From: 69jpil69@gmail.com   
      
   On Mon, 27 Oct 2025 13:35:33 -0500, RonO    
   wrote:   
      
   >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)