Entry 650, on 2007-11-29 at 11:49:58 (Rating 4, Religion)
After my rant against ID and specifically Michael Behe yesterday I couldn't stop myself from listening to the podcast again. I was disappointed that Behe had so little to add to the discussion and I thought a second listening might reveal something I had missed. Sadly, that was not the case. I'm even more convinced now that he is simply self-deluded. No wonder his University has an official statement distancing themselves from his views.
I totally support scientists who challenge the orthodoxy (see my blog entry "Heretics" of 2007-11-23) but they must take the challenges to their theories seriously and when they are shown to be wrong they must accept that. Also, if they are going to engage in scientific debate they should use science, not preconceived ideas from a Catholic upbringing.
Part of the discussion which particularly stood out was near the end when ethics were discussed. The discussion revolved around the idea that the organism which causes malaria can't be explained by natural selection (I have no idea where he gets that idea from, but its interesting that he's moved on from bacterial flagella and blood clotting).
The interviewer asked if a science book should discuss who created the malaria parasite. Behe indicated it would be better answered in a theology book (I thought ID was science). Then he was asked: what does a disease which kills millions of innocent people say about the ethics of the creator. He replied "I'm a Roman Catholic, its completely consistent with benign designer." He then added that: if malaria is doing beneficial things in the biosphere, sickness afflicting humans is an unintended side effect. The interviewer asked: in other words its all part of God's plan. Behe replied: yes.
At this point the interviewer could barely restrain his laughter and wound up the interview. What does that exchange tell us about Behe's beliefs?
First, he is using a god of the gaps strategy even though he denies this. Initially IDers used flagella as an example of something that would have to be designed. When it was shown that an evolutionary pathway existed they move on to something else. When that pathway is discovered no doubt there will be something else to move on to. This is the god of the gaps argument and its really sad because it reduces god to an ever diminishing irrelevance.
Second, he states absolutely that his religious beliefs influence his opinions on subjects directly related to ID. If ID is a science then the facts should be examined free of existing biases. Clearly that is not the case.
Third, he accepts conflicting ideas without any substantial thought. How could an omnipotent god create something which has unintended consequences? If something happens which the god didn't expect it doesn't really make him omnipotent, does it? And how can a benign god inflict pain and suffering to that extent? He just pretends these conflicts don't exist clearly demonstrating his degree of self-delusion.
And then he has the incredible inanity to say that its all part of God's plan. That's such a convenient way to explain away anything, isn't it? Evil in the world: god's plan. Disease, disaster, crime: god's plan. Evolution, the Big Bang, all the evidence which shows god doesn't exist: god's plan. How disappointing. God is dead, now ID is dead too. Its time to accept that.
"if malaria is doing beneficial things in the biosphere, sickness afflicting humans is an unintended side effect." He doesn't see the implications of that? That God is ultimately incapable of handling that, just says, "Oops" and shrugs?
Comment 2 by OJB on 2007-12-04 at 10:02:31:
Yes, this is the odd thing I often find with the more intelligent believers. They would never allow a serious error like that to exist in their work or in any other area of their lives, but they seem to think its OK to apply that sort of "reasoning" to their religious beliefs. That's exactly the sort of special pleading which hints that religion really is fake.
Comment 3 by WF99 on 2007-12-28 at 09:57:36:
This most likely doesn't fit in with the specific subject of this blog post, but the general topic (evolution vs ID) seems like the best place for me to post this comment (seeing as it is the most recent on the subject).
Do the claims of this Chick tract have any merit in them? (http://www.chick.com/reading/tracts/0055/0055_01.asp) Other than the implication that evolutionists are hotheaded and closed-minded, I mean.
I've read the other Chick tracts, and most of them are grossly exaggerated (one claimed that Christian rock music is actually of the devil and that witches have cast spells on Christian rock songs, causing the listener demonic possession), and I usually only find them to be comedic. However, this one provides sources and references, so I'd like to dig a little deeper.
