Evidence for God from Science

abelcainsbrother wrote:So Darwin has been thrown under the bus now when it comes to evolution? Kind of reminds me of when atheistic evolutionists throw Kenneth Miller under the bus because he believes in God and evolution and went to court and fought hard to defend evolution against ID.

No, desr, not "thrown under the bus".

It is hardly surprising that a British gentleman naturalist working in the mid 19th
century would miss a few nuances in so huge a topic.

Not all of Einstein's ideas stood the test of time either.

Darwin's basic concept has stood the test of time despite the hysteria of ignorant and misguided
religious fanatics and every test that science has put it to.

Darwin is rightly honoured as a great intellectual pioneer, and nothing said
above remotely suggests otherwise.

Jac3510 wrote:My God, I am just not capable today of saying anything without writing a book. My apologies.

Mom had a saying to the effect that "Sorry for such a long letter, I didnt have time for a short one".

Jac3510 wrote:Can you blame her? It's probably the truest thing I wrote.

That there might have been a God responsible for all that is seems to me a reasonable hypothesis.

Of course, it solves or "solves" an enormous mystery by substituting a far greater one, but, hey.
Might still be true.

But if it is the case, then there is nothing much to discuss, is there? Behold, there is the Answer.

certain narrow understandings of the theory are, if not falsified, almost certainly insufficient in, say, explanatory power to reasonably affirm to be true. And since you tend to defend the theory, I was curious "which version" you were defending

It might be helpful to look at it from the perspectives that there is not so much that there is "the" theory, or different versions of "the" theory. Rather, that ToE is a composite like a rope made of many strands. "The theories about evolution".

Details of our understanding of any of the many theories in divers fields- genetics, geology, just to list things starting with a "g", are always subject to some change.

I have my own somewhat narrow interests with regard to evolution. Genetics is not one of them. Geology is way more to my taste. Biochemisty / DNA, someone else can do that. Ecological relationships, that is good stuff.

So I dont go with a "version". Probably I'd find things I'd question in any "version". And whatever I think today, well, maybe not tomorrow.

That life has evolved, evidently (to me) on its own with no, sorry krink, but "meddling" from
the supernatural is the unifying theme of ToE. The unified theory you speak of seems to me a chimera, for reason of the many strands I spoke of.

On a different topic, I did tell phil that under no circumstances will I read or respond to anything he writes. So I didnt read his latest nebula of ALL CAPS but I suyppose it is the same old. He can quit the stalk and snipe any time, unless he finds it dignified, and edifying for the lurkers.

I think the summary of his oft expressed idea is that it is no use to study or talk about evolution until or unless one has solved the most fundamental mystery of the universe first. He, of course, has the answer, with infallible assurance. (?)

If there is some other message there, perhaps you can find a way to express it in a less
histrionic and more compact way. I would read that.

Audie: That there might have been a God responsible for all that is seems to me a reasonable hypothesis.

Of course, it solves or "solves" an enormous mystery by substituting a far greater one, but, hey.
Might still be true.

There's still hope!

Audie: But if it is the case, then there is nothing much to discuss, is there? Behold, there is the Answer.

Actually, "if that is the case," then there is much and very serious stuff to contemplate and discuss, is there not? Because that would change EVERYTHING, and with very serious ramifications - and joyously so!

I didnt read his latest nebula of ALL CAPS but I suyppose it is the same old.

???

neo-x wrote:

bippy123 wrote:Yes and why can't a transitional creature not be fully formed ?
Is that some kind of law of science that says this ?

I guess someone forgot to tell this to those poor fruit flies that took part of that 80 year failed macroevolution study that produced absolutely nothing of value

I doubt Bippy, that 80 years is enough on any biological scale, and the purpose of the study wasn't to prove macro-evolution. It was to see gene mutations. Infact, some of the results were very interesting and insightful.

It's good to see you post.

Thanks Neo , I'm trying to post here and there in between slot of hours of working
I believe that the biologists in the fruit fly study found a way to accelerate the time of evolution to the equivalent of 1 million years .

I forgot the technique they used but I clearly remember them talking about it .

Michael Behe was recently vindicated when he stated that bacteria that
Formed a resistance to chloroquine needed a minimum of 2 mutations to accomplish this and the odds are 10 to the 40th power based on the number of cells needed for this to happen . And since each year 10 to the 30th bacterial cells are formed even if you count every year since life began your still under the 10 to the 40th mark needed for this to happen .

