Re: [asa] Atheist finds God thru Behe's books....

From: Schwarzwald <>
Date: Mon Oct 12 2009 - 01:00:23 EDT

Heya Bernie,

> I just don’t see it that way. You say:
> “Said architecture is not a gap, it's a discovery about nature.”
> How do you know the architecture is “designed?” Until you can concisely
> explain the gap with a theory that can be verified independently (not
> appealing to common sense, etc.), it is still a gap.
I said clearly here that A) I don't believe ID is science, and B) I think
both inferences to design or a lack of design are philosophical, not
scientific. So let's keep that in mind right from the outset.

Second, I never said I know the architecture is designed - I said it's an
inference, and a reasonable one. I don't have to know something with
certainty to make a reasonable inference. Nor do I have to be able to prove
it beyond all doubt, or offer a falsifiable theory. Again, I find the whole
idea of providing falsifiable theories for the design or work of God (or its
lack), or any deity(s) 'designing' on a similar level (or their lack) to be
ludicrous. In fact, that science is utterly limited in that regard - that
science simply cannot determine design or its lack - is one of the key
intellectual bulwarks against ID. My only criticism of that tact is it tends
to be wildly uneven in how it's applied. Find design, bad. Find no design,
good or a blind eye is turned to this "violation".

Third, if being unable to provide a falsifiable theory of design detection
means appealing to gaps, congratulations - you've set the standard such that
everyone, from Coyne and Darwin himself to Behe and everyone else, are
appealing to gaps. I don't mind that at all, frankly, since it just
highlights my own view. Yours, it probably undercuts severely.

> To me, your reasoning sounds very confused because I thought ID vs.
> evolution is supposed to be about science, yet you even say “more
> philosophical than scientific.”
First, I've made clear in the past - and others have too - that evolution
and ID are not opposed to each other. Yes, there are ID proponents who
reject evolution. There are also ID proponents and thinkers who accept
evolution, or who even make evolution key to their beliefs about design.

Second, I also made it clear what I think of detecting design and its lack -
I don't think these are scientific questions, nor do I think they have
scientific answers (unless we have a fairly radical revision of what is
considered science.) In other words, my view is my own - and while I have
tremendous ID sympathies despite being a TE in essence, I probably fall
outside the typical 'which team is he on' scheme.

To me, I see it as saying “there is no way we see how nature could evolve
> this, therefore it is design (keeping the term “design” vague, meaning it
> could be from God or something else, like an alien).
You have to understand, I never grew up with any faith- or culture-based
hostility to evolution - it's just less of an issue for many Catholics, I
think (look at Behe himself for an example of this). Having some very modest
experience in programming and procedural generation did even more to
inoculate me against any 'evolution or design!' false dilemmas.

So let me make my perspective very clear: Something can be both designed and
evolved. In other words, I can 'see how nature could evolve' object X, and
still regard X as designed - and I can see the evolution of X as designed as
well. Like I said, 'evolution or design!' is a false dilemma. Evolution is
just one more tool in a designer's kit. (Hell, scientists have already
designed transistors/antennae using evolutionary principles.)

> Probably the thing that is irritating to scientists is all the vagueness.
I highly doubt this, and I don't think 'scientists' walk in as much unison
as many like to think.

> If you can detect (non human) design in some sort of scientific way, then
> there would be no objection. I say “non human” design because the designer
> is non-human since this was done before humans appeared. The only kind of
> design that us humans can really identify is that design which we’ve seen
> fellow humans do.
And I reject the idea that design on the level we're talking about,
certainly the design of God Himself, can be ruled on by science - so this is
a non-issue for me.

Again, you're making the mistake of treating an inference as a claim of
certain fact when that isn't the case. Worse, you're making some wild
assumptions of your own about non-human design - that non-human design would
almost certainly be drastically different from human design, etc. Doubly
worse when you're talking about the importance of science when making claims
like that.

> Now if you say the 3D pattern is obvious of design, and any unbiased person
> could see that; you could also say it for humans, only we know that humans
> evolved because of pseudogene evidence. That is why common sense without
> science is very dangerous. For example, common sense is also against the
> idea of the Earth moving 67,000 mph around the Sun and spinning at 1,000
> mph; things we only know because of science (common sense tells us the Earth
> is still and unshakeable).
There we go again. 'If evolved, not designed'. False dilemma and, by your
own standards, gap reasoning.

