On Wed, 20 Nov 1996 11:16:26 -0600, Russell Maatman wrote:
RM>It was good to see some of you at this conference over last week end in Los
Angeles. As reflected many times at the meeting, "It's good to put a face
with an e-mail name!"
I prayed for the success of the Mere Creation conference ever since I
heard about it. Is there a web page, or email papers, or books and tapes
about it?
RM>It seems to me that we are moving forward, perhaps to a new
>paradigm in the Kuhnian sense. I know that we have been debating
>evolution for many years. But something new is emerging.
This is the theme of Denton's book:
"Basically there are two different philosophical approaches to the
debate. On the one hand, one can adopt the conservative position and
view the difficulties as essentially trivial, merely puzzling
anomalies, that will all be eventually reconciled somehow to the
traditional framework. Alternatively, one can adopt a radical
position and view the problems not as puzzles, but as
counterinstances or paradoxes which will never be adequately
explained within the orthodox framework, and indicative therefore of
something fundamentally wrong with the currently accepted view of
evolution. While most evolutionary biologists who have written
recently about evolution concede that the problems are serious,
nearly all take an ultimately conservative stand, believing that they
can be explained away by making only minor adjustments to the
Darwinian framework. In this book I have adopted the radical
approach. By presenting a systematic critique of the current
Darwinian model, ranging from paleontology to molecular biology, I
have tried to show why I believe that the problems are too severe and
too intractable to offer any hope of resolution in terms of the
orthodox Darwinian framework, and that consequently the conservative
view is no longer tenable." (Denton M., "Evolution: A Theory in
Crisis", Burnett Books: London, 1985, p16)
>RM>That is this: _general_ evolutionary theory is wrong if one
>exception is found. More specifically, if _one_ system has been
>shown to have been intelligently designed, the general theory fails.
>From then on, systems must be examined one by one. What has
>happened is that some systems have indeed been shown to be
>intelligently designed. Quite a few of these were discussed at the
>meeting, but one needs only to cite those discussed by Mike Behe,
>also covered in his recent book, _Darwin's Black Box_. Note that if
>only one of all the systems discussed at the meeting is not
>overthrown, the general theory is dead.
Mike Behe has definitely shown that there is a prima facie case that
life's micro-machinery is irreducibly complex and hence intelligently
designed. He has shown that despite the claim that "Nothing in
biology makes sense except in the light of evolution", virtually
*nothing* has been written by biochemists to explain the
evolutionary origin of life's basic systems. Since it is impossible
to believe that this is an oversight, the clear conclusion is that
there was *no* evolutionary origin of life's basic systems! At
the rear cover of Mike Behe's book, "Darwin's Black Box", Peter Van
Inwagen, Professor of Philosophy at Notre Dame University and an
evolutionist, says:
"This book will do much to correct the common misapprehension
that anyone who questions the Darwinian theory of evolution must be
a "young earth creationist" whose motivation is to preserve the literal
truth of of the stories told in the first three books of Genesis
against against the encroachments of modern science and reason. If
Darwinians respond to this important book by ignoring it,
misrepresenting it, or ridiculing it, that will be evidence in favour of
the widespread suspicion that Darwinism today functions more as an
ideology than as a scientific theory. If they can successfully answer
Behe's arguments, that will be important evidence in favor of
Darwinism."
I agreee. If Darwinism cannot answer Mike Behe's tests, then it is
sunk. OTOH, if it can answer Mike Behe's challenge, then
creationism is sunk.
IMHO Darwinism will not be able to answer Mike Behe's challenge (if
it could it already would have), so they will probably go into denial
and anger mode. But eventually, like the Berlin Wall, Darwinism will
topple. The effect will be revolutionary. As science admits
Intelligent Design it will be akin to receiving a message from
another world. It will not prove the Christian God is the
Intelligent Designer, but it will be clearly compatible with the
Christian world-view. In a sense, it will be like the pre-Darwinian
19th century again, where almost everybody (including university
professors) believed in a God. Maybe Mike Behe will even win a Nobel
Prize? The 21st century is going to look like a different place!
>RM>What interests me is where all this leads. A large number of
>Christian intellectuals who are not knowledgeable in the natural
>sciences have assumed that Darwinism is the way to go. They have
>found ways that (they think) make it possible to harmonize the Bible
>and natural science. They are used to criticisms from Christian
>theologians. But a new thing is this: _scientists_ are beginning
>to undercut the general evolutionary theory. It is one thing for
>Christian intellectuals not knowledgeable in the natural sciences to
>parry the arguments of Christian theologians; it is quite another to
>answer the Mike Behes of the scientific world.
