Is Intelligent Design Credible? Dr. Michael Behe & Dr. Matthew Ramage

Dr. Michael Behe, the "godfather of intelligent design" and author of Darwin Devolves, discusses irreducible complexity and intelligent design theory with Dr. Matthew Ramage, a critic of ID and author of From the Dust of the Earth: Benedict XVI, the Bible, and the Theory of Evolution.
Behe's Darwin Devolves: amzn.to/3A2Xb8i
Ramage's From the Dust of the Earth: Benedict XVI, the Bible, and the Theory of Evolution: amzn.to/3CaXnVW
Additional Resources:
Phil for People website: www.philosophyf...
Phil for People on KZbin: / philosophyforthepeople
Pat's Substack: chroniclesofst...
Jim's Substack: substack.com/j...
Pat's "pay what you want" courses: pftp.gumroad.com/
Jim's "pay what you want courses: jmadden.gumroa...
Philosophy for the People on Spotify: open.spotify.c...
Philosophy for the People on iTunes: podcasts.apple...

[@PhilosophyforthePeople]

Thanks for tuning in, everyone. Please share your thoughts on the exchange below, and check out the linked books. Behe's Darwin Devolves: amzn.to/3A2Xb8i Ramage's From the Dust of the Earth: Benedict XVI, the Bible, and the Theory of Evolution: amzn.to/3CaXnVW

[@AnselmInstitute]

Dr. Behe, thank you for the humility and charity of continuing to do your work while being misunderstood. May God reward you for it.

[@dieseligewissenschaft]

Just finished Dr. Ramage's book, really looking forward to watch this episode :)

[@JohnDeRosa1990]

Fascinating conversation. Thanks for hosting this, Pat! I think Behe's ideas would gain more acceptance among Catholics if people spelled out in more detail some possible models/answers to how much and when special divine action is required. But maybe people have spelled this out and I'm just unaware of it.

[@PhilosophyforthePeople]

Hope to see him on your show soon, John. Keep up the great work you’re doing!

[@AnselmInstitute]

Wow, Ramage knows what 9 out of 10 people reading Behe's book think. This guy has angelic knowledge. He must be right in everything he says to know that sort of thing.

[@AnselmInstitute]

The reason some don't "get the message" of a distinction between ID and creationism is that too few Thomists do their homework in understanding ID. They are happy to just dismiss it as "biblical literalism" (a term used by Ramage) or "fundamentalism". It is a shame that those representing St. Thomas are not making the same effort St. Thomas made to understand various positions and taking what is good and true from them. That Ramage didn't understand ID is apparent from the way this video begins and yet he has just published a book the pertains to this topic. Again this does not reflect well on those purporting to represent St. Thomas' thought and example.

[@pslobodnik]

Pretty sure Aquinas advocates, in essence, the ID argument himself.

[@mc07]

It's not just those special things that indicate design, and the ordinary doesn't. It all goes back to the information which is a fundamental inference of design. So all of life therefore has that inference, whether it seems spectacular or dull.

[@ВасянНирванов]

Dr. Behe is a HUGE ROCK!!!

[@thisnameisunique]

I believe the word you’re looking for is TOOL.

[@crabb9966]

​@@thisnameisunique😂 admit he is intelligent

[@Mkvine]

This has been one of my favorite episodes

[@PhilosophyforthePeople]

Glad to hear that. Any particular reason why?

[@Mkvine]

@@PhilosophyforthePeople For me, I majored in biology and I’m Catholic. So whenever biology intersects with theology and philosophy, it’s always something interesting to me. And Michael Behe is giant in the field.

[@midlander4]

​@Mkvine and he's less than a pygmy as far as actual scientists are concerned. Ask one.

[@joelmontero9439]

I've watch some Dr. Behe's interviews, and man I love that guy! Even if he were wrong, he does a great job explaining his position and challenging his interlocutors on their positions, and most of the time they do not give answers to his questions. Btw.. it is stupid for Catholics to say that ID is incompatible with thomism or Catholicism, does people even read what St. Thomas says about the six days of creation? I understand that people can say he was wrong, but you surely can not say that ID is incompatible with thomism. God bless you all

[@midlander4]

He is wrong. And he's a shameless liar.

