Michael Behe accepts the common descent of species.

[Agnostic75]

Consider the following:

Unlike William A. Dembski and others in the intelligent design movement, Behe accepts the common descent of species, including that humans descended from other primates, although he states that common descent does not by itself explain the differences between species. He also accepts the scientific consensus on the age of the Earth and the age of the Universe. In his own words:

"Evolution is a controversial topic, so it is necessary to address a few basic questions at the beginning of the book. Many people think that questioning Darwinian evolution must be equivalent to espousing creationism. As commonly understood, creationism involves belief in an earth formed only about ten thousand years ago, an interpretation of the Bible that is still very popular. For the record, I have no reason to doubt that the universe is the billions of years old that physicists say it is. Further, I find the idea of common descent (that all organisms share a common ancestor) fairly convincing, and have no particular reason to doubt it. I greatly respect the work of my colleagues who study the development and behavior of organisms within an evolutionary framework, and I think that evolutionary biologists have contributed enormously to our understanding of the world. Although Darwin's mechanism – natural selection working on variation – might explain many things, however, I do not believe it explains molecular life. I also do not think it surprising that the new science of the very small might change the way we view the less small." Darwin's Black Box, pp 5-6.
​

"For example, both humans and chimps have a broken copy of a gene that in other mammals helps make vitamin C. ... It's hard to imagine how there could be stronger evidence for common ancestry of chimps and humans. ... Despite some remaining puzzles, there’s no reason to doubt that Darwin had this point right, that all creatures on earth are biological relatives.” The Edge of Evolution, pp 71-2.
​

"…it’s understandable that some people find the idea of common descent so astonishing that they look no further. Yet in a very strong sense the explanation of common descent is also trivial. Common descent tries to account only for the similarities between creatures. It says merely that certain shared features were there from the beginning – the ancestor had them...In contrast, Darwin’s hypothesized mechanism of evolution – the compound concept of random mutation paired with natural selection…tries to account for the differences between creatures. …What could cause such staggering transformations? …By far the most critical aspect of Darwin’s multifaceted theory is the role of random mutation. Almost all of what is novel and important in Darwinian thought is concentrated in this third concept." The Edge of Evolution, p 2.
​

​

 

[Man of Faith]

I hope the OP doesn't trust wikipedia over the below statement that Behe actually signed.

“We are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged.”

http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/filesDB-download.php?command=download&id=660

 

[Agnostic75]

I hope the OP doesn't trust wikipedia over the below statement that Behe actually signed.

“We are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged.”

[URL]http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/filesDB-download.php?command=download&id=660[/URL]

"Trust Wikipedia"? What are you talking about? It quotes Behe verbatim, from his own book. Here it is:

"For example, both humans and chimps have a broken copy of a gene that in other mammals helps make vitamin C.......It's hard to imagine how there could be stronger evidence for common ancestry of chimps and humans.......Despite some remaining puzzles, there’s no reason to doubt that Darwin had this point right, that all creatures on earth are biological relatives.” (The Edge of Evolution, pp 71-2.)

It is quite obvious that Behe believes that chimps and humans have common ancestors, and that God was involved. In other words, Behe does not question "what happened," only "how it happened," hence his opposition to "random" mutation and natural selection, not opposition to chimps and humans having common ancestry. On the other hand, you question "what happened" since you believe that Adam and Eve were the first humans, and did not have any genetic ancestors.

Here is more from another Wikipedia article:

The Edge of Evolution: The Search for the Limits of Darwinism is a book promoting intelligent design by Discovery Institute fellow Michael Behe, published by the Free Press in 2007. In the book Behe argues that while evolution can produce changes within species, there is a limit to the ability of evolution to generate diversity, and this limit (the "edge of evolution") is somewhere between species and orders. Thus, he asserts, known evolutionary mechanisms cannot be responsible for observed diversification from the last universal ancestor and thus only the intervention of an intelligent designer can adequately account for the diversity of life. It is Behe's second book that attempts to promote intelligent design, his first being his 1996 Darwin's Black Box, also published by Free Press.

