Behe vs. Swamidass debate

I watched the debate (above) between Michael Behe and Joshua Swamidass over intelligent design (ID). Behe argued for ID while Swamidass was highly skeptical about ID. This post will mostly be my summary of their debate, with some opinion and evaluation interspersed throughout.

General remarks

1. Behe needs no introduction. He's a doyen in the ID movement. He's perhaps best known for Darwin's Black Box where he argues for irreducible complexity.

2. Swamidass is a theistic evolutionist, but he never uses that term, and it seems to me he often avoids identifying himself as such. Yet I have it on good authority he's not only a theistic evolutionist, but he's also a methodological naturalist! I didn't know that before watching the debate, but it certainly makes sense in light of the debate.

3. Behe is Catholic, Swamidass says he's an evangelical. My impression was Behe intentionally stuck to the science and didn't wish to bring in his Christian faith. However, Swamidass did try to bring in biblical verses at a few points in the debate, but I thought he was surprisingly ignorant or illiterate about the Bible.

4. Behe is a painfully slow speaker. He's dry and not engaging to listen to. He's not quick on his feet. At times he rambles when attempting to answer questions, yet, somewhat paradoxically, at other times he's almost overly methodical in how he applies the same responses to different questions. I'm afraid to say it was a chore to listen to him speak. To be fair, I've seen interviews and other videos of Behe. He presents himself much better in these videos. So maybe he just had an off day or something. That happens to everyone.

5. Swamidass is a physician-scientist at a prestigious institution - Wasington University in St. Louis, one of the best medical centers in the US. Physicians have to constantly practice speaking in public, presenting to other physicians and health care professionals such as when rounding on patients, sometimes giving grand rounds lectures, and so on. Despite all this, I didn't think Swamidass was a very good speaker either; he's better than Behe was in this debate, but that's a low bar. On the plus side, Swamidass was friendly toward Behe and the audience and he has a good sense of humor. Sometimes he seemed to take things too personally, as if he was a bit thin skinned, like at the end when the moderator wouldn’t let him go back and forth with Behe. (And I wish the moderator did let him go back and forth with Behe. That might’ve made the Q&A less boring for me.)

6. Unfortunately Swamidass spent a lot of time just talking about himself. Saying how he just really wants to "understand" both sides, that he's an "honest" seeker, that he's put his own "reputation" on the line in publishing his book on Adam and Eve before he had tenure (though I don't see how being a theistic evolutionist endangers his career like supporting ID would), and so on. I wouldn't have had a problem if Swamidass had briefly mentioned all this, but he kept going on about these things throughout the debate. It became tiresome after a while.

7. My impression was Swamidass wasn't so much there to argue against ID, at least not primarily, but instead to push his Peaceful Science community. That's fine, I guess, but in a debate one should primarily get across one's argument. It seemed Swamidass wasn't there to debate so much as build bridges, which is nice and all, but doesn't help audiences who want answers to questions over creation and evolution.

8. Overall, I think Behe won. But I think he more or less won by default inasmuch as he presented a reasonable argument, an argument he has been using for years, but Swamidass didn't really respond to it. That's not to suggest Behe wouldn't have won had Swamidass presented an argument and responded to Behe in substantial ways. It's possible Behe might still have won. But I'm just saying I didn't see Swamidass engage Behe in a substantial way, except for a few times, hence I say Behe won by default. Like if two guys entered a boxing ring, but only one of them bothered to throw any hard punches, while the other mostly shied away from the fight.

Behe's argument

1. Behe starts off his lecture by saying he strongly believes natural selection and random mutations are "inadequate" to explain the molecular structures of life. However, he says he's not going to talk about the problems with neo-Darwinism in this lecture. He says that's in part because he has argued this in the past. And in part because there are "dozens" of secular evolutionary biologists who have argued this as well. Behe recommends interested individuals consult the Third Way of Evolution to see which secular evolutionary biologists disagree with Darwinism.

2. Instead of criticizing Darwinian evolution, Behe says he will argue for design in this lecture.

3. Moving on, Behe asks, how do we detect design? He answers:

a. "The general principle that intelligence...in the cause can be inferred from its marks or signs in the effect" (Thomas Reid).

b. "The purposeful arrangment of parts is the only way we recognize the work of a mind".

c. "The strength of the inference is quantitative."

d. "Design can be found at multiple independent levels."

e. "Purposeful design may leave a residue of disorder."

Behe elaborates a little bit on each one. I don't feel like summarizing all his elaborations. Suffice to say I agree with Behe in general.

