On Sat, 9 Mar 1996 22:14:28 -0500 you wrote:
>JF>Got to disagree here, the question of how the first life arose is
>separate from the question of whether it evolved after that. There is
>nothing inconsistent with saying that God created the first life, but
>that it evolved subsequently (with or without further intervention).
SJ>Well this is what I said! :-)
BH>But that isn't what I said ;-). I think it was Jim Foley.
Sorry. I have changed the "BH>" to "JF>" But I presume you agree with
Jim?
>SJ>Johnson (and I) agree that God could have used natural processes
>that could be called "evolution":
>
>"...A Creator might well have employed such a gradual process as a
>means of creation...." (Johnson P.E., "Darwin on Trial",... p3-4).
BH>What PJ is saying here is that theistic evolutionists (most anyway)
>are also creationists. My, that word creation is such a plastic
>word, it can mean almost anything ;-).
No. Phil consistently and carefully defines his terms up front:
"The conflict requires careful explanation, because the terms are
confusing. The concept of creation in itself does not imply
opposition to evolution, if evolution means only a gradual process by
which one kind of living creature changes into something different. A
Creator might well have employed such a gradual process as a means of
creation. "Evolution" contradicts "creation" only when it explicitly
or tacitly defined as fully naturalistic evolution-meaning evolution
that is not directed by any purposeful intelligence. Creator might
well have employed such a gradual process as a means of creation.
"Evolution" contradicts "creation" only when it explicitly or tacitly
defined as fully naturalistic evolution-meaning evolution that is not
directed by any purposeful intelligence. Similarly, "creation"
contradicts evolution only when it means sudden creation, rather than
creation by progressive development.... Clearing up that confusion is
one of the purposes of this book. Clearing up confusion requires a
careful and consistent use of terms. In this book Creation-science"
refers to young-earth, six- day special creation. "Creationism" means
belief in creation in a more general sense. Persons who believe that
the earth is billions of years old and that simple forms of life
evolved gradually to become more complex forms including humans, are
"creationists" if they believe that a supernatural Creator not only
initiated the process but in some meaningful sense controls it in
furtherance of a purpose. ...." (Johnson P.E., "Darwin on Trial",
InterVarsity Press: Downers Grove, Ill., Second Edition, 1993, pp3-4)
BH>I wonder why some creationists object to the label evolutionary
>creationist. This would seem to have Phil's blessing.
Firstly, it is the Theistic Evolutionists (or Evolutionary
creationists) who first attacked Phil. His first edition of DOT
contained hardly anything about TE, ie:
"The ASA leadership has generally embraced "compatibilism" (the
doctrine that science and religion do not conflict because they
occupy separate realms) and "theistic evolution." Theistic evolution
is not easy to define, but it involves making an effort to maintain
that the natural world is God-governed while avoiding disagreement
with the Darwinist establishment on scientific matters." (Johnson ,
pp128-129).
But for his pains, PJ came under criticism from TE's:
"My secular colleagues usually assume that a book which challenges the
central pillar of scientific naturalism must have been received with
wild enthusiasm in the Christian world. It is true that many
Christian readers are enthusiastic, but there are also many with
serious reservations....One group with which I have been
particularly engaged in discussion and debate consists of the
Christian professors of science and philosophy who attempt to
accommodate science and religion by embracing "theistic evolution."
(Johnson P.E., "Darwin on Trial", Second Edition*, 1993, pp128-129).
*Note: the above quote is from the second edition - I don't have the
first edition - PJ's preface to the second edition says this area
was unchanged.
Phil's objection to "evolutionary creationist" is that it is vague
and undefined, does not challenge metaphysical naturalism, and does
not make a "stand for any form of theistic realism:
The domination of naturalism over intellectual life is not affected by
the fact that some religious believers and active churchgoers hold
prestigious academic appointments. With very few exceptions, these
believers maintain their respectability by tacitly accepting the
naturalistic rules that define rationality in the universities. They
explicitly or implicitly concede that their theism is a matter of
"faith" and agree to leave the realm of "reason" to the agnostics.
