From: Steve Petermann (steve@spetermann.org)
Date: Fri Sep 26 2003 - 09:37:31 EDT
Don wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
I have gained the impression that if anyone can develop an ID scientific
research program then Mike will be the one to do it. However, he is
obviously
not a typical ID proponent of the Johnson-Behe-Dembski variety.
<<<<<<<<<<
I agree that Mike's attitude is what is needed. However, although Dembski
is obviously contentious at times, the following statement is, imo, an
example of the attitude that true theorists adopt. Will the Darwinians make
the same statement?
Dembski wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
http://www.discovery.org/viewDB/index.php3?program=CRSC%20Responses&command=
view&id=1256
If evolutionary biologists can discover or construct detailed, testable,
indirect Darwinian pathways that account for the emergence of irreducibly
and minimally complex biological systems like the bacterial flagellum, then
more power to them--intelligent design will quickly pass into oblivion.
<<<<<<<<<<
Steve Petermann
----- Original Message -----
From: "Donald Nield" <d.nield@auckland.ac.nz>
To: <asa@calvin.edu>
Cc: "Steve Petermann" <steve@spetermann.org>
Sent: Thursday, September 25, 2003 5:36 PM
Subject: Re: RFEP & ID
Steve Petermann wrote:
> Dave Wrote:
> > Where do I find the ID
> > research that has forced a reconsideration of "Darwinism"?
>
> I'm no biologist so a lot in their discussions are over my head but the
> threads on flagellum seem particularly good in delineating the ID vs.
> Darwinism issues. It's been such a long thread they have two with several
> pages:
>
> http://www.iscid.org/boards/ubb-get_topic-f-6-t-000399.html
>
> http://www.iscid.org/boards/ubb-get_topic-f-6-t-000415.html
>
> For those who are well versed in this field, if they have an opinion on
> these threads, I'd appreciate hearing it.
>
> Steve Petermann
I am no biologist either, but for what its worth I offer an assessment.
I have followed the postings of Mike Gene (pseudonym) on ARN and ISCID
forums
for a couple of years and I have been very impressed by what he has written.
I have gained the impression that if anyone can develop an ID scientific
research program then Mike will be the one to do it. However, he is
obviously
not a typical ID proponent of the Johnson-Behe-Dembski variety. You will
note
that in this thread (01 August), in response to Yersinia (Nic), Mike
writes
'I am certainly not arguing that "the flagellum is IC, thus it must have
been
designed." '
I think that the discussion is well summarised by Mike's statement (22
August) 'Insist that the Darwinian evolution of the flagellum is plausible
and I will agree that the level of detail we have today supports this
contention. Insist that the flagellum did evolve by Darwinian evolution and
I
will not agree that the level of detail we have today supports this
contention.'
Don Nield
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Fri Sep 26 2003 - 09:40:09 EDT