4. Behe says one of the basic rational powers of a mind is the ability to recognize other minds. That's something I wish Behe had developed further than he did.

5. I should also note Behe cites three examples of what would constitute ID: the planthopper's legs are like mechnical gears; the bacterial flagellum involves mechanical parts (specifically the flagellum's "hook"); and the bacteriophage T4 reflects mechnical structures and functions. The reason Behe uses these three examples is because they fit his criteria (e.g. "purposeful arrangement of parts").

6. More generally, Behe brought up Mt. Rushmore as an example of something he would consider intelligently designed vs. Mt. Everest as an example of something he wouldn't consider intelligently designed. I think it's a good example and one often used by ID proponents.

7. I want to jump to Behe's first rebuttal because he presents what he calls the biochemical argument (for ID) which I think better fits here at the beginning. I'll quote it verbatim since Behe had slides summarizing his argument in five points:

a. We know from experience that intelligent beings can have purposes and that, to achieve a purpose, they can choose to arrange whatever is within their power to manipulate. As a result, the action of an intelligent being can be detected by perceiving a purposeful arrangement of parts.

b. Whenever we are familiar with a causal chain that produces a sufficiently complex, purposeful arrangement of inanimate parts, we always find one of the causes to be an intelligent agent, acting either proximately or remotely in the causal chain.

c. The molecular basis of life consists of inanimate molecules (such as proteins, polysaccharides, lipids, and nucleic acids). In living beings, these molecules are often found combined in extraordinarily complex, purposeful arrangements.

d. Claims of marvelous abilities of Darwinian processes notwithstanding, we know of no unintelligent process that, when examined in sufficient detail, mimics the ability of intelligence to arrange parts for a purpose.

e. By 1, 2, 3, and 4 we are justified in concluding that a cause of many complex, functional, molecular aspects of life was an intelligent being, acting either proximately or remotely.

Now, that's not to say one couldn't take issue with Behe's biochemical argument. I believe Del Ratzsch has made some criticisms against ID, though I'd have to read Ratzsch's arguments to evaluate them for myself. Likewise Behe's colleague Doug Axe has done so, though it's not a fundamental disagreement, but more of a disagreement over honing the idea of irreducible complexity, I think (i.e. functional coherence).

However, Swamidass himself was unresponsive to Behe's central argument, which is odd, because Swamidass said in the debate that he has heard Behe make the same or similar argument in the 1990s when Swamidass was an undergraduate student listening to Behe give a lecture on what would become Darwin's Black Box, and Swamidass has also said he has read and followed Behe's work in ID in general. If Swamidass is so familiar with Behe's work, but he doesn't agree with it, why not offer his reasons for disagreement?

Swamidass' argument

1. Swamidass started by listing areas of agreement between Behe and himself. Namely, Swamidass claims, both would agree: God created all things; common descent of man; Darwinism is insufficient; and design can't always be detected.

2. However, I'm skeptical about their points of agreement. At least, if they're agreements, I think they're only superficially agreements, but if one digs deeper, then there are fundamental disagreements.

3. Take the idea that Darwinism is insufficient. Obviously Behe has said as much. In fact, Behe started the debate by saying he believes natural selection and random mutations are "inadequate" to account for the complexity of life on the planet, but Behe immediately followed that up by saying he's not focusing on the negative argument against Darwinism, but the positive argument for ID.

However, Swamidass said in the debate that while it's true Darwinism is insufficient, that's because Darwinism is a thing of the past, and modern scientists don't subscribe to Darwinism. So I have to ask: is Darwinism insufficient simply because it's considered passé by academic scientists? If so, that's a bad argument, because it's indexed on the beliefs of one group, and what one group happens to believe or disbelieve may or may not reflect the evidence. In other words, it's different from saying Darwinism is insufficient on modern scientific grounds, which is what Behe would argue.

Moreover, if modern scientists no longer subscribe to Darwinism, but they apparently still hold to universal common descent, then on what scientific grounds do they do so? What's the modern scientific case for universal common descent if it's no longer Darwinism? Swamidass doesn't present his case.

Anyway it seems like Swamidass is talking out of two sides of the same mouth. But maybe I'm being unfair.

4. As for the idea that both Swamidass and Behe would agree that design can't always be detected, that's misleading. That's because of the word "always". Sure, even an ID proponent like Behe would agree design can't always be detected. But why is "always" the standard? I might not be able to find seashells on most of the beach, but if I can find seashells somewhere on the beach, then why isn't that evidence enough for the existence of seashells? Even if (arguendo) one can't detect ID in a majority of organisms, but one can detect ID in, say, the planthopper's legs, the bacterial flagellum, and the bacteriophage T4, then why aren't these evidence for the existence of ID or at least its rational plausibility?

