On Sat, 23 Nov 1996 12:54:13 -0600, Steve Clark wrote Re: irreducible complexity:
[...]
SC>While I applaud Behe for producing a thought-provoking tome, I have a problem
>with a basic premise behind his thesis.
>
>My problem with the model has to do with the presupposition that evolution
>only works by fine-tuning the function of primordial structures. That is,
>the idea that a mouse trap evolved from a primordial structure by gradual
>improvement of mouse catching ability. This sounds like a microevolution
>scenario. Behe's model, however, does not seem to account for the
>possibility that a mousetrap could evolve from something that originally did
>not function as a mouse trap, which seems more congruent with a
>macroevolution scenario.
Actually Mike *does* deal with this:
"Even if a system is irreducibly complex (and thus cannot have been
produced directly), however, one can not definitively rule out the
possibility of an indirect, circuitous route. As the complexity of
an interacting system increases, though, the likelihood of such an
indirect route drops precipitously. And as the number of unexplained
irreducibly complex biological systems increases, our confidence that
Darwin's criterion of failure has been met skyrockets toward the mum
that science allows." (Behe M.J., "Darwin's Black Box: The
Biochemical Challenge to Evolution", Free Press: New York, 1996,
p40)
His point is that *no one* has ever been able to explain even *one*
of these complex micro-biological systems using "a macroevolution
scenario".
If you believe that (say) the blood clotting cascade "evolved from a
primordial structure by gradual improvement of" blood clotting
ability", then why don't *you* win "instant fame" by doing it
first, as Russ wrote:
"Here is a challenge to everyone: Take one of Behe's examples and
propose an evolutionary gradualistic path. Write up your suggestion
in the usual scholarly way, citing this reaction and that, all in the
literature, and show how it is possible--perhaps even probable--that
your proposed path is correct. Submit the article to the _Journal of
Evolutionary Biology_. Behe has shown that neither this journal nor
any other relevant journal has ever published such a pathway. Yet
this journal and the others are committed to general evolutionary
theory. So the editors and their referees would certainly not be
biased against publishing such a well-documented proposed pathway.
Anyone who takes up this challenge would gain instant fame."
[...]
On Tue, 26 Nov 1996 16:48:12 GMT, David J. Tyler wrote Re: Economic
irreducible complexity:
[...]
GS> As I suggested in an earlier posting, I believe evidence for intelligent
> design will never PROVE the necessity of God's existence, but it surely
> can, and should, play an important apologetic role - to strengthen our
> faith.
[...]
DT>This is a comment worthy of further attention. There is a danger
>that the "Intelligent Design" movement be interpreted as a revival of
>"Natural theology". This is something I would not be happy with.
>For me, ID is a statement of presuppositions, not a "finding" of
>science. If we do not start with God in our thinking, we will never
>"prove" the existence of God by our research.
Agreed. The point is that if one does not start with the
presupposition that God exists, one is automatically presupposing
that God does *not* exist.
I remember realising this not long after my conversion, when I
started doubting and looking for proof of God's existence. I believe
this realisation came from the Holy Spirit, because at that stage I
had almost zero theological knowledge. I later learned that the
Scriptures actually teach that there is *no* legitimate neutral
position regarding the existence of God:
1. All human beings are aware of the existence of God and there is no
excuse for unbelief:
Rom 1:20 "For since the creation of the world God's invisible
qualities--his eternal power and divine nature--have been clearly
seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are
without excuse."
2. Neutrality toward God is the equivalent of opposition against God:
Mt 12:30 "He who is not with me is against
me, and he who does not gather with me scatters.
3. Failure to positively believe in God renders one automatically in
a state of Divine displeasure:
Heb 11:6 "And without faith it is impossible to please God,
because anyone who comes to him must believe that he exists and
that he rewards those who earnestly seek him."
4. Lack of faith is sin:
Rom 14:23 "...everything that does not come from faith is sin."
5. Reverence for God is a *pre-requisite* for true wisdom:
Ps 111:10 "The fear of the LORD is the beginning of wisdom..."
This is hard teaching, and from experience I have found that
non-theists rail against it as "arrogant", etc. But if God is the
sort of God the Bible says He is, it could be no other way. To start
with the proposition that God needs to prove He exists to a so-called
`neutral' human (there is no such thing anyway), is to make man the
measure of all things, even of God. Which is to make God, not God.
The ultimate, Divine, catch 22! :-)
God bless.
Steve
-------------------------------------------------------------------
| Stephen E (Steve) Jones ,--_|\ sejones@ibm.net |
| 3 Hawker Avenue / Oz \ Steve.Jones@health.wa.gov.au |
| Warwick 6024 ->*_,--\_/ Phone +61 9 448 7439 (These are |
| Perth, West Australia v my opinions, not my employer's) |
-------------------------------------------------------------------