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

Luckily this is not about you but about Behe's position and arguments.
Sure, 'design' is always a possibility but we have to be careful that
design in ID speak means something very specific and although some may
be tempted or misled by the unfortunate choices by ID proponents of
conflating terminologies such as complexity and design, one approach
of piercing this thin veil of scientific 'respectability' is by
exposing the inherent contradictions in the arguments made.
Recently Behe seems to be on the record that the history of life can
be fully continuous and that it is during the act of creation where
all 'design' took place. Of course, such a position and the position
that there exists an 'edge of evolution' anytime something
interesting is supposed to happen are self contradictory.

In the end, it all seems to come down to a confusion amongst ID
proponents about the meaning of the term 'random' which is not
equivalent to 'without purpose'.

In spite of all this, Behe's 'contribution' shows that ID as a
scientific concept remains vacuous.

On 7/27/07, David Opderbeck <dopderbeck@gmail.com> wrote:
> 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 17:15:12 2007