Comment 4 by OJB on 2007-12-28 at 11:20:14:
I will have a look and give you an opinion soon.
Comment 5 by OJB on 2007-12-28 at 20:21:16:
OK, I've had a look. Is there any specific page I should be looking at, because everything I've looked at so far is embarrassingly superficial. And the only references I can see are to material from Kent Hovind! That won't impress anyone except another Creationist! For example, the idea that the Earth is only a few thousands years old is ridiculous. Its easy to prove that's untrue.
Comment 6 by WF99 on 2008-01-01 at 08:08:37:
Yes, I noticed that (I wasn't expecting anything substantial after the beginning), but I'd like to know exactly what the problems are.
Comment 7 by OJB on 2008-01-01 at 15:25:01:
Are we talking about the cartoon on the page you gave? OK, its a cartoon, but it does illustrate some fair points which some people don't understand so let's look at it.
First, in all my years studying and working at a University I have never met a lecturer who asks about peoples' belief in evolution. And I have certainly never met anyone who would throw someone out of a class for disagreeing. So that's just emotional and unrealistic nonsense.
The lecturer is totally right that the evidence does prove evolution. We have discussed this before though, so let's not go into it here. As far as the six types of evolution are concerned: that is really an attempt to confuse the issue. There is really only one type of evolution and that's biological evolution. Within that, micro and macro aren't really distinct types.
But even if the other types are also accepted, the religious student is still wrong because we have observed all of those happening. Faith has nothing to do with any of the others. I think I have mentioned before: the cosmic microwave background is the light from the Big Bang. We *have* seen it. Faith is irrelevant.
I know of no experts who think Lucy was a chimp. That's just not true as far as I am aware. if someone can find a recent reference in the literature I would be very surprised.
The chart showing human evolution is totally misleading. It leaves out all the good fossils and puts in a few which have been shown to be fake (by scientists) many years ago.
Dating methods have been cross-checked through various independent techniques. There is no circular reasoning as implied in the cartoon. Fossils occupying multiple layers have been easily explained.
Whale evolution demonstrates evolution beautifully. Various intermediate stages clearly show the process. Contrary to the student's opinion vestigial organs can have a function, its just different from the original and is generally not that efficient.
The binding of protons by the strong force is perfectly well explained and fits with observation. Gluons have been indirectly detected by experiments going back many years. We can't see them because we can't see any sub-atomic particle
Contrary to the portrayal in the cartoon, creationists are regularly destroyed by scientists in a fair debate. Download some podcasts on the topic for an example. I recommend Massimo Pigliucci versus Kent Hovind. The creationist is completely humiliated!
If you need any further information or references for this please let me know. This cartoon is either the work of a very ignorant or deluded person or a person who is deliberately lying, becuase all of this stuff against evolution has been shown to be false many years ago.
Comment 8 by WF99 on 2008-01-16 at 12:52:54:
I recalled the past evidence we have discussed for evolution and the cosmic wave background, but the "six types of evolution" argument confused me a bit. And the list of fossils that don't prove evolution got me. I've looked into other "good fossils" (whale evolution, horse evolution). Thanks for clearing those things up.
Comment 9 by OJB on 2008-01-16 at 17:01:13:
I'm really not sure what the motivation is for creating the 6 types of evolution, except that creationists seem to think that there is no direct evidence for the 5 extra types. Of course, there is evidence for them all, and even if there wasn't that wouldn't make biological evolution any less compelling.
The CMB is a good one to quote to these people because it really is the light directly from the Big Bang. And you can actually detect it yourself. Its part of the noise you can hear at certain wavelengths between radio channels! I'd like to ask these people, if the CMB isn't the light from the Big Bang, then what is it?
You can leave comments about this using this form.
Enter name, email (optional), enter number, comment, click Add. You can leave the name blank if you want to remain anonymous. Enter your email address to receive notifications of replies. Comment should appear immediately (authorisation is inactive).
BLOG PAGE