# Edge of Evolution / Behe



## Scott (Jun 28, 2007)

Intelligent Design proponent Michael Behe has written a new book The Edge of Evolution: The Search for the Limits of Darwinism. 

The description notes: "With his first book, Darwin's Black Box, Behe, a professor of biology at Lehigh University, helped define the controversial intelligent design movement with his concept of "irreducible complexity." Now he attempts to extend his analysis and define what evolution is capable of doing and what is beyond its scope. *Behe strongly asserts, to the likely chagrin of young earth creationists, that the earth is billions of years old and that the concept of common descent is correct*."

If he believes in common descent, then what does it mean for him to say he does not believe in evolution?


----------



## Me Died Blue (Jun 28, 2007)

Even when reading _Black Box_ in high school, our teacher knew that Behe was not a creationist. I think he was essentially just challenging the typical (albeit outdated) Darwinian and Neo-Darwinian systems of evolution. There is no shortage of other, newer schools of evolutionary thought than those, such as Stephen Jay Gould's theory of punctuated equilibrium, which, among other things, attempts to explain the plausibility of an irreducible complexity in an evolutionary (though non-Darwinian) system.

I'm not sure exactly what school of thought Behe subscribes to, or even if _he's_ fully sure yet.


----------



## panta dokimazete (Jun 28, 2007)

I think he - along with other "Old Earth" folk - are trying to distance themselves from the YEC proponents because they feel it weakens the "ID as science" position. Just as they would with geocentrism. They are trying to avoid "guilt by association" and thus are widening the gap.


----------



## caddy (Jun 28, 2007)

Absolutely !

This is exactly what they are doing. Read P.Johnson. He does this as well. I heard him speak at a local church a couple of years ago. Their "wedge" theory is definately a conscious attempt on ID's part to be speak and earn reputation points with the scientific community. I just started reading Alister McGrath's book entitled "The Dawkins DELUSION?" Will be interesting to see where he goes with this.



jdlongmire said:


> I think he - along with other "Old Earth" folk - are trying to distance themselves from the YEC proponents because they feel it weakens the "ID as science" position. Just as they would with geocentrism. They are trying to avoid "guilt by association" and thus are widening the gap.


----------



## Scott (Jun 29, 2007)

caddy said:


> Absolutely !
> 
> This is exactly what they are doing. Read P.Johnson. He does this as well. I heard him speak at a local church a couple of years ago. Their "wedge" theory is definately a conscious attempt on ID's part to be speak and earn reputation points with the scientific community. I just started reading Alister McGrath's book entitled "The Dawkins DELUSION?" Will be interesting to see where he goes with this.


Yes that is their goal and they have failed completely. Still, Behe seems something more than intelligent design. To agree with common ancestry seems to imply evolution of some sort. Is he saying that God is behind the evolution process? Darwin's Black Box would not seem to approve of that. IRC necessitates something else.


----------



## Mathetes (Jun 29, 2007)

I disagree with Behe's ideas of common descent, but I don't mind the ID movement having non-creationists in their club, like Berlinski, Denton, etc. It just makes it harder for evolutionists to seriously claim that ID is "creationism in disguise".

Also, not every argument needs to be a one-stage argument. If they want to first establish that there is an intelligent designer, while remaining neutral on the identity of the designer, then that works for me. If they're successful, it makes it all the easier to preach creation & Genesis.

Also, if anyone's interested, here's an article where Behe offers a rebuttal to his critics:

Amazon.com: Profile for Michael Behe


----------