Absilutely agree. They can fob of Henry Morris with his PhD in
Engineering, they can fob of Phil Johnson with his Ph.D in Law, but
how can they fob off Mike Behe with his PhD in Biochemistry when he
makes points that are common knowledge among biochemists?
Remember that Robert Shapiro admitted that as science DBB was "a top notch
job":
"Michael Behe has done a top notch job of explaining and illuminating
one of the most vexing problems in biology: the origin of complexity
that permeates all of life on this planet...this book should be on
the essential reading list of all those who are interested in the
question of where we came from, as it presents the most thorough and
clever presentation of the design argument that I have seen."
(Robert Shapiro, Author of "Origins: A Skeptic's Guide to the
Creation of Life on Earth)
>RM>So, perhaps slowly, a move to a new paradigm: admission that
>intelligent design must be considered within science. I say
>"slowly" because, as Kuhn has shown us (although we didn't need him
>on this matter!), the new paradigm is generally favored only by the
>younger workers; older ones are too much committed and too set in
>their ways.
Indeed, Darwin himself said it:
"Although I am fully convinced of the truth of the views given in
this volume...I by no means expect to convince experienced
naturalists whose minds are stocked with a multitude of facts all
viewed, during a long course of years, from a point of view directly
opposite to mine...A few naturalists, endowed with much flexibility
of mind, and who have already begun to doubt the immutability of
species, may be influenced by this volume; but I look with confidence
to the future,-to young and rising naturalists, who will be able to
view both sides of the question with impartiality." (Darwin C.R.,
"The Origin of Species", 6th Edition, 1872, Everyman's Library, J.M.
Dent & Sons: London, 1967 reprint, p456)
>RM>If this conference marks the beginning of a slow turnaround, it
>was good to be "present at the creation."
Indeed. Such revolutions only happen once a century. It is exciting
to be in near the beginning! As Johnson says:
"The fall of Darwinism will be the big story of the early 21st
century-learn about it now, and be ahead of the curve!" (Johnson
P.E., "Denying Darwin: David Berlinski and Critics", Commentary,
September 1996, p22)
On Thu, 21 Nov 1996 12:16:16 -0600, Russell Maatman wrote:
[...]
RM>Here is a challenge to everyone: Take one of Behe's examples and
>propose an evolutionary gradualistic path. Write up your suggestion
>in the usual scholarly way, citing this reaction and that, all in
>the literature, and show how it is possible--perhaps even
>probable--that your proposed path is correct. Submit the article to
>the _Journal of Evolutionary Biology_. Behe has shown that neither
>this journal nor any other relevant journal has ever published such
>a pathway. Yet this journal and the others are committed to general
>evolutionary theory. So the editors and their referees would
>>certainly not be biased against publishing such a well-documented
>proposed pathway. Anyone who takes up this challenge would gain
>instant fame. NOTE: Don't take up an example other than Behe's.
>After all, he makes the point that some systems that seem to be very
>complex may have evolved.
[...]
Great point! :-) If these important systems like the blood-clotting
cascade and intracellular transport cannot even begin to be explained
by a Darwinist naturalistic variation + selection mechanism, even by
a thought experiment, then it is clear that Darwin's own test of his
theory's falsification has been met:
"If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which
could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight
modifications, my theory would absolutely break down." (Darwin C.,
"The Origin of Species", 6th Edition, 1872, Everyman's Library, J.M.
Dent & Sons Ltd: London, 1967 reprint, p170).
Darwinists can only save their theory by either: 1. demonstrating how
the "complex" micro-biological system called blood-clotting has
"been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications"; or 2.
retreating into unfalsifiability, and out of science.
On Sat, 23 Nov 1996 12:34:03 -0700 (MST), Denis Lamoureux wrote:
[...]
DL>I expect Stephen Jones or James Bell to wrap your priestly robes around
>your neck to choke you! But as one of the "hoi polloi" with regards to
>biochemistry, I absolutely agree with you.
I have no desire to "choke" anyone. I noted Terry's remark about
"Some of us (and here come the high priestly robes) have the
professional competence to judge these matters", but did not think it
warranted a response, since after all, he admitted it! As T. H.
Huxley said, "...life is too short to occupy oneself with the slaying
of the slain more than once"! :-)
But since Denis has dragged me into it (incidentally mentioning my
name in a forum name [the ASA Reflector] that I am not a member of),
my simple point is that if scientists write books, articles, and
email messages to non-scientists, then they are confirming (whether
they like it or not) that the non-scientists have the "competence"
(albeit not "professional") "to judge these matters".
