Pim said...
> ...Behe, who deludes himself that irreducibly
> complex systems cannot have 'evolved'. Which
> is of course incorrect as has been shown.
I don't think that is exactly what happened. Many people disagreed with
him, but in all of the vituperative responses, I only found two
criticisms/challenges that were really worthwhile. All others resorted
to name calling, bogus logic, and invalid assumptions to assert the
claim that Behe has lost it and ought to be ignored. They may be right,
but I do not think they made their case.
It is true that the biochemical argument for design has not been nailed
down yet, but I do think Behe is only the point of the wedge. The point
has been blunted (Behe does have some things to answer to), but the
wedge has yet to deliver its full blow--there is more to come.
Moreover, biochemistry is not the only domain of science having
something to say in this debate. Natural origin/change theories are
under attack from several different directions.
I attended a lecture given by Dr. Hugh Ross in which I asked him about
Behe's book--which is in Ross' catalog--and the criticism that it has
received. Without denying the validity of some of the criticism, Ross
pointed out that there are four more books making the same or similar
arguments that will be coming out within the next twelve months. He
said that these are not works of ranting young-earthers but of bonifide
professionals in their respective fields--at least two of the authors
(which he did not name) he believed were *not* theists.
I am in the process of analyzing the criticisms of Behe's book and its
review in the Boston Review. As I read them, I found some arguments
that were well placed and worth Behe's response--particularly the one
about a possible evolutionary path of the blood-clotting mechanism--but
some of the arguments employ logical fallacies and bogus analogies.
I did consider the criticism of Behe's method of quoting evolutionist
material to be justified. There is a practice of quoting someone
secondhand and thirdhand when the original material is unavailable or
when people would like to make a point without doing all of the
research. I do wish Behe would have left out the point in question or
at least more carefully researched it. Nevertheless, the person who
made this criticism of him used it in the form of the logical fallacy of
argument to the man--essentially he was asserting some kind of guilt by
association theory. As such, it can only be a complaint and cannot be
used to invalidate Behe's main thesis which stands or falls on other
grounds.
I may post some details from my analysis if I think its warranted as a
criticism of the manner in which Darwinian evolutionists respond to
their critics--especially when I see them respond with degrees of
hostility varying in direct proportion with the closeness to Christian
Theism they perceive their opponent to be. (I think I've observed this,
but I am unwilling to assert the claim unequivocally at this time.)
About Pim's statement above, as far as I know it has not been shown that
irreducibly complex systems as described by Behe could have evolved.
What has been done is that possible evolutionary paths have been
postulated, but this does not constitute positive proof of the theory.
To my knowledge, no evidence exists that can be used to support that
assertion conclusively. (Pim: If you know of specific evidence that
conclusively proves Behe's argument false, please provide it.)
I have said before in this reflector that I am utterly unbiased on the
matter of whether God used natural or extra-natural mechanisms for
creation. If it seems by the above paragraphs that I am belying my true
bias on this point, please understand that my concern is not over
mechanisms of change but over the conclusions reached and the social and
public policy responses that arise as a result of them.
I have no problem with someone standing up and saying, "I'm atheist."
If he or she is then asked why and responds, "Because I believe in
naturalistic evolution.", I am ready to challenge whether the conclusion
is justified on that basis. If he or she remains unconvinced then I
must say that some people need more evidence than others and leave it at
that. However, when persons with considerable authority within the
scientific community begin asserting that Darwin has completely removed
the intellectual underpinning for theism and promote radical social and
public policy changes based upon this view, I will speak up most
agressively and challenge them to prove that the conclusions necessarily
follow the proven facts of nature *and* that no other explanation is
possible.
Here I would assert a very important point: Evolutionary Biology does
not exist in a vacuum. There are other sciences that must way in on the
debate over origins and change. Darwinists can assert that
accumulations of micro-changes is what they see and postulate a natural
explanation for them, but other sciences can undermine the theories and
leave their conclusions without merit--in which case they must resort to
other explanations for their facts. I believe that some Evolutionary
Biologists ignore or trivialize the other sciences whenever core
doctrine is involved causing Naturalistic Evolution to begin looking and
feeling more and more like a religion.
My problem with some evolutionary biologists surfaces when they make
assertions about the plausibility or implausibility of the Christian
belief system or belief systems in general based solely on their
science.
Russ
Russell T. Cannon
rcannon@usa.net