The very first point in the interview IMHO is where the current evolutionary thought goes wrong... "random evolution".
1.) Creates a model where evolution would pretty much be a 'constant grind' as opposed to what we see, rapid evolution when environments change.
2.) Creates a situation where the organism is separate from it's environment and has nothing to do with it's own destiny. Where we see, in reality, organsims reacting to their environment all the time, moving towards good things and away from bad.
NOW, that said, I completely disagree with Bebe's next answer and point... that "Darwinism" (as opposed to LaMarck) states "ramdom mutation with natural selection" can't get the job done. What I disagree with is the "ramdom mutation" being attached to Darawin's name since he didn't even know what a gene was!! He should be using terms like 'current evolutionary thought, or "modern synthesis today"... That idea (ramdom mutation) has been added much later, I"m surprised Behe would use those words as I believe he is incorrect. Darwin MAY have implied that 'natural selection' was enough (later in life he supposedly had reservations that it was apparently... giving Lamarck more creedance than others... at least I hear that), but Behe should really be adressing 'ramdom mutation'.
I'll listen to the rest later, but clearly Behe himself certainly believes in evolution, from what I heard so far... in fact even 'natural selection'... just that it's not the whole story... pretty much in line with my own thinking, actually.
DAK |
