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

From: George Murphy <>
Date: Thu Aug 30 2007 - 10:15:58 EDT

It would be great if all disagreements among Christians could be dealt with
as in-house matters. But when some Christians present arguments in the
public square which reflect badly on the Christian faith & make it a target
for legitimate criticism and even understandable ridicule, what are we to
do? To take an example much more egregious than Behe, are we to let Ken
Ham's creation museum be the public face of a Christian view of science?
Should we let unbelievers think that we're willing to tolerate every kind of
rubbish as long as it carries a Christian label?


----- Original Message -----
From: "Alexanian, Moorad" <>
To: "Gregory Arago" <>
Cc: "AmericanScientificAffiliation" <>
Sent: Thursday, August 30, 2007 9:23 AM
Subject: RE: [asa] Behe's Math... was Arrogance

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.



From: 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: [] 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

A wonderful example of the extremes to which ID proponents have to go
to deny the evidence. As PZ explores

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

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.


To unsubscribe, send a message to 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. <>

To unsubscribe, send a message to with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.

To unsubscribe, send a message to with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Thu Aug 30 10:17:28 2007

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Thu Aug 30 2007 - 10:17:28 EDT