Re: [asa] Review of Behe in Books and Culture

The problem is that Behe insists that most anything has been designed
in evolution, even though he accepts common descent. His argument is
that most if any complexity cannot be explained by evolutionary
theory, although he fails to present any relevant explanation himself.
The problem is that his argument is built on a shaky foundation
(malaria) and contradicted by much what we do know. In addition,
circular reasoning leads to tempting though fallacious conclusions.
But yes, Behe had to accept the facts of common descent although he
still rejects 'random mutations' and selection as able to explain much
of any complexity.

See http://scienceblogs.com/goodmath/2007/05/behes_dreadful_new_book_a_revi_1.php
or http://www.pandasthumb.org/archives/book_reviews/the_edge_of_evo/
or http://endogenousretrovirus.blogspot.com/2007/05/good-virus-bad-creationist.html

and the excellent review of Behe's arguments on cilia et al by Nick Matzke
http://www.pandasthumb.org/archives/2007/06/of_cilia_and_si.html

Jerry Coyne: http://richarddawkins.net/article,1271,The-Great-Mutator,Jerry-Coyne-The-New-Republic

<quote>On the basis of much evidence, scientists have concluded that
mutations occur randomly. The term "random" here has a specific
meaning that is often misunderstood, even by biologists. What we mean
is that mutations occur irrespective of whether they would be useful
to the organism. Mutations are simply errors in DNA replication. Most
of them are harmful or neutral, but a few of them can turn out to be
useful. And there is no known biological mechanism for jacking up the
probability that a mutation will meet the current adaptive needs of
the organism. Bears adapting to snowy terrain will not enjoy a higher
probability of getting mutations producing lighter coats than will
bears inhabiting non-snowy terrain.</quote>

Seems that Behe may object, based on flawed reasoning, to the use of
the term 'random'.

Dawkins

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/01/books/review/Dawkins-t.html?ex=1184126400&en=e79f10ed91676279&ei=5070

Behe's musings lead him to conclude that for instance malaria has been
'designed', interesting admission though...

On 7/9/07, David Opderbeck <dopderbeck@gmail.com> wrote:
> Interesting review of Behe's new book in Books & Culture:
> http://www.christianitytoday.com/bc/2007/004/9.38.html
>
> Personally I haven't yet read Behe's latest, though I've read a few of the
> blog / review slavos for and against. It's interesting to me, though, that
> there has been such a violent reaction when Behe apparently concedes so
> much. The B&C reviewer, for example, notes the following:
>
>
> Behe disagrees [with most creationists when he says]: "Evolution from a
> common ancestor, via changes in the DNA, is very well supported." After
> summing up the argument from the genetic similarity of all life, Behe writes
> that "It's hard to imagine how there could be stronger evidence for common
> ancestry of chimps and humans." And again, "Let's acknowledge that genetics
> has yielded yet more terrific (and totally unanticipated) evidence of common
> descent." Finally (though many more examples could be cited), "The
> purposeful design of life is also fully compatible with the idea of
> universal common descent, one important facet of Darwin's theory" [emphasis
> added]. Behe is quite clear that he has no objection to the idea that
> species as distinct as mice and whales evolved from common ancestors.
>
> I gather, then, that Behe is making a meta-argument about the role of
> "chance" in evolution. How different is Behe's position on this than, say,
> that of Simon Conway Morris, or even in some respects that of Francis
> Collins? It sees that Behe is further away from the Uncommon Descent crowd
> than he is from Francis Collins.

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Mon Jul 9 14:27:27 2007