The Origin of Species, published in 1859, is certainly one of the most influential books of the last thousand years. Can Behe’s ‘Darwin’s Black Box’ hope to challenge it?
Thanks for joining me to continue my discussion of Behe’s ‘Darwin’s Black Box’. If you didn’t read the first post on this book, feel free to take a look here as it will help you to understand this post. In that post, I expressed some confusion as to Behe’s agenda. I understand things a lot better now and I hope that this comes across well in this post.
What I’ve learned is that Behe can be placed in a camp that is often labeled ‘Intelligent Design’. This always confused me because I thought that all Christians believe in intelligent design. God’s intelligent and he designed everything, right? It turns out ‘Intelligent Design’ refers to a particular attempt to synthesize modern science and Christian faith. In Behe’s case, it involves saying that a designer stepped in (or steps in) to the evolutionary process at one or many points in order to do something new.
In my search for evolutionary truth, I’ve not come to many conclusions and, in many ways, find myself quagmired in a nadir of confusion. It’s good to have moments of clarity. Mine in this case is to say unequivocally that, although I think Behe’s a really nice guy and a great scientist, I’m definitely not on board with what he thinks about the whole thing and I do not subscribe to Intelligent Design, nor do I think I ever will.
Follow me down the road of my thoughts to find out why…
God of the Gaps
Basically, it seems to me that this is a God of the gaps type argument. This is when we look at something in the world that science cannot currently explain and attribute it to some kind of supernatural force. So, for example, at some point somewhere in history someone probably said that the god Thor was responsible for thunder and lightning in the sky. At that time there was no naturalistic explanation for thunder and lightning. This is a God of the gaps argument. We obviously know now that Thor does not create thunder and lighting but merely harnesses it with his heavy metal hammer in order to defeat badguys in Avengers Assemble.
A God of the gaps type argument is where we ‘fill up’ a hole in current scientific understanding with a supernatural explanation. God did it!
Behe’s argument seems to be GOTGs because he is essentially saying that on evolution there is no way of explaining this irreducible complexity and so God did it.
But then…
Behe makes an excellent point that I’ve never thought about before. He quotes an essay by prominent biochemist Richard Dickerson in which Dickerson attempts to define science.
Science, fundamentally, is a game. It is a game with one overriding and defining rule:
Rule No. 1: Let us see how far and to what extent we can explain the behaviour of the physical and material universe in terms of purely physical and material causes, without invoking the supernatural.[1]
Behe goes on to criticise this view as defining science not as what it actually is or does – gathering and analyzing evidence, testing stuff, hypothesizing about things, wearing cool white coats and so on – but in contrast to something else – namely, the supernatural. He writes:
Dickerson does not say scientific evidence has shown that the supernatural has never affected nature…Rather he argues that in principle, science should not invoke it. The clear implication is that it should not be invoked whether it is true or not.[2]
That is an interesting point. The implication that hadn’t occurred to me before: people always talk about God of the gaps arguments like they are fundamentally bad news. Why? Because we implicitly assume that there is a materialistic explanation for everything. But Behe is questioning this assumption. If God exists, Behe is saying, then it could be the case that he has intervened in nature many times to do the kind of things Behe claims he does. It is God of the gaps, but it might be true.
Further to that, the idea that every event has a materialistic cause or explanation and that the supernatural has never and can never affect nature is not a scientific hypothesis. This is a philosophical assumption that is made on a materialistic worldview. It seems logical that Behe doesn’t share it because he clearly believes in the supernatural.
The conclusion that everything has a scientific explanation is not a scientific statement. It is a philosophical conclusion. Behe is saying that it is not right to base our definition of science on such a definition as it may turn out not to be true in the end.
So, why am I unconvinced?
