Re: [asa] Behe on TE vs. Darwinism....

But of course, that's only if "design" means what Korthof says Behe says it
means. I'm not so sure that is how Behe would define it. In fact, I'm
pretty sure Behe would *not *define design as "*genetic* discontinuities."
The sorts of supposed discontinuities Behe points to are at structural and
process levels, not at the genetic level.

In any event, even if Behe argues that Design is evidenced by
discontinuities of some sort, and such discontinuities don't in fact exist,
it does not follow that there is no "design." It only means Behe's
definition / proof of design doesn't work. Neither Behe nor Korthof are
empowered to define for me what "design" should mean.

On 7/27/07, PvM <pvm.pandas@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Gert Korthof has reviewed Behe's latest 'The Edge of Evolution' a
> http://home.planet.nl/~gkorthof/korthof86.htm
>
> "Common Descent is based on genetic continuity in the history of life
> on earth. Design, according to Michael Behe, is based on genetic
> discontinuities in the Tree of Life. Therefore, Design and Common
> Descent are not compatible. Make your choice: it is either Design or
> Common Descent. Contrary to Behe, both cannot be true."
>
> To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
> "unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
>

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Fri Jul 27 15:37:10 2007