Nor did I say the genomic pattern was 'obviously' design. I said it struck
me as reasonable to infer design, and I made clear that it could be a
natural, non-"miraculous" development all the same. I tend to be very
favorable to Mike Gene's view that what we see when we study nature,
particularly (but not only) microbiology, is technology.

As for all the talk of 'common sense', I didn't say word one about that. I
did talk about reasonableness with regards to certain inferences. Different

> …Bernie
> ------------------------------
> *From:* [] *On
> Behalf Of *Schwarzwald
> *Sent:* Sunday, October 11, 2009 3:08 PM
> *To:*
> *Subject:* Re: [asa] Atheist finds God thru Behe's books....
> Heya David,
> I'd sum up my view of the problem (and I'm in agreement with a lot of your
> estimation here) as this: Many atheists consider science to be "theirs" -
> namely, atheist turf. Theists are supposed to make in essence one kind of
> claim about the world: Gap ('miracle') claims. And science is supposed to do
> one thing: Fill gaps.
> ID, at least in some forms, skips this pattern and infers design in nature
> itself. To give what I think is a good recent example (more philosophical
> than scientific) would be the 3D architecture of genomes. Said architecture
> is not a gap, it's a discovery about nature. And yet it's very possible to
> look at this and infer design, regardless of how said design came about
> (meaning, it does not need to be 'miraculous'. It could be, in a Denton sort
> of view, an intentional result of some properties of the natural world,
> etc.) But that would mean that filling gaps is not itself some process of
> "defeating"/"deflating" theism/deism/etc. In fact, filling gaps may actually
> bolster such a case at least in a philosophical or worldview sense. Which I
> think many times ends up being processed as "religious people are trying to
> steal science from us!"
> Which is why I think that maligning of 'ID/Behe/etc claim science proves
> God exists!' carries on so much: Because the lesser claim doesn't matter.
> Any inference to design whatsoever is threatening, no matter how it's
> qualified. In fact, the tamer claim is worse because it's prima facie
> reasonable. Science simply is not supposed to do that. Nature is not
> supposed to be like that.
> On Sun, Oct 11, 2009 at 3:40 PM, David Clounch <>
> wrote:
> >He makes it clear that even an inference to design is not enough to get
> one to God as far as the science goes.
> This has always been my own position too. So, as a result of that, some
> people have slung mud at me, insisting I am some sort of YEC. When in fact
> I am sort of deistic in that I don't think science can or does infer a
> Christian God. And I have always been very open about saying that.
> I have also said since 2004 that I think many Christian type creationists
> start with God and imply design, and this is the logical fallacy of
> affirming the consequent.
> Sadly, most anti-ID people also buy into this fallacy and use it as the
> main reason they are against ID. I believe both are wrong.
> But the fallacy itself isn't i_d and has nothing to do with
> differentiating intelligent processes and non-intelligent processes by using
> science.
> BTW, I think I am maybe going to start using "ip" and "nip" instead of
> "id" ?? Because the religionists and anti-religionists just cannot get
> over their fallacy and cannot get over the conflation that all intelligently
> interfered with or preplanned processes in nature by definition involve
> some sort of transcendental intelligence.
> Lets face it, what is the problem with the materialists anyway? They start
> with God, assume somehow that "God designs" and therefore there must be
> design. So they think if someone finds design then that must prove that God
> exists. So its really dangerous to their worldview. They therefore are at
> war with design. The also think that if they can show that design does not
> exist then they have proved God does not exist. This is completely
> illogical.
> What if Behe's position above were to hold true? What does it mean? I
> think it means religious people are free to jump to a fallacious
> conclusion if they want to and science doesn't say they have no right to do
> so.
> So, if someone wants to say that Behe says that "science says God did it",
> please show chapter and verse where Behe actually claims that. If you
> cannot do that you are overclaiming.
> PS. Consistently overclaiming and not being sensitive to doing so will earn
> you the status of "internet troll".
> On Sat, Oct 10, 2009 at 5:01 PM, Schwarzwald <>
> wrote:
> Heya John,
> I don't think "There is no way that it could evolve by Darwinian
> evolution. Therefore God did it." is a fair rendering of Behe's view here
