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

Dick said:
"If good, functioning, workable "designs" are due to God's handiwork, then
 who or what is responsible for the flaws, defects and failures? Give
 God all the responsibilty or none of it."

Haminists (followers of Ken Ham and his interpretation) say that God made it all good- but man's sin wrecked it. Before the fall, there were no mosquitos, or they probably didn't drink blood back when they were first made, just like the first lions, bears, etc. didn't eat other animals either (no animal death before the fall, and all people were vegetarians until after the flood). So God gets credit for good; man's sin is the reason for bad (or corruption of the good design).

...Bernie

On 4/29/09, Dick Fischer <dickfischer@verizon.net> wrote:
> Hi Gregory, you wrote:
>
>
>
>>Why don't you write more about 'good, theistic naturalists' and drop the
> sarcasm, Dick? Otherwise it might appear that you are indeed defending
> 'evil, atheistic naturalists' on 'purely scientific grounds'. Some balance
> would be helpful here.<
>
>
>
> I need that tongue-in-cheek sign, Gregory. At the last, brief, face-to-face
> talk I had with Mike Behe I brought up my suggested poster child for ID -
> the mosquito. Here is a prime example of a creature that is just as
> impressive in every respect as the bacteria flagellum and everyone can see
> it with the naked eye. Who has seen a flagellum? The mosquito is
> especially equipped for what mosquitoes do, bite their victims and spread
> diseases that often result in death.
>
>
>
> She (only females drink blood) has a nice light body and she can beat her
> wings virtually soundlessly so she can light on your flesh without your
> noticing it. She has a needle-sharp nose that can penetrate your skin
> without tripping your nerves. Then the neat part. She has a chemical
> additive in her saliva that keeps the blood from coagulating and clogging
> her nose up. Now, how did an anti-coagulating chemical become part of her
> biological repertoire? TEs can answer that
>
>
>
> So here's what I'm getting at. If you are going to claim one biological
> feature of an organism as a sign from God then claim them all. If you feel
> there are some things that need to be brushed under the carpet then you
> probably have a bad theory.
>
>
>
>>You are being outmanoeuvered philosophically and displaying nothing of your
> knowledge of history in the discussion, which could surely help. I don't see
> anything other than ideological piggybacking going on now with your tack and
> the tone is also doubtful, as Iain indicated. Your position is a strong one,
> historically, but trying to merge it with 'TE' or 'MN' would seem to be a
> detriment to it rather than a benefit.<
>
>
>
> Hey, you all can feel free to maneuver in there if you want. There are not
> a lot of bashful people on this list.
>
>
>
> Science and history have similar elements. Data and evidence are applicable
> to each. But history just is, or was. Jon Meecham won a Pulitzer Prize for
> his book on Andrew Jackson. No personal interviews took place with anybody
> who ever knew him. So he had to glean his material from books, articles,
> personal letters, etc., just as I had to do. Then put the material in order
> and make it interesting. Neither he nor I laid our hands on every
> conceivable document. There are time constraints. But what we both owe our
> readers is honesty in our work.
>
>
>
> Let's say you wanted to do an article about Henry Ford and you had this
> quote: "If there is any one secret of success, it lies in the ability to get
> the other person's point of view and see things from that person's angle as
> well as from your own." On the basis of this quote you might have the
> impression that Henry sought to find out what people wanted and that their
> wants and needs mattered to him. That could be the cornerstone of your
> article, "Henry Ford Cared." But after your article is nearing completion
> you also discover that when he it was suggested to him he offer his cars in
> various colors as his competitors did, he retorted, "Any color - so long as
> it's black."
>
>
>
> Now you have choices. Consider it an anomaly and publish your article
> without mentioning it. Change your article to something like, "The
> Complicated Henry Ford." Decide to not publish anything. But a person's
> own honest and integrity bears upon that decision. How much more should it
> be a factor when we are dragging the God of the universe into the argument?
>
>
>
> The point I'm trying to make is that ID as I see it is disingenous at best
> and dishonest at worst. Christians need to be consistent and honest with
> the material. If God designed the flagellum then he designed the mosquito.
> If the mosquito is an accident of nature then so is the flagellum. If good,
> functioning, workable "designs" are due to God's handiwork, then who or what
> is responsible for the flaws, defects and failures? Give God all the
> responsibilty or none of it.
>
>
>
> Dick Fischer, author, lecturer
>
> Historical Genesis from Adam to Abraham
>
> <http://www.historicalgenesis.com> www.historicalgenesis.com
>
>

-- 
Burgy
www.burgy.50megs.com
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.