From: 69jpil69@gmail.com   
      
   On Fri, 24 Oct 2025 08:24:20 -0500, RonO    
   wrote:   
      
   >On 10/24/2025 4:00 AM, jillery wrote:   
   >> 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.   
   >   
   >As I said Behe is a Tweeker, and tweeking doesn't have to occur in all    
   >cases of evolution.  Behe is the one that has claimed that the    
   >"devolution" of whales from terrestrial mammals is what is expected to    
   >occur by Darwinian mechanisms with no designer required.   
      
      
   "Tweeking" isn't the problem here.  That's just another word for   
   artificial selection.  We humans have practiced it for millenia.  The   
   problem with Behe's "tweeking" is that he insists his "tweeks" are   
   *supernatural* and selected by a *supernatural* agent, and so *not*   
   biological and *not* science.   
      
   Behe's "devolution" is double-talk, as much biological evolution aka   
   descent with modification as are his so-called IC examples.  Whales   
   aren't just land mammals with a few pieces missing.  Land mammals   
   could not have evolved into obligate aquatic creatures without   
   multiple and major positive mutations along the way.     
      
   Behe's problem here is he refuses to accept that random chance plus   
   *natural* selection provided these *natural* positive mutations to   
   populations without *supernatural* intervention.  It the   
   *supernatural* that makes Behe's IC *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   
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)