Indeed Gould wrote of his own layman father:
"My heart would sink whenever my father attributed the carelessness
of scholars to his own ignorance based on lack of professional
training. I could never get him to understand that advanced degrees
and letters after a name guarantee no new level of wisdom and that,
in the end, there is no substitute for old- fashioned careful
reading. I could never convince him that he had a far better chance
than Uno or Due [America's two greatest anthropologists] to grasp the
integrity of another man's argument. After all, he had the
prerequisites of basic intelligence and adequate knowledge of jargon;
and he possessed, in addition and in abundance, two cardinal traits
rarely encountered in active scholars: time to read carefully, and
lack of distorting preconceptions." (Gould S.J., "Men of the
Thirty-Third Division: An Essay on Integrity", "Eight Little
Piggies", Jonathan Cape: London, 1993, pp124-125)
Denis, Terry and I will no doubt differ on what are "distorting
preconceptions"! :-)
DL>The most interesting time of the conference was "discovering"
>Michael Denton. We spend many nights till 2AM discussing the
>issues. Great, great guy with an amazing sense of humor. The group
>might be interested to know he is thoroughly committed (and has
>always been) to common descent.
Those of us who have actually read "Michael Denton" would be well
aware " he is thoroughly committed (and has always been) to common
descent"! :-) But as Denton points out, "common descent" tells us
nothing about about whether the process was "evolution" in any
menaingful sense:
"It is true that both genuine homologous resemblance, that is, here
the phenomenon has a clear genetic and embryological basis (which as
we have seen above is far less common than is often presumed), and
the hierarchic patterns of class relationships are suggestive of some
kind of theory of descent. But neither tell us anything about how
the descent or evolution might have occurred, as to whether the
process was gradual or sudden, or as to whether the causal mechanism
was Darwinian, Lamarckian, vitalistic OR EVEN CREATIONIST. Such a
theory of descent is therefore devoid of any significant meaning and
equally compatible with almost any philosophy of nature." (Denton
M., "Evolution: A Theory in Crisis", Burnett Books: London, 1985,
pp154-155. My emphais).
DL>But his view of evolution is utterly teleological, and it is the
>chanced-based evolution that he denounced in this 1984 "Evolution:
>A Theory In Crisis."
Many of us would be quite happy with an "utterly teleological" "view
of evolution". But then it would not be "evolution" in the Darwinian
`blind watchmaker' sense:
"...the mechanism of design, purged on one level of Darwinian
analysis, makes a stealthy reappearance at another...Favorable
changes are one thing; changes that will be favorable, another. If
the mechanism of Darwinian evolution is restricted to changes that
are favorable at the time they are selected, I see no reason to
suppose that it could produce any fancy structures whatsoever. If
the mechanism is permitted to incorporate changes that are neutral at
the time of selection, but that will be favorable some time in the
future, I see no reason to consider the process Darwinian. This is
hardly a matter of semantics. A system conserving certain features
in view of their future usefulness has access to information denied a
Darwinian system; it functions by means of alien concepts...My
estimable Head Monkey conserves certain alphabetic changes because he
knows where the experiment is going. This is forbidden knowledge;
the Darwinian mechanism is blind, a point often stressed by Darwinian
theorists themselves (see George C. Williams, Natural Selection,
1992)." (Berlinski D., "Denying Darwin: David Berlinski and
Critics", Commentary, September 1996, p25)
Denis seems to downplay the fact that it was "the chanced-based
evolution" *called Darwinian macroevolution* that Denton "denounced
in" his "Evolution: A Theory In Crisis":
"Ultimately the Darwinian theory of evolution is no more nor less
than the great cosmogenic myth of the twentieth century." (Denton
M., "Evolution: A Theory in Crisis", Burnett Books: London, 1985,
pp358-359).
DL>He has also just finished a book on the biological anthropic view.
>I've got the manuscript and it looks very good. It may well prove
>to be a great contribution to this origins debate.
I am awaiting the book with great anticipation.
God bless.
Steve
-------------------------------------------------------------------
| Stephen E (Steve) Jones ,--_|\ sejones@ibm.net |
| 3 Hawker Avenue / Oz \ Steve.Jones@health.wa.gov.au |
| Warwick 6024 ->*_,--\_/ Phone +61 9 448 7439 (These are |
| Perth, West Australia v my opinions, not my employer's) |
-------------------------------------------------------------------