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

From: PvM <pvm.pandas@gmail.com>
Date: Mon Aug 20 2007 - 22:34:22 EDT

But mechanisms for adding complexity exist, all that is needed is
variation and selection. So your objection seems to be flawed. There
are mechanisms for evolution, although I am not sure what you mean by
naturalistic evolution...

On 8/20/07, John Walley <john_walley@yahoo.com> wrote:
> 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.
>

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 22:34:46 2007

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Mon Aug 20 2007 - 22:34:46 EDT