Behe was totally vindicated on the point that it's extremely unlikely for chloroquine resistance to happen through natural evolution alone .

When he first made this point the talking heads of evolution basically called him a loon . 2 years ago evolutionary biologists themselves vindicated him on this .

http://www.evolutionnews.org/2014/07/so ... 87901.html

Recall that the odds against getting two necessary, independent mutations are the multiplied odds for getting each mutation individually. What if a problem arose that required a cluster of mutations that was twice as complicated as a CCC? (Let's call it a double CCC.) For example, what if instead of the several amino acid changes needed for chloroquine resistance in malaria, twice that number were needed? In that case the odds would be that for a CCC times itself. Instead of 1020 cells to solve the evolutionary problem, we would need 1040 cells. Workers at the University of Georgia have estimated that about a billion billion trillion (1030) bacterial cells are formed on the earth each and every year. ... If that number has been the same over the entire several-billion-year history of the world, then throughout the course of history there would have been slightly fewer than 1040 cells, a bit less than we'd expect to need to get a double CCC. The conclusion, then, is that the odds are slightly against even one double CCC showing up by Darwinian processes in the entire course of life on earth.
(Michael Behe, The Edge of Evolution: The Search for the Limits of Darwinism, p. 135 (Free Press, 2007).)

Remember neo that Behe isn't the typical iDist . He also believes in common descent .
Next post will show how his critics treated him at first and later on

Coyne, Paul Gross, Nick Matzke, Sean Carroll, Richard Dawkins, and PZ Myers Now Apologize to Michael Behe?

Behe's critics misread him as saying that a single CCC necessarily required multiple simultaneous mutations, and castigated Behe for allegedly ignoring the possibility of a single CCC arising via sequential mutations. For example:

Kenneth Miller: "It would be difficult to imagine a more breathtaking abuse of statistical genetics. Behe obtains his probabilities by considering each mutation as an independent event, ruling out any role for cumulative selection, and requiring evolution to achieve an exact, predetermined result." (Nature, 2007)
Paul Gross: "Behe assumes simultaneous mutations at two sites in the relevant gene, but there is no such necessity and plenty of evidence that cumulativeness, rather than simultaneity, is the rule. As Nature's reviewer (Kenneth R. Miller) notes, 'It would be difficult to imagine a more breathtaking abuse of statistical genetics.'" (The New Criterion, 2007)
Jerry Coyne: "What has Behe now found to resurrect his campaign for ID? It's rather pathetic, really. ... Behe requires all of the three or four mutations needed to create such an interaction to arise simultaneously. ... If it looks impossible, this is only because of Behe's bizarre and unrealistic assumption that for a protein-protein interaction to evolve, all mutations must occur simultaneously, because the step-by-step path is not adaptive." (The New Republic, 2007)
Nick Matzke: "Here is the flabbergasting line of argument. First, Behe admits that CQR evolves naturally, but contends that it requires a highly improbable simultaneous double mutation, occurring in only 1 in 1020 parasites. ... The argument collapses at every step." (Trends In Ecology and Evolution, 2007)
Sean Carroll: "Behe makes a new set of explicit claims about the limits of Darwinian evolution, claims that are so poorly conceived and readily dispatched that he has unwittingly done his critics a great favor in stating them. ... Behe's main argument rests on the assertion that two or more simultaneous mutations are required for increases in biochemical complexity and that such changes are, except in rare circumstances, beyond the limit of evolution. .. Examples of cumulative selection changing multiple sites in evolving proteins include ... pyrimethamine resistance in malarial parasites -- a notable omission given Behe's extensive discussion of malarial drug resistance. ... [T]he argument for design has no scientific leg to stand on." (Science, 2007)
Richard Dawkins: "Trapped along a false path of his own rather unintelligent design, Behe has left himself no escape. Poster boy of creationists everywhere, he has cut himself adrift from the world of real science. ... If correct, Behe's calculations would at a stroke confound generations of mathematical geneticists, who have repeatedly shown that evolutionary rates are not limited by mutation." (New York Times, 2007)
And then of course there's PZ Myers. He made much the same criticisms, and also wrote:
Behe isn't just a crackpot who thinks he has a novel explanation for an evolutionary mechanism -- he's a radical anti-evolutionist extremist who rejects the entire notion of the transformation of species by natural processes. ... Most of the arguments are gussied up versions of the kind of handwaving, ignorant rationalizations you'd get from some pomaded fundagelical Baptist minister who got all his biology from the Bible, not at all what you'd expect from a tenured professor of biochemistry at a good university -- throwing in an occasional technical gloss or mangled anecdote from the literature is only a gloss to fool the rubes."""


