Re: [asa] Two Amino Acid Difference in Gene May Explain Human Speech

From: Rich Blinne <>
Date: Thu Nov 12 2009 - 20:17:06 EST

On Thu, Nov 12, 2009 at 2:56 PM, Schwarzwald <> wrote:

> Rich,
> ID is not committed to opposition to evolution. Dembski has said this, Behe
> has said this - what they are opposed to is "unguided evolution". I will
> admit that there are ID proponents who do deny evolution writ large, or
> common descent, etc. But if your problem is not with ID, but with
> specifically anti-evolutionary ID, I share some of your concerns - and I
> wish you'd make that clearer more often.

Very few TEs have any problem with generic ID. In fact, we often adopt their
less controversial arguments. For example, the fine tuning argument and that
evolution cannot explain morality argument are very common in TE circles.
Speaking of the fine tuning argument given the reliance of the fine tuning
argument on the standard model of particle physics having a young universe
breaks the fine tuning. The relative size of the strong and weak nuclear
forces determine your radioactive half lives. In order for the radioactive
decay times to be different you need to make many of the stable isotopes
very radioactive making life impossible. ID can easily accommodate the TE
position but is *a hard contradiction to YEC*. How many ID proponents admit

Furthermore, TEs because they are *theistic* evolutionists they affirm that
evolution is guided by definition. (The only real difference between the
various factions is *how* evolution is guided.) In 1995 the ASA hosted a
debate between Michael Behe and Kenneth Miller. (Note: many TEs hate the
term including Kenneth Miller. I use the term just to have some kind of
label.) During that debate Behe showed that Miller's textbook claimed
purposeless evolution and Miller knowing that evolution is not random in the
popular sense fixed the error. It came back to bite Behe in the Dover trial
where the old version was being used and Miller pointed to the new version
on the stand.

So the question that is before us is this: If TE and ID are really that
close together why does not the practice fit the theory? When Behe and
Miller discovered they were saying the same thing in 1995 why didn't they
exit the auditorium singing Kumbayah? From what I can tell it was a
political calculation. When ID decided to have their big tent they moved in
the YEC direction rather than the TE direction despite what I mentioned
above. I have seen this from my own personal experience. When I proposed a
synthesis of TE and ID on Uncommon Descent I was banned in less than 24
hours. I have also debated Del Tackett, the head of FotF's Truth Project.
This was a far, far more cordial encounter. Still, a synthesis of ID and TE
was utterly unacceptable in Dr. Tackett's eyes. At the end of the day what
is the truly non-negotiable item for ID is not being pro-design or even
anti-unguided evolution, it's anti-evolution. That's why they get along
better with YEC than TE even though at first blush it should be the other
way around.

Rich Blinne
Member ASA

To unsubscribe, send a message to with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Thu Nov 12 20:17:36 2009

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Thu Nov 12 2009 - 20:17:36 EST