Re: [asa] ID/Miracles/Design (Behe vs. Behe)

Cameron,

I agree with your two paragraphs below but the problem is that the evidence for how God interacted with evolution in His creation is vague. That is the best we can do from the evidence. In contrast ID may be razor sharp in where it draws the line but that is unsupported by science. I think most TE's here would say that this demarcation eludes scientific verification. I accept that input conclusion but it is a matter of faith and not science in my opinion.

Thanks

John

The problem with TE (at least in most of its formulations) is that it is simply unclear about the extent of the complexity-building powers it allows to chance. To read TE writers, the cause of mutations etc. is sort of chance, and sort of God's action, and sort of neither, and sort of both -- that's what TE sounds like, to an outsider seeking theoretical clarity. It sounds vague.

ID, on the other hand, is razor-sharp in clarity on that point. It draws a line in the sand. It says that chance is simply not sufficient. It says that there must be an input of intelligence. The input might be before the Big Bang, with no further inputs necessary (front-loaded naturalistic evolution). It might be at one or more points after that (intervention, quantum-concealed or otherwise). ID does not specify. But it says that the input is necessary.

--- On Fri, 4/24/09, Cameron Wybrow <wybrowc@sympatico.ca> wrote:

> From: Cameron Wybrow <wybrowc@sympatico.ca>
> Subject: Re: [asa] ID/Miracles/Design (Behe vs. Behe)
> To: asa@calvin.edu
> Date: Friday, April 24, 2009, 8:36 PM
> Your objection regarding the term "Darwinian" is a
> verbal technicality, Dave; my point remains the same if you
> change it to "neo-Darwinian means", or if you add
> in any number of newer "mechanisms" which are
> currently mooted around (drift, etc.), and call it
> "neo-neo-Darwinian means". All of them are chance
> mechanisms, ultimately, when all the fancy language is
> stripped away. The task of neo-neo-Darwinism, then, is to
> prove that chance can produce integrated complex systems.
> Behe's argument is that it can't. He may be right,
> or he may be wrong, but there is no point in obfuscating the
> issue. The choice is, and always has been (since the days
> of the ancient Greeks) "by design or by chance".
>
> The problem with TE (at least in most of its formulations)
> is that it is simply unclear about the extent of the
> complexity-building powers it allows to chance. To read TE
> writers, the cause of mutations etc. is sort of chance, and
> sort of God's action, and sort of neither, and sort of
> both -- that's what TE sounds like, to an outsider
> seeking theoretical clarity. It sounds vague.
>
> ID, on the other hand, is razor-sharp in clarity on that
> point. It draws a line in the sand. It says that chance is
> simply not sufficient. It says that there must be an input
> of intelligence. The input might be before the Big Bang,
> with no further inputs necessary (front-loaded naturalistic
> evolution). It might be at one or more points after that
> (intervention, quantum-concealed or otherwise). ID does not
> specify. But it says that the input is necessary.
>
> Tell me, Dave: do you believe that chance mechanisms --
> include the whole passel of them if you want -- could,
> *utterly unguided by God or some other intelligence*, turn
> atoms into Adam, molecules into Mendel, bacteria into Bohr?
> And if you do believe that, why do you bring God into the
> picture at all? And if you don't believe that, how does
> your view differ substantially from Behe's, except in
> jargon?
>
> Cameron.
>
>
> ----- Original Message ----- From: "D. F. Siemens,
> Jr." <dfsiemensjr@juno.com>
> To: <wybrowc@sympatico.ca>
> Cc: <asa@calvin.edu>
> Sent: Friday, April 24, 2009 7:30 PM
> Subject: Re: [asa] ID/Miracles/Design (Behe vs. Behe)
>
>
> > But "purely Darwinian means" are no longer
> relevant in biology, unless
> > one desires to be anachronistic. Darwin, for example,
> had no
> > understanding of genetics, and even the rediscovery of
> Mendel's work is
> > now vastly superceded. I have read numerous references
> to irreducible
> > complexity, but they seem to represent /ipse dixit/,
> with various
> > experiments indicating that the complexity can be
> produced by natural
> > processes. Indeed, from what I've encountered,
> "irreducible complexity"
> > seems closely equivalent to "God of the
> gaps."
> > Dave (ASA)
> >
> > On Fri, 24 Apr 2009 18:24:04 -0400 "Cameron
> Wybrow"
> > <wybrowc@sympatico.ca> writes:
> >> Uhhh, Bernie ...
> >>
> >> This is not an accurate representation of
> Behe's thought.
> >>
> >> Let me modify your words to make them correct:
> >>
> >> > Behe 1: "I have no problem with
> biological evolution of humans
> >> from
> >> > apelike creatures, *or with biological
> evolution generally*."
> >> >
> >> > Behe 2: "Evolution *by purely Darwinian
> means* is impossible
> >> because of
> >> > irreducible complexity."
> >>
> >> Note that Behe 1 is entirely compatible with Behe
> 2.
> >>
> >> If I may add a general remark, addressed not just
> to Bernie but to
> >> everyone
> >> here: why are ID proponents' arguments so
> often misrepresented and
> >>
> >> mischaracterized here? A couple of months ago
> someone
> >> mischaracterized
> >> Behe, and Ted Davis had to jump in to correct the
> person, with an
> >> exact
> >> quotation from Behe. And over the last several
> months I've noticed
> >> several
> >> remarks which suggest to me that some people here
> are not reading
> >> the actual
> >> works of Behe, Dembski, and other ID theorists,
> but are criticizing
> >> them
> >> based on hearsay. I find this disturbing,
> especially since a number
> >> of
> >> people here have Ph.D.s. Is it not part of
> doctoral-level training
> >> to
> >> acquire the habit of reading sources carefully
> before one criticizes
> >> them?
> >>
> >> Cameron.
> >>
> >> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Dehler,
> Bernie" <bernie.dehler@intel.com>
> >> Cc: <asa@calvin.edu>
> >> Sent: Friday, April 24, 2009 4:59 PM
> >> Subject: RE: [asa] ID/Miracles/Design (Behe vs.
> Behe)
> >>
> >>
> >> > Hi Ted-
> >> >
> >> > Gregory is pointing out the confusion in ID
> circles. Did
> >> evolution happen
> >> > or not? I suppose Behe could host a debate
> featuring two
> >> opponents:
> >> > himself vs. himself.
> >> >
> >> > Behe 1: "I have no problem with
> biological evolution of humans
> >> from
> >> > apelike creatures."
> >> >
> >> > Behe 2: "Evolution is impossible because
> of irreducible
> >> complexity."
> >> >
> >> > ...Bernie
> >>
> >>
> >> To unsubscribe, send a message to
> majordomo@calvin.edu with
> >> "unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the
> body of the message.
> >>
> >>
> >
> ____________________________________________________________
> > Discover how much can a college degree can change your
> life. Act now.
> >
> http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL2141/fc/BLSrjpTL9zZz79A0uqL0m02WVqYeGxRcTXEYj937RSD37IOtNn2kCFMBY56/
> >
>
>
> To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
> "unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the
> message.

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Fri Apr 24 21:56:42 2009