Not one of these critics apologized for being wrong . The only one who came close was surprisingly enough pz Myers here

Behe's critics then forthcoming? In a world where debates were conducted with the goal of discovering truth rather than scoring points, it sure ought to be. Unfortunately, I'm not sure we live in that world.

What we'll probably get is nothing more than PZ Myers's concession, offered in the context of the rant quoted above:

Fair enough; if you demand a very specific pair of amino acid changes in specific places in a specific protein, I agree, the odds are going to be very long on theoretical considerations alone, and the empirical evidence supports the claim of improbability for that specific combination.
Well, that's more or less what's required to generate chloroquine resistance. We'll gladly take this -- i.e., simply being proven right -- in lieu of an apology.

This right here shows that purely naturalistic evolution alone doesnt seem to be enough to get the job right . I am starting to lean towards behe's camp . Behe is a sort of theistic evolutionist but I believe unlike most his theory allows for God to intervene during parts of the evolutionary process.

Audie wrote:

Jac3510 wrote:Can you blame her? It's probably the truest thing I wrote.

That there might have been a God responsible for all that is seems to me a reasonable hypothesis.

Of course, it solves or "solves" an enormous mystery by substituting a far greater one, but, hey.
Might still be true.

But if it is the case, then there is nothing much to discuss, is there? Behold, there is the Answer.

If God is responsible for evolution, I strongly doubt it would be in the sense of His miraculous intervention to "plug the holes" where otherwise impossible. That's such a watered down version of creationism I don't see any motivator in holding to it at all. Grant that God can do whatever He wants, it remains that when we think about Him, we're bound to follow Scripture first (at least, in Christianity we're so bound) and then use the best reason we can from there. Scripture certainly doesn't say anything about God plugging holes in evolution, and if you're going to say that God used this highly natural process along the way and affirm common descent, then what's the point in saying "but at this point God miraculously intervened." Nah. I don't see anything credible about that. I figure either it happened like the Bible actually describes it--several distinct acts of creations of fully functional creatures--or as evolutionary theory has it.

Of course, I would say that even in the latter sense, God is still "responsible" for evolution, but now we're talking more about God from the sense of natural theology or metaphysics. Evolution doesn't do anything to challenge the notion that God exists. As far as I can tell--and I think I can tell very clearly--there is still the demand for a prime mover with all of the ideas that follow (e.g., simplicity, the standard omnis, etc). If anything, I think that makes the whole of creation much more interesting and gives us a lot more to discuss, not less. But that's just me.

It might be helpful to look at it from the perspectives that there is not so much that there is "the" theory, or different versions of "the" theory. Rather, that ToE is a composite like a rope made of many strands. "The theories about evolution".

Details of our understanding of any of the many theories in divers fields- genetics, geology, just to list things starting with a "g", are always subject to some change.

I have my own somewhat narrow interests with regard to evolution. Genetics is not one of them. Geology is way more to my taste. Biochemisty / DNA, someone else can do that. Ecological relationships, that is good stuff.

So I dont go with a "version". Probably I'd find things I'd question in any "version". And whatever I think today, well, maybe not tomorrow.

That life has evolved, evidently (to me) on its own with no, sorry krink, but "meddling" from
the supernatural is the unifying theme of ToE. The unified theory you speak of seems to me a chimera, for reason of the many strands I spoke of.

I think I'd be more careful here. Consider the Standard Model (the "Big Bang" + inflation) as an analogy. There are a lot of fields of science that contribute. Each field make their own contributions, but you still have a general model. Moreover, one of the great challenges of our day is to reconcile the Standard Model with quantum mechanics. Right now, we just can't do it. Something's wrong, we just don't know what it is. Hopefully, in time, we will. And when we do, the Standard Model will be replaced with something else.

And so it is here. Originally you had what we now call classical Darwinism. Neo-Darwinism is called the Modern Synthesis precisely because it takes all of those fields you are talking about and then synthesizes them into an overarching theory. The problem, though, is that further study has proved (it seems? use a better word if you prefer . . . maybe "some believe that further study strongly suggests . . .") that MS, as stated, is simply false, much like we know the Standard Model, as stated, is somehow false. Just like we don't know how the Standard Model is false. And it is certainly more right than not! But it is just incompatible with other evidence. And so here with the MS.

