Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9073 total)
90 online now:
AZPaul3, nwr, Tanypteryx (3 members, 87 visitors)
Newest Member: MidwestPaul
Post Volume: Total: 893,317 Year: 4,429/6,534 Month: 643/900 Week: 167/182 Day: 47/27 Hour: 0/1

Announcements: Security Update Released


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Behe on organismal evolution
Andya Primanda
Inactive Member


Message 1 of 57 (24538)
11-27-2002 12:51 AM


As someone who is not well-versed in microstructures, I cannot say much over Michael Behe's Irreducibly Complex thesis. However, I get the impression that this guy is okay with common descent, macroevolution, and the primate ancestry of man. Is it true? If true, is there any documentation on this? Ken Miller in Finding Darwin's God wrote that once he confronted Behe about human evolution, and Behe dismissed Miller by saying that he has no problem with it himself and he accepts the mainstream explanation. Interesting character, isn't he?

Creationists love to use IC as their arsenal, but they did not realize (or maybe they did) that Behe is, after all, a theistic evolutionist. The difference between him and Ken Miller is just over IC. Other creationists extrapolate IC into separate creation of each species or each kind (may vary according to each creationist's specifications), which I assume Behe rejects.

Therefore, why don't we delve into this matter further? Is it true that Michael Behe has no problem with organismal evolution, micro or macro?


Replies to this message:
 Message 2 by mark24, posted 11-27-2002 4:23 AM Andya Primanda has taken no action
 Message 4 by Brad McFall, posted 01-17-2003 9:30 PM Andya Primanda has taken no action

  
mark24
Member (Idle past 4434 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 2 of 57 (24551)
11-27-2002 4:23 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Andya Primanda
11-27-2002 12:51 AM


Andya,

The interesting thing is, once you get above the cellular level, there are still IC systems abungo. Jaws, backbones etc. Wierd. How does Behe explain the evolution of IC systems AFTER multicellular organisms appeared?

Mark

------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.

[This message has been edited by mark24, 11-27-2002]


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Andya Primanda, posted 11-27-2002 12:51 AM Andya Primanda has taken no action

Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by Tranquility Base, posted 11-27-2002 11:19 PM mark24 has taken no action

  
Tranquility Base
Inactive Member


Message 3 of 57 (24704)
11-27-2002 11:19 PM
Reply to: Message 2 by mark24
11-27-2002 4:23 AM


Mark

My personal suspicion is that he believes God directed it.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 2 by mark24, posted 11-27-2002 4:23 AM mark24 has taken no action

  
Brad McFall
Member (Idle past 4272 days)
Posts: 3428
From: Ithaca,NY, USA
Joined: 12-20-2001


Message 4 of 57 (29436)
01-17-2003 9:30 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Andya Primanda
11-27-2002 12:51 AM


There may be something to this "thesis". Heterozygosity may be a symmetrical electrotonic state and have ABSOlutely nothing to do with "correcting" Mendel's A+2Aa+a inTo AA+2Aa+aa. The diffulty of seeing the "design contraint" in a goldenGouldchannel... seems to arise from NOMENCLAUTURALLY confusing homozygous inversions {A-B-C-D-centromere-D-C-B-A,A-B-C-D-centromere-D-C-B-A) with Heterzygote characterized [in the evolution of dominance]{A-B-C-D-centromere--..., D-C-B-A-centromere--...} etc in a single transmission genetics for ambiguously described physiological genetics in some higher order catastrophe set such that WITH THE SAME CONTINUITY there is only a Numerical Difference in the kinds of catastrophes per comparision (before the aforesaid "etc"").

Mendel was misunderstood because translocations and inversions were sperated on the Morgan paradigm of DeVries Mutation Theory rather than unified between boundary values and intital conditions. Everyone knows McClintock even after the fact did not get her due. Flybase did not address this disambiguation problem that can be resolved with the perverted model I began to outline.

If cab is junk the case history is closed. Please try to learn.

[This message has been edited by Brad McFall, 01-17-2003]


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Andya Primanda, posted 11-27-2002 12:51 AM Andya Primanda has taken no action

  
Adminnemooseus
Administrator
Posts: 3959
Joined: 09-26-2002
Member Rating: 5.8


Message 5 of 57 (142353)
09-14-2004 1:58 PM


Bump
I think this would be the preferred topic, to discuss Michael Behe specific themes.