> whatsoever. He's openly speculated about other possible mechanisms,
> including evolutionary ones (front-loading, etc.) He makes it clear that
> even an inference to design is not enough to get one to God as far as the
> science goes. He does not suggest shrugging our shoulders and ceasing to
> investigate evolution. I also reject, if I have you correct on this, the
> idea that Behe is doubtful of -all- evolution rather than just "Darwinian"
> evolution. Not all evolution is Darwinian evolution - not all evolution is
> classified as unguided. (Personally, I'm of the mind that even purely
> 'Darwinian' evolution can never be scientifically demonstrated to be
> unguided, so a lot of this is a curiosity for me rather than a major issue.)
> Now, you say you reject the "Darwinian" label because it's so obvious that
> Darwin was wrong about some major issues. I happen to agree with that. The
> problem is, Darwin is a tremendously important figure for some people. Even
> on subjects where he was clearly, radically wrong (what cells are, for
> example) his being wrong is downplayed, ignored, and even bringing up as
> much is a serious faux pas. The "Darwin Was Wrong" cover of New Scientist
> earlier this year sparked quite a lot of outrage among a number of regular
> Darwin defenders (you may write them off as radical atheists) purely for the
> sin of loudly pointing out Darwin being incorrect. There's too much at stake
> - not scientifically, but socially and politically - for Darwin's
> shortcomings to be recognized.
> Which is why I think your level-headed position - let's recognize Darwin's
> shortcomings and the limitations of known mechanisms and admit, atheist and
> theist alike, that there's a faith/belief component to our views of
> evolution - can't be accepted. And I don't think the playing field is equal
> here - the ID camp would be absolutely overjoyed for both parties to admit
> that our understanding of evolution and biological development is radically
> incomplete. For atheists (I'm speaking here of the outspoken, animated
> variety of new atheist we all know of), this would be unthinkable. The
> entire utility of Darwin for them is in the supposed scientific certitude
> that life, particularly human life, came about via unguided means. If that
> becomes a mere possibility rather than the stuff of in essence certainty,
> it's hard to distinguish that from defeat for them. Go look at the reactions
> many had when Paul Davies offhandedly pointed out that simple belief in
> things like 'laws of nature', and therefore science in general, proceeds on
> faith. It wasn't pretty.
> I suppose another way of saying what I'm saying here is - this isn't about
> science alone. Certainly not for ID proponents or even TEs. Certainly not
> for atheists. What we're seeing in this discussion are largely political
> maneuverings in the service of goals that have little to nothing to do with
> evolution, or even science.
> On Sat, Oct 10, 2009 at 5:18 PM, John Walley <>
> wrote:
> "There is no way that it could evolve by Darwinian evolution. Therefore
> God did it."
> In this I agree with Bernie. I think Behe needlessly conflates evolution
> with Darwinian evolution. And he uses the ideological (atheist) baggage of
> "Darwinian" evolution (ala Martinez Hewlett) to attack evolution itself,
> leaving some mystical "God did it" mechanism as the result.
> To me the Darwinian qualifier is meaningless and irrelevant. I think the
> valid scientific claims of Darwin were common descent, random mutation and
> natural selection and on these I agree with him. What Darwin didn't know was
> that these alone were not sufficient to explain all of evolution but they do
> explain a good bit of it. More on this in a second.
> The unguided abiogenesis musing was conditional and he himself said "But if
> (and Oh! what a big if!) we could conceive in some warm little pond" so it
> does not deserve to be counted among the above scientifically verifiable
> claims. I know Dawkins and the atheists try to smuggle that in with the rest
> of Darwin that have been verified but it is a Trojan Horse strategy. Both
> the atheists and the Christians need to decouple the personal unbelief of
> Darwin with his otherwise scientific claims because first they don't matter
> and they only serve to confuse the actual science. On this I agree with
> Bernie that Behe fails to do this and I think he unfairly tries to demonize
> evolution itself by associating it with Darwin's atheism and countering it
> with direct intervention by God.
> Now as to how much of evolution can Darwin's scientifically testable claims
> explain, I think Behe has made some valid points as to the limitations of at
> least single point mutations. However in fairness Darwin and no one else
