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

Pim said: *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*

The problem is that the critique you cited is made in general terms:
*"Design and Common Descent are not compatible."
* Therefore, it is "about me," and about everyone else who believes in both
"common descent" and "design."

Just as we need to be careful about ID-speak, we also need to be careful
about materialist-speak, by which "Common Descent" is defined to mean
"without God's involvement in any way."

This I will grant, though: Behe and the ID movement are equally culpable by
making "design" mean something different than regular old "creation."

On 7/27/07, PvM <pvm.pandas@gmail.com> wrote:
> 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 18:09:43 2007