On Fri, 10 Jan 1997 00:06:24 -0500, Brian D. Harper wrote:
[...]
BH>"...There are assertions that such evolution occurred, but
>absolutely none are supported by pertinent experiments or
>calculations." (Behe M.J., "Darwin's Black Box", 1996, p185)
>
>This last, "supported by pertinent experiments or calculations"
>qualifies what Behe means by "that describes how molecular
>evolution of any real, complex, biochemical system either did occur
>or even might have occurred."
SJ>Steve, could you summarize for us the "pertinent experiments or
>calculations" which support Intelligent Design? Thanks.
I did not claim that there was any "`pertinent experiments or
calculations'" which support Intelligent Design". In the nature of
the case, I doubt if there can be, because the crucial variable,
namely the Intelligent Designer, is not available for His creatures'
"experiments".
But my (and Behe's) point above was that Neo-Darwinist
evolution, which claims to be a general scientic
theory covering all of biology, makes "...assertions that such
evolution occurred, but absolutely none are supported by pertinent
experiments or calculations." (Behe M.J., "Darwin's Black Box",
1996, p185).
The starting point of every human being is that there is an
Intelligent Designer, because of the overwhelming evidence of design
in nature (Rom 1:20; Ps 19:1). However, Darwin claimed to show that
this is an illusion and that all the design in nature was produced
by a gradual, step-by-step, mechanistic process of chance variations
cumulatively built up by natural selection filters. Even this would
not of itself rule out Intelligent Design (an Intelligent Designer
could still have designed the Darwinist mechanisms), but Darwin
thought it did and Darwinists have used Darwin's theory to argue
that an Intelligent Designer is superfluous:
"By coupling undirected, purposeless variation to the blind,
uncaring process of natural selection, Darwin made theological
or spiritual explanations of the life processes superfluous"
(Futuyma D., "Evolutionary Biology", Sunderland, 1986, p3, in
Johnson, "Reason in the Balance", 1995, p195)
and to effectively suppress the discussion of Intelligent Design in
public school and university science classes.
But now Intelligent Design theorists (and even some evolutionists)
are pointing that Darwin's evolutionary mechanisms, while they may
apply at the microevolutionary level studied by Darwin, don't
necessarily apply generally at other levels (eg. macroevolutionary.
and molecular).
If Darwinism cannot support its claim to be a general theory that
applies at *all* levels of biology, then Darwinist's previous claim
that "Darwin made theological or spiritual explanations of the life
processes superfluous" is false. If that is the case, then the
Intelligent Design hypothesis is restored back to where it was
before Darwin, as Hoyle, no friend of theism, admits:
"It is ironic that the scientific facts throw Darwin out, but leave
William Paley, a figure of fun to the scientific world for more than
a century, still in the tournament with a chance of being the
ultimate winner." (Hoyle F. & Wickramasinghe C., "Evolution from
Space", 1981, pp96-97)
>JB>It's not very good.
>
>Thanks. You may have saved me the trouble of checking the web site
>for myself. I expected it would be "not very good" simply because of
>the time lag. Behe's book has been out for several months, and if he
>was wrong about his central claim above we would have heard about it
>almost immediately, especially from outraged authors and journal
>editors.
[...]
BH>Thanks for giving me my good belly laugh for today. Wait, you
>did mean this as a joke didn't you?
No. I was quite serious. I note that Brian does not show where my
assumption was wrong, but resorts instead to ridicule. I take this
as support:
"People who resort to ridicule are often covering up something. In
this case they are hoping to prevent reasoned examination of a
vulnerable assumption." (Johnson P.E. "Evolution as Dogma", 1990,
p34)
[...]
>JB>In sum, I find this critique of Behe in keeping with most of the
>chest beating claptrap that comes out of talk.origins.
>SJ>Which in itself is evidence against the theory. If they really
>were secure in their faith, they would not need to beat their
>chest. The only evolutionists (and creationists) that impress me
>are those who can argue their points calmly, politely and clearly.
BH>Funny, you said something different awhile back when Walter
>ReMine's, er ... uh ... , "style" of debate was being discussed.
Brian can always post what I said, and if I was inconsistent I will
admit it. I was impressed by Walter's arguments (although not
totally convinced by them), but I felt he weakened his case by his
overly agressive "`style' of debate".
BH>Now, about Keith Robison's review. I have avoided getting into
>any details on this since I haven't had time to do anything other
>than give it a real quick lookover. So, I can't say much about
>this specific case but I can say that I have read Robison's posts
>to various newsgroups over the past several years and have been
>extremely extremely impressed by him (I don't say that about too
>many folks ... :). While I would readily agree that there are
>many chestbeaters on t.o, I don't believe that Robison is one of
>them. In fact, calling him a chestbeater is just a bit of chest
>beating as far as I'm concerned :).
My comments about "chest beating claptrap" was in relation to
"talk.origins" generally, not to "Keith Robison" specifically. For
the record, I did eventually look up the web site and I found
Robinson's arguments against Behe well argued, even if
semi-fallacious. A moustrap base that is part of the floor, is still
a base, and hence part of an irreducible system. Behe did not
specify what the base had to be.
>BH>Given the heat of the debate and insults being thrown around at
>random I was quite impressed by a statement like this coming from
>someone who obviously disagrees with Yockey.
Brian's comments about "insults being thrown around at random" on
talk.origins supports what I said.
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) |
-------------------------------------------------------------------