Behe admits that a monkey’s your uncle

Guest Post by Morbo

“Intelligent Design” advocate Michael Behe of Lehigh University has a new book out titled The Edge of Evolution. One reviewer notes something interesting: In this book, Behe comes right and admits that common descent is a fact.

Behe writes that both chimp and human DNA manifest similar errors in pseudogenes. He then observes:

“If a common ancestor first sustained the mutational mistakes and subsequently gave rise to those two modern species, that would very readily account for why both species have them now. It’s hard to imagine how there could be stronger evidence for common ancestry of chimps and humans.”

Reviewing the book in the newsletter of the National Center for Science Education, David E. Levin, a professor of biochemistry and molecular biology at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health in Baltimore, was perplexed. Behe now admits that the Earth is ancient and accepts descent with modification and even natural selection.

So what’s Behe’s problem? In the rest of the review, Levin dissects Behe’s argument that evolution can only go so far and that there must have been a role for a designer. As Levin points out, this is the old “argument from personal ignorance.” It says essentially, “I can’t figure this out, so it must have been God.”

I see an opportunity in Behe’s confession.

Some years ago, evolution foe Phillip Johnson devised what he called the “Wedge Strategy.” The idea was for all opponents of evolution to put aside their disagreements and jointly assail Darwinism. Johnson argued that a “wedge” should be used to foster doubts about evolution. Wedge advocates could keep pushing it in, making that crack of doubt ever larger and longer. As Darwinism crumbled, people would be introduced to the ID alternative and then Jesus.

So the IDers and the traditional creationists made an uneasy truce. However, their “wedge” scheme never really got off the ground. ID was dealt a serious blow in the Dover, Pa., legal challenge, and mainstream scientists continued to ignore ID because it is unscientific.

Now it is time for advocates of real science to get a wedge of their own. Despite the amount of ink the IDers get, old style, young-Earth creationists are still going strong. They just opened a fancy new museum in northern Kentucky. A central contention of this museum is that humans are God’s crowning achievement. We are beings with no ties to any other species — the very concept that Behe rejects in his new book.

Behe gives away too much to Darwinism — and we all know Darwinism leads to genocide, atheism and children behaving like animals because they have been taught they are no better than primordial ooze. How can self-respecting creationists work with this turncoat?

Just keep pushing in that wedge….

Behe comes right and admits that common descent is a fact.

WHAT?!?!?!

I can’t believe it. What next? Will he soon be saying the earth is a spinning globe that revolves around the sun?

Keep on digging Behe. You might discover some other things, too.

  • Holy shit Batman! This guy must have taken a smart pill or something. He saw something and was able to correctly identify it. Will wonders never cease?
    As far as an intelligent designer, I don’t have that big a problem with it. Other than the fact that there is nothing to support it. But there really is nothing to support atheism. That’s why I’m an agnostic. For myself anything else would be intellectually dishonest. I just don’t know. If you’re able to rationize it for yourself, so be it. Just be willing to adjust your position when new evidence surfaces.

  • Since the existence of God can be neither proved nor disproved, the “invisible hand” of God guiding the process of evolution ought to be a satisfactory explanation for most theists who require a fig leaf to cover their insistence on “intelligent design.”

    The problem is that many Christians think that the Bible is a science textbook, and that God created the present universe and everything about 6,000 years ago in it in 144 hours, or six literal days. That belief can’t be reconciled with science in any way, so biblical literalists will never accept a rational alternative to their irrational beliefs..

    Behe seems to be smarter, or perhaps just more honest, than most of the anti-Darwinists.

  • Behe never argued against evolution as a determinant of modern biological forms; instead, he has argued that examples of irreducible complexity prove that evolution is not the sole determinant of modern biological forms (the non-scientific argument from ignorance). I don’t think Behe has ever denied common ancestry; so why exactly is Levin perplexed?

  • MudFunk is right. Behe and the Kentucky museum were never that close together. Behe doesn’t have to “admit” or “confess” to common descent; he never denied it. In a way, that’s a more pernicious belief than old fashioned Young Earth Creationism: it acknowledges everything that science accepts, but adds that there must have been something supernatural to jump-start it at some point in history, without any evidence whatsoever.

    Using Behe’s less-ignorant form of anti-evolution as a Wedge to go after the wholly ignorant folks like Answers in Genesis is unlikely to bear fruit. Creationists have been aware of their different factions for a long time.

  • “Behe comes right and admits that common descent is a fact.”

    Uhh, you guys are morons, Behe has said that in his 1996 book as well, and has always believed that.

  • I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again. The recent discovery of micro RNA and the body’s ability to selectively activate/deactive and/or add/delete DNA is destroying ID. How can we talk about an Intelligent designer if our own DNA is self directing its own evolution? What causes this to happen? Well, simply changes within our environment.

    I’m still waiting for a ID advocate who explain how the Cold and Flu mutate without the “hand” of dog, god or Jeebus or whoever this designer is.

  • If we don’t waste all our NASA funds on sending astronauts to hit some golf balls and plant a flag on Mars, we will probably discover life on worlds outside our solar system in the next fifty years. This should truly be fascinating. We probably won’t find intelligent life, so our knowledge of life on these worlds will be limited, and inferential, but still enlightening. The creationist crowd will have a hard time maintaining their Biblical fantasies, but it will be interesting to see how the views of the ID folks “evolve.”

    But I’m afraid we’re going to continue to emphasize manned space exploration, to the detriment of real science. That’s the human way.

  • Big Bang–“Time and Chance”= all things +all life & all mankind. A simple atheistic theory which is OK for scientists but it is not valid science. The Designer created a universe of “simple atoms” billions of years ago, some or all imbued with the talent to evolve [evolution] A few of these ancient atoms are you and I. A marvel of mother nature that we can think abstractly and question the deep deep thinkers– How come your mother didn’t begot a chimp or something down the DNA track?

    The more I learn of valid science, the more I am humbled and in of awe of the Designer

  • Hey stardust,

    You forgot gravity which is the key to the evolution of the universe.

    “How come your mother didn’t begot a chimp or something down the DNA track?”
    Easy. Same reason why humans can’t mate with other primates. Genetic incompatibility and the fact that micro RNA and proteins that shape the fetus utilized all those stem cells were programed to produce a human being. Like time, DNA only goes forward.

    From the sounds of it, your idea of “valid” science is whatever jibes with your fantasy world.

  • Behe’s last book has mostly been ignored by the Intelligent Design people, and his analysis has been ignored by the bulk of people looking to change High School teaching. He just wasn’t anti-evolution enough, even though his analysis is scientifically incorrect: it still doesn’t give a large enough role to God.
    So, he isn’t a big enough fish to get much result from a Counter-Wedge; you’ll just knock off a very small splinter.

  • Comments are closed.