The "Steve" list claims that "natural selection is a major mechanism in its
[evolution's] occurrence."
Behe's testimony last week went after natural selection, and natural
selection alone, among the five "theories" of evolution as Ernst Mayr
presents them. I found this part of his testimony unclear and somewhat
confusing. On the one hand, he did clearly question the idea that NS is
adequate the explain the whole shebbang, and I would agree with Behe that NS
by itself might not be able to do it. In support of this, he brought in
(for example) Kauffmann's work on self-organizing complexity, as a non-ID
challenge to NS. On the other hand, he also seemed to imply that ID is
questioning whether NS really does much of anything. This confuses me.
When I mention "microevolution" to my ID friends, they tell me that they
have no problem with this, and yet microevolution (or adaptation if you
prefer) is run by NS, at least in my understanding. If so, then it *has* to
be "a major mechanism" in evolution. Saying that NS is a major mechanism is
not at all the same thing as saying that it is the one and only mechanism,
or even the one single major one. The choice of the indefinite article here
does seem deliberate, and appropriate. Am I missing something?
Ted
Received on Tue Oct 25 14:16:11 2005
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Tue Oct 25 2005 - 14:16:11 EDT