First: it was claimed that "The label 'Intelligent Design' is used by Behe
and others to represent the manipulative or coercive action of some
unidentified transcendent being who imposes form on matter that was
never given capabilities sufficient for achieving the full spectrum of
extant forms", and Behe's view was referred to (apparently) as an
"interventionist view." That, however, is not Behe's view, and that is
not how he uses the term 'intelligent design'. Behe deliberately
intends to leave open the possibility of irreducibly complex systems
arising by *natural* means (e.g., as a result of natural laws and
processes operating upon specifically chosen boundary conditions of the
original, primordial creation). What he denies is that irreducibly
complex systems could have arisen by processes which are both
selectionist and gradualist. He has no particular opinion or position
either way concerning 'intervention'.
There may be *others* that have tried to use his work in support of some
sort of interventionism, but that is another matter. It may indeed be
true that "there is a large portion of the Christian community that
welcomes Behe's thesis because it gives the appearance of scientific
support for an interventionist concept of divine creative action," but
that appearance is not one that Behe tries either to foster or to push.
Claims in this region should be attributed not to Behe, but to those
supporters who have misconstrued his position - as have many critics.
Second: it was said that "Given that concept of the minimally-gifted
Creation, it is not surprising to see the quick leap from 'I don't
understand how X could have occurred naturally' (that is, by the
employment of its God-given capabilities) to 'Therefore X must be the
outcome of intelligent design (that is, the manipulative or coercive
action of some transcendent agent.)" That, however, is simply not what
Behe does, although that is a popular criticism of Behe. For one thing,
whether or not irreducibly complex systems could or could not be
generated by some *natural* means (perhaps, again, involving specially
selected cosmic initial conditions) is simply not Behe's issue - it is
whether or not such could be generated by *Darwinian* means (defined,
again, in terms of selectionist, gradualist processes).
Indeed, Behe takes no position concerning *production* of irreducibe
complexity at all - his point is that there are certain characteristics
that designed systems typically exhibit - *however* those
characteristics were produced - and that one of those characteristics
(irreducible complexity) is exhibited by various (not necessarily all)
components of living systems. His argument is intended to be an
argument for *design*, not an argument primarily aimed at *means of
production*, except to claim that the usual means credited with
production (Darwinian gradualist and selectionist processes) are not
adequate. And the support for *that* claim is not a simple "I don't see
how it could" - it is an argument generated out of some of the
implications of the selectionist and gradualist constraints he is
focusing on, in conjunction with his definition of irreeucible
complexity.
Del
Del Ratzsch voice: (616) 957-6415
Philosophy Department (616) 451-4301 (home)
Calvin College e-mail: dratzsch@legacy.calvin.edu
Grand Rapids, MI 49546 fax: (616) 957-8551
_____________________________________________________________
Terry M. Gray, Ph.D. Department of Chemistry and Biochemistry
Calvin College 3201 Burton SE Grand Rapids, MI 49546
Office: (616) 957-7187 FAX: (616) 957-6501
Email: grayt@calvin.edu http://www.calvin.edu/~grayt
*This mission critical message was written on a Macintosh with Eudora Pro*
Special messages for Macintosh naysayers:
http://www.macworld.com/pages/july.96/Column.2204.html
http://www.macworld.com/pages/june.97/Column.3700.html