>IMO, it is not the concept of "evolution" per se that
>Behe objects to, but he does perceive Darwinian evolution as a
>natualistic mechanism that appears to be the antithesis of design.
Perhaps, but then why does it seem that his narrow, gradualist concept of
Darwinian evolution is held to be the representative of all evolutionary
concepts? In the ID literature, criticism of Darwinism (in this restricted
sense) is very quickly extrapolated into a categorical rejection of ANY
concept of the sufficiency of 'natural' (God-given) formational
capabilities.
In response to my saying that, "Intelligent Design" is _in fact_ an
hypothesis of "Extranatural Assembly," David wrote:
>I suspect this is an overstatement, and that mechanisms of natural
>assembly that were overtly designed would be considered
>sympathetically. For example, I would expect Behe to be sympathetic
>to the message presented in Denton's new book: the anthropic
>principle does apply to biology and although the mechanisms of
>evolution are natural, they are not darwinian.
I presume that Behe is happy with many portions of Denton's book (anything
suppportive of a teleological stance), but not with Denton's rejection of
the need for what I call, "episodes of extranatural assembly."
That would surely be the case for Phillip Johnson. In a published exchange
of views regarding the place of divine intervention in the course of
Creation's formational history, I challenged Johnson to articulate his
conception of "just what biological history would have been like if left to
natural phenomena without 'supernatural assistance.'" His candid and very
telling reply was,
"If God had created a lifeless world, even with oceans rich in amino acids
and other organic molecules, and thereafter had left matters alone, life
would not have come into existence. If God had done nothing but create a
world of bacteria and protozoa, it would still be a world of bacteria and
protozoa. Whatever may have been the case in the remote past, the chemicals
we see today have no observable tendency or ability to form complex plants
and animals. Persons who believe that chemicals unassisted by intelligence
can combine to create life, or that bacteria can evolve by natural
processes into complex animals, are making an a priori assumption that
nature has the resources to do its own creating. I call such persons
*metaphysical naturalists*.
If Behe holds a view substantially different from this, he needs to explain
this candidly and publicly so that we might distinguish among the various
versions of ID (if there are, in fact, differing versions) now being
advocated.
Thanks, David, for your contribution to this process.
Howard Van Till