As I said:

"It is quite obvious that Behe believes that chimps and humans have common ancestors, and that God was involved. In other words, Behe does not question 'what happened,' only 'how it happened.' On the other hand, you question 'what happened' since you believe that Adam and Eve were the first humans, and did not have any genetic ancestors."

 

[Meow Mix]

I hope the OP doesn't trust wikipedia over the below statement that Behe actually signed.

“We are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged.”

http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/filesDB-download.php?command=download&id=660

They were quotes from Behe's own books, which he ostensibly "signed."

The statement for the Discovery Institute being signed by Behe is just evidence of his perhaps shifting conceptions, his inconsistency, or his holding his nose while he signed something he only "sort of" agreed with in order to access resources at Discovery and to lend his help to a cause he wanted to further.

I would take Behe at his own written word for insight as to what he finds convincing over a pre-generated, external statement of some group that's only there for token purposes anyway.

 

[Man of Faith]

Seeing how quote mining and wikipedia is accepted when it supports evolution, let's see if it is still accepted when it supports creation.

"Behe says he once fully accepted the scientific theory of evolution, but that after reading Evolution: A Theory In Crisis, by Michael Denton, he came to question evolution.[14] Later, Behe came to believe that there was evidence, at a biochemical level, that there were systems that were "irreducibly complex". These were systems that he thought could not, even in principle, have evolved by natural selection, and thus must have been created by an "intelligent designer," which he believed to be the only possible alternative explanation for such complex structures. The logic is very similar to the watchmaker analogy given by William Paley in 1802 as proof of a divine creator."

Michael Behe - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Meow Mix]

Seeing how quote mining and wikipedia is accepted when it supports evolution, let's see if it is still accepted when it supports creation.

"Behe says he once fully accepted the scientific theory of evolution, but that after reading Evolution: A Theory In Crisis, by Michael Denton, he came to question evolution.[14] Later, Behe came to believe that there was evidence, at a biochemical level, that there were systems that were "irreducibly complex". These were systems that he thought could not, even in principle, have evolved by natural selection, and thus must have been created by an "intelligent designer," which he believed to be the only possible alternative explanation for such complex structures. The logic is very similar to the watchmaker analogy given by William Paley in 1802 as proof of a divine creator."

Michael Behe - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The portion you mention, however, was Behe circa 2003 (as evidenced by the source provided). The works quoted in the OP are from 2007. I think everybody is aware of Behe's history of doubting evolutionary mechanisms; I myself have read "Darwin's Black Box" (which was practically when his irreducibly complex concept debuted).

Even then Behe flirted with acknowledging that common descent happened -- he just disputed the currently understood mechanisms for it.

 

[Man of Faith]

The portion you mention, however, was Behe circa 2003 (as evidenced by the source provided). The works quoted in the OP are from 2007. I think everybody is aware of Behe's history of doubting evolutionary mechanisms; I myself have read "Darwin's Black Box" (which was practically when his irreducibly complex concept debuted).

Even then Behe flirted with acknowledging that common descent happened -- he just disputed the currently understood mechanisms for it.

2007 isn't 2012. I guess I made my original point anyway, and that is using Behe to prove a point on evolution isn't very reliable and shouldn't be done, unless you also accept his points on creation.

 

[Agnostic75]

Seeing how quote mining and wikipedia is accepted when it supports evolution, let's see if it is still accepted when it supports creation.

But according to theistic evolutionists, you can have creation "and" evolution.

"Behe says he once fully accepted the scientific theory of evolution, but that after reading Evolution: A Theory In Crisis, by Michael Denton, he came to question evolution. Later, Behe came to believe that there was evidence, at a biochemical level, that there were systems that were "irreducibly complex". These were systems that he thought could not, even in principle, have evolved by natural selection, and thus must have been created by an "intelligent designer," which he believed to be the only possible alternative explanation for such complex structures. The logic is very similar to the watchmaker analogy given by William Paley in 1802 as proof of a divine creator." Michael Behe - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Yes, Behe believes that "these were systems that.......could not, even in principle, have evolved by natural selection," but he does believe that the systems evolved with God's help.