5. At one point, Swamidass states: "I'm even open to the idea that God de novo created Adam and Eve. Out of the dust. Without parents." Which I guess means his default position is that God didn't de novo create Adam and Eve if Swamidass has to be "open to" the idea in the first place.

6. Swamidass says genetically speaking humans and chimps are 98% the same, while mice and rats are 80% the same. He says that's because mice and rats mutate more quickly (i.e. their mutation occurs at a higher rate) and because mice and rats have been separated for a longer period of time than humans and chimps have been separated. Hence, roughly speaking, Swamidass says, "rate x time = distance". By contrast, Swamidass says humans and chimps mutate at a slower rate and have been separated for less time. Swamidass calls this the "neutral evolutionary theory", which he says gives us a "testable" "mathematical" explanation for evolution. I won't comment on this because I think Behe gave a good response, which I'll reference in a moment.

7. Around the 39 minute mark, Swamidass evidently takes a cue from Dawkins' "appearance of design" and tries to morph it into his own version of "appearance of common descent". That is, Swamidass says even Behe can't disagree that some species "look" like they're related by common descent, whether or not they're actually related by common descent.

However I think it's the very point of contention whether or not, in fact, organisms "look" like they're related by common descent. At best, it depends on the organisms in question. Sure, perhaps mice and rats may "look" like they're related. Likewise dogs and wolves "look" like they're related (and are related). But, for one thing, these could be explained by microevolutionary processes. Moreover, it's not as if whales and humans look the same, even though according to evolutionary theory, they share a common ancestor.

8. Swamidass says Behe and he both agree Mt. Everest and Mt. Rushmore are created. That's misleading, because both men already agree these two mounts are created in the sense that God created everything, but that's not the question at issue. Rather the question at issue is whether one is able to distinguish between that which is intelligently designed vs. that which is not.

As a follow-up, Swamidass says he sees biology a lot more like Mt. Everest, not Mt. Rushmore. He doesn't offer any reasons why he thinks this. He just asserts it as far as I heard. At any rate, I'm not exactly sure what Swamidass even means by this. I guess Swamidass means he sees biology as an unguided natural process (like wind and water eroding Mt. Everest to shape it into what it is). If that's what he means, then that's what the debate is about! Is biological evolution an unguided natural process? It doesn't advance his argument to simply assert his own position without elaboration.

9. Next Swamidass says Behe's examples about the planthopper, bacterial flagellum, and bacteriophage T4 do appear to be "designed", but that Behe is using an argument from analogy, whereas Swamidass says there are also disanalogies.

Perhaps that would be problematic if Behe were making an argument from analogy, but I don't see Behe making an argument from analogy. Behe isn't arguing a bacterial flagellum is like a motor, therefore it's designed, while ignoring all disanalogies between the two. Rather I think Behe is arguing the bacterial flagellum being intelligently designed is a more plausible explanation for the evidence at hand (e.g. its purposeful arrangement of parts) than the bacterial flagellum being formed by unguided evolution, hence we're warranted to believe the bacterial flagellum is intelligently designed. (Or something along those lines; I'm no philosopher.)

Besides, Swamidass doesn't give reasons let alone good reasons why he believes Behe's argument is an argument from analogy. As such, there's nothing for me to respond to.

Behe's rebuttal

1. Behe said if there's only a 2% difference in genetics between humans and chimps, and 20% difference between two creatures that do seem biologically similar rats and mice, then maybe DNA/genetics is not telling us the whole story! Maybe genetics isn't the only or primary measure of biological similarity. That's a good point.

2. Behe states to the audience: "You have the power to recognize design." I think Behe is alluding to the general reliability of our intuition about design (contra Dawkins' "the appearance of design"). It's a shame Behe didn't say a lot more about this. For instance, is Behe suggesting our intuition about design is an inferential argument or is he suggesting it's more like believing in the existence of other minds? Perhaps one could likewise consult Behe's colleague Doug Axe's book Undeniable: How Biology Confirms Our Intuition That Life Is Designed.

3. Swamidass brought up the neutral theory of molecular evolution. Behe (citing Motoo Kimura who is the father of the theory) notes the neutral theory can explain smaller scale or localized phenomena (e.g. single nucleotide polymorphisms), but not entire molecular blocks (e.g. whole structures like bacterial flagella).

