Korthof reviews Behe
TomS
<http://home.planet.nl/~gkorthof/korthof86.htm>
I haven't yet read the review, but the first thing that Korthof mentions
is that Behe doesn't offer a theory of design.
Korthof has an interesting collection of alternatives to evolution on his
web pages.
(Thanks to "Stranger Fruit" at scienceblogs.com for the pointer to
this review.)
--
---Tom S.
"There was a lot more to magic, as Harry quickly found out, than waving your
wand and saying a few funny words."
JK Rowling, Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone, Chapter VIII, page 133
Desertphile
wrote:
> Gert Korthof has a review of Behe's latest book here:
>
> <http://home.planet.nl/~gkorthof/korthof86.htm>
>
> I haven't yet read the review, but the first thing that Korthof mentions
> is that Behe doesn't offer a theory of design.
>
> Korthof has an interesting collection of alternatives to evolution on his
> web pages.
Does he also have a collection of alternatives to gravity?
> (Thanks to "Stranger Fruit" at scienceblogs.com for the pointer to
> this review.)
--
http://desertphile.org
Desertphile's Desert Soliloquy. WARNING: view with plenty of water
"Why aren't resurrections from the dead noteworthy?" -- Jim Rutz
John Harshman
> Gert Korthof has a review of Behe's latest book here:
>
> <http://home.planet.nl/~gkorthof/korthof86.htm>
>
> I haven't yet read the review, but the first thing that Korthof mentions
> is that Behe doesn't offer a theory of design.
>
> Korthof has an interesting collection of alternatives to evolution on his
> web pages.
>
> (Thanks to "Stranger Fruit" at scienceblogs.com for the pointer to
> this review.)
>
>
It's a reasonable critique, with one fundamental exception. Korthof's
most important (to Korthof) criticism of Behe is that Behe allows for
both common descent (CD) and intelligent design (ID) through non-random
mutation. According to Korthof, this is impossible. To quote one such
statement in the review: "According to standard scientific logic, if CD
is true than it automatically follows that all species we see are
created by RMNS [random mutation and natural selection]."
But Korthof never justifies this claim. I know of no scientist who would
make such a claim, and Korthof gives no examples. He just says "Probably
all DNA evidence for CD is based on random mutation supplemented with
neutral evolution, genetic drift and horizontal gene transfer."
But he provides no evidence that this is true. As an evolutionary
biologist, let me specifically deny that assertion right here. The main
evidence for common descent relies on a nested hierarchy of similarities
and differences. The most parsimonious explanation for this hierarchy is
that it arose through a series of changes spread over a branching tree.
The evidence lies in the distribution of changes. The causes of those
changes are irrelevant to the pattern. God could have lovingly placed
each and every change, and it wouldn't matter to the pattern or to its
explanation. Korthof is wrong.
Mind you, I do think that the changes we see were produced by the
mechanisms Korthof mentions, and there is considerable evidence that
what we see is, at the least, indistinguishable from the results of such
mechanisms. My point is that this evidence is not relevant to inferring
common descent; the causes are not relevant to the pattern.
Why does Korthof make this claim? He doesn't explain that. If it's that
the word "design" implies de novo creation of species, then fine, let's
change the word. I propose that Behe's (apparent, but vaguely stated)
model of common descent with occasional divinely caused mutations be
called "intelligent tinkering" (IT), to distinguish it from typical
creationist models that incorporate separate creation of "kinds" (ID).
Behe definitely sees the advantages of such a model: it isn't
contradicted by nearly as much of the evidence as standard creationism is.
Let me repeat that except for this bizarre and unnecessary objection,
Korthof ably skewer's Behe's "logic".
loua...@yahoo.com
wrote:
> > Gert Korthof has a review of Behe's latest book here:
>
> > <http://home.planet.nl/~gkorthof/korthof86.htm>
> > Korthof has an interesting collection of alternatives to evolution on his
> > web pages.
>
> this review.)
>
> It's a reasonable critique, with one fundamental exception. Korthof's
> most important (to Korthof) criticism of Behe is that Behe allows for
> both common descent (CD) and intelligent design (ID) through non-random
> mutation. According to Korthof, this is impossible.
Is there no honor among cranks?
Louann, rhetorically
Perplexed in Peoria
<loua...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:1185554650.8...@b79g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
Korthof is not a crank. He is someone who does a good job of analyzing
cranks - taking them on their own terms and trying to tease out some
sense where most analysts find only nonsense.
TomS
<Zxpqi.24669$RX.1...@newssvr11.news.prodigy.net>, Perplexed in Peoria
stated..."
Korthof's collection of alternatives to evolution is
a neglected treasure. Whenever someone brings up the
"teach the alternatives" ploy, one need only point to
this collection, and ask "Do you really want to teach
these alternatives?"
John Harshman
It's especially useful for its summary of Senapathyism and Schwabeism.
Whenever a creationist says that either creation or evolution must be
true, I like to point them there.
Walter Bushell
Desertphile <deser...@nospam.org> wrote:
> Does he also have a collection of alternatives to gravity?
