1) As many people have pointed out, us Christians are *all*=20
believers in intelligent design whether the designer=20
included evolutionary mechanisms (changing the DNA a bit at=20
a time) in his tool kit or not.
Personal comment: I am inclined to think that He=20
*did* include such mechanisms in His tool kit.
2) If you grant that God used evolutionary mechanisms to=20
create the living creatures He desired, the next question=20
seems to involve the extent of His use of these mechanisms. =20
It seems presumptuous to say that, because He made some=20
things, or even most things using these mechanisms, that=20
therefore He made everything living this way.
Personal comment: I am not sure that God made *most*=20
things using evolutionary mechanisms. I do grant that,=20
after a certain level of complexity of the organism, it is=20
*easier* for small changes in certain genes to result in=20
large phenotypic changes, thus making =D4evolution=D5 a more=20
likely mechanism.
3) Arguments against evolution from the perspective of=20
irreducible complexity, as M. Behe presents, are convincing=20
to me. That said, I see two reasons why they do not=20
convince some theistic evolutionists:
a. Not enough evolutionary history is known to rule=20
out the possibility that these structures could have arisen=20
by evolution. The organisms we call =D2primitive=D3=20
(mistakenly, though scientists frquently do this in the=20
literature) are not primitive in the sense that they are=20
=D2DNA fossils=D3, necessarily representing what the DNA of=20
those organisms was like millions of years ago. The=20
coelocanth (sp?) looks like the same fish of tens of=20
millions of years ago, but there is no guarantee that its=20
DNA is the same as the fish of tens of millions of years ago=20
*even though it has the same hard tissues as the ancient=20
fish.* The DNA of all organisms is in flux, even if the=20
phenotype remains the same. Thus, it is theoretically=20
possible that the genetic trail has been eliminated for some=20
(seemingly) irreducibly complex structures.
b. The =D2arch=D3 argument that Dawkins makes and someone=20
recently posted gives pause to a TE considering the=20
challenge of irreducible complexity. This is related to 3a,=20
but perhaps the missing material (missing from the genetic=20
record) can fully explain the seemingly irreducibly complex=20
structure, but the =D2redundant=D3 material has been eliminated=20
from the genetic record with time.
So it seems that on the irreducible complexity front, there=20
is a stalemate. I appreciate the fact that these arguments=20
against irreducible complexity can always be invoked in any=20
case of an apparently irreducibly complex system and that=20
this doesn=D5t help to investigate what happened. Of course,=20
if a miracle occurred in order to generate an irreducibly=20
complex system (and by miracle, I mean a massive and co-
ordinated mutation of several genes simultaneously--or even=20
the creation of new genes--to produce the necessary=20
structure or system), that certainly does not seem too open=20
to investigation, either. Perhaps the stalemate is God=D5s=20
way of saying to us: =D2You don=D5t know and you can=D5t figure=20
it out.=D3 And, hey, that=D5s okay with me. It does seem to=20
rather shut down discussion on the matter, though.
4) Paradoxically, this =D2shut down=D3 of discussion may lead=20
to new findings: *If* Behe=D5s arguments for irreducible=20
complexity gain a hearing in the skeptical audience of the=20
scientific community, there will be a number of bright=20
individuals who will set out to show that he is wrong. In=20
this manner, some of his examples (I haven=D5t read the book=20
yet unfortunately, though I am familiar with some examples=20
from my own field.) *may* turn out to be explainable while=20
others will remain inexplicable. In the case of the latter,=20
The the bright folks will invoke 3a and b...but, in the=20
process, =D2many shall run to and fro, and knowledge shall be=20
increased=D3
In closing, I wonder if I could suggest that the long quotes=20
that many people use *might* be trimmed down or limited to=20
those cases where the facts of an issue are being discussed. =20
Many use the long quotes just to cite the opinions of people=20
about whether evolution occurred or to cite the doubts of=20
prominent evolutionists regarding particular aspects of the=20
theory. These seem to me to be of doubtful utility and just=20
make it harder to follow the train of the discussion. Plus=20
it can=D5t be all that much fun to type those things (unless=20
you are all armed with scanners!).
In Nomine Domine,
Gene
____________________________________________________________
Gene D. Godbold, Ph.D. Lab: 804 924-5167
Research Associate Desk: 804 243-2764
Div. Infectious Disease Home: 804 973-6913
Dept. Internal Medicine Fax: 804 924-7500
MR4 Bldg, Room 2115 email: anselm@virginia.edu
300 Park Place =20
Charlottesville, VA 22908 =20
"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""