Is Behe’s acceptance of common descent confusing?

Posted on by

In his recent video Michael Behe explains the reasons for his acceptance of common descent.

Do you find it confusing?

Most members of the Discovery Institute find the idea of common descent lacking. Behe, ‘for the sake of the argument’ , is willing to accept it and, instead, focus on the mechanism of Darwinian evolution, natural selection and random mutations, as insufficient to explain evolution.

Here is an example of what I mean:

If a five pound land walking mammal is an ancestor of a 50 ton whale, through common descent, and the Darwinian mechanism of natural selection acting on variations is insufficient to explain their ancestry, as per Behe’s own admission, isn’t his acceptance of common descent confusing, or even contradictory?

If the mechanism of evolution can’t account for common descent, why would anybody accept it?

Watch the video and judge it for yourself…

ETA: Larry Moran is using Behe’s acceptance of common descent as evidence that he (Behe) accepts evolution…https://sandwalk.blogspot.com/2011/08/evolution-is-fact-and-theory.html?showComment=1581708597421#c1276531141808451482

253 thoughts on “Is Behe’s acceptance of common descent confusing?”

  1. Kantian Naturalist:
    on February 23, 2020 at 3:36 pm said:
    Entropy: Minds might be a very important element in making plans, but minds cannot make plans by themselves “left unattended.” They need quite a bit of support to make those plans. Paper, pencils, previous knowledge, organs to exchange information with their surrounds, light, energy inputs, etc. Plans themselves are not put into action by “mind” alone either. To put plans into action you need quite a bit more than “mind” alone.

    Indeed. I’ve always considered this a sufficient refutation of ID as a biological or cosmological explanation.

    Why would mindless processes plan???
    So much for the evolutionary predictions…😉

Leave a Reply