Veritas Forum - Faculty Question Panel

Dr. Rudavsky:

Question To Behe: How does this theory of IC show proof of the Judeo-Christian God? This theory seems to be a replay of Paley’s (and Aquinas’) proof of God which was refuted by Hume. How is your theory different? Finally why does design sometimes fail?

Behe’s Response: These structures were designed, but it doesn’t have to be the God of the Bible (although he does believe it is, based on his religious beliefs). Science can’t show any religion as being correct, only that design is present. He mentioned Crick’s idea of Directed Panspermia, the idea that life didn’t arise on Earth, but was seeded here by aliens. So design could be a result of alien’s work or it could be the work of a deity. For the second question, his response was the Hume didn’t necessarily refute Paley. Finally, Behe said that he doesn’t discuss the nature of the designer, only the design present in the systems he studies. He doesn’t discuss good or evil.

Collin’s Response: The old natural theology tried too hard to prove the benevolence of god.

(This is all I have written down, so I don’t know what the heck he was talking about.)

Hefner’s Response: Behe came to his conclusions by naturalistic method to show design. It’s difficult to show design or a designer without stepping outside the "naturalistic box" of science. If you get outside this box you’re dealing with philosophy and theology.

(He seemed to be disagreeing with Collins that dealing with the designer was scientific.)

Dr. Wolfe’s Question to Behe: Biochemistry is a new science and it generally proceeds by looking at systems in isolation (as opposed to taking a broad viewpoint by studying many different organisms and systems). Given that fact, what makes you sure your examples of IC aren’t just symptoms of our ignorance and a flawed methodology?

Behe’s Response: The pathway of blood clotting (one of the examples in his book) has been known for 40 years but no Darwinian explanation has been found for it in that time. He also stated that no one is looking (which is sort of what the question was asking). He said it’s not the lack of work, it’s that as Darwinian theory has advanced, it’s become more difficult to explain new things. He said that the comparative method has been used for some things. Behe said we have good knowledge of flagella and cilia from different species, but there is no evidence showing how they evolved.

Dr. DiSilvestro’s question to Hefner: Talking about colon cancer, if something doesn’t work well, it might not be the fault of the designer, it could be something that works well that has gotten out of control (like cancerous cells). Some religions fit to this idea better than others (i.e. Christianity, with its idea of sin etc.). What do you think of this idea?

Hefner’s Response: Basically, he said he’d never heard the idea of sin applied so physically as this.

Collins Response: We sometimes don’t understand something. Just like a child not understanding that their parents understand something they don’t. We have to accept that we won’t be able to understand everything (and presumably shouldn’t try?).

Hefner’s Question to Behe: A scientific theory is should be fruitful, meaning that it points the way for new theories and experiments. Is your theory of design fruitful?

Behe’s Response: Design theory is fruitful, but Darwinian theory isn’t. My theory says some things are designed, while others are not. Darwinism isn’t all wrong, there is some sort of dividing line between designed and evolved structures. My theory points out ways to find out where the line is. There are few papers on the origin of the bacterial flagellum, so Darwinism isn’t being fruitful in this case.

Back to Veritas Forum Review Page 1