Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/0


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 not replied
 Message 4 by Brad McFall, posted 01-17-2003 9:30 PM Andya Primanda has not replied

  
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:
RedRival Free Hosting

This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by Adminnemooseus, posted 09-14-2004 1:58 PM Adminnemooseus has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 7 by jar, posted 09-16-2004 9:34 AM Andya Primanda has not replied
 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 not replied

  
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 not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 15 by ID man, posted 09-30-2004 7:31 PM Andya Primanda has not replied

  
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 not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 16 by ID man, posted 09-30-2004 7:34 PM Andya Primanda has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024