Re: [asa] Article - Odd Fish Find Contradicts Intelligent-Design Argument

From: Murray Hogg <muzhogg@netspace.net.au>
Date: Thu Jul 10 2008 - 12:01:23 EDT

Hi Jim,

Personally, I'd have said the article only shows that ID theory isn't
well understood - not even by its purported advocates.

In Behe's presentation of ID, the focus is solely on molecular systems
and transitions at the species level are acknowledged. So the following
simply shows that alot of people aren't discussing the same thing as Behe;

<cite>
Intelligent design advocates often cite the relative scarcity of
transitional species in the fossil record as evidence of the intentional
creation of species.
</cite>

I hasten to add that I am well aware that a great many ID advocates DO
argue for design at levels above the molecular - but Behe eschews that
sort of appropriation of ID theory.

Actually, in the interests of fairness, I'd even acknowledge that this
particular finding isn't even a problem for YECism and its notion of
variation within kinds. The old argument about it being merely an
example of MACRO-evolution applies.

Blessings,
Murray Hogg
Pastor, East Camberwell Baptist Church, Victoria, Australia
Post-Grad Student (MTh), Australian College of Theology

Jim Armstrong wrote:
> Odd Fish Find Contradicts Intelligent-Design Argument
> <http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2008/07/080709-evolution-fish.html>
> JimA [Friend of ASA]
> 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 Thu Jul 10 12:02:01 2008

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Thu Jul 10 2008 - 12:02:01 EDT