Re: [asa] Behe on "intervention"

From: David Campbell <>
Date: Thu Mar 05 2009 - 13:35:24 EST

> "Behe accepts common descent but claims that miraculous intervention
> was required at certain points."
> I do not believe this to be accurate.  David (and John), please note this
> paragraph from Behe's recent book:
> "But the assumption that design unavoidably requires "interference"
> rests mostly on a lack of imagination. There's no reason that the
> extended fine-tuning view I am presenting here necessarily requires
> active meddling with nature anymore than the fine tuning of theistic
> evolution does. One can think the universe is finely tuned to any degree
> and still conceive that "the universe [originated] by a single creative
> act" and underwent "its natural development by laws implanted in it".
> One simply has to envision that the agent who caused the universe was
> able to specify from the start not only laws, but much more." (*The Edge of
> Evolution*, p. 231)

Thanks for pointing that out. At the same time, Behe's claims that
evolution can't explain complex molecular systems would seem to imply
some sort of intervention, in contrast to Denton's acceptance of
evolution as an example of fine-tuning design. Does Behe explain the

Incidentally, I thought of a way to build a flagellum by exaptation,
bypassing the "irreducibility". If it starts as an attachment
structure, then becomes a stalk, then a stalk that the bacterium can
flex, and then detaches, the intermediate steps are all useful and can
be selected for.

I don't know of any biochemical evidence on this-just thought of it
the other day after a talk on protist systematics.

Dr. David Campbell
425 Scientific Collections
University of Alabama
"I think of my happy condition, surrounded by acres of clams"
To unsubscribe, send a message to with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Thu Mar 5 13:36:03 2009

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Thu Mar 05 2009 - 13:36:04 EST