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

From: Dehler, Bernie <>
Date: Tue Apr 28 2009 - 18:37:40 EDT

As I understand it, there's much more to biological evolution than "small incremental changes." There are many evolutionary mechanisms (random mutation, gene drift, natural selection,,, to list some of the many,,, also now driven by the human mind as humans modify and control DNA in plants and animals as well as manipulate habitats).

If it is discovered that something happens very fast in a big way, do evolutionists care? No, it is still evolution. But what would the evolution-deniers then have to complain about? They complain about small changes impossible to do something, then if they are proven right, the big changes are then part of evolution and so what can they complain about next? Just go on about how Darwin was wrong,,, dancing on his grave? Darwin just set things in motion, he's not a god. Evolution should be called evolution, and not "Darwinian evolution" as if there's different kinds. People are just researching the mechanisms for evolution.

People who are against "Darwinian evolution" can be attacked on their "Ham theology" (named after Ken Ham and his theology of literal Bible interpretation).

So there you have it:

"Darwinian evolution" vs. "Ham theology"

-----Original Message-----
From: [] On Behalf Of Murray Hogg
Sent: Tuesday, April 28, 2009 3:18 PM
Subject: Re: [asa] Behe's debate with himself...

Hi Bernie,

I was using the "hopeful monster" as an analogy so please don't get too tied up on the terminology.

The main point is that crux of Behe's form of evolution centers on a denial of the Darwinian affirmation that evolution proceeds in small, step-wise, increments.

Your right that if a mechanism could be discovered which drives this then that would be embraced as a natural, evolutionary mechanism.

Yet such a discovery would, I imagine, significantly alter the landscape in regards of philosophy of evolution. The metaphysical naturalists, in particular, would be hard pressed to defend their position given they have firmly nailed their colours to the mast of "small incremental changes".

But we'll just have to wait and see...


Dehler, Bernie wrote:
> Murray said:
> " In that respect Behe is effectively arguing for some sort of saltationist position - a reoccurring "hopeful monster" scenario, if you will - albeit at the biochemical level."
> I don't think "a hopeful monster" is consistent with ID. In fact, isn't evolution the "hopeful monster" in the eyes of Discovery Institute ID'ers?
> If Behe accepts design upfront (in the big bang) and rejects evolution, then what mechanism could be used? Whatever that mechanism is would be called "evolution." If a hopeful monster could erupt that way, it would be possible naturally and evolutionary theory would take that in as one more evolutionary mechanism.
> ...Bernie

To unsubscribe, send a message to with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.

To unsubscribe, send a message to with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Tue Apr 28 18:38:06 2009

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Tue Apr 28 2009 - 18:38:06 EDT