Re: Biochemistry of Genetic Mechanisms


[moderator's note: I must apologize to the readership for letting
this thread even head this direction. Normally I do not allow
discussion related to "intelligent design", but it seems to me
that we've been staying on the safe side of the tightrope so far.
(ID is, in my view, simply creationism in a tailored suit, and
hence it is inappropriate for this newsgroup.) Use your best
judgement in followups to this thread. - JAH]


"yahooterry@xxxxxxxxx" <terryhilleman@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message news:degtg3$193f$1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Michael Behe, in Darwin's Black Box-The Biochemical Challenge to
> Evolution, insists that natural selection cannot account for the
> purposeful arrangement of parts that is seen at the molecular level.
> ...

I haven't read Behe. But I think that he is 100% wrong about "purposeful
arrangement of parts" at the molecular level. IMO, natural selection is
the ONLY process which can account for the odd mix of purposefulness,
randomness, and the contingencies of history that we find at the
molecular level. IMO, the great weakness of "intelligent design" is
precisely that it cannot account for the molecular level - particularly
for the evidence of "molecular taxonomy".

> Behe defines evolution "in the sense Darwin gave the word. (It)
> means the process whereby life arose from nonliving matter and
> subsequently developed entirely by natural means." Is this correct?

His definition of evolution is also quite odd. He has it right about
"subsequently developed by natural means". But Darwin never published
anything about "the process whereby life arose from nonliving matter".
Or almost nothing. The second edition of 'Origin' contains this
famous line:

"There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers,
having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms
or one; ..."

This is slightly different from the first edition. The phrase "by
the Creator" was added in the second edition.

Darwin twice mentioned the origin of life in private correspondence.
The first was in a letter to Hooker in which he talks about that
change from first to second edition:

"I have long since regretted that I truckled to public opinion
and used the Pentateuchal term of creation, by which I really
meant 'appeared' by some wholly unknown process. It is mere
rubbish thinking at present of the origin of life; one might
as well think of the origin of matter.

The second mention of the issue in private correspondence is the
famous suggestion of a "warm little pond".

Behe's wording is curious. He says that his definition of evolution
is "in the sense that Darwin gave the word". In a sense, he may
be right. As a result of Darwin's explication of the 'design'
problem by non-supernatural means, many people believe that the
origin problem will also someday find non-supernatural explication.
Few accounts of evolution today fail to at least mention the origin
question. I, personally, am fascinated by the origin question, and
I, personally, think that 'evolution' should not be defined to include
the origin. But I find it most convenient to discuss the origin in
a news group "sci.bio.evolution". So, I would have to say that Behe's
definition is defensible. It captures the sense that the word has
today, and it properly attributes that sense to Darwin's efforts.


.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Biochemistry of Genetic Mechanisms
    ... >> Evolution, insists that natural selection cannot account ... > arrangement of parts" at the molecular level. ... >> means the process whereby life arose from nonliving ... But Darwin ...
    (sci.bio.evolution)
  • Re: Activist judge declares that Intelligent Design is not science
    ... Phillip Johnson is known as the father of intelligent design. ... The idea in its current form appeared in the 1980s, and Johnson adopted and developed it after Darwinian evolution came up short, in his view, in explaining how all organisms, including humans, came into being. ... In this interview, hear why he feels that such evidence is "somewhere between weak and nonexistent," why he feels intelligent design is a testable science, and why he thought the Dover trial was a train wreck waiting to happen. ...
    (alt.politics)
  • NBC: Its Over For Unintelligent Design
    ... Judge rules against 'intelligent design' ... 'Religious alternative' to evolution cannot be taught in public school ... ruling in one of the biggest courtroom clashes on evolution since ... The plaintiffs challenging the policy argued that intelligent design amounts ...
    (rec.music.artists.springsteen)
  • Re: D.I. Forges On
    ... Kitzmiller vs. Dover Decision. ... Laib isn't the only who's read and complimented Traipsing. ... intelligent design is just a lot of fundamentalist cant. ... Traipsing Into Evolution is the other side. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: In the News: A Texas-Sized Battle: Evolution vs. ID
    ... controversy over the teaching of evolution in public schools. ... serious intellectual would remain a fellow at the Discovery Institute ... would claim that they never bought into the ID scam, ... organization and Meyer admitted that teaching intelligent design was ...
    (talk.origins)
Quantcast