Terry
On Fri, 11 Apr 1997 15:47:50 -0400, Terry M. Gray wrote:
[continued]
TG>HAIG
>
>David Haig is an evolutionary geneticist/theorist who does research in
>the area of imprinting. But he had done his biochemistry research and
>focused entirely on a biochemical response to Behe's arguments.
SJ: This is interesting. Up to date Darwinists had not bothered to
supply a "biochemical response to Behe's arguments" because, as
Johnson points out:
You are incorrect.
"Once you understand the dimensions of the problem, and the
philosophical constraints within which it must be solved, Darwinism
is practically true by definition -- regardless of the evidence"
Johnson P.E., "Daniel Dennett's Dangerous Idea", Review of "Darwin's
Dangerous Idea", by Daniel Dennett, "The New Criterion", October,
1995]
Interesting assertion but of course false. That Behe's arguments have been
shown less than 'convincing' by real scientific arguments already
disproves SF's remarks.
TG>Haig disagreed with Behe in these claims and pointed out that
>biochemists (at least those who don't think in evolutionary terms)
>sometimes view the genes as "the unmoved mover" and forget that
>genes themselves have a genetic (evolutionary) history.
SF: This is just begging the question. That "genes...have a genetic
history" is uncontroversial. That they have an "*evolutionary*
history" (at least a *Darwinian* `blind watchmaker' "evolutionary
history" is the question being discussed. If Haig claims that "genes"
*necessarily* "have" an "evolutionary history" then he demonstrates
once again what Johnson says that evidence is unnecessary to
Darwinists.
Care to expand this argument with some facts ?
SJ: This is a typical example of Darwinist thinking. If a simple problem
can be solved, then it is taken that a hard problem does not need to
be solved. But there are three logically possible types of systems:
Proof by assertion.
SJ: 1. Those which are not "irreducibly complex".
SJ: 2. Those which may or may not be "irreducibly complex".
SJ: 3. Those which are "irreducibly complex".
SJ: Intelligent Design theorists are free to consider all three
possibilities. Darwinists *must* deny the third possibility exists.
No. Both can accept the possibility of such systems existing. Darwinists
however point out that there can be naturalistic pathways to systems that
appear to be irreducibly complex.
TG>My personal opinion is that Haig did the trick. He may not have
>given the solution to each one of Behe's unsolved problems, but he
>showed that a plausible explanation using known mechanisms could
>produce the systems in question.
SJ: It may be that Haig did explain "the evolution of the complement
system", or it may be that he explained it away as above. But my
guess is that you would be happy with the usual vague evolutionary
explanation, because as a convinced evolutionist you do not really
believe that there is any such thing as an "irreducibly complex"
biological system.
Is this a similar assumption as stating that as a believer in design your
only hope lies in believing that such systems exist and cannot be
explained by naturalistic pathways. However the explanation is hardly more
or less vague than the assumption that the process is irreducibly complex
and therefor evidence of design.
SJ: My objection to "evolution" (ie. Darwinist `blind watchmaker'
evolution) is primarily evidenced based. My position is that there
is a lack of compelling evidence for `blind watchmaker' "evolution",
and that there is strong evidence that a supernatural Intelligent
Designer has guided the origin and development of life over and above
the claimed Darwinian mechanisms of mutation and natural selection.
That there is lack of evidence in your eyes supporting Darwinism need not
point to a designer. Furthermore could you formulate a scientific
hypothesis which includes such a supernatural designer which can be tested
and disproven ?
SJ: For example, the rapid acquisition of features that together were
necessary for human intelligence, does exceed my "plausibility
threshhold":
Of course that is hardly evidence.
TG>People who believe that evolution must be true because
>they are atheists ought not be trusted in their plausibility
>threshhold. Hmm... whom does that leave?]
SJ: See above. It leaves those who believe that "evolution" (ie.
Darwinist `blind watchmaker' "evolution"), is not "true" because it
does not fit all the facts. What does fit all the facts better is
Mediate Creation!
Which of course unlike science can claim away all discrepancies by 'the
creator did it' Hardly science.