Sondra,
I recommend you get ahold of Ken Miller's book, _Finding Darwin's God_.
Chapter 5, pp. 129-164 provides a good critique of Michael Behe's argument
for "irreducible complexity," and in my view a convincing refutation it;
there Miller cites research on some of the very examples Behe uses for his
argument. I would add that at best irreducible complexity is a hypothesis,
as yet untested, and I have yet to see any published work by Behe or any of
his colleagues in the Intelligent Design movement that provides scientific
evidence in support of it. So, I don't think this hypothesis deserves the
rank of a scientific "law."
By the way, in his book _Darwin's Black Box_, Behe writes that he "finds
the idea of common descent (that all organisms share a common ancestor)
fairly convincing, and have no particular reason to doubt it" (quoted by
Miller, p. 131). If I am understanding Behe correctly, he seems to be
saying that he accepts evolution. It is not clear to me just what Behe's
present position is on evolution.
Peace,
Bob Schneider
rjschn39@bellsouth.net
----- Original Message -----
From: "Sondra Brasile" <sbrasile@hotmail.com>
To: <asa@calvin.edu>
Sent: Wednesday, June 12, 2002 12:23 PM
Subject: irreducible complexity
>
> Dear Members,
>
> My hubby heard that "irreducible complexity proves evolution to be
> impossible". He has accepted this as 'law', I'm not so easily convinced.
> Could any of you help me understand this claim and what makes it possible
or
> impossible?
>
> Thank you,
> Sondra
>
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> MSN Photos is the easiest way to share and print your photos:
> http://photos.msn.com/support/worldwide.aspx
>
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed Jun 12 2002 - 13:23:13 EDT