So I wouldn't say looking for a unifying theme is a chimera. I think it's just science. We take new evidence and where older theories no longer fit the data, we extend them (and so the goal for an Extended Synthesis) or replace them entirely. In the meantime, researchers would do well to familiarize themselves, as much as possible given time restraints, with the contours, strengths, and challenges of their current theory (here, the MS) so that they know how their own specializations can best contribute to deepening our understanding of it.

On a different topic, I did tell phil that under no circumstances will I read or respond to anything he writes. So I didnt read his latest nebula of ALL CAPS but I suyppose it is the same old. He can quit the stalk and snipe any time, unless he finds it dignified, and edifying for the lurkers.

I think the summary of his oft expressed idea is that it is no use to study or talk about evolution until or unless one has solved the most fundamental mystery of the universe first. He, of course, has the answer, with infallible assurance. (?)

If there is some other message there, perhaps you can find a way to express it in a less
histrionic and more compact way. I would read that.

I think he's bringing up the teleological argument. It's well understood that the conditions for which life as we know it are improbable to exist, to put it mildly. The probability is only important because the basic premise of the argument is that the complexity of the world at least appears to be oriented towards a goal. And I don't think most people would disagree with that. Whether you're talking about the biological complexity of the body or the complexity of the relationship between the distance and angle of the earth to the sun and literally dozens of other such factors, all of that seems to make life (as we know it) possible. And since, in our daily lives, such functional complexity always implies a designer, so the argument goes, such world/universal functional complexity would seem to require a world/universal designer.

I happen to think it's a good argument, but the counter arguments are commonly known. The most important is, of course, evolution itself. The claim is that evolution means that at least biological complexity doesn't require a designer after all, so any such purposes we see are illusory. But while that may work for biological complexity, it doesn't at all work for all the other conditions Christian apologists refer to as being "fine tuned"--again, the earth has to be just the right distance from the sun, the atmosphere of a particular composition, etc. There doesn't seem, as best we can tell, that there is any necessary reason that the world must be what it is, so the fact that is does exist like it does demands explanation.

Some shrug their shoulders and say we simply can't know if it really is probable or not since we only have a sample set of 1 . . . this world. But, frankly, I think that's dishonest. If we played a game one and one time only in which I painted a penny green and mixed it in with one thousand other normal colored pennies and then blind folded you, and then you picked out that green penny on your first pick multiple times in a row; well, even if we never played again, we'd all know something was "up" with the game. That's magic trick and illusion, not real chance.

Others recognize this and say that there are just reasons we don't know of that mean the world HAS to be this way. What are they? We don't know. It just must be so! Sorry, not impressed with blind faith, and I know you aren't either.

Some say that there a billions and billions of potential worlds out there, and that makes the chances reasonable. But when you do the actual math, you see that just doesn't hold water (pun intended!).

So other say that the universe is infinitely large or that there are an infinite number of universes. But, of course, we can't in principle detect another universe, much less an infinite number of them. If we could detect it, then it would be a part of our universe. So such statements are faith based and nothing more.

Bottom line: there are only three possibilities here given our current knowledge. First, either the world is like it is from dumb luck, and that strikes me as a dumb and very unscientific position to hold. Second, the world is like it is because it is one of an infinite number of other worlds, but that's held on pure faith. Or third, the world is like it is because something made it like it is. Sure, there's an element of faith here, but at least it is undergirded by other reasons, by the recognition of functional complexity (e.g., purposefulness in the universe), and so by analogy. In other words, only the last option fits what we already know to be true about the world. So I think, in my own opinion, it is most reasonable to conclude that some sort of God actually does exist--or, even more precisely, something exists that made everything, and whatever that something is, we may as well call it God!

But, then again, maybe phil wasn't getting at any of that.

Jac: Of course, I would say that even in the latter sense, God is still "responsible" for evolution, but now we're talking more about God from the sense of natural theology or metaphysics. Evolution doesn't do anything to challenge the notion that God exists. As far as I can tell--and I think I can tell very clearly--there is still the demand for a prime mover with all of the ideas that follow (e.g., simplicity, the standard omnis, etc).