> could know how limited this could have been in his day so it was a very
> plausible theory at the time. Now only the die hard atheist kool-aid
> drinkers can defend the random mutation alone hypothesis and there is no
> point in debating that because it is just as much a position of faith as
> Behe's direct intervention.
> Again the false dilemma is between the atheist position of rejecting God by
> rejecting intervention and appealing to naturalism of the gaps in spite of
> all the complexity and odds against it on one hand, and rejecting evolution
> because of the atheist implications and appealing to God of the gaps to have
> somehow done it in some mystical way but just not through evolution on the
> other hand. The only rational way to resolve this is to accept the known
> mechanisms of evolution and to see them supplemented with the belief (not
> science) of unknown but guided processes. This leaves us at a level playing
> field with the atheist without giving either side an advantage and both
> resorting to their faith to complete the picture. I don't think Behe and ID
> in general is willing to do this and instead he wants to insist on the
> imprimatur of science to support his side which is exactly what the atheist
> wants as well so we have the ongoing death struggle between the two
> camps.
> This is where I think Collins has a superior response because it is a
> scientific inference and not ideologically driven like the other two
> extremes. It also just happens to be much easier to defend as well.
> Thanks
> John
> ----- Original Message ----
> From: Cameron Wybrow <>
> To: asa <>
> Sent: Sat, October 10, 2009 4:31:16 PM
> Subject: Re: [asa] Atheist finds God thru Behe's books....
> Bernie, you wrote:
> "I admit I also haven't read his books".
> Within the normal conventions of conversation and the English language,
> this sentence has only one possible meaning. It means that you have read
> neither *Darwin's Black Box* nor *The Edge of Evolution*.
> You now say, as if in contradiction to what you wrote earlier:
> "I wasn't clear when I said I didn't read Behe; I meant I didn't read his
> latest. I saw much of his earlier stuff."
> This is muddy. *Darwin's Black Box* was part of Behe's "earlier stuff".
> So is that what you "saw"? Does "saw" mean "read"? And if so, "read in its
> entirety"? (Including all the detailed biochemical argument?) Or does it
> mean only "skimmed"? Or does it mean only "looked at the cover of"? (Which
> would be the normal meaning of "saw".) And if not *Darwin's Black Box*,
> what "earlier stuff" did you read?
> This sounds evasive, Bernie. Either you've read Behe's books all the way
> through or you haven't. First you admitted you hadn't, and now you are
> clouding the issue. The issue is: what have you read, and how thoroughly
> did you read it?
> On another point: You do not seem to understand why Behe is very careful
> to use the word "Darwinian". He is not against "evolution". By speaking
> against "Darwinian evolution" he is speaking against a model of evolution
> entirely dependent on unguided and unplanned processes. In contrast, Behe
> has praised the evolutionary writing of Michael Denton, who is not a
> Darwinian and asserts that the universe was fine-tuned in advance for
> biological evolution.
> With you, Bernie, Behe can't win. If he criticized "evolution" by itself,
> without the adjective "Darwinian", you'd be all over him for being a YEC,
> for denying the genetic evidence for common descent, etc. But when he puts
> the adjective "Darwinian" in, precisely so that he won't be misunderstood,
> you're all over him for that.
> On another point: Behe agrees that features of the human genome tend to
> indicate our descent (on the physical as opposed to the spiritual side) from
> an apelike creature. It does not follow that he would agree with you about
> the *causes* of this process. Lipstick on the husband's collar doesn't
> prove which woman he was kissing, or where the tryst took place, or what the
> husband's motives were for straying. There is a great deal still to be
> explained.
> There is no God-of-the-gaps argument in Behe. The accusation of
> "God-of-the-gaps" arguments always presumes that science has built up a very
> tight structure of explanation, with only a few "gaps" remaining to be
> filled. Thus, if someone were to argue that the erratic orbit of Pluto
> disproves the nebular hypothesis of the origin of the solar system, and
> infers that God personally placed each planet (or at the very least, Pluto)
> in a unique orbit, that would be an example of "God of the gaps", because it
> would rest entirely on a temporary failure of explanation of a model which
> can explain everything but Pluto very well, and might be able to be adjusted