[@thisnameisunique]

Agreed that he’s a liar. Could have been more generous if he hadn’t been shown how shoddy his ideas were in Kitzmiller v Dover yet he continues to use the same discredited talking points.

[@crabb9966]

​@@midlander4 he seems like a gentleman, you seem spiteful. But maybe I'm wrong, could you tell my why he is a shameless fraud?

[@midlander4]

@crabb9966 in what way does lying about science make behe a "gentleman"? You've clearly never been anywhere a university... but you know more than millions of scientists. Well done.

[@crabb9966]

@@midlander4 ok, it's no argument. Please provide evidence

[@RealAtheology]

Interesting. Thanks for putting this together.

[@pop3stealth97]

These intelligent design videos always pick my brain, turns out i’m a huge nerd for this stuff

[@PhilosophyforthePeople]

Totally. Behe’s work is super fascinating. Hope more people read his books!

[@mc07]

So I sort of get Matt's point about nature operating on its own, so-to-speak, and the wonder that invokes. And I think nature does do that. We see the circle of life happening over and over again. The wonder of new life being born, growing, developing, surviving in the wild and reproducing. We see nature doing its marvellous things. But underlying it all is the how and the why. The genetic and epigenetic programming that coordinates life. While life might be the dance, the code is the choreography. While life might be the orchestrated symphony, the code is the notes on the pages, brilliantly blended together across different instruments to create something beautiful. Where does this code come from? The evidence shows us that Darwinism fundamentally fails at explaining this. No origin of life researcher has been able to do any better. There is no answer for such a. complex and sophisticated language that must only come from a super-intelligent mind. Not just a mind though. A mind that can produce such a code in material form.

[@AnselmInstitute]

Ramage seems unaware that Behe was one of those asked to endorse the book resulting from Pope Benedict's conference with former students entitled Creation and Evolution. Behe quotes from this showing that Pope Benedict agrees with Behe on the purposefulness of creation as discerned through the natural order..

[@mc07]

Pat makes a good clarification there toward the end. The naturalistic paradigm fails. But that doesn't mean you get changing paradigms. You don't go from a theistic one to a naturalistic one. It is a theistic one all the way through. Through that paradigm we get the full diversity of life. What are the mechanisms? Well, they are still being studied by scientists.

[@stormythelowcountrykitty7147]

Very helpful

[@AnselmInstitute]

Ramage's interruption of Behe and suggesting that he yawns at the intricacy of the created order doesn't reflect either Catholic humility or the Catholic appreciation of all fields of learning. It was the scholastic pursuit of truth via scholastic method that accounts for the very origins of modern science. St Thomas and St Albert were interested in questions pertaining to nature. If you are going to write a book on evolution, you shouldn't shrug you're shoulders at what Behe is talking about.

[@BabyBugBug]

Shrugging and personal attacks are two devices they employ to ignore evidence being shown to them that they do not wish to address for lack of a good answer.

[@AnselmInstitute]

Although Catholics are certain of God's existence via faith and demonstrations like the five ways, we can also make probabilistic arguments and utilize inference. These are not mutually exclusive.

[@AnselmInstitute]

There is nothing "incorrect" about inference. They are just not scholastic demonstrations.

[@BabyBugBug]

Inference is done extremely commonly in science. All of evolutionary theory is based on this inference filtered through a materialist worldview. It is shocking the mental gymnastics people will go through to discount the notion of reliable inference when it doesn't agree with their preferred worldview.

[@williammcenaney1331]

I agree with Dr. Behe. But I've always thought Darwin believed all organisms descended from a common ancestor. That statement is still hard for me to understand when I wonder whether a Venus Flytrap and I share an ancestor. How can I be a plant's relative? In a video I've watched, Mr. Jimmy Akin says the human genome includes mutated genes from egg layers. I know of no reason to doubt what he said. No, I need someone to clarify "common ancestry." It seems reasonable to think organisms descend from other organisms with eyes. But plants don't see anything. Neither do microbes.

