[asa] Behe's debate with himself...

From: Dehler, Bernie <bernie.dehler@intel.com>
Date: Mon Apr 27 2009 - 10:26:02 EDT

Earlier I wrote how Behe can seem to contradict himself. A scientist-theologian privately sent me this, and said I could forward it.

Behe is contradictory as you'll see in the quotes, especially
the last one--he's an AGNOSTIC!!!

17. "By irreducibly complex I mean a single system composed of several well-matched, interacting parts that contribute to the basic function, wherein the removal of any one of the parts causes the system to effectively cease functioning. An irreducibly complex system cannot be produced directly (that is, by continuously improving the initial function, which continues to work by the same mechanism) by slight, successive modifications of a precursor system, because any precursor to an irreducibly complex system that is missing a part is by definition nonfunctional. An irreducibly complex biological system, if there is such a thing, would be a powerful challenge to Darwinian evolution. Since natural selection can only choose systems that are already working, then if a biological system cannot be produced gradually it would have to arise as an integrated unit, in one fell swoop, for natural selection to have anything to act on."

Michael J. Behe, Darwin's Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution (New York: Free Press,1996), p. 39.

Behe in 1999: "I don't think there had to be a 'super cell.' ID [Theory] is compatible with a lot of different scenarios for how the information was placed into the system. It could have been present in the initial conditions of the Big Bang or added over time somehow. I mentioned the "super cell" in my book [pp. 227-228] not to endorse it, but simply to show that the issue of the age of biochemical systems is different from the issue of how they got here. My official position is agnostic: I think we don't have enough information yet to decide how the design was implemented. We do, however, have enough evidence in the ID view to decide that explicit design occurred, and that the random processes envisioned by Darwinism can't cut it." Quoted in Denis O. Lamoureux, "A Black Box or a Black Hole? A Response to Michael J. Behe" Canadian Catholic Review (July 1999), pp. 71-72.


From: Dehler, Bernie <bernie.dehler@intel.com<mailto:bernie.dehler@intel.com?Subject=RE:%20%5basa%5d%20ID/Miracles/Design%20(Behe%20vs.%20Behe)>>
Date: Fri Apr 24 2009 - 16:59:18 EDT

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."


To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Mon Apr 27 10:26:58 2009

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Mon Apr 27 2009 - 10:26:58 EDT