[continued from previous message]   
      
   >>> *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   
   >>>>>> 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.   
   >   
      
   Behe does accept biological evolution as as fact of nature.  He just   
   claims that his designer can have something to do with it once in a   
   while.  Everything has evolved just as we have figured it out so far.   
   You seem to be hung up on a definition that doesn't exist in science.   
   The NCSE (National Center for Science Education) at one time pushed your   
   definition but they had to back off and remove their claim of "solely by   
   natural causes" from the definition of biological evolution because   
   science just has not made that determination.  Just look it up.  They   
   were initially wrong in the early days of their existence had to   
   acknowledge that science just has never made such a determination, and   
   removed that phrase from what they were pushing.  It is why theistic   
   evolutionists like Ken Miller can be on the side of real science, and   
   not ID scam science.   
      
   Ron Okimoto   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)