Re: [asa] Atheist finds God thru Behe's books....

Bernie writes:

"Why not instead seek out more evolutionary mechanisms? That isn't a
possibility for Behe- it is either Darwinian evolution (random mutation and
natural selection) or God, apparently."

Not even "apparently" is this true of Behe. He has never denied the
operation of macroevolutionary processes. Nor has he denied that
macroevolutionary processes involve mechanisms of various types. Nor has he
objected to evolutionary biologists who seek out non-Darwinian mechanisms.
He hasn't even objected to evolutionary biologists who affirm Darwinian
mechanisms, except to say that Darwinian mechanisms, though doubtless
operative, can't explain very much. It amazes me how so many people here
and elsewhere persist in getting Behe wrong. How, I ask myself, can such a
clear writer, and and such an honest, straight-shooting guy as Behe be so
frequently misunderstood?

In this particular case, the answer is not far to seek:

"Behe considers intelligent design as a hypothesis. I never saw this
hypothesis explained anywhere, but I admit I also haven't read his books."

and note also this:

"From what I hear about the ID guys, it is basically "Darwinian evolution
can't explain it, therefore the only other possibility is intelligent design
(God).""

"From what I hear about the ID guys"? *From what I hear*?

Should one's opinion on serious matters such as evolution, creation and
design be based on hearsay? And doesn't not having read even one of Behe's
books pretty well disqualify someone as a serious critic of ID?

Cameron.

----- Original Message -----
From: "Dehler, Bernie" <bernie.dehler@intel.com>
To: "AmericanScientificAffiliation" <asa@calvin.edu>
Sent: Friday, October 09, 2009 10:26 AM
Subject: RE: [asa] Atheist finds God thru Behe's books....

>I saw the video. Some of my comments:
>
> 1. The whole main thrust of the interview is wonder and awe at mystery.
> Basically, it is "we don't know how Darwinian evolution did it or could do
> it, therefore it must be intelligently designed (by God)." Why not
> instead seek out more evolutionary mechanisms? That isn't a possibility
> for Behe- it is either Darwinian evolution (random mutation and natural
> selection) or God, apparently. Basically it is Paley's watchmaker
> analogy, only people forget that now that pseudogenes demonstrate human
> evolution from an apelike creature, we know that God did not make humans
> as humans make a watch.
>
> 2. The amazing micromachines, DNA, proteins, etc. Yes it is awesome and
> amazing. But so is the human body, and we thought that was also made
> directly by God (not evolution) before the scientific evidence
> demonstrated it (evolution, by pseudogene evidence) beyond a reasonable
> doubt.
>
> 3. If design is guided, then be prepared to explain mass extinctions and
> evolutionary dead-ends. Unless one believes in a recent worldwide flood
> and recent Earth, why else did God make so many wonderful creatures long
> before man even came on the scene to enjoy/observe them?
>
> 3. Behe's whole objection seems to be against "Darwinian" mechanisms.
>
> 4. Behe considers intelligent design as a hypothesis. I never saw this
> hypothesis explained anywhere, but I admit I also haven't read his books.
> From what I hear about the ID guys, it is basically "Darwinian evolution
> can't explain it, therefore the only other possibility is intelligent
> design (God)." (If someone is an ID supporter and can coherently state
> the hypothesis CONCISELY, PLEASE do.)
>
> 5. Is ID a science-stopper? Behe says no, it is like saying Einstein
> finding the speed of light as the maximum speed for anything is a science
> stopper, no need to look further for something faster. But Einstein's
> ideas are based on what can be measured, calculated, etc.; Behe's are
> based on "we don't know how, therefore ID."
>
> Behe's said his further research will be more about finding 'the edge of
> evolution,' what things exist and can't be explained by successive changes
> of evolution (finch beaks are easy to explain with Darwinian evolution,
> skunks shooting a bad odor are difficult to impossible).
>
> Summary: My main message to Behe would be: Instead of saying Darwinian
> Evolution can't explain it, instead look for more evolutionary mechanisms.
> Forget your obsession with Darwin!!!
>
> ...Bernie
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu [mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu] On
> Behalf Of John Walley
> Sent: Thursday, October 08, 2009 7:03 PM
> To: AmericanScientificAffiliation
> Subject: [asa] Atheist finds God thru Behe's books....
>
> This video is amazing. http://bloggingheads.tv/diavlogs/22075
>
>
> John McWhorter is a self avowed atheist and he even admits that he doesn't
> want to believe in God and here in this interview he reveals his innate
> childlike faith and affirms the obvious truth of the overwhelming evidence
> of design in nature and the need for some intelligence or guidance to be
> behind the mechanism of evolution. Also to make it more interesting, the
> atheist establishment blew a gasket over this interview and demanded that
> the interview be removed which it was, but then it was reposted. See the
> details on this controversy at
> http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2009/octoberweb-only/140-42.0.html?start=1.
>
> John
>
>
>
>
>
> 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.
>

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Fri Oct 9 15:28:24 2009