On Sun, 7 Apr 1996 00:24:57 -0500 you wrote:
>SJ>Goodwin seems to be saying that self-replication can only occur if
>the whole "cellular context" is already in place? If so, this seems
>near-conclusive evidence for Intelligent Design and a near-disproof
>of the Darwinian blind watchmaker evolutionary paradigm?
BH>Maybe the second, modified somewhat to say "evidence against
>the Dawkinsonian blind watchmaker evolutionary paradigm"
Good! The "Dawkinsonian blind watchmaker evolutionary paradigm" *is*
classical Neo-Darwinism. Here are some of the plaudits in the inside
and back cover of The Blind Watchmaker:
'It succeeds quite brilliantly. Most particularly, again and again it
brings home the nature and force of the central evolutionary mechanism
of natural selection in a way that I have never seen or felt
previously. The closest analogy I can think of is Galileo's Dialogues
which made reasonable the Copernican Revolution and I hope I will not
be thought to be pushing things to an embarrassing point if I say that
Dawkins' book can be compared to Galileo's, not only in type but in
standard' - Professor Michael Ruse
'He disposes of the arguments for God the Designer without diminishing
our sense of the mystery and complexity of our world ... indeed he
increases our sense of wonder. Dawkins's speculative attempts to
account for human self-consciousness and our interest in our own
doings are ingenious and daring' - A. G. Cairns-Smith in the
Independent
[...]
'An astonishingly lucid exposition of Darwinism . . . Dawkins is a
born writer with an unmatched gift for the brilliant metaphor the
inspired syntactic switch, and the relevant zoological detail. The
Blind Watchmaker is entertaining as well as engrossing: Dawkins's
most wonderful book' - Franciso J. Ayala, Professor of Genetics,
University of California
[...]
'He succeeds admirably in showing how natural selection allows
biologists to dispense with such notions as purpose and design and he
does so in a manner readily intelligible to the modern reader' -
Michael T. Ghiselin in The New York Times
[...]
'An admirably clear and vividly argued exposition of the neo-
Darwinian theory of evolution ... It should do much to dispel the
myth, assiduously propagated by the media, that new and
revolutionary ideas have dethroned Darwinian selection as the
guiding force of evolution' - Brian Charlesworth in The Times
Education Supplement
[...]
'The best general account of evolution I have read in recent years. It
is deep enough to be useful to biologists, yet sufficiently simple and
well-written (very well-written in fact) to appeal to the same large
audience that enjoyed The Selfish Gene' - Edward O. Wilson
'This might just be the most important evolution book since Darwin' -
Dr John Gribbin in the Good Book Guide
The secret of good science writing is that one should understand the
ideas oneself: good writing comes from clear thinking . . . in The
Blind Watchmaker I was repeatedly astonished at the clarity with
which Dawkins sees the problems . . . It is abundantly clear, however,
that Dawkins has not lost his sense of wonder at the natural world as
he has gained intellectual understanding of it . . .I wish I could
write
like that' - John Maynard Smith in the New Scientist
(Dawkins R., "The Blind Watchmaker", Penguin: London, 1991, pp.i-iv,
rear cover)
It also says:
"Richard Dawkins won the 1987 Royal Society of Literature Award and
the 1987 -Los Angeles Times Literary Prize, both for The Blind
Watchmaker. The television film of The Blind Watchmaker, shown in the
'Horizon' series, won the SciTec Prize for the Best Science Programme
for 1987. He also won the 1989 Silver Medal of the Zoological Society
of London and the 1990 Royal Society Michael- Faraday Award for the
furtherance of the public understanding of science." (Dawkins R.,
"The Blind Watchmaker", Penguin: London, 1991, p.v)
If this is "a near-disproof of" what you call "the Dawkinsonian blind
watchmaker evolutionary paradigm" then it is also "a near-disproof of"
the classical Neo-Darwinian blind watchmaker evolutionary paradigm".
BH>but certainly not the first. Argument from the false alternative
>again?
