Why Theistic Evolution Does not "fit".

[Mallon]

Again….Professor Behe is the leading advocate for ID. And I still do not understand your reasoning, your direction, and your claim to Behe’s belief, there is no room for evolution in Behe's theory.

I humbly suggest, then, that you understand neither Intelligent Design nor Michael Behe's take on it.
Behe has written:

[Eugenie] 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.

(Intelligent Design Is Not Creationism by Michael Behe)

As commonly understood, creationism involves belief in an earth formed only about ten thousand years ago, an interpretation of the Bible that is still very popular. For the record, I have no reason to doubt that the universe is the billions of years old that physicists say it is. Further, I find the idea of common descent (that all organisms share a common ancestor) fairly convincing, and have no particular reason to doubt it.

(Michael Behe, Darwin's Black Box, pg 5)

Clearly, intelligent design does not refute evolution.

 

[withreason]

I humbly suggest, then, that you understand neither Intelligent Design nor Michael Behe's take on it.
Behe has written:

(Intelligent Design Is Not Creationism by Michael Behe)


(Michael Behe, Darwin's Black Box, pg 5)

Clearly, intelligent design does not refute evolution.

Your reasoning is obscure, and you direct your post only to argue your heightened sense of intellect.. You have failed to understand My first post.
If, as you say …Evolution is cohesive with ID, then why the refusal to accept ID as curriculum..??
But, neither is that My direction……Darwinian Evolution has no ground in the Irreducible complexity found in the Flagellum Motor, and you My friend are proving my first post !! Evolutionists are struggling to come up with a salvaging theory!! You have failed to show any logical reason for assembly of complex DNA data structuring by basic proteins to assemble the Flagellum Motor, within the confines of the basic laws of Darwinian Evolution.
Teach me something …..if you know so much about ID, & Evolution, don’t display yourself as knowledgeable, only to produce dispute without content!!
If Behe, believes in God or not, I do not care.....niether was, or, is that my concern, or post, there are many expansion theory's on ID, some cohesive, some not....they are still trying to remove God from the quotiant.

You derailed my post with moot and obscure personal views of your own wishful intellect.

 

[Melethiel]

If, as you say …Evolution is cohesive with ID, then why the refusal to accept ID as curriculum..??

Because ID is not science.

 

[Mallon]

If, as you say …Evolution is cohesive with ID, then why the refusal to accept ID as curriculum..??

Melethiel hit the nail on the head. ID is not science.

Darwinian Evolution has no ground in the Irreducible complexity found in the Flagellum Motor, and you My friend are proving my first post !! Evolutionists are struggling to come up with a salvaging theory!!

I'm sorry, but you're just plain wrong. Evolution is not a struggling theory. Evolution is a robust theory that explains many disparate facts, and is used every day by qualified scientists around the world. It ties together biostratigraphy, functional morphology, genetics, biogeography, etc. ID does not. The only people who will tell you otherwise account for less than 1% all workers in the natural sciences. These same people have said evolution was a waning theory ever since Darwin, and guess what... it's still here.
(Incidentally, Paley's watchmaker argument has been around since before Darwin and has yet to catch on in the same fashion.)

You have failed to show any logical reason for assembly of complex DNA data structuring by basic proteins to assemble the Flagellum Motor, within the confines of the basic laws of Darwinian Evolution.

Read Miller's book Finding Darwin's God. He put that tired argument to rest years ago.

Teach me something …..if you know so much about ID, & Evolution, don’t display yourself as knowledgeable, only to produce dispute without content!!

What would you like to know? I've pointed you in the right direction and have given you some resources to check out for yourself. I can't very well read them to you. Independent research is much more rewarding than just being spoonfed the answers. See the second line in my signature.

If Behe, believes in God or not, I do not care.....

Of course Behe believes in God. Why are you equating evolution with a disbelief in a creator? That's a false dichotomy.

You derailed my post with moot and obscure personal views of your own wishful intellect.

Would you like me to apologize for being more knowledgeable and having more experience than you on the subject? See Proverbs 12:1.
Your original post made the point that evolution is false because ID does a better job of explaining the intricacies of the cell ("God did it"). My point is that, regardless as to how the first cell came to be, whether via natural mechanisms or not, the evolution of all life from that first cell is entirely compatible with ID-thinking. Behe feels this very way, as I've shown by accurately quoting him. If you think this point is "moot" or counts as an "obscure personal view," then I would ask you please get your fingers out of your ears and open your eyes!

 

[Brennan]

Darwinian Evolution has no ground in the Irreducible complexity found in the Flagellum Motor, and you My friend are proving my first post !! Evolutionists are struggling to come up with a salvaging theory!!

Er, what? I suggest you re-read post #92 (you appear to have missed it the first time around) - in which the irreducible complexity you refer to was...well, reduced.

Evolutionists will not have to come up with a theory to explain irreducible complexity (easy enough) until ID/creationist proponents can show us an example of it happening.

