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

From: Murray Hogg <>
Date: Tue Apr 28 2009 - 19:08:45 EDT

Hi Dave,

Personally, I'd taken it that Behe's notion of irreducible complexity would rule out any sort of gradualism - which is why I see the claim of "small steps" to be the real target of Behe's argument.

Advocating the addition/modification of information at critical steps would be bordering on a form of progressive creationism, I would have thought - whilst I agree with Bernie that being able to provide a mechanism for "large steps" leaves one with a form of naturalistic evolution.

Getting clarity on the various positions is tricky. Trying to fathom the various implications on top of that is mind-boggling.

But I do think that regarding Behe as "a kind of saltationist" is about right even if I've never quite been able to clarify what Behe himself thinks are the implications of his position nor how he reconciles his various affirmations. Perhaps he should be taken as offering a few pertinent insights rather than a coherent theory of origins.
As you say, live and learn...


Dave Wallace wrote:
> Murray Hogg wrote:
>> 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.
> Very interesting, somehow when I read Behe I interpreted him to imply
> that the designer incrementally added/modified the genetic material, one
> change per generation, and then when there was sufficient to function
> the designer activated all pieces. Thus I viewed Behe still as a
> gradualist.
> I think that viewing Behe as holding a saltationist position is much
> better. Live and Learn sigh.
> Dave W
> 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 19:09:37 2009

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Tue Apr 28 2009 - 19:09:37 EDT