> to account even for the orbit of Pluto. But if you understand Behe's
> argument, you will know that he rejects the premise that Darwinian
> explanation is tight and virtually complete, with just a few holes here and
> there. Biochemically speaking, he argues, Darwinian explanation is
> virtually *all*
> gaps. There are no satisfying biochemical explanations for how *any* of
> the necessary evolutionary distances were traversed by Darwinian means. The
> fact that you speak of "God of the gaps" indicates that you accept (from
> Behe's point of view) a massive overestimation, and hence false description,
> of our state of knowledge.
> Cameron.
> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Dehler, Bernie" <
> To: "asa" <>
> Sent: Saturday, October 10, 2009 1:33 PM
> Subject: RE: [asa] Atheist finds God thru Behe's books....
> > Hi John-
> >
> > When I listened to Behe, I thought the opposite of you. I thought "If he
> has a point, the truth, then the rest of the world will eventually catch-up
> with him. He'll go down in history as a first-rate scientist making this
> breakthrough, probably as big as Darwin, since his new theory significantly
> either breaks evolution or adds to it in some major new way."
> >
> > I know his university and peers give him trouble. However, they could
> also go down in history if they gave him support, if Behe turned out to be
> right.
> >
> > However, they should only give him support if there's at least some hope
> or possibility for him being right. If there is a possibility, it seems
> like it should be a good thing to be creating alternate hypotheses, even
> radical (the more radical, the better, like Darwin).
> >
> > So really, I disagree about even looking at consequences. I say follow
> the truth, regardless of consequences. There's nothing wrong at all with
> making waves, if you have a possibility of being right.
> >
> > So for me, the bottom line is, "does he have a chance at being right?"
> >
> > I asked for a concise statement for the ID hypothesis. Mike (Nucacids)
> gave it, thanks. I realized after writing that, what I really meant is
> "what evidence is there to test the hypothesis." (BTW- sorry Cameron, I
> wasn't clear when I said I didn't read Behe; I meant I didn't read his
> latest. I saw much of his earlier stuff. You seem to pick-up on some of
> the most trivial points sometimes.)
> >
> > After listening to the 40 min. video- it is clear that Behe thinks, and
> says many times, that his examples demonstrate "it is impossible for
> Darwinian mechanisms to produce them." It seemed like he never says
> "evolution" without the adjective "Darwinian." That is what seems so stupid
> to me, for people to only look to natural selection and random mutation as
> if that is the only mechanisms for evolution... there are many more
> (discovered since Darwin), and more to be discovered, I'm sure. So
> basically what evidence does Behe have for his hypothesis? It is "Look at
> this (insert mouse-trap type object). There is no way that it could evolve
> by Darwinian evolution. Therefore God did it." Why is it not so obvious to
> everyone that the theory jumps right from "Darwinian evolution can't do it"
> -> "we don't know how it could evolve" -> "therefore God did it all at once
> by speaking it into existence."
> >
> > It looks exactly like a 'science-stopper' to me.
> >
> > In Paley's day, he could have said the same (probably did). "Look at the
> complexity of humans. We are too far above animals. We had to be made by
> fiat... God's spoken word, directly, uniquely." Now pseudogenes show beyond
> a reasonable doubt that humans descended from an apelike creature. His logic
> was proven false in the same way, which was "Isn't it amazing and wonderful"
> -> "We don't know how it could happen" -> "God did it by special creation."
> >
> > A rush to "god of the gaps" is very unhealthy for science (even fatal).
> In this way, when confronted with a scientific mystery, the answer is "God
> did it! You'll never find the answer because God just did it!" Maybe God
> did "just do it." But the job of science is to strive to figure out how
> nature might do it, and by looking into this over the centuries, mankind has
> been shocked as to what can be found out, and discarded "God did it" many
> times already.
> >
> > ...Bernie
> To unsubscribe, send a message to with
> "unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
> To unsubscribe, send a message to with
> "unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.

To unsubscribe, send a message to with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Mon Oct 12 01:01:07 2009

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Mon Oct 12 2009 - 01:01:07 EDT