I had an actual epiphany the other day while reading ‘The Language of God’ by Francis Collins. I didn’t know it at the time, but this was the moment when I was convinced that I don’t believe in the kind of Intelligent Design that Michael Behe advocates. Although I’ve stated that God could hypothetically intervene in the gaps of nature, this paragraph by Collins has convinced me that it’s probably not the case that he does.
Collins is discussing the issue of abiogenesis, which is a long word I know. It literally means ‘without’ (‘a’) ‘life’ (‘bio’) ‘beginning’ or ‘origin’ (‘genesis’). The issue concerns a gap in scientific knowledge concerning evolution. The gap is this: scientists know how the process of evolution works with organic material – animals, plants, humans and so on – but cannot for the life of themselves work out how inorganic material – stones, your underpants etc – became organic. How did the non-living become living? No one knows. At this point we might be tempted to think: well, it seems obvious that there is no way that this could ever happen naturally. It was obviously part of the beginning of the creation process. God did it!
And, until I read this paragraph (which I will quote soon, I promise), that is what I thought. I hadn’t consciously developed this idea, but I think I’d just sort of subconsciously assumed it whenever I’d read or heard about abiogenesis. I realized that this too was a God of the gaps argument:
This could be an appealing hypothesis, given that no serious scientist would currently claim that a naturalistic explanation for the origin of life is at hand. But that is true today, and it may not be true tomorrow. A word of caution is needed when inserting specific divine action by God in this or any other area where scientific understanding is currently lacking. From solar eclipses in olden times to the movement of planets in the Middle Ages, to the origins of life today, this “God of the gaps” approach has all too often done a disservice to religion…Faith that places God in the gaps of current understanding about the natural world may be headed for crisis if advances in science subsequently fill those gaps….There are good reasons to believe in God, including the existence of mathematical principles and order in creation. They are positive reasons, based on knowledge, rather than default assumptions based on (a temporary) lack of knowledge.[3]
And that was the moment it began to make sense. If God is real (and I believe that he is) then he is a not a fiddly God who acts like this – sticking his divine hand into the evolutionary mixture every once in a while to produce some irreducibly complex structures, whilst otherwise letting the process go ahead without interference. I believe that he’s the God of the whole show. He created the whole thing to begin with – the matter, the laws, the energy, the time, the space – and he set it up to run properly. This is the reason science works and I do believe that, if current scientific explanations of the evolutionary process are generally heading in the right direction, then an answer for the irreducible complexity will be found.
I listened to a couple of ‘Unbelievable?’ podcasts of Behe speaking about ID and, when this question was put to him about God of the gaps, his standard answer seemed uncompelling. The question goes: so, Michael, why is this not just a standard God of the gaps type argument? Michael replies: well, when the Big Bang happened, we didn’t reject that because it has theistic implication. Nor should we reject this.
Dr. Michael Behe: a great guy, but, in my opinion, a little bit wrong.
But that’s not the point. No one’s saying that we must reject all scientific evidence for things that might have theistic implications; the Big Bang, as well as the fine-tuning of the universe, are things that we about which we have information, not thing about which we don’t. In other words, we know the Big Bang happened because of evidence; we don’t know that ID is true because of evidence. ID is a hypothesis that comes about because we don’t know something. And it seems highly likely that one day we will.
So, you’ve convinced me, Mr Collins. Never again will I put my faith in a God of the gaps type argument.
That’s all for this week. As I said at the top of the post, Behe seems to be a great guy and a top scientist. But I just can’t follow him into the Intelligent Design camp. Onwards I march.
Related Posts
Monkey Man’s Journey Part 3 – Why I Don’t Trust Academics that Much
Monkey Man’s Journey Part 4 – Evolution is a Myth…Apparently
Jamie, with the greatest respect, you have waded into a debate without fully thinking through your argument. Intelligent Design is in no way intertwined with a so called ‘God of the gaps’ theorem. Intelligent design is in fact science proving the existence of God and is, in my view, one of our greatest weapons in combating scientific and evolutionary mumbo-jumbo based on little to no evidence and dis-belief in The Almighty Creator of the Universe.