[@VACatholic]

1:28:00 Thank you for the clarification Dr. Ramage. Without your help I'd have been hopelessly lost and not understand what Dr. Behe said. Unbelievable hubris.

[@AnselmInstitute]

In response to Ramage's snide comment that Behe is "defensive": If he is defensive, it is because his position is consistently misrepresented by people who should have sufficient intellectual and moral virtue to avoid such mistakes (like you). If someone consistently misrepresented your work, you would be frustrated as well.

[@BabyBugBug]

Absolutely agreed.

[@denniswhite8005]

If Thomists insist that ‘God doesn’t push atoms around,” how do they explain what Christ did when he commanded Lazarus to “come forth!” Lazarus’ molecules would have desperately needed some rearrangement after 3 days of decay. (Add to the mix Christ’s command to still the Galilee, create wine, wither a fig tree, etc.)

[@Durziage]

I think a lot of people when they hear “intelligent design” think of it in an interventionist sort of way and that causes a lot of misunderstanding and backlash. It doesn’t seem like Dr. Behe is advocating for a particular model of ID wherein the designer “steps in” if you will at certain points in the natural order, like how Newton thought of God adjusting the orbits of the planets periodically because their trajectories hadn’t been adjusted for elliptical motion, while Leibniz retorted saying that God set the natural order up to actually unfold without such intervention. If by “intelligent design” we basically mean that there is teleology in nature that is grounded in Intelligence, and that evolution is not fundamentally a random and stochastic process, but proceeds according to a certain logic and intention that includes the emergence of specific forms of life and organic structures, while allowing for some chance occurrences within its parameters, then I really don’t see why any Christian who is not a fundamentalist would deny ID. I for one have no problem endorsing ID in that sense.

[@hansweichselbaum2534]

ID does think in an "interventionist sort of way". That's the crux of this "theory". The bacterial flagellum (Behe's prime example) could not have evolved through a purely naturalistic pathway. God has to have intervened, or whatever you want to call it. No, evolution is not a random process, because of the selective process after the mutations. The mutations in the genome are strictly random. You might question that step, but as far as I know mutations don't arise out of necessities. I've studied the ID movement now for two decades, and in my opinion their goal is to prove the existence of God "scientifically". First it was the "intelligent designer", which over time has evolved into the Christian God. I myself am a lifelong Christian, I am also a scientist, but I stay away from any attempt to "prove" God by any scientific means.

[@mc07]

@@hansweichselbaum2534 ID doesn't attempt to prove God. It certainly allows for further thought and development building on ID arguments. But fundamentally, ID is not an argument for God. Meyer's latest book explores the beyond bit based on those initial ID arguments. But again, that is not the ID argument. And I disagree ID argues for an interventionist mechanism. It doesn't propose any mechanism. Simply that the evidence points to design, and intelligent design. Whatever implications are drawn from that are a next step that some might think about but it is not the core. Regarding the bacterial flagellum, no God isn't required to have intervened. The flagellum is built through the processes within the cell. It goes back to the genetic code. If a cell's genetic code instructs it to build a machine, that's what it does. But how do novel machines appear? How is the code altered to produce novel machines? The evidence suggests that the code does not arrive by a random process. Multiple changes would be needed to code for new machines, and irreducibly complex machines. If it can be shown how the code changes gradually in a step-wise manner that then produce novel machines in a step-wise manner, then intelligent design would be indistinguishable from random changes. Note that ID doesn't propose how these changes are brought about by ID, but that they must come from ID.

[@BabyBugBug]

​@@hansweichselbaum2534I am not sure I agree that ID is trying to prove God, specifically any God associated with any particular religion. Yes, ID advocates tend to be religious. But they know that just because you prove design does not prove your version of God. That is more philosophical. From all I've read, I think ID wants to return some sanity to science, which has become greatly bogged down by dogma, self-filtering to save face, and ideology.

