Moorad
-----Original Message-----
From: David Campbell <bivalve@mailserv0.isis.unc.edu>
To: asa@calvin.edu <asa@calvin.edu>
Date: Wednesday, May 19, 1999 7:45 PM
Subject: Re: Reading Behe... Any thoughts?
>>Now, what is the real import of Behe. It is actually to point out that
>>Dawinian theory of gradual changes cannot be suppported in the face of
>>the facts related to irreducible complexity unless one is to propose a
>>mechanism, yet to be discovered, for macroscope single generation
>>change. Such a mechanism is not know to exit. The final result is that
>>you must have faith (what an awful word) that such a mechanism exists or
>>abandon the theory.
>
>Actually, a complex molecular system can be built gradually if the pieces
>are available. For example, a complex system that makes compound A into
>compound E could be built up starting from something that makes D into E in
>one step, adding something that makes C into D... Also, the assembled
>pieces need not be single-step. The citric acid cycle can be split into
>two complex parts that function independently in some bacteria, for
>example.
>
>It should also be noted that Behe advocates intelligent design of the first
>cell with ordinary evolution thereafter (although he will not personally
>rule out the possibility that the design was built into the laws and
>structure of the universe and "naturally" developed into the cell). This
>is a much larger role for evolution than is allowed by many of those
>invoking Behe as proof of their views. However, as Dennis Lamoureau points
>out, it is exactly the same role for evolution as that advocated in The
>Origin of Species by Darwin.
>
>David C.
>
>