 

[shernren]

If, as you say …Evolution is cohesive with ID, then why the refusal to accept ID as curriculum..??

Here's an aside, provoked by this question which I find extremely intelligent. (I mean it.)

Some creationists have a picture in their head of a Great Council Of Evolutionists presiding over All Of Science ("evolution is a big mafia in worldwide"), and the reason creationism doesn't get an honorable mention in spite of all its successes [sic] is because it somehow offends this Great Council. They imagine this Great Council poring over textbooks and research journal submissions frenetically weeding out anything that threatens them in any way. "Radiometric dating ... IN. Quantum Physics ... IN. Maxwell's Laws ... IN. Flood geology? OUT!"

But withreason gave a good question. Surely ID as Behe and co. preach it doesn't threaten evolution in many ways. They have no reason to reject evolution when they see evidence, and they accept evolution on many levels. If their work doesn't pose a problem for evolution, then why is this Great Council Of Evolutionists trying to ban ID from the textbooks as well?

The answer, of course, is that there is no Great Council and no hidden agenda. The one agenda of science is to reach an intersubjective description of reality and its cause-effect relationships. If ID accurately describes reality, it's in; if it doesn't, it's out, regardless of how much or how little it offends evolutionists.

That's my piece. I'm done here for now.

 

[busterdog]

YEC explains varves? That's news to me. Perhaps you'd want to start a new thread on that.

Oddly enough, I've seen far more niches that old earth theories explain and young earth theories don't, than the other way around.

Helen Setterfield and GH Morton went round and round on that one on another site. You can't see the apologetics section of rr-bb.com without registering. The essential dispute was of course whether the varves were annual or seasonal/tidal.

At the moment I am focusing my aggression elsewhere, with some young whippersnappers I am coaching who still thing they can take the old man on the wrestling mat.

 

[KerrMetric]

If, as you say …Evolution is cohesive with ID, then why the refusal to accept ID as curriculum..??

I can give you an entire ID curriculum in one sentence.

Some things are so complex they have to have been designed by a higher intelligence and thus we can now stop thinking about them.

But, neither is that My direction……Darwinian Evolution has no ground in the Irreducible complexity found in the Flagellum Motor,

Rubbish. Even Behe backed off this one when his irreducible complexity argument on the flagellum was shown to be wrong.

 

[withreason]

I can give you an entire ID curriculum in one sentence.






Rubbish. Even Behe backed off this one when his irreducible complexity argument on the flagellum was shown to be wrong.

Incorrect, all of you seem to be up to date on the work of Shanks, Joplin, & Miller, and Keith Robison, or so it appears by the slight inference I’m detecting from these posts. All of which produced flashy response and acceptance by the scientific academy.
As for “proving the reducibility of the Flagellum” if one accepts Millers conclusions, “ and reference to the works and study of Barry Hall” at face value, without considering the induction of IPTG to the growth medium, allowing for permease activity, then it would appear to be a reasonable conclusion.
The only problem is…Miller amplified the results of Barry’s findings, while concealing the alterations to the culture, the experiment was artificially supported, and Hall stated that! Yet that goes unpublished, at the same time demonstrates the urgency on Milers part, not only as a scientist, but as an Evolutionist!
As for” Behe backing down” Behe … 1. Miller's prose is often exaggerated and sometimes borders on the bombastic. Perhaps he uses such a relentlessly emphatic style in the hope of overwhelming readers through the sheer force of his words. Perhaps he just has a much-larger-than-average share of self-confidence. Fortunately, in this section on the "acid test," experiments exist to show that his prose is bluster. Let me be blunt--Miller always writes (or speaks) with the utmost confidence, even when experiments show him to be quite wrong. I would caution readers of his work not to be swayed by his tone, whose confidence never wavers even when the evidence does.
Behes response to the 2006 Bridgham study>http://www.arn.org/docs/behe/mb_lamestattempt.htm

Shanks and Joplin's concept of redundant complexity to argue irreducible complexity was also proven to not apply to all biochemical systems.
This argument has only been covered up!! It has NOT been proven!! Yet all the scientific journals steer clear of this issue claiming resolve, Pragmatism is elusive and wayward when present!!
I have no confidence issues with Creation! God said” I AM” he did not say...maybe I AM? All things exist because God exists...period! ID would give allowance for educational curriculum to advance to a position of equality, of course…God would still be excluded I’m sure…a more politically correct term would be used to quell the public outcry. But, it would be a step in a better direction.
It is impossible to expostulate with evolutionists the detrimental effects that evolution has played on our youth; keeping God out of the awareness of young minds is a cruel turn of judicial reasoning.
Truly...If God did not call, we would never know him! ALL WOULD PERISH!

As to mallon's reply; I am pleased that your enthusiasm is strong, and I hope your endeavors are fruit full, yet you lack expierance. I was studying Biology befor you were born!

