From: 69jpil69@gmail.com   
      
   On Thu, 23 Oct 2025 08:44:00 -0500, RonO    
   wrote:   
      
   >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 requires descent with *conscious* modification, and those   
   modifications are by his own definition *supernatural*, which makes   
   them *not* biological and *not* science.   
      
      
   >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.   
      
      
   Point of Order: Ken Ham's Ark Encounter and Creation Museum both   
   recognize and teach modification within kinds.  So even Creationists   
   recognize biological modification.  There isn't a dime's worth of   
   functional difference between Behe's ID and Creationism.   
      
      
   >Ron Okimoto   
      
   --    
   To know less than we don't know is the nature of most knowledge   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)