Consider the following statement: "Jesus could not have healed people without God's help." The statement does not mean that Jesus did not heal people. It only means that he could not have healed people without God's help. Similarly, Behe did not say or imply that humans and chimps do not share common ancestors, only that they could not share common ancestors without God's help.

The following that I quoted from Behe's own book is definitly not quote mining:

For example, both humans and chimps have a broken copy of a gene that in other mammals helps make vitamin C. ... It's hard to imagine how there could be stronger evidence for common ancestry of chimps and humans.......Despite some remaining puzzles, there’s no reason to doubt that Darwin had this point right, that all creatures on earth are biological relatives. (The Edge of Evolution pp 71-2}

.......it’s understandable that some people find the idea of common descent so astonishing that they look no further. Yet in a very strong sense the explanation of common descent is also trivial. Common descent tries to account only for the similarities between creatures. It says merely that certain shared features were there from the beginning – the ancestor had them.......In contrast, Darwin’s hypothesized mechanism of evolution – the compound concept of random mutation paired with natural selection.......tries to account for the differences between creatures......." "The Edge of Evolution. p 2."

Clearly, Behe questions "evolution by natural selection," and the naturalistic "mechanism of evolution," but like millions of other theistic evolutionists who also question "evolution by natural selection," and the naturalistic "mechanism of evolution," he believes that chimps and humans share common ancestors. In other words, that man evolved with God's help.

 

[Agnostic75]

.......using Behe to prove a point on evolution isn't very reliable and shouldn't be done, unless you also accept his points on creation.

Then using Behe to prove a point on evolution isn't very reliable and shouldn't be done, unless you also accept his points on the age of the earth.

 

[Agnostic75]

2007 isn't 2012.

Do you have any evidence that Behe has retracted his 2007 position that chimps and humans share common ancestors? His 2007 book is still for sale at Amazon.

Regardless of what any Christian creationist experts says, you do not know enough about biology and/or biochemistry to adequately critique complex writings about evolutionary science, for example, Dr. Ken Miller's article on the evolution of the flagellum at The Flagellum Unspun.

 

[Agnostic75]

Edit: Deletion of unnecessary post.

 

[waitasec]

I hope the OP doesn't trust wikipedia over the below statement that Behe actually signed.

“We are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged.”

http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/filesDB-download.php?command=download&id=660

"i smell a smell, a smelly smell that smells smelly..."
~eugene crabs

 

[fantome profane]

I hope the OP doesn't trust wikipedia over the below statement that Behe actually signed.

“We are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged.”

http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/filesDB-download.php?command=download&id=660

Have you read either of Behe’s books? I have and can assure you that the quotes that Wikipedia has supplied are accurate and faithfully convey the feelings of Behe on the topic of common descent. He is actually quite adamant about it. Michael Behe believes that humans and Chimps share a common ancestor and that all life shares a more distant common ancestor.

His issue is that he does not believe that Darwinian evolution is a fully satisfactory explanation for the fact of common ancestry. This is what is reflected in the petition that he signed. He believes that random mutation and natural selection are insufficient on their own to explain the fact of common ancestry.

Personally I don’t have much respect for Michael Behe. I think he has aligned himself with people who have deliberately misrepresented his views to the general public. These people deliberately misrepresent him to further their own agenda, and he has allowed them to do so for monetary gain and greater notoriety. I am trying to clarify things not because I have any respect for Behe, but rather because I have respect for the truth.

I want to say two more things about the statement he signed. First I think the OP, and everybody else, should trust Wikipedia over anything that comes out of the Discovery Institute. I understand that Wikipedia is not the most reliable source, but it is infinitely more reliable than the Discovery Institute.

Second I would like you to read that statement carefully, and take it as a personal message to you – Man of Faith.

Behe and everybody else who signed that list is encouraging you to carefully examine the evidence for Darwinian evolution. I would also like to encourage, implore, goad, you into carefully examining the evidence for Darwinian evolution.

