[asa] compatibility of front-loading and irreducible complexity

In response to Bernie, Schwarzwald is quite correct, and so is John Walley (at least in the first two sentences of his reply). The belief that irreducibly complex structures cannot be formed by Darwinian means is not in contradiction with the belief that they might be formed by means of front-loading, since front-loading is an inherently anti-Darwinian concept. Bernie does not understand what Behe means by "irreducibly complex", and he doesn't understand what ID proponents mean when they speak of "front-loading". The only thing I can suggest to Bernie is that he take the time to read and digest the works of Behe and Denton before commenting any further on the concepts they advocate. One can't add to the discussion if one hasn't done the homework.

Cameron.

  ----- Original Message -----
  From: Schwarzwald
  To: asa@calvin.edu
  Sent: Friday, July 17, 2009 2:16 PM
  Subject: Re: [asa] Collins discussed on Uncommon Descent

  I'm not an expert on molecular biology (Behe can defend himself, in other words), but that strikes me as incorrect. I imagine the response would (or at least could) be that a "natural process" (meaning, no on-the-spot intervention/intercession) could produce a given IC artifact - but said artifact would indicate that intelligence were at work somewhere in the chain. At the beginning (front-loaded) is an option, as is on the spot (intervention), etc.

  Before you fire back another question though, Bernie, I'm going to say flat out that I'm not interested in defending specific ID proposals here. I've pointed to Dembski arguing teleology is present by necessity in Darwinian evolution. I've pointed to ID proponents (or at least ID thinkers) who are quite at home with evolution, though they reject or have doubts about "Darwinism" or "Darwinian evolution' in the sense Cameron would discuss it. That's more than enough to establish my point. Trying to fend off attempts at a "gotcha!" is of no interest to me in this thread.

  On Fri, Jul 17, 2009 at 2:02 PM, Dehler, Bernie <bernie.dehler@intel.com> wrote:

    “Behe accepts evolution, common descent, etc - he has questions about particular mechanisms, but also is on record as thinking all of life could have unfolded "naturalistically" in a front-loaded way.”

    If Behe accepts the possibility of front-loading, then that says he doesn’t have a firm conviction of his “irreducibly complex” theory. You can’t hold both- they are mutually exclusive. Correct?

    …Bernie

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Fri Jul 17 16:38:45 2009