This is true in every field of study, but especially so in natural
science, the discipline that has the authority to describe physical
reality for all the others. A biologist may believe in God on
Sundays, but he or she had better not bring that belief to the
laboratory on Monday with the idea that it has any bearing on the
nature or origin of living organisms. For professional purposes
atheistic and theistic biologists alike must assume that nature is all
there is." (Johnson P.E., "Reason in the Balance", InterVarsity
Press: Downers Grove Ill., 1995, p8)
SJ>I also said that it is *Darwinists* like Dawkins that reject
>God-guided "evolution". The real problem is that plastic word
>"evolution", which can seemingly mean just about anything! :-)
BH>It is common for words to take on different meanings in different
>contexts. For example, the word plastic is itself very plastic.
>In my own field it can mean a man-made polymer or a permanent
>strain depending on context. Creation is another word that takes
>on many different meanings.
No doubt. But "creation" fundamentally *always* means that an
external Being made things for a purpose:
"Persons...are "creationists" if they believe that a supernatural
Creator not only initiated the process but in some meaningful sense
controls it in furtherance of a purpose. ...." (DOT, p4)
But there is a real problem with knowing what "evolution" means to
Darwinists, because they change their definitions of the term even in
the same context:
"...to sustain this worldview Darwinists had to resort to all the
tactics that Popper warned truth-seekers to avoid. Their most
important device is the deceptive use of the vague term "evolution."
"Evolution" in Darwinist usage implies a completely naturalistic
metaphysical system, in which matter evolved to its present state of
organized complexity without any participation by a Creator. But
"evolution" also refers to much more modest concepts, such as
microevolution and biological relationship. The tendency of dark
moths to preponderate in a population when the background trees are
dark therefore demonstrates evolution-and also demonstrates, by
semantic transformation, the naturalistic descent of human beings from
bacteria.
If critics are sophisticated enough to see that population variations
have nothing to do with major transformations, Darwinists can disavow
the argument from microevolution and point to relationship as the
"fact of evolution." Or they can turn to biogeography, and point out
that species on offshore islands closely resemble those on the nearby
mainland. Because "evolution" means so many different things, almost
any example will do. The trick is always to prove one of the modest
meanings of the term, and treat it as proof of the complete
metaphysical
system.
Manipulation of the terminology also allows natural selection to
appear and disappear on command. When unfriendly critics are absent,
Darwinists can just assume the creative power of natural selection and
employ it to explain whatever change or lack of change has been
observed. When critics appear and demand empirical confirmation,
Darwinists can avoid the test by responding that scientists are
discovering alternative mechanisms, particularly at the molecular
level, which relegate selection to a less important role. The fact of
evolution therefore remains unquestioned, even if there is a certain
amount of healthy debate about the theory. Once the critics have been
distracted, the Blind Watchmaker can reenter by the back
door."
(Johnson P.E., "Darwin on Trial", Second Edition, 1993, pp153-154).
[...]
>BH>I agree with Jim, biological evolution and chemical evolution are
>separate issues.
SJ>Then why is the same plastic word "evolution" used? Darwinists
>themselves claim that cosmic, chemical and biological evolution
>are fundamentally the same thing:
>
>`Although this article is concerned with biological evolution, it
>should be recognized that the concept of evolution is much
>broader.... There is also cosmic or inorganic, evolution, and
>evolution of human culture.... (T. Dobzhansky, Evolution, in 10
>Encyclopedia Americana 734, 734, 1982).
BH>It seems to me that this supports my position rather than yours.
>Dobzhansky is pointing out that there are different types of
>evolution. He is carefully pointing out that he is discussing
>biological evolution. He seems to be giving a caution to the
>reader "There are other types of evolution, don't get confused
>by the terminology."
No doubt. But what exactly is this "concept of evolution" that is
"much broader"? Why, if "biological evolution and chemical evolution
are separate issues" are they both called "evolution"?
>SJ>...You seem to be agreeing with me. :-) My point was that
>"Yockey...is not a "Darwinist". You have stated that: a)
>"Yockey....As far as I know... is an agnostic"; and b) He doesn't
>believe in "chemical evolution".