[@hansweichselbaum2534]

@@BabyBugBug Probably, not everybody wants to use ID to prove that there is a god, but most people do. In the early days, twenty and more years ago, ID was talking about an 'unknown designer'. Now it is mostly the Christian God. Stephen Meyer came to our shores in 2015 and gave a two-day workshop/seminar here in Auckland. During the whole time he had "ID is the scientific Proof for the Existence of God" projected on the side wall. I entirely disagree with your "ID wants to return some sanity to science". Science, by definition, is limited to natural causation. Scientists eschew supernatural explanations. That's outside of science. There are plenty of scientists who are also Christians. I am certainly not the only one. Look up Francis Collins, and what he has to say about ID. It is the old god-of-the-gaps argument. And you get a 'science-stopper' if you assign every not (yet) explained phenomenon to the supernatural. As Christians we give God the whole credit for every phenomenon we observe, if we have a natural explanation or not.

[@mc07]

Matt doesn't like it from his personal perspective. Not what others might actually think. It's not correct according to Matt. Well, actually I think nature screams design. The more I look at nature the more I see design. Now whether someone uses design as an evangelistic tool or not is not what the issue was, or so I thought. The heading of the video is, Is ID credible? Based on the scientific evidence and nature, it absolutely is. How does it look like in terms of God's casualty? Well that would be another project in itself.

[@kentclark9616]

Can we not have Michael Behe along with someone who knows what they talking about? I would love to hear from a pro evolution biologist that can really engage with the arguments. I haven’t seen any really good debates on this topic. And I don’t mean Josh Swamidass

[@mc07]

I disagree with Matt there about the Ratzinger quote Mike read out. Ratzinger was clearly talking about the underlying signal of design. Sure, he didn't say anything about how a irreducibly complex molecular machine might come about. But he clearly referenced that behind it all, it points to design. The reason that molecular machines are built in the cell is because the cell is programmed to produce them. A Darwinist has to explain how this code came about. Where did new code come from?

[@VACatholic]

Overall I was incredibly disappointed with Dr. Ramage's contributions. He did no real better than Dr. Joshua Swamidass in his conversation, which is just unfortunate.

[@BK-fv5mw]

How on earth can a catholic recommend Richard Dawkins as a scientific argument?? For the record Dawkins recently admitted that his book ‘The Selfish Gene’ should be read along the lines of science FICTION.

[@BabyBugBug]

I think some Catholics are so intent on showing that they are relevant in a scientifically-oriented world, that they run from anything that can be associated with "creationism," which is very commonly but wrongly associated with Intelligent Design. A Catholic would side with the mainstream evolutionary paradigm in an attempt to look credible and be taken seriously. A case of the Emperor's New Clothes, if you will. Humans are predictable creatures when it comes to wanting to feel accepted and validated.

[@VACatholic]

It's hard to take Dr. Ramage seriously. Granted, I'm only 20 minutes in, but somehow he thinks he has the truth, while paying lip service to the idea that the Catholic Church hasn't dogmatized a position so you can believe what you want. I have no idea why, as a theologian, he feels like he has any access to the state of the art of scientific research. Why he think his position is more rational, and why he feels justified in just slurring people he disagrees with without providing any arguments. He seems to have a very surface level understanding of the issue, and can only survive if he has the perceived moral high ground of not being "one of those crazy creationists", which is just embarrassing for him and his position. Hopefully he actually comes with some substance later in the conversation.

[@AnselmInstitute]

Intellectual sin? You mean of not understanding or even reading the work of someone you have the boldness to comment on in a book? Ramage said early on that he did not read all of Darwin's Black Box and later suggests that he has read some of Behe's work and perhaps did not "scored high enough on the SAT" to understand it. From their interaction, it appears that he considers skimming something he doesn't think worth understanding as "reading."

[@VACatholic]

That was pretty embarrassing.

[@mc07]

yes what was he referring to as intellectual sin? rejection of darwinism? I'm not sure. But seemed a bit of a bold assertion without much backing

[@BabyBugBug]

Many Darwinists do not read literature they do not agree with. I am not surprised by this admission.

