Al
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------
Dr. Behe,
Your schedule looks quite busy. I'll send you these questions now,
hoping that you have time to ponder a few them.
I'm still looking forward to talking on the 4th at West Chester.
1. Do you lean toward (a) the IDer acting in a non-natural manor
sporadically throughout time or (b) his placing all the necessary
information for future forms in the first life form(s). In DBB, p
227,228 (I believe), you seem to adopt plan (b).
2. How is case (a) different that the view of most Progressive
Creationists that God creates from nothing new life forms at various
times or the Hopeful Monster theory where a distinctly different species
is born to very worried parents by a rare combination of mutations.
3. Another aspect might be that the IDer acts so often and in such
little steps that it would look like "evolution" ? - except that blind
evolution would produce far more failures than successes (isn't that what
the fossil record shows ?).
4. If plan (b) is closer to the true picture, will the Human Genome
Project uncover piles of unused/damaged DNA coding for chloroplasts,
vitamin C, clam shells, etc. ? (pseudogenes included)
5. The machinery that cells have to cause and seemingly control their
own mutation (hyper-mutation, etc.) has changed the idea of what
"mutation" means. Could the IDer have given the first life form(s) these
genetic control processes like a Peace Corps worker who teaches the
natives to grow more food for tomorrow rather that just feeding them ?
6. Why the insistence on using the term "ID" rather than "God" ? What
else could possibly fill that role ? Is it to try and keep the dialogue
going within the scientific community that might otherwise turn its back
on plain old supernaturalism ?
7. The term "God-of-the-Gaps" comes up throughout the history of
Christian responses to evolutionism. Isn't there a danger in stating
"This could never happen through naturalistic mechanisms !" and having
the next generation of researchers possibly learning/discovering those
explanations. (The early scientist who were Christians saw the
continuity and understandability of the universe a proof of God rather
than a disproof.)
8. While you are not personally an Protestant (Evangelical), you have
been the topic of much conversation there. Certainly Phil Johnson and
Christianity Today praise your work, but the reception of your ideas in
the Young Earth creationist world has been luke warm at best. If fact,
John Morris expressed his skepticism that all attempts at forging links
to the scientific establishment without holding young earth/global flood
positions are doomed since they dishonor the "clear" Biblical record.
What has been your experience with strict creationists ?
9. Within the Catholic Church there has been a trend toward accepting
evolution under the guise of Theistic Evolution, even with the current
Pope's "blessing". What is your reaction ?
10. You have stated that you accept the idea of COMMON DESCENT. What
evidences are the most compelling for you to accept that ? Do you see a
smooth ancestry of all life, including man ? Where is the IDer's hand
seen ? What is the IMAGE of GOD that is such a part of all Christian
doctrine ?
If you find responding by e-mail more efficient time-wise that's fine.
Thank you again for your time.
Alan McCarrick