Monday, January 16, 2012

I Disagree with Behe...for once.

HT: Edward Feser

I just watched Dr. Michael Behe's lecture at the Science and Faith Conference at Franciscan University of Steubenville. Interestingly, in the second half of the lecture Behe tries to argue that Christianity and Darwinism are incompatible. I don't think he succeeds, as I think Dr. Daniel Kuebler, in his response, demonstrated. Merely because something is random doesn't mean that it is unintended by God. As Kuebler so excellently put it, our apparently random meetings of other people may have all sorts of transcendent purpose and meaning.

Behe tries using the example of the inventor of the kaleidoscope not knowing what the various future patterns it will display will be, and therefore could not have intended any of them. However, in the case of God, who knows the future, all random events are pre-known. Therefore, He could have intended many or even all of them. So it seems to me that one can consistently be a Christian and a Darwinist.

I'm not a Darwinist, but that's because I don't think the empirical evidence supports it, not because I think there is a philosophical or theological conflict between the two.  Let me add that much of the reason I don't think the empirical evidence supports Darwinism is due to the evidence and arguments of Michael Behe.

6 comments:

Jon Garvey said...

Hi Bilbo

Behe was careful to say "random with respect to God", though I accept it wasn't clear he thought something can be random to us but not to God. Still, it's an important distinction and one that many, on BioLogos for example, aren't clear to make.

Bilbo said...

Jon: Behe was careful to say "random with respect to God"....

By "random with respect to God," does Behe mean "unknown ahead of time by God"? If so, then given the classical understanding of Theism, this wouldn't be possible. But just because God knows it ahead of time, this doesn't mean that it is random with respect to fitness.

Jon Garvey said...

Hi Bilbo

Trying to ascertain the predominant Theistic Evolution position on classic theism is like nailing jelly to the ceiling, as I've been pointing out at length on a BioLogos thread.

My reading of Behe is that he's talking about the Thomist (and Reformed) position that God doesn't "do" chance - his will oversees even the falling of sparrows to the ground etc. One could get away with an Arminian "foresight" position if one also accepted God's ability to act in accordance with foresight, eg by getting lightning to strike any mutations he didn't wish to progress, etc - but TEs generally are unwilling to commit even to that - after all, foresight without the ability to change is the worst kind of situation, making Chance a deity greater than God himself.

Bilbo said...

Jon: One could get away with an Arminian "foresight" position if one also accepted God's ability to act in accordance with foresight....

Then I choose Arminian foresight, and I'll let TEs worry about their own position.

Jon Garvey said...

Bilbo

The problem seems to be that TEs don't worry enough about their position!

Bilbo said...

I agree, Jon.