From: rokimoto557@gmail.com   
      
   On 10/26/2025 2:56 AM, jillery wrote:   
   > 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   
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)