Re: [asa] ID question?

> Your remarks about Behe are incorrect.  They are not only unsupported by any
> references to his works; they show an almost complete misunderstanding of
> his position.  It is not Behe who is in a "muddle".

I would say that Behe is in a muddle, but not one of his own making-
ID is a muddle and Behe is in ID.

Having a big tent is not the problem; the problem is failing to
accurately divulge just where the stakes are.

Behe accepts what conventional biology would regard as macroevolution,
and what most people who claim to reject macroevolution would regard
as macroevolution. But the anti-evolutionary definition of
"macroevolution" is "whatever evolution I reject", not a fixed
standard. Behe does not accept all of evolution and he's associated
with ID and regularly invoked by YEC and ID folks. Therefore, he is
classified as "on my side of the dichotomy" by fans of various
versions of YEC, ID, etc. and "on the other side of the dichotomy" by
fans of atheism, etc. who don't appreciate the various nuances of
different positions.

If Behe were to put more emphasis on the differences between his
position and that of, e.g., Wells or Johnson, it would help make it
more obvious that ID really is a big tent. Unfortunately, despite the
big-tent self-identification, ID generally is presented as monolithic
(e.g., Behe asserting at Dover that ID is fine with common descent
when many in ID reject it.) Behe and others like him putting more
emphasis on the differences between his position and the deny all
evolution position of certain others might also encourage the latter
to aim for greater accuracy.

-- 
Dr. David Campbell
425 Scientific Collections
University of Alabama
"I think of my happy condition, surrounded by acres of clams"
To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.