Adminnemooseus


Replies to this message:
 Message 6 by Andya Primanda, posted 09-16-2004 6:20 AM Adminnemooseus has taken no action

  
Andya Primanda
Inactive Member


Message 6 of 57 (142663)
09-16-2004 6:20 AM
Reply to: Message 5 by Adminnemooseus
09-14-2004 1:58 PM


Back to Behe
Just noticed that this topic had been resurrected. And after seeing some discussions over Behe's view on common descent in other threads I wonder why people are still not coming

But anyway, I am still looking for a first-hand explicit declaration from Behe himself that he actually accepted that humans descended from apelike ancestors, if there is such a thing. The best I currently have is still Behe's own words in Darwin's Black Box when he considered the evidence for common descent as "compelling".

PS: I had the opportunity to present a paper concerning Islamic creation on a workshop two months ago which feature Prof. John Haught. In my paper I reviewed the spectrum of creationism, where I put Behe under 'theistic evolutionist'. Prof Haught disagrees with me, saying that Behe is better considered as a creationist. Here's my paper:

http://redrival.com/evolusi/yogya2004.pdf


This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by Adminnemooseus, posted 09-14-2004 1:58 PM Adminnemooseus has taken no action

Replies to this message:
 Message 7 by jar, posted 09-16-2004 9:34 AM Andya Primanda has taken no action
 Message 8 by Minnemooseus, posted 09-16-2004 12:51 PM Andya Primanda has replied
 Message 17 by JasonChin, posted 10-07-2004 7:22 AM Andya Primanda has taken no action

  
jar
Member
Posts: 33908
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 2.7


Message 7 of 57 (142682)
09-16-2004 9:34 AM
Reply to: Message 6 by Andya Primanda
09-16-2004 6:20 AM


Re: Back to Behe
Neat paper. Well thought out and researched. Thanks for sharing it.


Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by Andya Primanda, posted 09-16-2004 6:20 AM Andya Primanda has taken no action

  
Minnemooseus
Member
Posts: 3879
From: Duluth, Minnesota, U.S. (West end of Lake Superior)
Joined: 11-11-2001
Member Rating: 2.7


Message 8 of 57 (142734)
09-16-2004 12:51 PM
Reply to: Message 6 by Andya Primanda
09-16-2004 6:20 AM


Miller not a theistic evolutionist
Going off topic a bit -

In the context of the Finding Darwin's God topic, I managed to present a series of misimpressions of Miller's position (D'oh).

I think Miller keeps his theism and evolution seperate. Thus, he is not a theistic evolutionist.

At message 31 of the above cited, MrHambre says:

quote:
I admire the way he takes great pains to distance himself from 'theistic evolutionists,' since he won't ascribe intention to the admittedly hit-or-miss history of life on earth.

I agree with MrHambre. I also agree with you, that Behe is a theistic evolutionist. But Behe's "theistic" part of his evolution views still seems pretty small. In my view, Behe is an evolutionist with just a tinge of creationist in him.

I wonder if Behe would "ascribe intention to the admittedly hit-or-miss history of life on earth"?

Moose


This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by Andya Primanda, posted 09-16-2004 6:20 AM Andya Primanda has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 9 by Ooook!, posted 09-16-2004 2:10 PM Minnemooseus has replied
 Message 14 by Andya Primanda, posted 09-17-2004 5:31 AM Minnemooseus has taken no action

  
Ooook!
Member (Idle past 5054 days)
Posts: 340
From: London, UK
Joined: 09-29-2003


Message 9 of 57 (142754)
09-16-2004 2:10 PM
Reply to: Message 8 by Minnemooseus
09-16-2004 12:51 PM


Proteins for Fossils
I hope that this isn't too off-topic, but :

In my view, Behe is an evolutionist with just a tinge of creationist in him.

My creo-ometer tends to go off quite strongly though whenever I see any of his arguments used, for a couple of reasons:

  • The arguments have an uncanny resemblence to YEC-like ones that misinterpret the incomplete fossil record. 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.

  • Many out-and-out creationists seem to jump on the Behe bandwagon. Behe knows his audience and so pushes the "God must have done it" angle harder than the evo side of things. For example - the common descent thing is only compelling, how about pretty much unassailable? Of course a cynic might point out that he has to sell books and go on lecture tours!

  • This message is a reply to:
     Message 8 by Minnemooseus, posted 09-16-2004 12:51 PM Minnemooseus has replied

    Replies to this message:
     Message 10 by Loudmouth, posted 09-16-2004 3:26 PM Ooook! has taken no action
     Message 11 by Minnemooseus, posted 09-16-2004 3:41 PM Ooook! has taken no action

      
    Loudmouth
    Inactive Member


    Message 10 of 57 (142770)
    09-16-2004 3:26 PM
    Reply to: Message 9 by Ooook!
    09-16-2004 2:10 PM


    Re: Proteins for Fossils
    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.


