"I cannot speak for Behe, but there is a large portion of the
Christian community that welcomes Behe's thesis because it gives
the appearance of scientific support for an interventionist
concept of divine creative action."
Just as the "functional integrity" group suggest that the ID
group do not understand their position, I want to suggest that
the ID approach is not always understood either. The word
"interventionist" is highly loaded: it implies that creation
involves God intervening into the otherwise mechanical operation
of the cosmos. I am under the impression that ID advocates
believe in both creation and providence, and that God is no less
active in providence than he was in creation. Furthermore, that
the power exerted by God was the same in creation as it is in
providence: by his word he created and by his word he upholds all
he has made. The difference between creation and providence
rests in his purpose and will. In debate, the word
"interventionist" is better reserved to describe the semi-deist
position.
HVT: "The label "Intelligent Design" is used by Behe and others
to represent the manipulative or coercive action of some
unidentified transcendent being who imposes form on matter that
was never given capabilities sufficient for achieving the full
spectrum of extant forms."
Here again, the terminology is loaded: "manipulative or coercive
action". If my previous paragraph is accepted, there is no more
manipulation or coercion in creation as there is in providence.
We might as well talk about God coercing the earth to move around
the sun or God manipulating rain to fall. Psalm 104, for
example, does point to the immediate action of God in providence
- but there is no hint of coercion or manipulation. It is not
part of the thinking of the ID group (at least as much as I am
aware).
HVT: "Given that concept of the minimally-gifted Creation, it is
not surprising to see the quick leap from "I don't understand how
X could have occurred naturally" (that is, by the employment of
its God-given capabilities) to "Therefore X must be the outcome
of intelligent design (that is, the manipulative or coercive
action of some transcendent agent)."
I refrain from comment this time about the loaded terminology.
The focus now is on Behe's argument. HVT suggests that it starts
with: "I don't understand how X could have occurred naturally"
and concludes "Therefore X must be the outcome of intelligent
design". I want to suggest that this is NOT Behe's argument.
In the same post, HVT cites Pim:
> If Behe's argument is that we do not understand many systems
> in detail, that's fine. But how Behe concludes this shows
> Intelligent Design, especially when we do not know all the
> details yet, is beyond me.
In Pim's summary, the starting point of Behe's argument is: "we
do not understand many systems in detail". I want to suggest
that this is NOT Behe's argument.
As I understand Behe, he is arguing from data. He is examining
this data from the perspective of design, whether it has an
internal orientation (evolutionary) or an external orientation
(creationary). He is proposing that there is such a phenomenon
as "irreducible complexity" - which is evident in human creative
designs. He has concluded that this phenomenon is apparent in
the molecular machinery of living things. Above this level of
reality, it is very difficult to prove that anything is
irreducibly complex - because of the Black Box problem. But at
the molecular level, we are at the most basic level of machinery
- and here is where Behe sees irreducibly complex systems.
The ONLY valid response to Behe (IMO) from those advocating an
evolutionary pathway for the origin of these systems is to refute
the designation "irreducibly complex". It is not enough to say
that Behe does not understand how they could have evolved - he
has concluded that they bear the distinguishing marks of being
irreducibly complex. The onus is on those who reject his
analysis to explain why they are not irreducibly complex.
I have read the reviews in Nature, New Scientist and
Creation/Evolution (and the exchanges on this List) - and none
of these reviews address squarely the crucial challenge to
evolutionary explanations that Behe brings.
I see this as the evolutionary equivalent of the "God-of-the-
gaps" mentality. As time goes on, scientific probing is
revealing the existence of these gaps - and the reaction is one
of "wait and see - we'll understand one day". But because the
gaps are becoming more prominent with time, this is an argument
of weakness, based on "faith". These are areas of research where
the ideological/philosophical roots of scientists are brought to
the surface.
Best wishes,
David J. Tyler.