Dear god, man, don't go to THAT argument - it rattles cages, isn't scientific. Ah, but the metaphysics of another dimension, one that is not physical, is where the answers are to be found. There's just no way around that. And SOMETHING in that other dimension was eternal, of enormous power and intelligence. And whatever you think that "something" was, you must dismiss the three adjectives of the last sentence - but you'll have to do it with logic and reason. Ever heard of reverse engineering. Reverse engineer the entire universe, and where do you end up - with an invisible realm of SOMETHING. And whatever one believes about that dimension, it truly is a faith thing - has to be.

The question that we should ALL ask: Are there ANY other evidences that might point to the identity of that invisible, eternal, powerful SuperIntelligence? What is the range of possibilities of other evidences? And what kind of criteria would we use to validate or dismiss them?

Audie wrote:

Jac3510 wrote:Can you blame her? It's probably the truest thing I wrote.

That there might have been a God responsible for all that is seems to me a reasonable hypothesis.

Of course, it solves or "solves" an enormous mystery by substituting a far greater one, but, hey.
Might still be true.

But if it is the case, then there is nothing much to discuss, is there? Behold, there is the Answer.

That final statement isn't really true. It wasn't true for Copernicus, Kepler, Galileo, Newton, Boyle, and Pascal. Nor was it true, if we factor him in, Darwin when he set out as a Christian. There are many Christians today, for whom, once they understand things in the world have a telos, their journey of understanding is all the more desiring. Their knowing God designed such, makes them all the more want to explore how God did it, such doesn't preclude looking for natural mechanistic explanations. Such exploration, is even a way of worshipping of God.

Consider that, if we just think nature is responsible alone, it still doesn't stop us exploring how it was done. Add in God, and you also have a different avenue of exploration, which is the "why" it was done. For me, why questions are often more interesting than the how.

Kurieuo wrote:

Audie wrote:

Jac3510 wrote:Can you blame her? It's probably the truest thing I wrote.

That there might have been a God responsible for all that is seems to me a reasonable hypothesis.

Of course, it solves or "solves" an enormous mystery by substituting a far greater one, but, hey.
Might still be true.

But if it is the case, then there is nothing much to discuss, is there? Behold, there is the Answer.

That final statement isn't really true. It wasn't true for Copernicus, Kepler, Galileo, Newton, Boyle, and Pascal. Nor was it true, if we factor him in, Darwin when he set out as a Christian. There are many Christians today, for whom, once they understand things in the world have a telos, their journey of understanding is all the more desiring. Their knowing God designed such, makes them all the more want to explore how God did it, such doesn't preclude looking for natural mechanistic explanations. Such exploration, is even a way of worshipping of God.

Consider that, if we just think nature is responsible alone, it still doesn't stop us exploring how it was done. Add in God, and you also have a different avenue of exploration, which is the "why" it was done. For me, why questions are often more interesting than the how.

Yeah, that was ill conceived. I had something in mind, but it never got even half baked.
Prolly was in reference to something said by the sea cow anyway, so I take it back and agree with you.

bippy123 wrote:

neo-x wrote:

bippy123 wrote:Yes and why can't a transitional creature not be fully formed ?
Is that some kind of law of science that says this ?

I guess someone forgot to tell this to those poor fruit flies that took part of that 80 year failed macroevolution study that produced absolutely nothing of value

I doubt Bippy, that 80 years is enough on any biological scale, and the purpose of the study wasn't to prove macro-evolution. It was to see gene mutations. Infact, some of the results were very interesting and insightful.

It's good to see you post.

Thanks Neo , I'm trying to post here and there in between slot of hours of working
I believe that the biologists in the fruit fly study found a way to accelerate the time of evolution to the equivalent of 1 million years .

I forgot the technique they used but I clearly remember them talking about it .

Michael Behe was recently vindicated when he stated that bacteria that
Formed a resistance to chloroquine needed a minimum of 2 mutations to accomplish this and the odds are 10 to the 40th power based on the number of cells needed for this to happen . And since each year 10 to the 30th bacterial cells are formed even if you count every year since life began your still under the 10 to the 40th mark needed for this to happen .

Behe was totally vindicated on the point that it's extremely unlikely for chloroquine resistance to happen through natural evolution alone .

