[continued from previous message]   
      
   >>>>> 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   
   >>>>>>>> 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.   
      
   How do you know this?  Ken Miller is the one that has taken flak for   
   proposing that God does things in the world by jiggling atoms to get   
   things done.  He has claimed to believe in an interactive God.  That is   
   tweeking.   
      
   >   
   > 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.   
   >   
   You have it backwards in terms of Behe's IC claptrap.  Evolution needs   
   to be true and has to have happened by descent with modification in   
   order for his 3 neutral mutations to be verifiable among IC systems in   
   nature.  The only way that he can claim that IC is a provable fact is if   
   he can figure out the original ancestral sequence by inference from what   
   exists today among related lineages, and use the evolution of those   
   related lineages in order to determine when his 3 neutral mutations   
   occurred.  Behe has pointed out where this has been done in order to   
   demonstrate that 2 neutral mutations have occurred to produce a new   
   function (precambrian) in the steroid receptor gene family, and has   
   admitted that 2 neutral mutations were possible, but that his 3 neutral   
   mutations would be so unlikely to occur that it would be his type of IC.   
     Behe has just never looked for his 3 neutral mutations in his IC   
   systems.  He has just claimed that it would be possible to do what he   
   needs to do, but he just doesn't want to do it or get the Discovery   
   Institute to fund someone that could do it.  His claim is that his   
   designer would be responsible for getting those 3 neutral mutations to   
   occur in the same lineage within his time limit, and that time limit can   
   span several millions of years of evolution of that lineage.  Behe   
   requires informative lineages (still existing today) evolving and   
   branching off as the neutral mutations and other mutations are occurring   
   so he knows the order of occurrence of the changes, and has some type of   
   estimate as to how long it took for the 3 neutral mutations to have   
   occurred.   
      
   This is probably why Sewell dropped IC and the Cambrian explosion out of   
   the ID perp's Top Six best evidences for the ID scam.  ID perps like   
   Nelson and Sewell never wanted the ID science to ever be produced.  The   
   last thing a YEC like Nelson would want is for Meyer to have really had   
   the ID science to demonstrate that some designer had messed with life   
   forms within a 25 million year period over half a billion years ago, and   
   OEC anti-evolution ID perps like Sewell and YEC anti-evolution ID perps   
   like Nelson couldn't stand for IC to be scientifically demonstrated to   
   exist in nature.  What would Sewell and Nelson do if Behe ever   
   demonstrated that some designer was evolving lifeforms by descent with   
   modification over a billion years ago among micro organisms?   
      
   Ron Okimoto   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)