[continued from previous message]   
      
   >>>> 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   
      
      
   Ken Miller is a theistic evolutionist in the sense that he recognizes   
   God started Creation.  He does *not* accept Behe's version of God   
   "tweeking" biological evolution using supernatural mutations.     
      
   OTOH Behe accepts biological evolution as a fact of nature if and only   
   if supernatural events from a purposeful supernatural agent are a   
   *provable* fact.   
      
   --    
   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)