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

Heya John,

I admit, I a big problem with some of the thinking displayed here. I don't
disagree that it would be more 'politically wise' for Behe to refuse to
associate with YECs, or to keep his mouth shut about more unpopular
speculations about evolution and theology, etc. On the other hand, I think
'political wisdom' has a nasty habit of turning into 'letting oneself be
controlled unreasonably'. For me, it's comparable to being "politically
correct". Yes, there's a very real and obvious sense in which making sure to
adhere to politically correct terms and viewpoints offers advantages. But
what if that mindset and climate is precisely what's judged to be harmful
and in need of bucking?

For my part, I'm torn. I think YECs at times take some positions I think are
downright negative - the insistence that Christianity stands or falls on a
YEC interpretation, for example. On the other hand, does that mean that I
have to use YECs as a whipping post whenever I discuss God and creation,
where any venue I speak in I open up with an almost ritual denunciation of
YECs? What if we have agreements on other points of theology, maybe even
science (for example, being skeptical of evolutionary psychology)? Do I have
to shun them there, even if on that topic they make what I feel are valid
points?

I actually think this is a major problem for TEs in the broad spectrum -
placing too much emphasis on how they're viewed by critics of creationism.

(As an aside, I don't think the reaction of Behe's colleagues at that
university really speaks much about 'the public's reaction'. That's more
about an institutional reaction.)

On Fri, Oct 9, 2009 at 5:18 PM, John Walley <john_walley@yahoo.com> wrote:

> I shared Bernie's skepticism toward Behe which I know is also shared by
> many on this list but I for one have read his books. In fact I defended Edge
> on this list quite vehemently after I read it several years ago as I had the
> same reaction as did McWhorter. It all just seemed so obvious to me after
> reading Edge. I have run the gamut of reactions to Behe but after this video
> I am now back to the more sympathetic posture towards him. I think he
> presented himself very well in that video and his position is very rational
> and logical. I think design as opposed to totally unguided randomness is a
> no brainer and I think Behe deserves credit for that. I also think his
> malaria example is novel and unique and is as close to any experimental
> evidence as to exactly what evolution can do that we have and he is
> justified to bring that out. And that experimental evidence speaks for
> itself.
>
> However, on balance I have criticisms of Behe I would offer him if he
> asked. The most technical one which was crystalized after reading all the
> reviews and a lot of discussions on this list is that Behe's approach to
> evolution appears to be primarily focused on single point mutations (as in
> the the malaria example) and that is only one of many sources of variation
> in evolutionary mechanisms. And 500 years of single point mutations in
> malaria is not enough of a data point to be representative of billions of
> years of evolutionary history and dozens of sources of variation. Although I
> think he does a very thorough job of examining this single mechanism in the
> case of malaria and it does compellingly support his position, I think it is
> somewhat simplistic to allow the reader to believe that that is the sole or
> even the primary mechanism of evolution. So probably the most accurate
> response to his whole argument is so what? I don't agree that it necessarily
> proves what he says it does and it is almost misleading to imply it does.
> And as a biochemist, he should know better.
>
> Also on the theological front, I think it is a mistake for him to reject
> any place for randomness in nature and to say that everything is intentional
> and designed. In fact, having some randomness is key to any meaningful
> theodicy and Behe totally misses it on this one. Further I I think Behe is
> too quick to jump to the conclusion of design from both his malaria and IC
> examples and he is too eager to be associated with the design=special
> creation wing of the church which also includes YEC. Just today we saw Behe
> speaking at some YEC oriented event. This is a very serious error of
> judgment on his part I think and it empowers Carroll and the others to
> oppose him so viscerally.
>
> Compare Behe to Collins who likely have the identical beliefs on God
> working through evolution but look at the difference in the public's
> reaction to them. I have drawn this distinction here before but it is
> worthwhile to draw it again. Behe is shunned by his own dept as a professor
> at a PRIVATE university, but Collins is appointed the head of a GOV'T agency
> with a $22B budget.
> Now how can that happen if they have the same beliefs about evolution? I
> think Behe is too quick to jump to theological conclusions that are
> unwarranted while Collins is much more cautious about it and plays his cards
> much more politically prudently. They are also on opposite sides of the
> abortion issue as well which also contributes to this disparity. BTW did
> anyone else read Crichton's latest NEXT and get that the main scientist
> character that played the political establishment in Washington and attended
> all the prayer breakfasts' was probably based on Collins?
>
> JOhn
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message ----
> From: Cameron Wybrow <wybrowc@sympatico.ca>
> To: asa <asa@calvin.edu>
> Sent: Fri, October 9, 2009 3:26:25 PM
> Subject: 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.
>
>
>
>
>
>
> 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 17:43:27 2009