Re: [asa] Conversation with Timaeus, part one

From: D. F. Siemens, Jr. <dfsiemensjr@juno.com>
Date: Thu Sep 25 2008 - 16:43:19 EDT

On Thu, 25 Sep 2008 15:38:12 -0400 "Randy Isaac" <randyisaac@comcast.net>
writes:
> 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.
>
>
I find that the discussion is lumping stuff that needs to be kept
separate. For example, I find that there are obvious classes of OEC. One
claims that every species was created separately. A second claims that
every genus or some higher taxon was what was created, and then the
species evolved--something between macro- and micro-evolution. Neither of
these is compatible with CD. A third view has new genes introduced into
existing species to produce different higher taxa which then evolve
within limited taxonomic categories. Here there is CD with non-natural
input. Any one of these may be considered a form of ID. I suspect that
those familiar with the literature could add further subdivisions to
these three. There are also versions of ID which cannot be considered
versions of OEC. Some are indistinguishable from TE except for the
confusion of scientific and philosophical categories. Similar problems
arise in connection with NS. I've seen no mention of drift, for example,
or for the source of differences amenable to selection. There have been
some good questions asked trying to clarify what ID may mean among its
various proponents, but I find them generally followed by muddying of the
discussion.
Dave (ASA)
____________________________________________________________
Click here to find the perfect banking opportunity!
http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL2141/fc/Ioyw6i3nn4vNykHjtxOizWDQVb1EmlCYhAy0UxiQqKjXI7k46FS0A1/

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 16:47:42 2008

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Thu Sep 25 2008 - 16:47:42 EDT