When he first made this point the talking heads of evolution basically called him a loon . 2 years ago evolutionary biologists themselves vindicated him on this .

http://www.evolutionnews.org/2014/07/so ... 87901.html

Recall that the odds against getting two necessary, independent mutations are the multiplied odds for getting each mutation individually. What if a problem arose that required a cluster of mutations that was twice as complicated as a CCC? (Let's call it a double CCC.) For example, what if instead of the several amino acid changes needed for chloroquine resistance in malaria, twice that number were needed? In that case the odds would be that for a CCC times itself. Instead of 1020 cells to solve the evolutionary problem, we would need 1040 cells. Workers at the University of Georgia have estimated that about a billion billion trillion (1030) bacterial cells are formed on the earth each and every year. ... If that number has been the same over the entire several-billion-year history of the world, then throughout the course of history there would have been slightly fewer than 1040 cells, a bit less than we'd expect to need to get a double CCC. The conclusion, then, is that the odds are slightly against even one double CCC showing up by Darwinian processes in the entire course of life on earth.
(Michael Behe, The Edge of Evolution: The Search for the Limits of Darwinism, p. 135 (Free Press, 2007).)

Remember neo that Behe isn't the typical iDist . He also believes in common descent .
Next post will show how his critics treated him at first and later on

I think Behe has a point here,but I think he has overlooked the fact that mutations really don't matter much,because this is just adaptation and it remains bacteria,so no evolution. The real edge of evolution is that despite normal variation in reproduction,adaptations,mutations all kinds of life still just produce after its kind,just like this bacteria did. I have no problem admitting that when life is able to adapt,it causes physical changes that allows that kind of life to live or survive in its environment,but kinds are still producing after their kind regardless,so no evolution is happening. It's really just adaptation being proven(which we already knew anyway) smuggled in for evidence life evolves.
So that those who actually believe one population of a kind can eventually evolve into another kind of life are believing it can just because scientists in a lab proved that life can adapt. It is a case of stating the obvious that life can adapt.

Philip wrote:

Jac: Of course, I would say that even in the latter sense, God is still "responsible" for evolution, but now we're talking more about God from the sense of natural theology or metaphysics. Evolution doesn't do anything to challenge the notion that God exists. As far as I can tell--and I think I can tell very clearly--there is still the demand for a prime mover with all of the ideas that follow (e.g., simplicity, the standard omnis, etc).

Dear god, man, don't go to THAT argument - it rattles cages, isn't scientific. Ah, but the metaphysics of another dimension, one that is not physical, is where the answers are to be found. There's just no way around that. And SOMETHING in that other dimension was eternal, of enormous power and intelligence. And whatever you think that "something" was, you must dismiss the three adjectives of the last sentence - but you'll have to do it with logic and reason. Ever heard of reverse engineering. Reverse engineer the entire universe, and where do you end up - with an invisible realm of SOMETHING. And whatever one believes about that dimension, it truly is a faith thing - has to be.

The question that we should ALL ask: Are there ANY other evidences that might point to the identity of that invisible, eternal, powerful SuperIntelligence? What is the range of possibilities of other evidences? And what kind of criteria would we use to validate or dismiss them?

Sure, phil. It's the most classic of all questions: why is there something rather than nothing? That's the Second Way. We know that there are contingent things, but everything can't be contingent. Because if everything is contingent, then everything depends on nothing, which is literally a self-contradiction. No, there must be something that is necessary.

But that's also why I'm a classical theist and not a modern one. I think David Hume of all people is right on this point. He argued that if we allow for a god of some sort to be complex and yet necessary, then we may as well let that be our universe, which is also complex, to be necessary in some mysterious way. On the other hand, if we recognize that the contingency of everything in the universe is related to its complexity (thinking here of composition), then we see that whatever is really necessary must be non-composite, aka simple. So the whole "just be" kind of thing. Whether or not people are willing to accept that necessary conclusion is another matter entirely, though.

Jac it's the classic first cause argument and since infinite regression is a logical contradiction the first necessary Uncaused first cause is the only thing that makes sense .

God is the being that says ""the buck stops here ""

Abel you are correct but Behe made this point to talk to believers and non believers alike on the other side , and he's saying that whether they believe evolution is true or not it can't be blind evolution . The odds simply don't allow for it .

To get a concession from the likes of PZ Meyers on anything related to evolution must have been a very hard pill for Myers to swallow

Abel I'm
Sure you've seen my arguments of fruit flies and lenski's bacteria so you know that I fully understand the difficulties with macro evolution