[@nojuice457]

its hard to take someone seriously who obviously hides from the obvious while asking to be taken seriously.

[@AnselmInstitute]

God comes in? Are you a Deist, Ramage? He was there all along and there are no "rules" (other than those you imagine) that prevent God from speaking kinds into existence. As St. Thomas says these are exemplar causes. This does not conflict with science as Behe makes clear. The problem is you didn't read him and you don't know the science.

[@hansweichselbaum2534]

12:20 "Common descent is trivial" . Well, it's not trivial to the rest of the ID movement. They dedicated a whole 212 pages to argue against Common Descent in their 2017 book on critique of theistic evolution (the whole book has 1000 pages).

[@mc07]

common descent is not a central argument of ID. ID is a broad church on that issue. some feel free to discuss it at times but it is not the argument of ID.

[@BabyBugBug]

ID includes theistic notions of evolution, but is falls on the necessity of a designer to guide the evolutionary process. It could be that common descent is a thing. ID doesn't say. Some highly question the story we are told in school, some accept it as is without the materialist dogma.

[@hansweichselbaum2534]

@@BabyBugBug ID strongly disagrees with the idea of a 'theistic evolution'. See the book "Theistic Evolution - A Scientific, Philosophical, and Theological Critique", published in 2017 (1000 pages!). Interestingly, Michael Behe didn't contribute, but every other 'fellow' from the Discovery Institute is represented. They strongly attack 'methodological naturalism'. That's the working principle of every scientist, religious or not, namely not to use supernatural causation in their work. Scientists who believe in God will credit God for everything, including the things for which we have a 'naturalistic' explanation.

[@AnselmInstitute]

One can affirm secondary causality and ID. What Ramage is doing is assuming that creation of natural kinds in their first instantiation is an ordinary instance of secondary causality and then making the false suggestion that this is St. Thomas position. What is missing from such an account is the role of formal causality and the Divine Ideas as exemplar causes where God speaks the kinds into existence. That is the Thomistic position and it is the loss of formal causality within modernity that has removed that position from the place of prominence it deserves within Thomism.

[@frankt2968]

Alright Mike!!

[@crabb9966]

I need to read these ID books by Behe, Meyer adn Demski

[@midlander4]

🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣

[@grifo3310]

Doesn't he mean wooly mammoth to an elephant?

[@YovanypadillaJr]

You accidentally misnamed Ramage

[@larscp]

I have great respect for Behe, but to say I don't understand this so it must be god is too easy

[@Fres-no]

Chemical Evolution..... That's my question.

[@BabyBugBug]

Does not work, has never been proven no matter how much scientists play with the settings, and becomes more and more unlikely with increasing discoveries of the complexity of life.

[@kaamraanroshan68]

The most stupid and useless debate that I have ever heard....

[@crabb9966]

...😢

[@VACatholic]

Next 10 minutes are objectively hilarious. Dr. Behe goes on and explains how the common thoughts of evolution are devolution, with relevant, timely examples. Dr. Ramage says that he "doesn't care about this" and when it's brought up he "yawns". So let me get this straight, Dr. Ramage. You don't care about the topic. Evidence bores you. You think it's pointless. But evolution definitely happens and people who believe in ID are crazy? You definitely sound more like a person genuflecting at the cult of liberalism to keep your academic "cred" than a serious thinker, to be blunt.

[@mc07]

yeah I thought that a bit odd, if not rude. I was finding what Behe was saying very interesting, then Ramage cut him off.

[@BabyBugBug]

I am not surprised by that at all. All Darwinists do this when cornered and many try to employ rhetorical devices to discredit the person they cannot answer. It's like clockwork.

[@dvoulio]

You really talk too much....! with quite un-interesting points. Let your guests talk.

[@sombodysdad]

Intelligent Design offers the only scientific explanation for our existence. No one has ever demonstrated that nature can produce life and its diversity.

[@midlander4]

That's a fat lie. But then you're a dishonest xtian...