Oh come off it. Behe is a Fellow of the Discovery Institute ! He's in it with Wells and Dembski and Philip Johnson and the rest. He doesn't shun them at all ! Do you really not know any of that ?
Of course I know he's a fellow at the Discovery Institute. Actually, come to think of it, he might even be a Senior Fellow at DI. But all of that doesn't matter since the Discovery Institute is about Intelligent Design, not creationism.
I should also add that when people say ID and creationism are one and the same, how is that Percy, an evolutionist, distinguishes the forums as pertaining to Intelligent Design
or creationism?
Obviously there is a difference. Especially when you have to consider the fact that Wells is a Moonie, which has almost no remnant of Christianity left in it.
According to the reviews Behe is quite clear that he accepts common descent. Ergo he rejects special creation. It appears that his God intervens by genetically engineering life rather than creating separate "kinds".
I seriously doubt that is the case, being that his argument with flagellum, and more broadly, irreducible complexity, is based on how it is impossible to have arrived at even the simplest compounds without something necessitating the action thereof.
Behe's irreducible complexity argument claims that a system which meets the criteria cannot evolve. It fails because Behe relies on the assumption that evolution proceeds only by adding parts.
It has to, as you said, add parts. How can you have nothing create something, albeit relatively simple, and arrive at higher more specified complexity if it is not actually adding?
But aside from that, how was that supposed to answer my question? You calimed that Behe is only trying to smuggle in God, specifically. I asked you why you are so sure, aside from speculation. And this was your response. I'm not seeing how IC automatically assumes the Judeo-Christian God.
he's not a credible source. He's just the least bad one they have who's prepared to write books and go on the road.
Is his PhD less credible than anyone else's? You can't just say that he isn't a credible source simply because his view differs from yours.
detecting design is something that cannot be divorced from the proposed designer. By its very nature it relates to the purposes and capabilities of the designer.
No kidding. Who said that Discovery Inst doesn't say there is a Designer? They readily assert that. What I'm saying is that assuming the Designer does not mean that you
must assume the Judeo-Christian God.
You agree that saying that the Designer is God isn't science. But he's perfectly free to do that. None of his antagonists say that he shouldn't. All he has to do is to admit that it isn't science.
I'm saying, and apparently him to, that there is no direct link between God and available evidence. How many times have I said that God, by the very nature of it, is not proveable? I've said it multiple times.
Behe is free to have whatever personal belief he wants. What he is also free to do is show evidence that supports the design inference. But really, what do you care? Why does it bother you to no end whether someone deduces that a Designer(s) exists?
The only reason he keeps quiet about it is because the DI have to avoid religious talk in their attempts to get ID into schools. The whole issue is about the US school curriculum.
What DI would like to see, is an alternative theory available for students to surmise themselves, instead of the monopoly that currently exists. You must secretly be terrified at the prospect that someone might actually believe his argument.
It's a big deal because the DI regularly lies on the issue.
What do they regularly lie about?
This "a priori" ruling still seems to be a complete invention.
There is a palpable fear among the masses that God not be let out of a box. This fearmongering by a certain group, of its own
party line wants desperately to keep anything that might remotely be interpreted as God out of the way.
ID simply says that a Designer must exist, and that evidence of the design illustrates a Designer. Will most people likely assume God? Probably. But they don't need to be made sorry for that. They aren't teaching theology mixed with science as AiG or ICR. Science isn't interested in theological questions anymore than mathematics would be. Nor should I expect it to, unless it so happens to corroborate a claim.
What I abhor is
trying to find scientific evidence that can be manipulated into conforming with the Bible which some creationists are apt to do.
Do you see the difference now?
What impossible conditions ?
That you've ruled out a Designer before the inquiry even began. Its like you're looking for the answer of 2 + 2, all the while denying the possibility of 4 as a credible answer.
I just want Behe to be honest.
What is he not being honest about that you can pinpoint? If you say that he's dishonest, give me some reason to assume that.
"It is not the critic who counts, not the man who points out how the strong man stumbled, or where the doer of deeds could have done better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena; whose face is marred by the dust and sweat and blood; who strives valiantly; who errs and comes short again and again; who knows the great enthusiasms, the great devotions and spends himself in a worthy course; who at the best, knows in the end the triumph of high achievement, and who, at worst, if he fails, at least fails while daring greatly; so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who know neither victory or defeat." -Theodore Roosevelt
™ Version 4.2
