From: rokimoto557@gmail.com
On 10/23/2025 3:35 AM, jillery wrote:
> On Tue, 21 Oct 2025 14:49:18 -0500, RonO
> wrote:
>
>> On 10/21/2025 10:20 AM, Pro Plyd wrote:
>>> RonO wrote:
>>>> On 10/18/2025 4:48 AM, jillery wrote:
>>>>> On Fri, 17 Oct 2025 19:59:15 -0600, Pro Plyd
>>>>>> jillery wrote:
>>>>>>> On Thu, 16 Oct 2025 22:54:09 +0100, Ernest Major
>>>>>>>> On 16/10/2025 19:24, RonO wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Early in the ID scam I recall that Behe and Phillip Johnson were
>>>>>>>>> supposed to have had ties to Christian reconstructionist groups, but
>>>>>>>>> that association is no longer mentioned, though Phillip Johnson was
>>>>>>>>> supposed to be instrumental in securing funding from Ahmanson
>>>>>>>>> (noted to
>>>>>>>>> be associated with Christian reconstruction).
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Behe is a Catholic. One would not expect Catholics to have ties to
>>>>>>>> Reconstructionist groups. One rather would expect them to be
>>>>>>>> opposed to
>>>>>>>> Reconstructionism.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> An irony is Kenneth R. Miller also identifies as Catholic, yet is a
>>>>>>> vocal and voluminous critic of ID and Michael Behe's Irreducible
>>>>>>> Complexity.
>>>>>> But apparently not practicing catholics?
>>>>>
>>>>> Not clear what your question means. My understanding is in the U.S.
>>>>> there is a schism among members similar to a schism in the general
>>>>> population, between political/social conservatives and progressives.
>>>>> How an individual identifies depends on the specific Church teachings
>>>>> they prioritize. Based on what I have read what Behe and Miller have
>>>>> written, I would guess Miller is more progressive, while Behe is more
>>>>> conservative.
>>>>
>>>> Both claim to attend Mass regularly. I recall one of the ID
>>>> documentaries had a video clip of Miller taking Communion.
>>>
>>> Ah. Was curious if it was catholic-in-name-only, like just
>>> listing a religious preference on a form but not actually
>>> practicing. The church and pope had some time ago moved
>>> to neutral ground as regards to evolution etc
>>>
>> Both Behe and Miller accept biological evolution as a fact of nature,
>> but Miller understands that the ID scam was never science, and has been
>> against it for that reason from the start.
>>
>> Ron Okimoto
>
>
> Point of Order: Behe's concept of biological evolution incorporates
> ID, which presumes conscious and supernatural intervention, and so is
> neither science nor biological; he might as well accept YEC. To say
> Behe accepts biological evolution requires a disingenuous
> contradiction of terms.
>
Behe's designer is a tweeker. He claims that his designer is
responsible for some of the evolution like evolving the flagellum. IC
failed but his 3 neutral mutations within a given period of time in one
lineage depends on descent with modification and the accumulation of
those neutral mutations within Behe's time limit. So Behe requires
descent with modification. Behe understands that biological evolution
is a fact of nature. He isn't like the Reason to believe creationists
that believe that everything only looks like life evolved on this planet
because their god is recreating lifeforms just a little bit different
from the original creations over time. They claim that recreations are
still happening to make it look like evolution is a fact of nature. One
of their examples are the Anolis lizards in the Caribbean. They didn't
evolve, but were created a little differently on each island. This
means that recreations can interbreed and may still be considered to be
the same species. Darwin's finches are recreations. The YEC actually
claim that Darwin's finches evolved after the flood. That is how
whacked creationism is.
Ron Okimoto
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
