Comment by The Pixie Again — March 24, 2009 @ 9:31 am
March 24th, 2009 at 10:06 am
Pixie:
Because the designer or designers could be different and have different purposes depending on what particular version of ID one adheres to. For example, in his dialogue Bilbo mentions directed panspermia. If life and the evolution of life are the result of directed panspermia then the purpose of the designers was simply to propagate life elsewhere in the universe. If on the other hand, if life is the result some kind of eternally existing transcendent intelligence (EETI) that raises a different set possible explanations and purposes. Furthermore, those explanations and purposes can vary depending upon what specific conception one has of such an EETI. For example, from a Christian perspective the EETI cares about his creation and I as an individual have a specific meaning and purpose that is grounded in the ultimate meaning and purpose of the universe. If on the other hand, the deistic view of the EETI is correct then it unconcerned and aloof from what it has created. In other words, my purpose and meaning as an individual is not grounded in any type of ultimate meaning.
However, in each of the above options panspermia, Christian theism and deism intelligence in the generic sense is the explanation why life, mind and consciousness exists in the universe. In other words, ID is a common ground explanation for some basic questions. When you ask more specific questions you are moving away from this basic position to one that that has traditionally occupied by theology, and as we all know there are many different kinds of theology.
Comment by JOHN_A_DESIGNER — March 24, 2009 @ 10:06 am
March 24th, 2009 at 10:49 am
Not sure which Behe has in mind. Compatible with modern evolutionary theory? If you mean compatible with the view that no intelligence was needed for life to appear and evolve to where we are today, then Behe would disagree. I think he would say that the overwhelming number of coincidences needed for this to happen puts it well beyond a non-teleological theory.
I think if Behe were only talking about IC structures, you might have an argument. In fact, I think Mike Gene counts on something like this to explain IC structures at the multi-cellular level. But Behe is offering a comprehensive argument from design: From the Big Bang to the present. He's relying on the book, Rare Earth, for much of his information for the problems of getting just the right planet, for example.
No, I'm saying that if we have problems figuring out the purpose of a known designed object, made just a few thousand years ago, by human beings, what makes you think tackling the problem of figuring out why life was designed would be any easier?
Comment by Bilbo — March 24, 2009 @ 10:49 am
March 24th, 2009 at 11:52 am
JAD
Exactly.
ID advocates like to sell books to a wide audience, so Behe plays down a specific scenario involving an uberphysicist selecting a rare universe in favour of a generic ID that will appeal to creations.
This is why ID is not science. ID scientists would have to propose a specific hypothesis from which predictions inevitably follow. They do not need to all pick the same one. Mike Gene is heading down this road, but i think he needs to be a bit more clear on the sort of structures that were front-loaded (eg, multi-cellularity or eyes or humans) before he has enogh detail to start makiing definite predictions that differentiate from MET.
Okay, so it seems we broadly agree here. Different ID scenarios give different predictions. ID needs to crystallise those scenarios to give us some definite – and testable – predictions.
Ah, well if you think of ID as theology, then you will have no argument from me – some people round here seem to think it is science!
Comment by The Pixie Again — March 24, 2009 @ 11:52 am
March 24th, 2009 at 12:13 pm
Bilbo
Then I would tentatively guess that Behe is advocating selecting from "many worlds" universes. The alternative is essentially fine-tuning, and it was that that I was thinking was compatible with MET.
I would be interested in what probability calculation he does. In a universe with some ten sextillion stars, and some 17 billion years so far, you need some extreme odds to rule out chance. How small is his target, and does he justify a particular narrow set of conditions?
Who said it would be any easy? I stated that IDists shy away from the question altogether. Perhaps that is because they find the question too tricky to ponder; if so, then it is hardly science, is it? Archaeology is science because they ask the difficult questions. They may never know why stonehenge was built, but they have some ideas, and they can test those ideas against the findings at the site. Archaeologists have a very limited set of findings; the ID science has the enormous wealth of all organic life (and perhaps the laws of nature, plus astronomy too), so in some ways the ID scientist is better off.
Comment by The Pixie Again — March 24, 2009 @ 12:13 pm
March 24th, 2009 at 6:41 pm
Was I bad to you? Probably when I liquored up.
My apologies.
Comment by kornbelt888 — March 24, 2009 @ 6:41 pm
March 24th, 2009 at 7:04 pm
Behe is assuming that only one universe is actualized. The other potential universes are just that — potential.
He relies on Rare Earth for his conclusion that we live on a rare planet. I haven't read the book, have you?