Intelligent Design can be applied to any aspect and at any stage to the processes of nature that science cannot explain with current scientific understanding. However from a Christian point of view and also from the point of view that ID doesn’t go hand in hand with GOTG theorem, I find applying ID to the very beginning the most useful argument to put forward.
For the first living cell to be formed it needed the two main components of a living cell, nucleic acid and protein. Neither one of these can pre-exist the other. So how did the first living cell come into existence? A: there must have been ID behind it. Every conversation that I have had with evolutionary scientists, atheists etc where I have used this argument they have not been able to respond with anything that sounds even half credible in order to back up their belief system. It is not that we have not yet worked out the answer as to how the first living cell came to be but rather that with extremely advanced scientific knowledge and understanding we have ascertained that without some kind of ID it is impossible that life could have been formed in the beginning.
Once we have used this argument to make people realise that there is some kind of higher power then we can start exploring the options and evidence for our own belief system with them, i.e. Father, Son and Holy Spirit etc. You see it is how we apply the idea of Intelligent Design that matters. Of course if you use it to back up something like ‘God of the gaps’ theorem then it will seem inconsistent with our idea of The Almighty Creator of the Heavens and the Earth. Why wouldn’t God just make His work complete in the first place? But if you apply it to the very beginning of life on this planet then it starts to make a lot more sense. It backs up the notion that God created everything including life and His work was complete and perfect from the start. It’s all about perspective. It is a very important scientific based tool that we Christians can use to help us in the quest to change people’s perspective on life and on God so please before you condemn ID to the trash heap take into consideration what I have said.
Lots of love, The Frank Dog x
P.s. When you said that the Big Bang THEORY is backed up by scientific evidence what is this evidence that you talk of? As far as I am aware no one was around billions of years ago to witness the event. I would recommend a DVD called ‘Noah’s Flood, Washing Away Millions of Years Featuring Dr. Terry Mortenson,’ as you seem to be a little confused and wandering away from scriptural truth to veer on the side of so called scientific wisdom.
Don’t worry dear boy, you’ll get there eventually. Much love
Thanks Mike. I don’t have time to comment on the scientific claims you make for the moment. Just to say, I am in no way ‘wandering away from scriptural truth’. My blog posts are looking at the possibility of reconciling faith and modern science, assuming that the Bible is true and doesn’t have errors in it. I don’t mind you questioning what I’m saying about ID but I would like you to reconsider this aspect of your response. Either that or supply a quotation of Scripture which I have contradicted. With love J
Your friend Jonathan M. is blogging about you at Evolution News. Like Mike, he thinks you don’t get it. I find it disingenuous for Mike to immediately dismiss science and evolution as “mumbo-jumbo based on little to no evidence”. There is tons of evidence, but he latches back on to the exact gap you call Behe out for, abiogenesis. Yes, he’ll always win with a chicken-or-egg argument, smart guy that he is.
Thanks Charles. I’ve seen Jonathan’s response and plan to put something up here in reply. The way he first reacted on a FB group I put this post on, I thought, ‘Have I missed something huge here that’s really obvious?’ I’m thinking it through but I really don’t think I have, at least it can’t be that obvious. I’m still not convinced ID is not GOTGs. I think it is. But I’ll put something up soon.
I have to say I agree about that quote about Mike’s reply. Whether or not Christians agree with evolutionary theory, I think it’s very important to try and engage with a strong form of the argument and evidence for it, which is what my posts are about. Otherwise, I don’t see how we can disagree with it with much integrity (not that disagreement, as it were, is my agenda at all!).