    This message is a reply to:
     Message 9 by Ooook!, posted 09-16-2004 2:10 PM Ooook! has taken no action

    Replies to this message:
     Message 19 by JasonChin, posted 10-07-2004 7:36 AM Loudmouth has replied

      
    Minnemooseus
    Member
    Posts: 3879
    From: Duluth, Minnesota, U.S. (West end of Lake Superior)
    Joined: 11-11-2001
    Member Rating: 2.7


    Message 11 of 57 (142778)
    09-16-2004 3:41 PM
    Reply to: Message 9 by Ooook!
    09-16-2004 2:10 PM


    Behe / Creationist relationship
    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.

    ID is termed "God of the gaps" or "God in the details". Even IF God was in the details, that still leaves a lot of evolution to be free running.

    Moose

    {Edited to change ID from "admin mode" - Moose}

    This message has been edited by minnemooseus, 09-16-2004 02:46 PM


    This message is a reply to:
     Message 9 by Ooook!, posted 09-16-2004 2:10 PM Ooook! has taken no action

    Replies to this message:
     Message 12 by Loudmouth, posted 09-16-2004 4:25 PM Minnemooseus has taken no action

      
    Loudmouth
    Inactive Member


    Message 12 of 57 (142783)
    09-16-2004 4:25 PM
    Reply to: Message 11 by Minnemooseus
    09-16-2004 3:41 PM


    Re: Behe / Creationist relationship
    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.


    This message is a reply to:
     Message 11 by Minnemooseus, posted 09-16-2004 3:41 PM Minnemooseus has taken no action

    Replies to this message:
     Message 13 by Andya Primanda, posted 09-17-2004 5:26 AM Loudmouth has taken no action

      
    Andya Primanda
    Inactive Member


    Message 13 of 57 (142877)
    09-17-2004 5:26 AM
    Reply to: Message 12 by Loudmouth
    09-16-2004 4:25 PM


    Re: Behe / Creationist relationship
    We already know Behe sympathizes with creationists. It's so obvious.

    What I'm interested in looking is actual quotes, words, interviews, whatever, from Behe that is NOT usual creationist stuff. I mean, like the one pointed out by Ken Miller, when Behe said he's okay with human evolution. Regrettably I can't find any information on the net that documents that case.


    This message is a reply to:
     Message 12 by Loudmouth, posted 09-16-2004 4:25 PM Loudmouth has taken no action

    Replies to this message:
     Message 15 by ID man, posted 09-30-2004 7:31 PM Andya Primanda has taken no action

      
    Andya Primanda
    Inactive Member


    Message 14 of 57 (142879)
    09-17-2004 5:31 AM
    Reply to: Message 8 by Minnemooseus
    09-16-2004 12:51 PM


    Re: Miller not a theistic evolutionist
    Umm... Moose you said Ken Miller's not a theistic evolutionist and Behe's a theistic evolutionist. In my paper I call them both theistic evolutionists (Miller='weak', Behe='strong'). John Haught considers his and Miller's position as theistic evolutionist and dismisses Behe as an IDist.

    So who is a theistic evolutionist?


    This message is a reply to:
     Message 8 by Minnemooseus, posted 09-16-2004 12:51 PM Minnemooseus has taken no action

    Replies to this message:
     Message 16 by ID man, posted 09-30-2004 7:34 PM Andya Primanda has taken no action

      
    ID man
    Inactive Member


    Message 15 of 57 (146261)
    09-30-2004 7:31 PM
    Reply to: Message 13 by Andya Primanda
    09-17-2004 5:26 AM


    Re: Behe / Creationist relationship
    quote:
    Andya:
    We already know Behe sympathizes with creationists. It's so obvious.

    We do and it is? By what evidence? Behe flat out staes he believes in common descent. Creationists do not.

    Scott refers to me as an intelligent design "creationist," even though I clearly write in my book Darwin's Black Box (which Scott cites) that I am not a creationist and have no reason to doubt common descent. In fact, my own views fit quite comfortably with the 40% of scientists that Scott acknowledges think "evolution occurred, but was guided by God." Where I and others run afoul of Scott and the National Center for Science Education (NCSE) is simply in arguing that intelligent design in biology is not invisible, it is empirically detectable. - Michael Behe

    from :
    http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&id=286


    "...the most habitable place in the solar system yields the best view of solar eclipses just when observers can best appreciate them." from "The Privileged Planet"

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 13 by Andya Primanda, posted 09-17-2004 5:26 AM Andya Primanda has taken no action

      
    Newer Topic | Older Topic
    Jump to:


    Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

    ™ Version 4.1
    Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2022