[continued from previous message]   
      
   >>>>> 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.   
   >>>   
   >>> My recollection is that Ham believes in the single original creation as   
   >>> described in the Bible.  He is not a recreationist like the Reason to   
   >>> Believe creationist.  That is why he has animals like ambulocetus (the   
   >>> walking whale) on his Ark.  All extant animals with the breath of life   
   >>> evolved from the pairs of kinds on the Ark.  That is what they claim in   
   >>> their Museum when I visited it.  They were claiming that all cat kinds   
   >>> (from Tabby to the sabertoothed monsters of the ice age that occurred   
   >>> after the flood) and dog kinds (from foxes to wolves) evolved from the   
   >>> same pair of cat kind and dog kind on the Ark.  Some of them are more   
   >>> divergent than humans are to orangutans.   
   >>    
   >>    
   >> Your recollection shows that Creationists like Ken Ham accept   
   >> modification *within* kinds.  An irony to that acceptance is it   
   >> requires hyper-fast evolution since the Flood in order to account for   
   >> the diversity of life that we observe today.   
   >>    
   >> "Recreationists" might also accept modifications within kinds, but   
   >> they also apply IC, and that's what puts them into the *not*   
   >> biological and *not* science Creationist camp.   
   >>    
   >No one claimed that Behe's tweeking was scientific.  Behe is just one    
   >type of theistic evolutionist.  He accepts that humans had an ape like    
   >ancestor.  He just claims that his designer had something to do with it.    
   >  His views are just as unscientific as the recreationists.   
      
      
   You claim above that Behe "accepts biological evolution as a fact of   
   nature".  My replies above show that Behe's concept of biological   
   evolution incorporates supernatural IC and is by Behe's own   
   definitions *not* a fact of nature.   
      
   --    
   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)