Re: Reading Behe... Any thoughts?

Moorad Alexanian (
Thu, 20 May 1999 08:46:35 -0400

Let us consider the case of a mouse trap. One can say that the parts are
somewhat already there, after all the parts are made of molecules and we can
assume molecules already exist. But the real question is, what law says that
mouse traps exist? That is a basic problem I have with a scientific
description of evolution. How do we know what exists ahead of time? How can
such things be predicted by a scientific theory? That is why I have the gut
feeling that evolution is not science.


-----Original Message-----
From: David Campbell <>
To: <>
Date: Wednesday, May 19, 1999 7:45 PM
Subject: Re: Reading Behe... Any thoughts?

>>Now, what is the real import of Behe. It is actually to point out that
>>Dawinian theory of gradual changes cannot be suppported in the face of
>>the facts related to irreducible complexity unless one is to propose a
>>mechanism, yet to be discovered, for macroscope single generation
>>change. Such a mechanism is not know to exit. The final result is that
>>you must have faith (what an awful word) that such a mechanism exists or
>>abandon the theory.
>Actually, a complex molecular system can be built gradually if the pieces
>are available. For example, a complex system that makes compound A into
>compound E could be built up starting from something that makes D into E in
>one step, adding something that makes C into D... Also, the assembled
>pieces need not be single-step. The citric acid cycle can be split into
>two complex parts that function independently in some bacteria, for
>It should also be noted that Behe advocates intelligent design of the first
>cell with ordinary evolution thereafter (although he will not personally
>rule out the possibility that the design was built into the laws and
>structure of the universe and "naturally" developed into the cell). This
>is a much larger role for evolution than is allowed by many of those
>invoking Behe as proof of their views. However, as Dennis Lamoureau points
>out, it is exactly the same role for evolution as that advocated in The
>Origin of Species by Darwin.
>David C.