As far as I can tell you have never read a book by Ken Miller, you have never read any book by Michael Behe, you have never read any book by Stephen Gould, you have never read any book by Richard Dawkins, you have never read any book by Sean B. Carrol. And given the fact that you were unaware of something as basic of the position of Michael Behe on common descent is a clear indicator that even though you have been around this board for a long time you still have not made any significant effort to educate yourself on the topic you choose to debate about.

I think for someone in your position Michael Behe’s book the Edge of Evolution would be a good place to start. Although I don’t agree with him and I don’t respect him, he is nonetheless a PHD biochemist and he is a very good writer. He could give someone like you a good start in your education on the subject of evolution.

 

[Agnostic75]

"Behe says he once fully accepted the scientific theory of evolution, but that after reading Evolution: A Theory In Crisis, by Michael Denton, he came to question evolution. Later, Behe came to believe that there was evidence, at a biochemical level, that there were systems that were "irreducibly complex". These were systems that he thought could not, even in principle, have evolved by natural selection, and thus must have been created by an "intelligent designer," which he believed to be the only possible alternative explanation for such complex structures. The logic is very similar to the watchmaker analogy given by William Paley in 1802 as proof of a divine creator." Michael Behe - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Yes, Behe believes that "these were systems that.......could not, even in principle, have evolved by natural selection," but he does believe that the systems evolved with God's help.

Consider the following statement: "Jesus could not have healed people without God's help." The statement does not mean that Jesus did not heal people. It only means that he could not have healed people without God's help. Similarly, Behe did not say or imply that humans and chimps do not share common ancestors, only that they could not share common ancestors without God's help.

The following that I quoted from Behe's own book is definitely not quote mining:

For example, both humans and chimps have a broken copy of a gene that in other mammals helps make vitamin C.......It's hard to imagine how there could be stronger evidence for common ancestry of chimps and humans.......Despite some remaining puzzles, there’s no reason to doubt that Darwin had this point right, that all creatures on earth are biological relatives. (The Edge of Evolution pp 71-2}

.......it’s understandable that some people find the idea of common descent so astonishing that they look no further. Yet in a very strong sense the explanation of common descent is also trivial. Common descent tries to account only for the similarities between creatures. It says merely that certain shared features were there from the beginning – the ancestor had them.......In contrast, Darwin’s hypothesized mechanism of evolution – the compound concept of random mutation paired with natural selection.......tries to account for the differences between creatures......." "The Edge of Evolution. p 2."

Clearly, Behe questions "evolution by natural selection," and the naturalistic "mechanism of evolution," but like millions of other theistic evolutionists who also question "evolution by natural selection," and the naturalistic "mechanism of evolution," he believes that chimps and humans share common ancestors. In other words, that man evolved with God's help.

If you would like to discuss quote mining, I will start a new thread on it and provide you with plenty of evidence of quote mining by conservative Christians. Quote mining is using a quote to imply that the person quoted has a position that he does not actually have. I did not do that. Michael Behe actually believes that chimps and humans share a common ancestor, at least he did in 2007, and there are not any good reasons to believe that he has changed his mind.

.......using Behe to prove a point on evolution isn't very reliable and shouldn't be done, unless you also accept his points on creation.

Behe accepts the common ancestry of chimps and humans. Dembski does not. Who is right? Please be advised that Behe has a Ph.D. in biochemistry, and Dembski has a Ph.D. in mathematics.

 

[shawn001]

MICHAEL BEHE (Dramatization): Intelligent design is a scientific theory that proposes that some aspects of life are best explained as the result of design, and that the strong appearance of design in life is real and not just apparent.

ROBERT MUISE (Dramatization): Is intelligent design based on any religious beliefs or convictions?

MICHAEL BEHE (Dramatization): No, it isn't.

ROBERT MUISE (Dramatization): What is it based on?
MICHAEL BEHE (Dramatization): It is based entirely on observable, empirical, physical evidence from nature, plus logical inferences.

"ERIC ROTHSCHILD (Dramatization): But you are clear, under your definition, the definition that sweeps in intelligent design, astrology is also a scientific theory?
MICHAEL BEHE (Dramatization): Yes, that's correct.