BH>Well, I don't know Stephen, Yockey says that he is a Darwinist. In
>his book he writes:
>
> Thermodynamics and the theory of evolution by natural selection
> are among the great scientific theories of the nineteenth century.
> (page 310)
That does not make Yockey a Darwinist. I am a creationist and I regard
Darwin's "theory of evolution by natural selection" as "among the
great scientific theories of the nineteenth century" and indeed of all
time. But like Denton, I draw a distinction between Darwin's special
theory (what he actually discovered empirically) and his general
theory (what he extrapolated from his special theory):
"In his book Darwin is actually presenting two related but quite
distinct theories. The first, which has sometimes been called the
"special theory", is relatively conservative and restricted in scope
and merely proposes that new races and species arise in nature by the
agency of natural selection, thus the complete title of his book: The
Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection or the Preservation of
Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life. The second theory, which is
often called the "general theory", is far more radical. It makes the
claim that the "special theory" applies universally and hence that the
appearance of all the manifold diversity of life on Earth can be
explained by a simple extrapolation of the processes which bring about
relatively trivial changes such as those seen on the Galapagos
Islands. This "general theory" is what most people think of when they
refer to evolution theory." (Denton M., "Evolution: A Theory in
Crisis", Burnett Books: London, 1985, p44)
It is this extrapolation from the Darwin's special theory to his
general theory that is controversial, as Denton points out:
"If the Origin had dealt only with the evolution of new species it
would never have had its revolutionary impact. It was only because he
went much further to argue the general thesis that the same simple
natural processes which had brought about the diversity of the
Galapagos finches had ultimately brought forth all the diversity of
life on earth and all the adaptive design of living things that the
book proved such a watershed in western thought. Much of the Origin,
especially the later chapters, dealt not with the special theory which
gave the book its title, but with a defence of its general
application." (Denton, p46)
But in the final analysis, Darwin did not prove his general theory:
"The absence of intermediate forms essentially emptied all Darwin's
macroevolutionary claims of any empirical basis. Without
intermediates, not only was he unable to prove decisively that
organisms had indeed evolved gradually as a result of simple
random processes such as natural selection, but he had no way of
distinguishing empirically between his own evolutionary model of
nature and its non-evolutionary rivals, whether they were basically
naturalistic, postulating sudden but natural macromutations as a
basic mode of change, or frankly supernatural, invoking the
intervention of God. (Denton, pp56-57)
>BH>Here again I think we have a problem with popularizations. I
>don't think there is any question that Dawkins would like to tie
>the origin of life with Darwinism.
SJ>Its not just "Dawkins" that "would like to tie the origin of life
>with Darwinism."
BH>I don't doubt that at all :). The point is whether its proper
>to do so.
We are agreed that it is not "proper to do so" but the myth has been
assiduously cultivated, so that it has entered popular culture. And I
don't see Darwinists trying very hard to correct it. As Johnson points
out, far from being marginalised by the scientific establishment for
his myth-making, Dawkins has been promoted because of it:
"Among modern Darwinists, Dawkins has achieved enormous acclaim for
presenting orthodox neo- Darwinism persuasively...In 1990 Dawkins
received the Michael Faraday Award from the British Royal Society as
"the scientist who has done the most to further the public
understanding of science " In 1992 he gave the Royal Institution's
Christmas lectures for young people, televised by the BBC, arguing the
same naturalistic worldview that he presents in The Blind Watchmaker.
I mention these accolades to dispel any illusion that Dawkins's
explicitly naturalistic presentation of Darwinism amounts to a mere
personal philosophy. He certainly is promoting metaphysical
naturalism, but, like his American counterpart Carl Sagan (who
received the Public Welfare Medal in 1994 from the National Academy of
Sciences for his contributions to public education), he does so with
the wholehearted support of the scientific establishment of his
nation." (Johnson P.E., "Reason in the Balance", InterVarsity Press:
Downers Grove Ill., 1995, p76)
>SJ>My daughter's university Biology textbook, by its
>close association of "Darwin and Evolution"...and "The Origin of
>Life"...inextricably ties "the origin of life with Darwinism." In
>fact, the Contents page for Chapter 22 tells it all:...
