RufusAtticus

Behe accepts universal common descent but doesn't agree with current explainations for the diversity of life because they don't take into account of "irreducably complex" traits, which require an intelligent designer.

Which begs the question, "At what point was life intelligently designed?" Did the designer itervene multiple times in the history of life and to modify existing organisms and send them back into the world, ala Dr. Moreau?

Doubting Didymus

I think Behe is genuine. He heard Darwin and others saying that evolution would be disproved if anything were found that could not have less complex forerunners, then he finds biochemical processes that he thinks fit that bill, because you can not 'reduce' them by taking any component away. Naturally, he goes on to think that this means something must have helped the irreducible lineage over the hump in the road. His 'design' happens wherever he finds one of these un-break-downable prescences. I suppose that makes 'multiple moments in history' the correct category.

Of course, that concept of irreducible is not what darwin (and everyone else) meant. Evolutionary irreducible thinks are unable to be built in small steps, not taken apart in small steps.

Interesting to think that Behes entire pet concept is based on nothing more than a misunderstood concept.

theyeti

An atendee of the DDDIII conference in Kansas City asked him that very question after his talk. While I don't remember exactly, Behe basically danced around the issue and muttered something about being frontloaded into the Big Bang. It seemed like a question that he wasn't too thrilled to answer. In general, IDists pretend like it's not even an important question.

theyeti

Grumpy

That doesn't make any sense at all. As I understand ID, the goal is to show show that Nature is not sufficient for evolution. In other words, some supernatural agent must have intervened at some point to create the tell-tale signs of supernatural intervention. The part that doesn't make sense is if that supernatural intervention occurred only once, at the beginning of time.

If that's the case, then everything since the Big Bang has operated in accordance with Nature. You can't "front-load" periodic interventions any more than you can change the trajectory of a baseball after it's been hit.

So either Behe isn't being quoted accurately, he doesn't know what he's talking about, or he's full of it.

theyeti

Well I guarantee his isn't being quoted accurately, since he's not being quoted at all. I'm relating this to you as I heard it from a person who was there and asked him the question, so you're getting it third-hand. Nevertheless, "front-loaded Big Bang" is how I remember it. I'll check again and see if I can find more details about this.

I agree that it doesn't make any sense. Most of the stuff these jokers talk about doesn't. Most of the time when faced with a question like this, the IDist says that ID is only about detecting design, and that any inconsistencies about the when, where, or how don't apply. Of course those latter questions are of real interest to science, and are in fact necessary for answering the former. If you're under the impression that these people are trying to conduct a coherent scientific research program, don't be. The main theme of DDDIII was teaching ID in public schools despite the horrible censorship commited by the Dogmatic Darwinists ™.

theyeti