I disagree with this line of reasoning. Essentially you're arguing that unless we know or try to know the purpose of X, we cannot do any teleological thinking about X. It seems that if X is composed of many different parts, each achieving a certain function, that we can do a lot of teleological thinking about X, even if we don't know the ultimate purpose of X. And we may discover something about the purpose of X by examining its parts. I may not know that the purpose of the object I find laying in the heath is for keeping time. But if I examine the parts long enough, I may be able to propose such a hypothesis. Of course, I could be wrong. It could be the purpose of the object is bait, and as soon as I remove the cover, it activates a signal, letting its owner know that a juicy human being is waiting to be pounced upon.
Comment by Bilbo — March 24, 2009 @ 7:04 pm
March 24th, 2009 at 7:50 pm
Bilbo
That is why I said a "sort of" many worlds (but I guess I was not too clear – sorry). The uberphysicist sees the many worlds, and picks out the right universe. As I said, "then the claim comes down to the uberphysicist selecting supposedly random events at the quantum level".
I have not read it. I was assuming he quoted freely from it, or did some calculations of his own.
Telos (from which the word teleology is derived) is Greek for purpose, so that seems to suggest that teleology necessitates thinking about the purpose.
As long as you are thinking about these hypotheses about it purpose, then you are thinking about purpose. I just do not get why you would not want to think about that question as soon as you pick the item up. I notice that Paley was quite clear that the purpose of the object he found was for keeping time. If he had stumbled upon an iPod, he would have been clueless, but I suspect he would still make some guesses as to what it was (undoubtedly wrong, but offering avenues of research).
Of course, Paley did not have a hidden agenda; he was quite open hat his designer was God. My suspicion is that IDists do not like to ponder the nature of the designer in case anyone spots that – for most of them – the designer is God too.
An excellent reason to consider the purpose before you even pick it up.
Comment by The Pixie Again — March 24, 2009 @ 7:50 pm
March 24th, 2009 at 8:12 pm
He only quoted enough to give the impression that the authors of Rare Earth thought the Earth was rare: Solar system must be in certain part of galaxy; planet must be within certain distance of sun; planet must have large metal core to form magnetic field to protect it from harmful radiation; planet must have right size moon at right distance; our moon was the result of a very precise collision by another planet with the Earth. But no calculations are quoted.
I would think about that question as soon as I picked it up. Being stupid, I probably wouldn't suspect it was bait until after I picked it up. Hopefully you'll be along side of me to stop me in time. And all of us should think about the purpose of life, whether we are biologists or not. We may already have definite views of what the purpose of life is — or whether life even has any purpose — before we approach the question of ID.
But what if Paley had been a caveman? Would he have been clear about the purpose of the watch?
I think most IDists freely admit that they think God is the designer, or at least the main designer. (Occasionally I think there might be an evil designer for things like malaria). The problem is that the evidence is insufficient to establish the identity of the designer. How do I prove that the designer was God, and not an uberphysicist, or ET?
Comment by Bilbo — March 24, 2009 @ 8:12 pm
March 25th, 2009 at 7:10 am
Bilbo
The here is that having a proposed purpose will guide ID research. If your front-loading hypothesis has designers who wanted multicellular life to form, you would search the DNA of single-celled organisms to see what remnants of the front-loading was left there. If you envisage a front-loading designer specifically aiming for mankind, you look for evidence of the front-loaded information in fish, insects, etc. The purpose of the design will partly define the hypothesis, and determine the predictions to be tested.
He would probably be wrong, but I suspect he would still have propsed something. Mankind has a history of assigning purpose whetre it is absent (eg thunder).
By considering the different purposes and methodologies available. I think that an all-loving, all-power God would create a rather different world to ET, running an science experiment with limited resouces (relative to God).
Hmm, may be I am wrong about IDists. Perhaps they do not want to consider the purpose with respect to God because it might turn out that the predictions are wrong…
Comment by The Pixie Again — March 25, 2009 @ 7:10 am
March 25th, 2009 at 1:35 pm
I agree. Mike Gene is trying this approach, and he seems to be having some sort of success. At this point, I think he's assuming that the purpose was multi-cellularity. But he might eventually expand his hypothesis to include the evolution of human or human-like beings.
Well, if we assume for the moment that Behe has offered a good case for design from the laws of nature, through the properties of the Earth and Moon, to the Taxonomic category of Class, then we could conclude that the designer was someone "outside" of our universe, but was practically omniscient about it, down to the smallest detail. That doesn't prove it was God, but it would point in that direction.
If Behe is wrong, and Mike Gene is right, then that opens up the possibility of ET and directed panspermia.
Comment by Bilbo — March 25, 2009 @ 1:35 pm