On Fri, 29 Nov 1996 11:02:12 -0600, Steve Clark wrote:
SC>I've been out of town and am a bit behind here. But in an earlier post, I
>questioned the a priori assumption of Behe's argument from irreducible
>complexity that evolution proceeds by fine tuning structures to arrive at
>more efficient functions. My point was that evolution, particularly
>macroevolution, represents a model to explain the appearance of NOVEL
>structures which do not seem to be accounted for in Behe's argument.
I would be pleased if Steve would state what exactly *is* that
"model to explain the appearance of novel structures" that he calls
"macroevolution".
In particular, I would be pleased if Steve would state exactly how
that "model" he calls "macroevolution" "explains" the origin of
just *one* of Mike Behe's examples, (say) the blood clotting
cascade. He might as well write it up for a scientific journal
and win the Noble Prize, because no one else has explained it! :-)
[...]
On 08 Dec 96 17:02:25 EST, Jim Bell wrote to Brian D. Harper:
[...]
JB>As a theistic realist, I argue that not being able to "see" a
>designer does not rule one out. And I accept that an element of
>faith, though reasonable faith, is required to move beyond that.
>
>But evolutionists exhibit EXACTLY the same kind of faith. But for
>them it is macro-evolution which, I say again, is not part of
>anyone's "common experience."
>
>Your "amazement" should tell you, then, that evolutionism is a faith
>as well. That's the main point Johnson is making in RITB, and one I
>make in TDC. This, I truly believe.
Agreed. Patterson, Senior Palaeontologist of the British Museum of
Natural History admitted that evolution for him (and he suspected
many of his audience from the AMNH), was no longer knowledge, but
faith:
"So I think many people in this room would acknowledge that during
the last few years if you had thought about it at all, you've
experienced a shift from evolution as knowledge, to evolution as
faith. I know that's true of me and I think it's true of good many of
you in here." (Patterson C., "Evolutionism and Creationism",
Transcript of Address at the American Museum of Natural History,
New York City, November 5, 1981, p4)
JB>You made a point about watches and turtles, and I asked which was
>the more complex system. Was this an unreasonable question? I
>noted that this was Paley's argument, still potent in my mind. And
>I am backed up in this by many. Most recently, Davin Berlinsky
>wrote:
>
>Paley offered examples that he had on hand, a pocket watch
>chiefly, but that watch, its golden bezel still glowing after all
>these years, Paley pulled across his ample paunch as an act of
>calculated misdirection. The target of his cunning argument lay
>elsewhere, with the world of biological artifacts: the orchid's
>secret chamber, the biochemical cascade that stops the blood from
>flooding the body at a cut. These, too, are complex, infinitely
>more so than a watch. Today, with these extraordinary objects now
>open for dissection by the biological sciences, precisely the same
inferential pattern that sweeps back from a complex human artifact
to the circumstance of its design sweeps back from a complex
biological artifact to the circumstance of its design. [David
Berlinsky, "The End of Materialist Science" Forbes ASAP, December 2,
>1996]
Indeed. Behe points out that Paley's watch could even today be made
out biological materials:
"Incidentally, even by Hume's criteria, the analogy between a watch
and a living organism could be made very strong. Modern
biochemistry probably could make a watch, or a time- keeping
device, out of biological materials-if not now, then certainly in the
near future. Many biochemical systems keep time, including the cells
that pace the heart, the system that initiates puberty, and the proteins
that tell the cell when to divide. Moreover, biochemical components
are known that can act as gears and flexible chains, and feedback
mechanisms (which are necessary to regulate a watch) are common in
biochemistry. Hume's criticism of the design argument that asserts a
fundamental difference between mechanical systems and living
systems is out of date, destroyed by the advance of science which has
discovered the machinery of life." (Behe M.J., "Darwin's Black Box:
The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution", Free Press: New York,
1996, p218)
JB>Not unreasonable, Brian. Indeed, it is compelling logic.
Agreed!
On Mon, 9 Dec 1996 23:36:31 -0500, Michael McCulloch wrote:
MM>With regard to the discussion of common sense and the question of
>complexity, I have a simple observation -- perhaps too simple. It seems to
>me that the process of human reproduction is considered less complex than
>the proposition of macroevolution. Yet many of the elements of the
>reproduction process appear to be still a mystery. For example, what
>exactly triggers cells during the growth process to become specialized? How
>does a union of an egg and sperm become such a complex organism with
>seemingly irreducible components after maturity? The morphological changes
>alone from zygote to mature adult are astounding.
>
>However, when these same questions are posed of macroevolution, many jump
>to the conclusion that supernatural intervention is necessary. Would these
>same persons also propose that supernatural intervention is present in the
>developmental process of every human fetus?? Or are the mechanisms involved
>in human reproduction just not fully understood yet?
This comes up often and has replied to often. Indeed asking it
may indicate a fundamental difference in the thinking of those
who accept as a first principle what Howard calls "evolutionary
continuity? :-) Briefly, those who claim that "supernatural
intervention is necessary" are talking only about *origins*, not the
ongoing *operations*. The first human being is an *origin* event. The
development of billions of human foetuses since are ongoing
*operations* events and no supernatural intervention is expected or
claimed:
"Norman L. Geisler and J. Kerby Anderson have distinguished between
operation science and origin science. They argue that appealing to
God as a personal first cause is legitimate in the latter but not the
former. Operation science is an empirical approach to the world that
focuses on repeatable, regularly recurring events or patterns in
nature (e.g., chemical reactions or the relationship between current,
voltage, and resistance in a circuit). Operation science tests
theories against these recurring patterns of events and,
theologically speaking, secondary causes are the only focus.
Secondary causation refers to God's acting mediately (i.e., through
the instrumentality of natural laws); primary causation refers to
God's acting immediately (i.e., directly, such that discontinuities
obtain in the world). In contrast to operation science, origin
science focuses on past singularities that are not repeatable (e.g.,
the origins of the universe, life, various life forms, and mankind).
Such singularities can have a personal first cause, and it is within
the domain of origin science to look for such causes. God, as a term
in origin science, means, roughly, a first cause of some
discontinuity or singularity who acts with intentionality in light of
knowledge and purpose." (Moreland J.P., "Christianity and the Nature
of Science", Baker: Grand Rapids, 1989, p225)
Happy New Year!
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) |
-------------------------------------------------------------------