No. Unless you can show that "the whole `cellular context' can
self-assemble itself first, by purely natural processes, before
self-replication can even begin, then you can claim that this is "the
false alternative". As for me, this seems near-conclusive evidence
for Intelligent Design
>TG>I hope that you chuckled when you wrote this. Goodwin is an
>evolutionist and he doesn't believe that his notions undermine
>evolutionary theory or contravene the *vast evidence* for it.
BH>If its any consolation to Terry, I certainly chuckled when I
>read it ;-)
I'm glad I've made you both happy! :-)
>SJ>...I never said or even implied that "Goodwin" is not "an
>evolutionist". And whether or not he *believes* "that his notions
>undermine evolutionary theory" was not my point. My point was that
>what he wrote *does* "undermine evolutionary theory", whether
>Goodwin believes it or not.
BH>Steve. Its no wonder people end up either shouting at you or
>ignoring you.
Actually, only *two* "people" have ended up "shouting at" me. And
neither of them are "ignoring" me, even though I am ignoring one of
them (until he learns better manners <g>). Indeed, a larger number of
Reflectorites (including at least one Theistic Evolutionist) have sent
me private messages of support. But even if they all did "end up
either shouting at" me "or ignoring", that would not make any
difference to me - I am only interested in understanding the truth
from a Biblical theistic perspective.
BH>You read through a popular level book describing the "new biology"
>and you conclude (apparently) almost immediately that the results are
>evidence for PC or ID
I was referring to a piece of scientific evidence that Goodwin
referred to in passing, namely Spiegelman, S. 'An in vitro analysis of
a replicating molecule' American Scientist 55 (1967), 221-64, which
showed experimentally that "The DNA of an organism is not
self-replicating; it is not an independent 'replicator'. The only way
in which the DNA can be accurately and completely replicated is within
the context of a dividing cell; that is to say, it is the cell that
reproduces....DNA on its own can go nowhere but towards greater
simplicity. In order for evolution of complexity to occur DNA has to
be within a cellular context; the whole system evolves as a
reproducing unit." (Goodwin B., "How The Leopard Changed Its Spots:
The Evolution of Complexity", Phoenix: London, 1994, p34)
Since this is the exact opposite of the Neo-Darwinian blind watchmaker
evolutionary hypothesis, I do indeed "conclude...that the results are
evidence for PC or ID".
BH>nevermind that Goodwin has spent many years developing these ideas
>and doesn't see this overwhelming evidence you speak of.
Of course he doesn't. Goodwin is not a theist AFAIK. So powerful is
the naturalistic evolutionary paradigm that he thinks it must have
happened naturalistically somehow, even though the empirical evidence
points in the opposite direction.
BH>I suspect you missed the point of the book entirely. Goodwin is
>noting problems with the extremely reductionistic genocentric
>view of biology, arguing instead for a holistic, organocentric
>view. You took one of Goodwin's examples from a section entitled
>"As the Spots Disappear, So Does the Leopard". Before giving
>these examples of "inconsistencies" Goodwin writes (p.34):
>
> "You can decide to stick with the current view,
> which has its advantages, or to contemplate other
> paths, one of which I now describe."
>
>You gave us only the inconsistency and did not describe for us
>the other path. You know, the one that Goodwin wrote a book
>about.
No. I was only commenting on Spiegelman's study. Goodwin does not
really answer how a whole "cellular context" could come into place
spontaneously, before self-replication could begin.
[...]
SJ>If "naked DNA" outside of a cell, does not evolve, but instead
>*devolves*, and if "evolutionary theory" requires that DNA *evolves*,
>then that "evolutionary theory" has been tested and found wanting.
>This is good support for progressive creation and intelligent design,
BH>Argument from the false alternative time again? But you forgot to
>mention Goodwin's alternative. You know, the one he wrote a
>book about.
I don't think Goodwin gave an "alternative". It was some interesting
lines of evidence against classical Neo-Darwinism, with a bit of
complexity theory, tied together with some New-Age mysticism.
SJ>but I wouldn't expect "an evolutionist" like Goodwin to even
>realise it, much less admit it.
BH>Not a very reliable authority to be quoting then.
This does not follow. I can agree with an evolutionists *analysis*,
even if I don't agree with his conclusions.
God bless.
Steve
----------------------------------------------------------------
| 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) |
----------------------------------------------------------------