WITOLD "VIC" WALCZAK: You know, when you loosen the rules around what is science and permit the supernatural, permit deities, you are really destroying what makes science so vitally important to the progress that our civilization has witnessed over the last four or five hundred years. You're going back before the scientific revolution. And, you know, that's a pretty scary thing.

NARRATOR: With the scientific revolution, the work of Galileo, Newton and others banished supernatural explanations from science. But some think the supernatural still has its place.

NOVA | Intelligent Design on Trial

 

[Agnostic75]

"Behe says he once fully accepted the scientific theory of evolution, but that after reading Evolution: A Theory In Crisis, by Michael Denton, he came to question evolution. Later, Behe came to believe that there was evidence, at a biochemical level, that there were systems that were "irreducibly complex". These were systems that he thought could not, even in principle, have evolved by natural selection, and thus must have been created by an "intelligent designer," which he believed to be the only possible alternative explanation for such complex structures. The logic is very similar to the watchmaker analogy given by William Paley in 1802 as proof of a divine creator." Michael Behe - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Yes, Behe believes that "these were systems that.......could not, even in principle, have evolved by natural selection," but he does believe that the systems evolved with God's help.

The following that I quoted from Behe's book 'The Edge of Evolution,' which is still being sold, is definitely not quote mining:

For example, both humans and chimps have a broken copy of a gene that in other mammals helps make vitamin C.......It's hard to imagine how there could be stronger evidence for common ancestry of chimps and humans.......Despite some remaining puzzles, there’s no reason to doubt that Darwin had this point right, that all creatures on earth are biological relatives. (The Edge of Evolution pp 71-2}

.......it’s understandable that some people find the idea of common descent so astonishing that they look no further. Yet in a very strong sense the explanation of common descent is also trivial. Common descent tries to account only for the similarities between creatures. It says merely that certain shared features were there from the beginning – the ancestor had them.......In contrast, Darwin’s hypothesized mechanism of evolution – the compound concept of random mutation paired with natural selection.......tries to account for the differences between creatures......." 'The Edge of Evolution,' p 2.

Clearly, Behe questions "evolution by natural selection," and the naturalistic "mechanism of evolution," but like millions of other theistic evolutionists who also question "evolution by natural selection," and the naturalistic "mechanism of evolution," he believes that chimps and humans share a common ancestor. In other words, that man evolved with God's help.

If you would like to discuss quote mining, I will start a new thread on it and provide you with plenty of evidence of quote mining by conservative Christians. Quote mining is using a quote to imply that the person quoted has a position that he does not actually have. I did not do that. Michael Behe actually believes that chimps and humans share a common ancestor, at least he did in 2007, and there are not any good reasons to believe that he has changed his mind.

.......using Behe to prove a point on evolution isn't very reliable and shouldn't be done, unless you also accept his points on creation.

I am not trying to use Behe to prove anything except to show you that your own source accepts common descent, and believes that the earth is old.

 

[Krok]

I hope the OP doesn't trust wikipedia over the below statement that Behe actually signed.

This is another great example of creationist dishonesty.

First part of the statement:

We are sceptical for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life......

So are all scientists relevant to the field. They all are sceptical that only random mutations and natural selection would account for the complexity of life. Those two mechanisms are accompanied by things like genetic drift, gene flow, etc.

Second part of the statement:

Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged.

That's why so much research is being done every day. Apart from 150 years of accumulated evidence for the theory, more is discovered every day. Every single piece of evidence we get every day also confirms the ToE.

The dishonest tactic of the Dishonesty Instiute of adding a heading entitled
"A SCIENTIFIC DISSENT FROM DARWINISM " to that statement. They lied. The statement certainly is not a dissent from "Darwinism". It encourages more research.

Also, Darwin actually proposed natural selection as the mechanism. We've learned a lot since then, you know. That's why we have a modern synthesis. Different from "Darwinism". Bottom line is, those creationists lied about that statement, as untruths are all they have.

 

[waitasec]

I hope the OP doesn't trust wikipedia over the below statement that Behe actually signed.

i hope you don't trust goat herders words to be the word of god...