Behe and Medved on ID

Denyse O’Leary has an interesting post on Michael Medved’s interview with Michael Behe, Ph.D.1 Naturalistic evolutionists love to hate Behe. This, even though he agrees with common descent. Darwinists have displayed their maturity level on a number of occasions.2,3

“At what point in your academic career, did you begin to feel that the standard explanation of random purposeless natural selection might have some problems.”

“I remember it pretty clearly. It was late 1980s. I was tenured associate professor at Leheigh. I believed pretty much the standard story of evolution. … I read a book called Evolution: A theory in crisis. … Denton at the time was an agnostic. … He was, at the time, just tired of what he saw as large problems with evolution. … I was shocked, because I had never heard a scientist challenge Darwin’s theories. …”

O’Leary also references the fact that men like big….er…well, because evolution makes us.4 So, next time you get smacked for staring when you shouldn’t, blame evolution (“I’m sorry honey….My genes made me do it.” Yeah, that’d work for me. I’d get smacked twice as hard.).

Until very recently, it was a mystery to evolutionary psychology why men prefer women with large breasts, since the size of a woman’s breasts has no relationship to her ability to lactate. But Harvard anthropologist Frank Marlowe contends that larger, and hence heavier, breasts sag more conspicuously with age than do smaller breasts. Thus they make it easier for men to judge a woman’s age (and her reproductive value) by sight-suggesting why men find women with large breasts more attractive.

1 http://listserv.discovery.org/emailmarketer/link.php?M=281023&N=867&L=1664&F=H
2 http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/ervs-challenge-to-michael-behe/
3 http://scienceblogs.com/erv/2008/10/recombination_retrovirus_sex.php#more
4 Hypothesis for the Evolution of the Human Breasts and Buttocks

Creationism and Irreducible Complexity

One of the testable hypotheses of Intelligent Design theory is irreducible complexity.  A term coined by Michael Behe in his book Darwin’s Black Box.  I think this concept could possibly problematic from a Creationist perspective, because I don’t believe anything is irreducibly complex to God.  It’s not a problem from an ID perspective, because ID doesn’t entail the existence of God.  We know there are things designed by the intelligence of humans that are irreducibly complex (e.g., a mousetrap); however, if you start with the assumption of an all-powerful and all-knowing God, then there is nothing that would be irreducibly complex to God.

I’m just trying to think through this issue, and I think this is a possible point of divergence between ID and Creationism.  I don’t propose that I speak for the majority of Creationists here, but these are some thoughts that I’ve been having on the subject.  I’ve not yet made up my mind on the issue and welcome opinions.