Skip to main content
Message Font: Serif | Sans-Serif
 
No. of Recommendations: 2
First of all, thank you for your kind words.

You're welcome. I really do enjoy reading your work!

Recall how in the Dover trial, Judge Jones wrote that Behe "was presented with fifty-eight peer-reviewed publications, nine books, and several immunology textbook chapters about the evolution of the immune system; however, he simply insisted that this was still not sufficient evidence of evolution, and that it was not 'good enough.'"


Well, you know why he said that now. None of the works cited begin to offer an explanation like Behe says is necessary. The authors may consider them "explanations", offering plausible pathways, but you know that they are just playing with definitions, not really offering what Behe calls an explanation.

Lest we get bogged down in fruitless back and forth, I think the issues surrounding "explanation" are:

1. What is an explanation?
2. Are there different kinds of explanations?
3. If so, do they carry equal weight in establishing some pathway?
4. In what sense has work X explained some feature of biology?

You consistently argue that whatever explanations have been given are adequate to establish that x evolved into y beyond a reasonable doubt. There we disagree strongly.

This is not an argument unless you are John Cleese.

LOL! I loved that

1. All life forms on earth today have a common ancestor.

Yes, in the sense that the Designer used DNA from the first life forms, tweaked it into a new lifeform (retaining most of the previous DNA), and so on. The previous lifeforms pass on their DNA to their offspring.
Common descent to Behe means something like this.

Maybe we are just arguing over a trivial point. If you acknowledge that whatever "macroevolution" means to Behe, it requires God's intervention, then I think we can leave this point.

2. Random mutation and natural selection alone are enough to account for small changes.

For *some* small changes at least, not all.

There seems to be a contradiction here. First, Behe says that "the impact of biochemistry on evolutionary theory rests solely in the details." Then he encourages us to skip the details.

It's simply an acknowledgement that some readers will not have the background needed to follow the details, or the attention-span necessary, and if you are willing to accept his conclusions without the details, go ahead. He feels his conclusions from the details are valid, whether the reader can follow them or not. Some can, some can't.

That might make sense, if you were willing to acknowledge that biochemistry calls for a different kind of evidence than evolution. Biochemistry deals in stuff that is available to look at right now. You have the luxury of examining the thing that are alive here in the present day and seeing what they're made of.

By contrast, evolution is a historical science.


But you're glossing over a key point . . . the theory says that things in the past evolved by processes we see and study today. In fact, the theory is totally baseless unless you extrapolate current, observable processes back into the distant past. Sure, biochemistry deals in the present, with laboratory-testable, repeatable pathways. But evolution claims that by these same processes, x evolved into y in the Cambrian.

All Behe is saying is that, if this is the case, then can anyone explain at the level of biochemistry how x changed into y by a process that is actually possible with RM/NS? The explanation for evolution should be the same as for biochemistry, because they are the exact same process. Evolution IS biochemistry.

If this is true, then we can currently test whether some proposed, seemingly plausible change is actually possible.

We can get a broad picture from the historical information, but OF COURSE we can't get the level of detail that you're asking for.

You are at least consistent in your inconsistency. At one point you argue that IC HAS been explained, now you argue that an explanation is not possible. But I know what you mean . . . current explanations are good enough given our technology. Another point we strongly disagree on.

Evolution proposes that a person could have crossed the canyon by taking any of those pathways. Behe says "Yes, but WHICH EXACT BUTTES did they step on?

No, he's asking do we have evidence that ANY of the plausible pathways are actually POSSIBLE ? We can test that.

Bryan
Print the post  

Announcements

When Life Gives You Lemons
We all have had hardships and made poor decisions. The important thing is how we respond and grow. Read the story of a Fool who started from nothing, and looks to gain everything.
Contact Us
Contact Customer Service and other Fool departments here.
What was Your Dumbest Investment?
Share it with us -- and learn from others' stories of flubs.
Work for Fools?
Winner of the Washingtonian great places to work, and Glassdoor #1 Company to Work For 2015! Have access to all of TMF's online and email products for FREE, and be paid for your contributions to TMF! Click the link and start your Fool career.