 

[eddieJ]

There is no such thing as theistic evolution. It is a lie to say that Science says nothing about God. The information gained by Science is used by many people, such as those here, and people like Richard Dawkins, to say: "It all happened by chance. We no longer believe in the Greek and Roman gods, I've just added one more. No, God did not breathe life into man's nostrils."

And there is the answer, my brothers and sisters in Christ. No matter how often anyone says that science does not say anything about God, pick up a book by Richard Dawkins where you'll see example after example of science being used to deny God. Science is a tool to be used by men for good and evil.

Science is not a thing in itself but done by corruptible men, and now, an attempt is being made to corrupt you, my brothers and sisters. People have found things in the ground that science says cannot be there. But all man-made worldviews need to be protected. God is above all men and incorruptible.

Jesus Christ said: "Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning MADE THEM MALE AND FEMALE." Luke 19:4.

I do not contend with science but I do contend with men who say: "See, we have great knowledge and have found our beginning and existence is owed to forces we call natural, and not the supernatural." Consider everyone, what this means. You were made either in the image and likeness of God, or you are but biochemical machines that have somehow become complex, your life is to reproduce and die. This is what I mean by a worldview.


God bless all of you,
Eddie

 

[KerrMetric]

There is no such thing as theistic evolution. It is a lie to say that Science says nothing about God. The information gained by Science is used by many people, such as those here, and people like Richard Dawkins, to say: "It all happened by chance. We no longer believe in the Greek and Roman gods, I've just added one more. No, God did not breathe life into man's nostrils."

And there is the answer, my brothers and sisters in Christ. No matter how often anyone says that science does not say anything about God, pick up a book by Richard Dawkins where you'll see example after example of science being used to deny God. Science is a tool to be used by men for good and evil.

Science is not a thing in itself but done by corruptible men, and now, an attempt is being made to corrupt you, my brothers and sisters. People have found things in the ground that science says cannot be there. But all man-made worldviews need to be protected. God is above all men and incorruptible.

Jesus Christ said: "Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning MADE THEM MALE AND FEMALE." Luke 19:4.

I do not contend with science but I do contend with men who say: "See, we have great knowledge and have found our beginning and existence is owed to forces we call natural, and not the supernatural." Consider everyone, what this means. You were made either in the image and likeness of God, or you are but biochemical machines that have somehow become complex, your life is to reproduce and die. This is what I mean by a worldview.


God bless all of you,
Eddie

Sort of out of tune with your church aren't you?

 

[KerrMetric]

Why does this...

It has NOT been proven!!

Not mesh with this....

I was studying Biology befor you were born!

When did science ever prove a thing?

 

[eddieJ]

Pope Benedict clearly states that man was no accident.




God bless,
Eddie

 

[withreason]

There is no such thing as theistic evolution. It is a lie to say that Science says nothing about God. The information gained by Science is used by many people, such as those here, and people like Richard Dawkins, to say: "It all happened by chance. We no longer believe in the Greek and Roman gods, I've just added one more. No, God did not breathe life into man's nostrils."

And there is the answer, my brothers and sisters in Christ. No matter how often anyone says that science does not say anything about God, pick up a book by Richard Dawkins where you'll see example after example of science being used to deny God. Science is a tool to be used by men for good and evil.

Science is not a thing in itself but done by corruptible men, and now, an attempt is being made to corrupt you, my brothers and sisters. People have found things in the ground that science says cannot be there. But all man-made worldviews need to be protected. God is above all men and incorruptible.

Jesus Christ said: "Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning MADE THEM MALE AND FEMALE." Luke 19:4.

I do not contend with science but I do contend with men who say: "See, we have great knowledge and have found our beginning and existence is owed to forces we call natural, and not the supernatural." Consider everyone, what this means. You were made either in the image and likeness of God, or you are but biochemical machines that have somehow become complex, your life is to reproduce and die. This is what I mean by a worldview.


God bless all of you,
Eddie

This is by far..the best post I have seen in this thread. KUDOS my God fearing friend

 

[KerrMetric]

Pope Benedict clearly states that man was no accident.
God bless,
Eddie

Neither does anyone else. By the way - ever checked out the biology curriculum at Notre Dame?

 

[withreason]

Why does this...
[/size][/font]
Not mesh with this....



When did science ever prove a thing?

you must have a restricted view of the evidence, or your information is selective, you have a PC investigate.

 

[KerrMetric]

you must have a restricted view of the evidence, or your information is selective, you have a PC investigate.

No I was wondering why someone who claims to have studied science uses a fundamental blunder?

 

[withreason]

No I was wondering why someone who claims to have studied science uses a fundamental blunder?

if you have been following my posts and responce you should understand the directive...there is nothing but obscurity from the replys I have recioeved.

 

[withreason]

as to your reason of fundamental blunder...clarify

 

[Parmenio]

Kerr is technically correct. Science is the compilation of evidence and accepting that the conclusion that most reasonably fits the evidence is probably correct. They never really prove anything. Maybe you're thinking of mathematics?