RE: [asa] Behe's Math... was Arrogance

From: Alexanian, Moorad <alexanian@uncw.edu>
Date: Thu Aug 30 2007 - 09:23:47 EDT

Those who criticize the attempts of Christians to integrate the Christian faith with the findings of experimental sciences ought to play a positive role by putting forward their own efforts in this regard. Gadflies ought to direct their bites at the clear enemies of Christ rather than those who love Him. "You will know them by their fruits. Grapes are not gathered from thorn bushes nor figs from thistles, are they?" Matt. 7:16.

 

Moorad

________________________________

From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu on behalf of Gregory Arago
Sent: Thu 8/30/2007 8:47 AM
To: 'PvM'
Cc: 'AmericanScientificAffiliation'
Subject: RE: [asa] Behe's Math... was Arrogance

Do you actually visit such places on the internet that put out anti-theistic rhetoric regularly PIM? You still haven't taken up my challenge to give voice to Christian views of altruism instead of those of sociobiologists and evolutionary psychologists. One might wonder: why not?

        -----Original Message-----
        From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu [mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu] On
        Behalf Of PvM
        Sent: Thursday, August 30, 2007 12:09 AM
        To: David Campbell
        Cc: John Walley; AmericanScientificAffiliation
        Subject: Re: [asa] Behe's Math... was Arrogance
        
        See Behe flail
        http://scienceblogs.com/evolutionblog/2007/08/see_behe_flail.php
        
        A wonderful example of the extremes to which ID proponents have to go
        to deny the evidence. As PZ explores
        http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/michael_behe_demonstrates_his.php
        
        Want to see some real science? An article in the NY Times
        summarizes research in the evolution of glucocorticoid receptors. This
        is really cool stuff, where the investigators do step-by-step changes
        in the protein structure to determine the likely sequence of
        evolutionary changes - it really does describe the path of
        evolutionary history for a set of proteins at the level of amino
        acids.
        
        Now, if you want to see some junk science, Michael Behe flounders
        disgracefully to try and dismiss the work. This is a genuine
        embarrassment: Behe is a biochemist who has done legitimate work in
        protein structure, and this kind of research ought to be right up his
        alley, where he could make an informed analysis. Instead, it's ugly
        and sad. A sensible creationist would simply admit that sure, here's
        one case of the evolution of a receptor that is solidly made, but hey,
        look, over there - here are all these other proteins that haven't been
        analyzed to the same level of detail. It would be pathetic and
        avoiding the issue, but Behe has a different and worse strategy: he
        denies the work shows anything at all.
        
        Shocking
        
        
        To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
        "unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
        

________________________________

Ask a question on any topic and get answers from real people. Go to Yahoo! Answers. <http://ca.answers.yahoo.com/>

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Thu Aug 30 09:24:26 2007

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Thu Aug 30 2007 - 09:24:26 EDT