Re: [asa] Re: "junk" DNA

David C wrote:

> (Evolution and design of course ought
> not to be considered mutually exclusive, contrary to a major chunk of
> the bad theology underlying creation-evolution arguments.)
> Examination of the sequences themselves and their apparent
> relationships argues for evolution and against separate creation of
> either organisms or genetic diversity.
>

I'm sure there are some ID folk who are arguing separate
creation and fit the so-called "creationist in disguise"
assertion I read in a previous post. But that surely isn't
Behe (or even Dembski) as far as I can tell. Behe's argument,
if I understand it, is something like there were some points
in the evolutionary process where (you might say) a miracle
happened and a very unlikely protein appeared or a complex
network of diverse processes suddenly appeared. So its
prediction would be that there is some kind of step function
in the evolutionary process that cannot be explained by
natural processes.

The problem they have is how to prove there is no other
possible explanation. At any rate, Behe and Dembski do not
appear to be arguing for separate creation. So I'm not quite
sure why you are mentioning "separate creation" here.

In fact, I don't really think the AiG and ICR arm really
embrace ID so much. I don't recall a lot of bad things
said per se, either, but separate creation doesn't seem
to be the main objective of ID, only that miracles were
necessary at various steps in the evolutionary process.

Of course, whether the ID expectation is correct on of how
advanced life forms and intelligent life came about is a separate
issue.

By Grace we proceed,
Wayne

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Fri Jun 15 18:37:18 2007