RE: [asa] Behe's debate with himself... (Ham experiment)

An experiment I propose-

The next time you hear someone referring to evolution as "Darwinism" or "Darwinian evolution," refer to their theology as "Hamism" or "Haminian theology" (based on Ken Ham's literal interpretation of the Bible and origin's outlook). See how they like that.

(If they are a Ham fan, they may enjoy it ;-)

...Bernie

-----Original Message-----
From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu [mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu] On Behalf Of Murray Hogg
Sent: Tuesday, April 28, 2009 3:57 PM
To: ASA
Subject: Re: [asa] Behe's debate with himself...

Dehler, Bernie wrote:
> As I understand it, there's much more to biological evolution than "small incremental changes." There are many evolutionary mechanisms (random mutation, gene drift, natural selection,,, to list some of the many,,, also now driven by the human mind as humans modify and control DNA in plants and animals as well as manipulate habitats).
>
> If it is discovered that something happens very fast in a big way, do evolutionists care? No, it is still evolution. But what would the evolution-deniers then have to complain about? They complain about small changes impossible to do something, then if they are proven right, the big changes are then part of evolution and so what can they complain about next? Just go on about how Darwin was wrong,,, dancing on his grave? Darwin just set things in motion, he's not a god. Evolution should be called evolution, and not "Darwinian evolution" as if there's different kinds. People are just researching the mechanisms for evolution.
>
> People who are against "Darwinian evolution" can be attacked on their "Ham theology" (named after Ken Ham and his theology of literal Bible interpretation).
>
> So there you have it:
>
> "Darwinian evolution" vs. "Ham theology"

Hi Bernie,

MAJOR category error in the above: "small incremental changes" is not intended to be a description of a mechanism which one might place alongside gene drift, etc. Hence, "there's more to biological evolution than 'small incremental changes'" doesn't even make sense as a response to my comments.

As to whether the notion of "small, incremental changes" is so easily gotten around - one has to ask why Behe's notion of irreducible complexity is so problematic if the sudden appearance of biochemical features is something evolutionists don't care about. Fact is that from Darwin to Dawkins the claim has been that evolution involves small, incremental changes and any claim of "jumps" is ruled out of court on principle.

As for only two possible positions on origins...

Blessings,
Murray

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 Wed Apr 29 11:40:04 2009