RE: [asa] FYI: Arrogance, dogma and why science - not faith - is the new enemy of

From: John Walley <john_walley@yahoo.com>
Date: Mon Aug 20 2007 - 21:49:38 EDT

Of course random mutation is observed in nature. You must have missed the
"what Darwinism purports it to do part".

Why would we expect new complexity to be added? Maybe because that is the
heart of Darwinian evolution that we are discussing. If there is no
mechanism for adding complexity, life would still be protocells or as Behe
says, Designed.

Vacuous goes both ways. It is logically vacuous to defend naturalistic
evolution without any mechanism for it.

John

-----Original Message-----
From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu [mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu] On
Behalf Of PvM
Sent: Monday, August 20, 2007 12:42 AM
To: John Walley
Cc: AmericanScientificAffiliation
Subject: Re: [asa] FYI: Arrogance, dogma and why science - not faith - is
the new enemy of

<quote>Regardless, showing that random mutation or other naturalistic
processes is not observed in nature to do what Darwinism purports it
to do is valuable and relevant, albeit inconvenient for some, even if
it is arrived at by theological motivation.</quote>

But random mutation is observed in nature as are many other
naturalistic processes. I believe that you be surprised to find out
how concepts of development, variation, selection are very powerful
natural processes, which are actually observed.

While it may be Behe's goal to show that there are limits to Darwinian
theory, I feel that he has done little to support your more
extravagant claim that he has shown that random mutation or other
naturalistic processes is not observed in nature. In fact, such a
claim seems rather vacuous. In fact, if you are familiar with Behe, he
fully accepts that these processes can explain the evolution of life
however, he insists that some 'intelligence' is still needed to get it
all started.
Although, such a position seems strangely self defeating.

JW- This is the "fanciful Darwinian thinking" Behe points out. It
may be trivial to show how complexity can be produced but it is
theoretical, just like Behe's Design argument. In the longest running
empirical study of evolution known to man, that of malaria, zero new
complexity was added.

What is so theoretical about showing that observed processes of
variation and chance can explain the increase in complexity and that
in fact experiments seem to support this. As far as malaria is
concerned, the interesting strawman is why one would expect new
complexity to be added? In fact, even that minor claim seems to be
contradicted by science.

It also seems to me you are inflating a little the 'malaria'
experiment. Pandasthumb and other science sites have shown clearly
what is wrong with Behe's claims.

http://www.pandasthumb.org/archives/2007/07/reality_1_behe.html

http://www.pandasthumb.org/archives/2007/06/of_cilia_and_si.html

So how does Behe explain all this?

<quote>"Here's something to ponder long and hard: Malaria was
intentionally designed. The molecular machinery with which the
parasite invades red blood cells is an exquisitely purposeful
arrangement of parts."</quote>

Wow...

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 Mon Aug 20 21:50:15 2007

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Mon Aug 20 2007 - 21:50:15 EDT