RE: [asa] Behe on TE... WAS Theological Naturalism

I don't get this. Maybe I just don't understand terms. Why can he accept
evolution, basically but not Theistic Evolution? What's the difference?
Obviously TEs (me) accept God had a role. I don't know or care God's role -
it's a holy mystery. So Behe thinks they can find signs of it, go for it but
there's no way they can prove it's God. So what's the point? Just to shoot
down Darwin? Anwyay I just don't get why he thinks TE is not compatible with
"Darwinism"? How does he define Darwinism? I guess I'll have to read his
book...

W.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Wendee Holtcamp * Freelance Writer * Photographer * Bohemian

                http://www.wendeeholtcamp.com
<http://www.wendeeholtcamp.com/>
Bohemian Adventures Blog * http://bohemianadventures.blogspot.com
<http://bohemianadventures.blogspot.com/>

The Fish Wars: A Christian Evolutionist http://thefishwars.blogspot.com
<http://thefishwars.blogspot.com/>
 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Online Writing Course! Starting Aug 4. Sign Up Online!

From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu [mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu] On
Behalf Of Gregory Arago
Sent: Tuesday, July 24, 2007 9:42 PM
To: John Walley; 'George Murphy'; 'David Campbell'; asa@calvin.edu
Subject: RE: [asa] Behe on TE... WAS Theological Naturalism

Thanks John. Wow did you type out the whole passage, or scan and copy
it...must've taken some time!

The last paragraph is direct:

"Those who worry about "interference" should relax. The purposeful design of
life to any degree is easily compatible with the idea that, after its
initiation, the universe unfolded exclusively by the intended playing out of
natural laws. The purposeful design of life is also fully compatible with
the idea of universal common descent, one important facet of Darwin's
theory. What the purposeful design of life is not compatible with, however,
is Darwin's proposed mechanism of evolution-random variation and natural
selection-which sought to explain the development of life explicitly with
out recourse to guidance or planning by anyone or anything at any time."

So it is really Darwinian evolution, and not evolution in general, that Behe
is arguing against? Does he not argue against other types of evolution and
speak about their limits also in Edge of Evolution? Is it presumable that
what he rejects in Darwin is purposeless evolution or meaningless evolution
or materialistic evolution, i.e. atheistic evolution?

He says Theistic Evolution is not compatible with Darwinism. Yet a respected
foe like Michael Ruse suggests a person can be a Darwinist and also a
Christian. Yet Darwin wasn't a Christian. And neither is Ruse. So who should
we accord authority too?

G. Arago

John Walley <john@walley-world.org> wrote:

I found this today in the last chapter of Behe's book. It is his
distinction between TE and Darwinism that I though some may find
interesting.

John

The Edge of Evolution

By Michael J. Behe

Pages 229-232

            But the assumption that design unavoidably requires
"interference" rests mostly on a lack of imagination. There's no reason that
the extended fine-tuning view I am presenting here necessarily requires
active meddling with nature any more than the fine-tuning of theistic
evolution does - Behe

God directs the evolutionary process by determining the outcome of quantum
processes involved in mutations - is one way of dealing with the randomness
issue. I wonder if Behe would be willing to accept something like that. -
George Murphy

  _____

  <http://us.i1.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/i/ca/iotg_search.jpg>
<http://ca.toolbar.yahoo.com/> Yahoo! Canada Toolbar : Search from anywhere
on the web and bookmark your favourite sites. Download it now!

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Tue Jul 24 22:50:10 2007