BH>Its somewhat difficult for me to comment on a book I haven't seen.
>But, it seems to me that the two issues are being kept distinct
>through the terminolgy chemical evolution and biological evolution.
>It also seems clear that one begins where the other ends. Let me
>say further that it is proper to keep the distinction between chemical
>evolution and biological evolution even if one accepts the fully
>naturalistic origins of life. They are different thingies altogether.
I disagree that "the two issues are being kept distinct". In the
minds of students and the general public using "the terminology" of
"chemical evolution and biological evolution", reinforces the view
that they are two aspects of the one overall naturalistic process.
BH>Based upon my own experiences, I wouldn't be too surprised if your
>daughter's textbook botches up its presentation of abiogenesis.
Of course it does! :-) From the outset it simply asserts:
"Today we do not believe that life arises spontaneously from nonlife
and we say that "life comes only from life." But if this is so, how
did the first form of life come about? We can assume that the first
form of life was very simple-a single cell (or cells) that could grow,
reproduce, and mutate. Since it was the very first living thing, it
had to come from nonliving chemicals. Could there have been an
increase in the complexity of the chemicals-could a chemical evolution
have produced the first cell(s)? This chapter reviews the evidence
for such a chemical evolution; it is based on our knowledge of the
primitive earth...and on experiments that have been performed in the
laboratory." (Mader S., "Biology", Wm. C. Brown: Indiana, Third
Edition, 1990, pp329-330)
BH>I would be curious to know to what extent they discuss the various
>difficulties encountered by abiogenesis researchers and the speculative
>nature of the various scenarios for the origin of life.
No "difficuties encountered by abiogenesis researchers" are mentioned.
It is presented as a fairly straightforward scenario:
"A model for the origin of life.
a. The primitive atmosphere contained gases, including water vapor
that escaped from volcanoes; as the latter cooled, some gases were
washed into the ocean by rain.
b. The availability of energy from volcanic eruption (shown here) and
lightning allowed gases to form simple organic molecules.
c. Amino acids splashed up onto rocky coasts could have polymerized
into polypeptides (proteinoids) that would have become microspheres
when they reentered the water.
d. Eventually various types of prokaryotes and then eukaryotes
evolved. Some of the prokaryotes were oxygen-producing
photosynthesizers. The presence of oxygen in the atmosphere was
needed for aerobic respiration to evolve."
(Mader, p330)
BH>and the speculative nature of the various scenarios for the origin
>of life.
It does mention various theories of Fox, Cairns-Smith and Oparin, but
does it in a way that they sound complementary, ratherf than
contradictory:
"Sidney Fox of the University of Miami has shown that amino acids will
polymerize abiotically when exposed to dry heat. Further, these
so-called proteinoids contain amino acids that join in a preferred
manner. He suggests that amino acids collected in shallow puddles
along the rocky shore and the heat of the sun caused proteinoids to
form as drying took place. Graham Cairns-Smith of Glasgow University
believes instead that clay may have been especially helpful in causing
polymerization to occur....Fox has shown that when proteinoids are
exposed to water they form microspheres..., which have
properties similar to today's cells..., including a membrane
that is selectively permeable. ...Some researchers support the work
of Oparin, who was one of the original researchers in this area. As
early as 1938, Oparin showed that under appropriate conditions of
temperature, ionic composition, and pH, concentrated mixtures of
macromolecules tend to give rise to complex units called coacervate
droplets... (Mader, p331)
BH>I would also be curious whether they get the atmosphere right in
>the section entitled "Primitive Atmosphere" (p. 329).
They got it wrong! :-)
"It is now thought that the primitive atmosphere was produced after
the earth formed by outgassing from the interior, particularly by
volcanic action. In that case, the atmosphere would have consisted
mostly of water vapor (H20), nitrogen gas (N2), and carbon dioxide
(CO2), with only small amounts of hydrogen (H2) and carbon monoxide
(CO). The primitive atmosphere with little if any free oxygen was a
reducing atmosphere as opposed to the oxidizing atmosphere of today.
