Re: [asa] Conversation with Timaeus, part one

From: Randy Isaac <randyisaac@comcast.net>
Date: Thu Sep 25 2008 - 15:38:12 EDT

Ted wrote:
> You seem to be saying that Behe rejects evolution, when manifestly he
> doesn't. By placing limits on what known mechanisms can do, I fail to see
> how that denies evolution. I would say, that Behe is just placing limits
> on
> what NS can do. Behe fully accepts evolution, in the sense of CD, but he
> is
> not convinced that NS is the whole story. That is not denying evolution,
> in
> any ordinary sense of that expression.

I'm having the same difficulty as Pim and I tried to express a little bit of
that in my comment to Timeaus. Perhaps this is a defnition issue but I think
it's not quite right to simply define "evolution" as CD. Behe has clearly
stated that there are biochemical structures that are irreducibly complex
and did not evolve. Hence, I think it is accurate to say that Behe may
believe in CD but not evolution. Whether or not someone believes natural
selection is the whole game isn't really relevant. That's an ongoing
discussion. Behe is doing more than just placing limits on NS, he's saying
there is no spectrum of variation drivers or selection agents that can
explain the development of biochemical molecules.
Randy

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Thu Sep 25 15:38:41 2008

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Thu Sep 25 2008 - 15:38:42 EDT