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

From: Dennis Venema <>
Date: Thu Nov 12 2009 - 20:28:53 EST

Rich, was your debate with Tackett recorded? If so I'd be very interested.


On 12/11/09 5:17 PM, "Rich Blinne" <> wrote:

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

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 THAT?!?

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 20:26:36 2009

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Thu Nov 12 2009 - 20:26:36 EST