So, Michael, in reply to what appears to be a deliberate brotherly attempt to wind me up, here are some thoughts about your statement:
First, I don’t think you are using the term ‘Intelligent Design’ in the way that I’m using it. ID is a movement that is distinct from creationism and theistic evolution. ID accepts (as far as Behe’s concerned anyway) common descent, which is the idea that animals and human evolved from the same place. They differ in their view of the mechanism of evolution. You would no doubt include this under the umbrella of ‘evolutionary mumbo jumbo’, which is a funny way of describing it, however, you must realise that ID accepts evolution; it doesn’t combat it, as you say.
In my view, your discussion of the first living cell is a good example of God of the gaps type reasoning. I don’t know about the science of which you speak but the plain implication is that you are willing to believe that there is a supernatural explanation for abiogenesis rather than a material one. This is a God of the gaps argument. As I said, it might be right, but it is still God of the gaps.
In talking about origins to a non-believer, in my view, a far stronger argument than using any form of ID would be to talk about the cosmological argument. How can something finite – like the universe – come into existence? The answer, as far as I can see, is inescapably that something infinite must have created it. This is hugely stronger both philosophically and scientifically (and theologically in my view) than ID. Incidentally, you are right that the Big Bang is theory, but it is very helpful to Christians because it shows that contemporary science agrees with Scripture insofar as both say that the universe had a beginning. Prior to the discovery of the Big Bang it was an atheistic boon to say that the universe has always existed in a steady state. Because of science, atheists can no longer use this argument. It is refuted from science. Further, something like the Big Bang cannot go from ‘theory’ to ‘fact’ because those are not terms that science uses. It’s not a theory in the sense that there’s no evidence for it and it isn’t proved. There’s lots of evidence for it. When you no one was around to see it, it seems almost a bit ridiculous to have to point out that there are other ways of finding things out apart from eyewitness testimony. ‘The streets are wet this morning.’ Why? Because when I woke up there was water all over the road. I didn’t see it but I have strong reason to believe it happened.
Send me the DVD and I’ll watch it. I have to say though: my expectations are not high.
I have never understood why relatively intelligent people have such a hard time grasping the basic premise of ID. It’s not ‘We don’t know what produces information system driven machinery, therefore God’, it’s ‘All the knowledge we have indicates information system driven machinery is the result of intention and planning, therefore a intentional planner must have existed’. Its an eminently falsifiable proposition, which why its a scientific proposition.
Imagine you travelled with a companion to Mars. Once there, you discover a computer in a cave. You suggest this means some intelligent being was there before you. Your companions upbraids you, “Why that’s an ET of the Gaps’ argument! It’s unscientific – for all we know Martian caves may naturally produce computers!” Do you buy that argument? Why or why not? Is the existence of an intelligence reasonable?
And finally, science didn’t displace Thor, Christianity did. And then it went on to contribute to the development of science for the same reason – because it posited the nature wasn’t the product of fickle gods, but the orderly and comprehensible product of a single architect.
Pingback: Someone Mentions Me on Another Website! (And Here are Some Further Thoughts on God of the Gaps…) | From Essex to Wessex: One Man's Journey
Jamie dear boy, it’s lucky that you have me to rein you in a bit from time to time. It’s seems to me that you are living in an environment where no one challenges you and you are free to come up with some very strange stances (from a Christian perspective anyway).
God is supernatural and as Christians I think we are in effect obligated to believe that he created the universe and life in a supernatural manner. Furthermore, I am fully aware of what Intelligent Design means. If you had read my response properly you would have realised that I wasn’t claiming ID to be the same as creationism but merely a tool that science has presented us with in order to back up our faith. It is only my belief that, ’Intelligent Design is in fact Science proving the existence of God’. However is does prove that for certain aspects of the process of life to have occurred some form of intelligence must have been behind it whether it be God, Aliens or whatever else you can imagine. At the end of the ‘The God Delusion Debate’ Dawkins himself even accepts that some form of intellect must have had a hand in creation and one of the arguments he puts forward is aliens!!
