Veritas 2020: God and/or Evolution? - Dr. Michael Behe vs Dr. Joshua Swamidass

The scientific community seeks to give an account of the world around us in terms of mathematical laws and natural processes; this description even extends to the account of biological life’s origin and evolution. For Christians, this consensus has posed a number of challenges. Does evolution account for biological life? Was God involved in evolution? How? Is there evidence to tell us one way or another? We are happy to host a spirited discussion between Dr. Michael Behe (Lehigh University), one of the leading Intelligent Design advocates in the world, and Dr. Joshua Swamidass (Washington University at St. Louis), one of the rising stars at the intersection of faith and science. The Veritas Forum at Texas A&M is an occasion for students of all faiths and no faiths to come together and examine the big-picture questions of life.

Dr. S Joshua Swamidass

Dr. Michael J. Behe
Michael J. Behe is Professor of Biological Sciences at Lehigh University in Pennsylvania and a Senior Fellow at Discovery Institute’s Center for Science and Culture. He received his Ph.D. in Biochemistry from the University of Pennsylvania in 1978. Behe's current research involves delineation of design and natural selection in protein structures.

The Veritas Forum at Texas A&M University is an annual event sponsored by the Christian Faculty Network at Texas A&M, Ratio Christi TAMU, Catholic Faculty & Staff Network, Reformed University Fellowship, and KYX. The opinions, perspectives, and beliefs expressed in individual Forums are those of the participants only and not necessarily endorsed by the sponsoring organizations nor Texas A&M University

[RatioChristiTAMU]

If you enjoyed this debate, check out our interviews with Dr. Behe and Dr. Swamidass!

[jrmiller]

Behe is brilliant as always. Well done.

[rjonesr]

Watched this hoping that Joshua would challenge my belief in ID with some compelling arguments. I was very surprised that he didn't have any..

[christianlacroix]

Swamidass didn't make any scientific argument the whole conference.

[fewcommentsonnews.]

I BEGIN TO GET_ Bored to heard explanations from first both sides. However i decided by finishing to follow this Conference indeed .

[sparkyy]

Trust me on this one point, chicken soup didn't make a chicken...

[minyanminyan]

I suppose if the debate topic had been "Does Dr. Joshua Swamidass respectfully disagree with Dr. Behe", then Swamidass won the debate. However...

[louiseeliza]

Behe has a solid argument. Swamidass is really, really not making any sense.

[nbj]

Here Michael Behe gives elegant examples from nature of the apparently purposeful arrangement of parts and offered a principle of design detection. James Tour drives this point home, that these organic marvels require a plausible biochemical explanation. Swamidass explicitly passes on getting into the "scientific details", and instead offers some theological considerations and a lot of stories about his many friends and his great courage. As is so often the case in this conversation, it seems the ID advocates are most interested in the "scientific details".

[kaamraanroshan]

The problem is that when you accept this kind of design, you have to accept that God has designed everything, even natural disasters, germs, viruses, everything.

[kaamraanroshan]

But the funny thing is that this very strange designer put a flagellum on a microbe and armed it to attack and destroy humans. This is where the absurdity and ridiculousness of the design comes into play. look at the nature and see how much brutality is happening there.

[kaamraanroshan]

It seems that this masterful and skilled designer has done her design through the evolution of creatures.

[designed]

Dr. Swamidass, is the method of multiple competing hypothesis, or inference to the best explanation - not a scientific method? If not, why? Many fields of science use this method, including forensics, geology, paleontology, and cosmology...

[fredricthomas]

Swamidass seems to laugh many things off and tries to be overly cordial. It's hard to take him to serious. But, then he says Behes science is one-plus-one-equals three, a type of intuitive science, and/or more of a theological/philosophical thing than science ( for example, why does God do things this or that way ).Yet, Swam objectives are his personal veiws not necessarily a scientific responce to Behes science. However, Swam says God doesn't feel threatened that we seek understanding. I agree!

[FindingTruthChannel]

Mike: Look at the obvious design!

Josh: God designed everything, but this is not like our designs!

Me: so, what if it is not? It is still design!

[zombiesingularity]

If you want to see one of the best dismantling of ID ever written, check out Kenneth Miller's "Only a Theory". Absolutely devestates ID propositions like "irreducible complexity", and "evolution can't create new information", among others.

[tomaskovarik]

Compared to Behe Swamidass is like a high school kid

[benrichter]

I enjoyed the entire presentation. I really like Behe and I'm growing to like Swamidass. I appreciate Dr. Swamidass' heart on this matter...trying to bridge the gap between "science and religion". But to be honest, there is no common ground between light and dark. Naturalism (and the naturalistic framework) is 100% at odds with Supernaturalism (which Jesus testified to). Naturalism is a false philosophy. Sure, it has some utility...sure we can use a naturalistic framework to find some medical solutions, some technological solutions...but that does not mean it is true. So Swamidass is going to fail...completely and utterly. Naturalism is a lie and when Jesus returns, Swamidass will be disgraced.


Intelligent Design was, is, and always will be a valid explanation for complex systems. Darwin invented an alternate explanation to ID...but it is an alternate only. ID is the axiom for the origin of complex systems and science will never ever dethrone ID from its preeminence.


Sorry Dr. Swamidass...you need to join the winning team.

[MatteiVisuals]

I was hoping for something compelling from Swamidass but he delivered nothing substantial. His heart was nice but constantly putting Behe “in past” felt passive aggressive. Out with the old and in with the new.... without good argument. I suspect there are others who could debate Behe much better.

[garywalker]

From Lehigh University
Department position on evolution and "intelligent design"
The faculty in the Department of Biological Sciences is committed to the highest standards of scientific integrity and academic function. This commitment carries with it unwavering support for academic freedom and the free exchange of ideas. It also demands the utmost respect for the scientific method, integrity in the conduct of research, and recognition that the validity of any scientific model comes only as a result of rational hypothesis testing, sound experimentation, and findings that can be replicated by others.
The department faculty, then, are unequivocal in their support of evolutionary theory, which has its roots in the seminal work of Charles Darwin and has been supported by findings accumulated over 140 years. The sole dissenter from this position, Prof. Michael Behe, is a well-known proponent of "intelligent design." While we respect Prof. Behe's right to express his views, they are his alone and are in no way endorsed by the department. It is our collective position that intelligent design has no basis in science, has not been tested experimentally, and should not be regarded as scientific.