From: rokimoto557@gmail.com   
      
   On 10/28/2025 4:27 AM, jillery wrote:   
   > 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   
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)