Re: [asa] ID/Miracles/Design (Behe vs. Behe)

From: Cameron Wybrow <>
Date: Fri Apr 24 2009 - 18:24:04 EDT

Uhhh, Bernie ...

This is not an accurate representation of Behe's thought.

Let me modify your words to make them correct:

> Behe 1: "I have no problem with biological evolution of humans from
> apelike creatures, *or with biological evolution generally*."
> Behe 2: "Evolution *by purely Darwinian means* is impossible because of
> irreducible complexity."

Note that Behe 1 is entirely compatible with Behe 2.

If I may add a general remark, addressed not just to Bernie but to everyone
here: why are ID proponents' arguments so often misrepresented and
mischaracterized here? A couple of months ago someone mischaracterized
Behe, and Ted Davis had to jump in to correct the person, with an exact
quotation from Behe. And over the last several months I've noticed several
remarks which suggest to me that some people here are not reading the actual
works of Behe, Dembski, and other ID theorists, but are criticizing them
based on hearsay. I find this disturbing, especially since a number of
people here have Ph.D.s. Is it not part of doctoral-level training to
acquire the habit of reading sources carefully before one criticizes them?


----- Original Message -----
From: "Dehler, Bernie" <>
Cc: <>
Sent: Friday, April 24, 2009 4:59 PM
Subject: RE: [asa] ID/Miracles/Design (Behe vs. Behe)

> Hi Ted-
> Gregory is pointing out the confusion in ID circles. Did evolution happen
> or not? I suppose Behe could host a debate featuring two opponents:
> himself vs. himself.
> Behe 1: "I have no problem with biological evolution of humans from
> apelike creatures."
> Behe 2: "Evolution is impossible because of irreducible complexity."
> ...Bernie

To unsubscribe, send a message to with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Fri Apr 24 18:25:06 2009

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Fri Apr 24 2009 - 18:25:06 EDT