This was fortuitous because oxygen (O2) attaches to organic molecules,
preventing them from joining together to form larger molecules....The
primitive atmosphere was a reducing atmosphere that contained little
if any oxygen gas, O2....These experiments indicate that the primitive
gases not only could have but probably did react with one another to
produce simple organic compounds that accumulated in the ancient seas.
Neither oxidation (there was no free oxygen) nor decay (there were no
bacteria) would have destroyed these molecules and they would have
accumulated in the oceans for hundreds of millions of years." (Mader,
p329,330)
>BH>...The intents of one of the Yockey posts that I submitted to the
>reflector was to uncouple Darwin from the prebiotic soup paradigm.
>Yockey's main point here is that people try to tie Darwin to this in
>view of his famous "warm little pond" quote.
SJ>There is no doubt that Darwin wrote it and can justly claim to be
>the father of "the prebiotic soup paradigm":
BH>Then why didn't he?
I've though I had already answered that with a quote from deBeer's
biography of Darwin? Maybe it was some other post? Here it is again:
"Darwin's views on the relation between science and theology also
emerge from his conclusions about the origin of life. In his published
works he made no mention of this problem but was content to work
out the evolution of animals 'from at most four or five progenitors,
and plants from an equal or lesser number,' leaving the reader to
decide for himself how they arose. His reasons for doing this were
that in the state of knowledge then prevailing, speculation on the
origin of life, or even of matter, was unprofitable. He did not hide
from himself, or his friends the fact that if miraculous interposition
was not only unnecessary but inadmissible in the evolution of plants
and animals, it must be the same with their origin." (de Beer G.,
"Charles Darwin: Evolution by Natural Selection", Nelson: London,
1963, p270)
>SJ>One could with more justice argue that what Darwin wrote privately
>better represented what he really thought, than what he published
>publicly, especially in the milieu of 19th century Victorian England.
BH>IMHO, this would be an injustice.
We must agree to differ then! :-)
BH>Yockey expressed his position more eloquently in his _Journal of
>Theoretical Biology_ paper:
Yockey's book, "Information Theory and Molecular Biology" is too
expensive for me at present. I wonder if you know where I can get an
email copy or web page URL to them, his journal article:
Yockey H.P., "A Calculation of the Probability of Spontaneous
Biogenesis by Information Theory," Journal of Theoretical Biology 67
(1977): 377-398
In fcat, I have found a number of references to journal articles by
Yockey and I would like to get an electronic copy of them also, as
follows:
*Yockey H.P., "An Application of Information Theory to the Central
Dogma and the Sequence Hypothesis," Journal of Theoretical Biology 46
(1974), 369-406
*Yockey H.P. , "On the Information Content of Cytochrome C," Journal
of Theoretical Biology 67 (1977): 345-376
*Hubert P. Yockey, "Do Overlapping Genes Violate Molecular Biology and
the Theory of Evolution?" Journal of Theoretical Biology 80 (1979),
21-26
*Yockey H.P., "Self Organization Origin of Life Scenarios and
Information Theory," Journal of Theoretical Biology 91 (1981): 13-31;
BH>my favorite line:
>
> "Everyone has the right to float tentative ideas and even nonsense
> to his friends in his personal correspondence without responsibility
> being assumed by snoopers"
>
>Yockey has a way with words ;-)
No doubt, but Yockey overlooks that *Darwin* was not just anyone! His
private correspondence and journals have actually been published and
are in libraries throughout the world. Those who have done this must
assume that Darwin did not just dash off "tentative ideas and even
nonsense", but thought deeply and seriously about what he wrote. In
addition, Darwin's "warm little pond" letter is widely repeated in OOL
literature including by such luminaries as Orgel and Shapiro. Yockey
is being somewhat disingenous to claim that this is just "personal
correspondence" (like other people's) and that those who read it are
"snoopers".