As to your claim that ID accepts the notion of common descent I personally disagree on this basis. ID is only one determining factor that a design theorist can conclude upon when studying the system’s components of natural structures (the others being chance, natural law, or combinations of the three). Therefor natural design is a separate entity. It does not accept or deny, it merely aims to prove whether something has or has not been formed by some form of intelligence. Darwinist’s all over the world have made a lot of attempts to discredit ID as being the same as Creationism. Why, because it disproves a lot of the substance of their belief structure. I pulled this quote directly from http://www.intelligentdesign.org, a leading Intelligent Design web site.
‘What is intelligent design?
Intelligent design refers to a scientific research program as well as a community of scientists, philosophers and other scholars who seek evidence of design in nature. The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection.’
I fail to see how ‘ID accepts evolution’, as you put it, when the whole basis for ID’s claim is that certain features of living things are not as a result of things such as natural selection. In the 1740’s Pierre-Louis de Maupertuis alluded to the THEORY that all organisms on the planet came from one source (common descent) and that random variations and natural selection then took the process forward. Now if ID has been attributed to the first living cell then I fail to see how ID can ‘accept common descent’? Having discredited the very beginning of evolutionary thinking in my view it also discredits massive areas of the THEORY in general.
As to your continued suggestion that ID is a God of the gaps argument I completely agree with our learned friend on ENV. You are wrong on so many levels! Science has proved, through ID, that it is mathematically impossible for life to have been created on this planet without some form of intelligence behind it. This isn’t something that we are speculating on only for it to be dis-proven later on (Matthew King). It has been proven therefor there is no gap!!
It is my view that we should use all tools at our disposal when trying to convince non-believers of God and I find it quite patronising that you think you are on a higher plain to me by suggesting that your chosen argument is a ’hugely stronger’ one when it is quite clear to me that you have not properly researched the issue in hand.
It is my suggestion that you properly research your material in future rather than relying on a single book that probably has major bias attached to its thinking and then formulating you whole opinion around that source of material.
Much love bro x
P.S. Are you really that arrogant to think that any source of information that I have like the DVD is inferior….? You should watch it; it may open your eyes and bring you back down to Earth a bit!!
Thanks for your comments Charles. However I would prefer it if you didn’t put words in my mouth. I didn’t ‘immediately dismiss science’ as you put it. I was dismissing scientific mumbo jumbo I.e. things put across as scientific fact when in actual fact they are just ideas put forward in the scientific arena that relate to social and political issues of the period of time that they come from. I am completely behind science that is based on tried and tested evidence. Every bit of science that is formulated in this way, in my view, proves the existence of God and how complex and great He really is.
Pingback: One (Monkey?) Man’s Journey into Evolutionary Theory Part 8 – Could Francis Collins Convince Me To Be a Theistic Evolutionist? | From Essex to Wessex: One Man's Journey
Hello Michael. I am very sorry that it’s taken me so long to respond to your post on here. I value your contribution to the discussion but as yet have not been able to put a response together, which I intend to do soon. Hope you are well.
Michael, natural selection is the mechanism of evolution on a Darwinist view. It doesn’t really have anything to do with common descent. Common descent is the idea that all biological organisms have the same ancestor. When I said ID accepts evolution, I was speaking about evolution in a broad sense and could have been more specific. It is quite clear that Michael Behe accepts evolution and is a theistic evolutionist who argues for ID but that he rejects the idea of random mutation and natural selection as the mechanism. So that’s what I meant by that.
I don’t mind you agreeing with Jonathan about me being wrong on so many levels. I don’t think I’m wrong on any levels but I believe that, by pointing out in my reply to Jonathan that we have both knowledge and a potential gap if the science were to fill that gap in the future, I have provided clarity rather than a one-sided bias towards ID.
I didn’t suggest that I’m on a higher plane to you. I just gave an example of an argument that I find strongly convincing and that is supported by both science and philosophy.
I’m interested in your assertion that I should properly research my material. What books that you have read on the subject matter would you recommend?
Shalom. J