Behe on organismal evolution

quote:

---

A YEC would point to a gap in the fossil record, whereas a Beherite would point to a gap in the biochemical record. The same modus operandi, just drawing the line (where evolution can be used as an explanation) in different places.

---

You are completely correct. His argument is the same, we don't know therefore God (ie Designer) did it. Behe jumps into the same creationist pool by inserting God into a gap in our knowledge. One of Behe's catch phrases is "one fell swoop" which describes how IC systems arise in organisms. This sounds VERY VERY similar to "species appear in the fossil record fully formed". Same argument, same camp.

quote:

---

For example - the common descent thing is only compelling, how about pretty much unassailable?

---

This is reflected in his writings as well. For example, instead of calling proteins in different species homologous which implies common descent he instead uses the word analogous which implies similarity without a necessity for common descent.

quote:

---

Does Behe push his ideas on creationists, or are creationists trying to make something out of Behe's ideas, beyond anything Behe actually says?
I suspect the later.

---

I suspect that Behe intended his message to support the creationist movement. Even when presented with proposed evolutionary pathways he dogmatically calls them "just-so stories" as if his own musings are based on positive evidence. It is Behe's penchant for doing mental gymnastics in his attempted refutations of counter arguments that pin him as a creationist. My opinion only, reading between the lines Behe has pinned his faith on the validity of his design theories instead of relying on evidence.

quote:

---

His argument isn't that we don't know, therefore God did it......his argument is that we CAN'T know, therefore God did it. Does it take any more faith to say "we don't know, it is unknowable" than it does to say "we don't know, therefore we will certainly find out later"?

---

This is not what Behe is saying. He is saying that he DOES know, he is saying that these IC systems DID come about in one fell swoop.It is an argument from ignorance. He is claiming that he is right until someone has evidence otherwise, and at the same time having no evidence himself. It is a God of the Gaps argument, plain and simple.I have addressed this problem in another thread (started by myself). No one has posted anything, hopefully you can be the first: Stonehenge and Irreducible Complexity. I am kind of proud of my argument, but don't be afraid to tear it apart.

quote:

---

"species appear fully clothed" might express a former DARWINIST cover-up that Aggasiz noticed but reformed with sophisticated philosophy of chance removing by incidence (which needed to have been congruence)the lack that THEY ARE NOT FULLY FORMED (obviously)!

---

Just a quick diversion, and then we'll get back to the topic. I like Darwin's assessment of the fossil record. He said that we can trust the positive evidence but not the negative evidence. That is, in reference to transitional forms we can trust the fossils we do find but we can not trust the lack of fossils to inform us of anything.

quote:

---

The vast majority of IC systems haven't been explained in detail. Explain just a substantial minority or them, and you'll have won the argument.

---

Blood clotting:NCBIBacterial Flagella:http://www.talkdesign.org/faqs/flagellum.html, and a quick quote from this site: Is this good enough, or do you need more?

quote:

---

So, in order to believe that the flagellum evolved, you have to believe that each of its components just happened to evolve independantly and side by side, AND that every time one component of the system combined with another component it coincidentally created yet another subsystem with selection effects all its own.

---

What is so hard to believe? Mutations are capable of changing binding capacities. Natural selection is capable of passing on the best binding capacities to further generations. Therefore, bacteria can come upon a useful protein by chance and that chance mutation then becomes dominant in the population. Everything in this scenario is well within the realm of mutation, and well within the capabilities of natural selection. The outcome could have been different, which is made obvious by the difference in eubacterial and archaebacterial flagella.