Quote: Originally Posted by Extrafire
Also my wife found out that I'm into forums again and my days here may be numbered. (Damn! This is so much fun!)
You'd let her do that, take away so much fun from you? Maybe you need to think about renegotiating the terms of your contract with her.
I don't know what part of Einstein I misunderstood. He did insist that if the universe has a beginning it must have a beginner (creator) and was so disturbed by that idea that he fudged his own equation, something he later called "the worst mistake of my career".
That's not why he introduced the cosmological constant into the field equations of general relativity, and I've never seen that claim about his beliefs in a creator anywhere but in your post, despite reading several excellent biographies of him and his own autobiographical notes. He fudged his equations because they clearly implied an expanding universe, and there was no data at the time in support of that. The fudging results in a static solution.
Probably the definitive biography of Einstein is Ronald W. Clark's "Einstein, the Life and Times," which presents Einstein's beliefs as a variant of simple agnosticism with strong elements of Spinoza's philosophical views.
Behe and Johnson are hardly ignorant.
In their fields of expertise, you're right, they're not. But about evolution, they are.
Behe lays out the extremely complicated sequence for blood clotting in his book. Was he wrong about that?
In describing the sequence, no, he's got that right as far as I know.
Can you suggest a way that such a proceedure could have evolved?
Ah, the heart of the matter. Offhand, no, I can't, I don't have the detailed expertise required, not being an evolutionary biologist. Neither is Behe, which is what leads him astray: he thinks he understands things he doesn't. I suggest you consult Richard Dawkins' books, Climbing Mount Improbable, and The Blind Watchmaker. Dawkins is
an evolutionary biologist who's been studying these things for decades, and knows what he's talking about. You mighty also usefully consult Ernst Mayr's works, in particular a recent book called What Evolution Is.
In general though, Behe's position is tarted up versions of the Argument from Design and the Argument from Irreducible Complexity, both of which Dawkins and Mayr show to be intellectually banrupt.
My position is totally irrelevant for this thread
On the contrary, your position determines what information you choose to present and how you choose to interpret it. So yes, it does make a difference.
Deist ... Einstein belongs here
Not really, he was mostly a pantheist in Spinoza's sense, though exactly what that means is a deeply complex subject that makes my head hurt.
Fundementalist short-term creationists.
I'm very glad to learn you're not in that camp. That's really what I meant when I said it does make a difference.
Those who believe the creator takes a more active role in such things as speciation as well as caring and communicating with us. I pretty much belong in this camp.
There's where we part company. I know of no evidence that would demonstrate any supernatural being cares for or communicates with us, or even exists at all. There are perfectly satisfactory naturalistic explanations for speciation, and to suggest that some divinity steps in to the workings of nature intermittently to adjust things knocks down the whole edifice of science. It means the universe is ultimately not logically comprehensible and consistent. The assumption that it is underlies all of science and technology, and the success of those over the last 400 years or so strongly suggests it's a legitimate assumption. It's worked pretty well so far, and relieved much human misery in a way no divinity ever did.