Swamidass' rebuttal

Swamidass spent most of his rebuttal telling anecdotal stories. Such as what Behe was like in the late 1990s when Swamidass first met Behe. Other people whom he met who are also critics of ID. He talked about his time with William Lane Craig. He talked about how he met Ann Gauger, who is an ID proponent and strongly disagrees with him. Swamidass promoted his "Peaceful Science" movement. He suggested he wants to stop the hostilities between ID and secular scientists, he wants bring people together, and he wants to see everyone talk reasonably and respectfully to one other. He kept talking about finding a better way to move forward in the future. All this to say, Swamidass doesn't address any of Behe's arguments or counter-arguments.

Q&A

1. I have a lot of respect and even admiration for James Tour. I'm glad he got to ask the very first question. Tour asked how would Swamidass explain on evolutionary grounds how "one small change" in an organism could occur so that (after many subsequent changes) an organism's mechanistic system would be changed into a completely different mechanistic system? Tour wanted the specific details, not broad brushstrokes. Basically I think Tour was asking Swamidass how does one climb Mt. Improbable?

Swamidass' answer was super weak. He said chemical intuitions (Tour is a chemist) are different from biological intuitions. Yet, Swamidass continued, biological intuitions will somehow still get us to chemical evolution too. How? I have no idea. I think Swamidass was just trying to avoid Tour's question. At least Dawkins tried to give an answer in his Climbing Mt. Improbable, which I'd disagree with, whereas Swamidass saw the mountain, but immediately retreated back down the slope instead of attempting to climb it.

2. The next question was asked to Behe. If ID is the case, then when or how would it happen? Would ID have been frontloaded at the beginning of the universe? Would ID be happening throughout evolutionary history in discrete acts by God? Behe simply replied: "I don't know." But he continued that it's not the pertinent question. Behe said the pertinent is we can apprehend or detect design without knowing how or where or when or why it happened. It's like seeing Mt. Rushmore but not knowing who made it, when it was made, how it was made, and so on. Nevertheless one thing we do know is that Mt. Rushmore was designed. I thought that was a good response by Behe.

3. Someone asked Swamidass, where exactly do you disageee with Behe?

a. Swamidass said the first point of disagreement is that we know science is non-intuitive, so why would we make an intuitive argument? However, I don't entirely agree with Swamidass here. Sure, sometimes science is non-intuitive. Various features of quantum mechanics come to mind for example. However other times science can be intuitive. It really depends what we're talking about. Swamidass can't make a blanket statement.

b. Next, Swamidass said he diagrees with Behe over the argument that the only way to recognize design is by the purposeful arrangement of parts. Swamidass asked, aren't intelligent minds recognized by other means such as "Plantinga's properly basic belief idea"? However, if anything, wouldn't that be an argument for ID rather than an argument against ID? Or at least wouldn't that be an argument for the design intuition if that's the case?

c. Third, Swamidass draws a distinction between divine design and creaturely design. He says we know creaturely design like Mt. Rushmore and laptop computers. However, he says divine design is different. (But the question isn't whether God and humans "design" in different ways. For one thing, humans can't create ex nihilo like God can. That's obvious. Rather the question is if we can detect God's fingerprints in the universe, animal life, even ourselves.) Swamidass says ID proponents compare DNA to computer code or a language, but Swamidass says: "I'll tell you what, well-designed computer code has comments!" which got claps from the audience. (As far as that goes, wouldn't ATCG be like "comments"? Otherwise Swamidass acts like God needs to write his name and address in the starry heavens.) At best, if DNA is like computer code, Swamidass continues, there are similarities, but there are dissimiliarities too. Swamidass says it's not that he's saying DNA is not designed, maybe it is designed, but it doesn't look like any human design that we've seen before would look like. (Again this seems to assume Behe is making an argument from analogy, but I don't think that's what Behe is doing.) Swamidass again says, yes, he agrees, the planthopper's legs as gears do look designed. That's our intuition. However, science is about challenging our intuitions. And science challenges our intuition that things that look designed may not be designed. (I've responded to this above.)

Behe simply replies that we don't use the same logic to infer ID that we use for other things, i.e., Behe states he is using inductive reasoning.

4. A question for Behe. What does Behe mean by the "residue of disorder"? Behe says a nuclear bomb leaves in its wake terrible "disorder", but it is designed, so we can't say just beause there's disorder, it's not designed.

5. There were a few more questions after this, but either the questions or the answers began to dwindle in interest. I hope that's due more to the questions themselves rather than my own feelings about the Q&As.