>===begin Yockey===============================================
>The purpose of this comment is to point out the more egregious
>errors of omission and commission in Elitzur(1994). He began his
>paper with the following remarks on the chirality of biomolecules
>and the origin of life:
>
>...This...highlights the question of common ancestry, vividly raised
>by Darwin:
> "It is often said that all the conditions for the first
> production of a living organism are now present, which
> could ever have been present. But if (and oh! what a big if!)
> we could conceive in some warm little pond....."
>
>This passage (obviously not having been subjected to an editor's
>blue pencil) is from a private letter Darwin wrote to his friend
>Joseph Hooker (1817-1911) in 1871 and appears in a footnote of
>F. Darwin (1898). This fragment was not indexed and remained
>unnoticed until 1950 (Hardin, 1950).
So what? Darwin wrote it and his son Francis thought it important
enough to keep in his collection of his father's letters. Besides,
how does Hardin know it was "unnoticed". Oparin and Haldane (for
example) may have read it. The point is that OOL researchers now
credit Darwin with priority in this idea. For example, Shapiro says
of it:
"This quote is often reproduced in texts and articles on the origin of
life. ...it is remarkably current today, which is a tribute either to
his foresight or to our lack of progress." (Shapiro R., "Origins: A
Skeptic's Guide to the Origin of Life", Summit Books: New York, 1986,
p185)
BH>Everyone has the right to float tentative ideas and even nonsense
>to his friends in his personal correspondence without responsibility
>being assumed by snoopers. In selecting the _personal_ letter to
>Hooker rather than what Darwin _published_ a year later in _The
>Origin of Species_, dialectical materialists are quoting selected
>writings to support their convictions, to seduce the unwary reader,
>even though they must reach rather deep for it.
See above. IMHO Yockey has no point. Darwin thought of the idea first,
even if he did not feel ready to publish it.
BH>If Darwin had regarded the "warm little pond" at all seriously in
>1871 he had changed his mind by 1872. What Darwin "vividly raised"
>and published as his considered opinion, and what he was prepared
>to take responsibility for on the question of origin of life is
>in Chapter XV of the 1872 edition of _Origin of Species_:
>
> ...It is no valid objection
> (to the theory of natural selection) that science as yet throws
> no light on the far higher problem of the essence or the origin
> of life. Who can explain the essence of the attraction of gravity?
[...]
Again, Yockey confuses what Darwin thought and "what he was prepared
to take responsibility for".
>This passage makes it clear that Darwin's published opinion on the
>nature and origin of life actually anticipated the position of
>Niels Bohr (1933) in his famous _Light and Life_ lecture that,
>like the quantum of action that appears as an irrational element
>from the point of view of classical mechanical physics, life
>must be accepted as an axiom, rather than the dialectical
>materialist scenario, usually attributed to Oparin and Haldane
>that life is a property of matter.
>-- Hubert Yockey, J. Theor. Biol. (1995) 176:349-355.
Darwin did not claim that the "origin of life...must be accepted as an
axiom". He just claimed it was "unknown":
"How a nerve comes to be sensitive to light, hardly concerns us more
than how life itself originated..." (Darwin C., "The Origin of
Species", 6th edition, 1872, Everyman's Library, J.M. Dent & Sons
Ltd: London, 1967, p167).
"I may here premise, that I have nothing to do with the origin of the
mental powers, any more than I have with that of life itself."
(Darwin, p230).
>==== end Yockey ====================================================
Thanks for this long discussion, Brian! :-)
Steve
PS: I am plowing though Yockey's messages that you posted 1 per day. I
have bought and am half-way through Goodwin's "How The Leopard Changed
Its Spots". Very interesting, and IMHO compatible with PC.
----------------------------------------------------------------
| Stephen Jones ,--_|\ sjones@iinet.net.au |
| 3 Hawker Ave / Oz \ http://www.iinet.net.au/~sjones/ |
| Warwick 6024 ->*_,--\_/ phone +61 9 448 7439. (These are |
| Perth, Australia v my opinions, not my employer's) |
----------------------------------------------------------------