I. Intelligent falling
II. Things tend to move to their proper place.
loua...@yahoo.com
wrote:
> > Is there no honor among cranks?
>
> Korthof is not a crank. He is someone who does a good job of analyzing
> cranks - taking them on their own terms and trying to tease out some
> sense where most analysts find only nonsense.
Oh. I guess I wrongly assumed a "his own, which he seriously
advocates" connotation to his alternative-theories list.
Pata...@gmail.com
> In article <lu2ka3941gsqfirv5cv2kbullkog70i...@4ax.com>,
>
> Desertphile <desertph...@nospam.org> wrote:
> > Does he also have a collection of alternatives to gravity?
>
> I. Intelligent falling
>
> II. Things tend to move to their proper place.
III. 'Gravity is a push' theory
Frank J
wrote:
> TomS wrote:
> > "On Fri, 27 Jul 2007 17:01:45 GMT, in article
> > stated..."
>
> >><louan...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> >>news:1185554650.8...@b79g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
>
> >>>On Jul 27, 11:30 am, John Harshman <jharshman.diespam...@pacbell.net>
> >>>wrote:
>
> >>>>>Gert Korthof has a review of Behe's latest book here:
>
> >>>>><http://home.planet.nl/~gkorthof/korthof86.htm>
>
> >>>>>Korthof has an interesting collection of alternatives to evolution on his
> >>>>>web pages.
>
> >>>>this review.)
>
> >>>>It's a reasonable critique, with one fundamental exception. Korthof's
> >>>>most important (to Korthof) criticism of Behe is that Behe allows for
> >>>>both common descent (CD) and intelligent design (ID) through non-random
> >>>>mutation. According to Korthof, this is impossible.
>
> >>>Is there no honor among cranks?
>
> >>Korthof is not a crank. He is someone who does a good job of analyzing
> >>cranks - taking them on their own terms and trying to tease out some
> >>sense where most analysts find only nonsense.
>
> > Korthof's collection of alternatives to evolution is
> > a neglected treasure. Whenever someone brings up the
> > "teach the alternatives" ploy, one need only point to
> > this collection, and ask "Do you really want to teach
> > these alternatives?"
>
> It's especially useful for its summary of Senapathyism and Schwabeism.
> Whenever a creationist says that either creation or evolution must be
> true, I like to point them there.
Sadly, Korthof, you and I are among the few that do that.
Greg G.
> In article <lu2ka3941gsqfirv5cv2kbullkog70i...@4ax.com>,
>
> > Does he also have a collection of alternatives to gravity?
>
> I. Intelligent falling
>
> II. Things tend to move to their proper place.
III. Earth sucks.
--
Greg G.
Sign in a school gym:
Anyone caught hanging from
the rim will be suspended.
Walter Bushell
"Greg G." <ggw...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Jul 27, 11:31 pm, Walter Bushell <pr...@oanix.com> wrote:
> > In article <lu2ka3941gsqfirv5cv2kbullkog70i...@4ax.com>,
> >
> > Desertphile <desertph...@nospam.org> wrote:
> > > Does he also have a collection of alternatives to gravity?
> >
> > I. Intelligent falling
> >
> > II. Things tend to move to their proper place.
>
> III. Earth sucks.
>
How did I forget that one? <slaps head>
TomS
<lu2ka3941gsqfirv5...@4ax.com>, Desertphile stated..."
>
>On 27 Jul 2007 05:33:40 -0700, TomS <TomS_...@newsguy.com>
>wrote:
>
>> Gert Korthof has a review of Behe's latest book here:
>>
>> <http://home.planet.nl/~gkorthof/korthof86.htm>
>>
>> I haven't yet read the review, but the first thing that Korthof mentions
>> is that Behe doesn't offer a theory of design.
>>
>> Korthof has an interesting collection of alternatives to evolution on his
>> web pages.
>
>Does he also have a collection of alternatives to gravity?
How about alternatives to reproduction?
There is Scientific Storkism. And the more recent version of Storkism
which doesn't specify the Stork, "Intelligent Delivery".
The "Big Top" strategy of Intelligent Delivery accommodates other
theories, like the Cabbage Patch Theory, and the Doctor's Black Bag
Theory.
>
>> (Thanks to "Stranger Fruit" at scienceblogs.com for the pointer to
>> this review.)
>
>
--
Victor Eijkhout
> Korthof has an interesting collection of alternatives to evolution on his
> web pages.
Explicit link?
Victor.
--
Victor Eijkhout -- eijkhout at tacc utexas edu
John Harshman
> TomS <TomS_...@newsguy.com> wrote:
>
>
>>Korthof has an interesting collection of alternatives to evolution on his
>>web pages.
>
>
> Explicit link?
This should not have been difficult to find, but here:
http://home.wxs.nl/~gkorthof/index.htm
Look at the categories on the right side of the page and pick what you
find interesting. "Non-religious anti-Darwinism, anti-evolution" is my
favorite.