On Wed, 4 Dec 1996 00:06:11 -0500, Terry M. Gray wrote:
[...]
TG>If this is all that Behe and company are saying, then fine. (My
>preference would be to side with the reigning paradigm in the
>anticipation, as is usually the case, even in the example that you
>cited, that the anomalies will be solved.) BUT as I read Mike Behe
>and now several of his supporters who have posted to this thread,
>much more is being said. The claim is that the black box has been
>opened and we now KNOW that an evolutionary explanation is NOT
>POSSIBLE. Please correct me if I am mis-reading Mike.
Behe's argument is not that "an evolutionary explanation is NOT
POSSIBLE" for his examples of biomulecular systems, but that no
explanations have been published in the scientific literature:
"Molecular evolution is not based on scientific authority. There is
no publication in the scientific literature-in prestigious journals,
specialty journals, or books that describes how molecular evolution
of any real, complex, biochemical system either did occur or even
might have occurred. There are assertions that such evolution
occurred, but absolutely none are supported by pertinent experiments
or calculations. Since no one knows molecular evolution by direct
experience, and since there is no authority on which to base claims
of knowledge, it can truly be said that like the contention that the
Eagles will win the Super Bowl this year-the assertion of Darwinian
molecular evolution is merely bluster. "Publish or perish" is a
proverb that academicians take seriously. If you do not publish your
work for the rest of the community to evaluate, then you have no
business in academia (and if you don't already have tenure, you will
be banished). But the saying can be applied to theories as well. lf
a theory claims to be able to explain some phenomenon but does not
generate even an attempt at an explanation, then it should be
banished. Despite comparing sequences and mathematical modeling,
molecular evolution has never addressed the question of how complex
structures came to be. In effect, the theory of Darwinian molecular
evolution has not published, and so it should perish." (Behe M.J.,
"Darwin's Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution", Free
Press: New York, 1996, pp185-186)
On Wed, 4 Dec 1996 19:45:41 -0700 (MST), Denis Lamoureux wrote:
DL>This is the way I read Michael as well. Those systems and
>structures which are deemed "irreducibly complex" seem to suggest a
>non-evolutionary mechanism for their origin. And this of course is
>Progressive Creationism which is also the God-of-the-Gaps position.
I agree that Behe's position is probably "Progressive Creationism",
which is also my position (although I would be happier with the label
"Mediate Creationism"). But it should be noted that Behe, like
myself, does not rule out common descent:
"For the record, I have no reason to doubt that the universe is the
billions of years old that physicists say it is. Further, I find the
idea of common descent (that all organisms share a common ancestor)
fairly convincing, and have no particular reason to doubt it." (Behe
M.J., "Darwin's Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution",
Free Press: New York, 1996, p5)
As for PC being "the God-of-the-Gaps position", that is not correct,
if it is taken to mean that God is *only* in the gaps. PCs, like TEs
believe that God's work in nature is no less God's work than His work
through supernatural intervention. But if it means that PCs believe
that there are (or may be) gaps in nature that require God's
supernatural intervention to bridge, then indeed that is true of PC.
Ratzsch (a TE) points out that "God-of-the-Gaps" is a pejorative
label that arbitrarily refuses in principle to recognise that there
may be gaps in the fabric of natural causation:
"Appeals to divine intelligent activity are often pejoratively
labeled `God of the gaps-explanation'....But such objections do not
seem compelling. If there are no gaps in the fabric of natural
causation, then obviously appeal to divine activity will get us off
track. On the other hand, if there are such gaps, refusing on
principle to recognize them within science will equally get us off
track. We should perhaps be wary of both ways of going wrong. If in
our intellectual endeavors we are attempting to get at truth as best
we can, then if we have rational reason-from whatever source-to
believe that God has taken a hand in the origin or ongoing operation
of the cosmos, arbitrarily excluding that belief needs some
justification." (Ratzsch D.L., "The Battle of Beginnings: Why
Neither Side is Winning the Creation-Evolution Debate", InterVarsity
Press: Downers Grove, Ill., 1996, pp193-194).
Wright, another TE, warns of "the `God of the gaps' trap" but then
points out gaps may exist that require "a special act of God" to
bridge them:
"But the fact is, the present evidence for the spontaneous origin of
life is not strong enough to establish a plausible reconstruction,
and it is certainly not strong enough to discourage belief in other
options, such as the special creation of life by God. Thaxton,
Bradley, and Olsen have looked at the evidence and have concluded
that the engineering feat that must have been involved in
constructing the highly organized information encoded in DNA, and
expressed in the protein structures that enclose and maintain the
cell, is far too complex to be explained by the interplay of natural
forces. They have opted for special creation, by a miraculous
process. In other words they feel that the boundary between the
nonliving and the living is a major discontinuity, a change so
profound that only a special act of God could bridge it." (Wright
R.T., "Biology Through the Eyes of Faith", Apollos: Leicester UK
1991, p110)
Johnson, discussing Nancey Murphy's critique of his allegedly
"God-of-the-Gaps position", asks:
"Why should theistic scholars be haunted by the fear that invoking
divine action in biology is inherently futile, assuming they believe
that such divine activity could have occurred? (If they do not
believe divine action could have occurred, then they are naturalists,
not theists.)...The real power of naturalism consists of it presence
in the minds of its natural adversaries. Scientific naturalism is
the spirit of the age, at least in the universities, and even many
Christian intellectuals are at least half convinced that naturalism
is true." (Johnson P.E., "Reason in the Balance", InterVarsity
Press: Downers Grove Ill., 1995, pp100,101)
On Wed, 4 Dec 1996 09:14:35 -0500, Bill Hamilton wrote:
[...]
BH>I would like to see more tentativity on the part of evolutionists
>myself. Walter ReMine's claim that evolution is a smorgasbord has
>some validity. However, I wonder if the creation/evolution
>controversy itself isn't a significant contributor to the lack of
>tentativity in the public attitudes of researchers in the field.
This might be an excuse in the USA where Creation-Science is a major
force. But it hardly explains the fact that the most agressive
Darwinist, Richard Dawkins lives in England!
But IMHO "the lack of tentativity...on the part of evolutionists" is
due to it functioning as a type of secular religion, as Ruse admits:
"Certainly, historically...it's certainly been the case that
evolution has functioned, if not as a religion as such, certainly
with elements akin to a secular religion....there's no doubt about
it, that in the past, and I think also in the present, for many
evolutionists, evolution has functioned as something with elements
which are, let us say, akin to being a secular religion....if you
read Thomas Henry Huxley, when he's in full flight, there's no
question but that for Huxley at some very important level, evolution
and science generally, but certainly evolution in particular, is
functioning a bit as a kind of secular religion...Julian Huxley saw
evolution as a kind of progressive thing upwards...for Julian Huxley
evolution was functioning as a kind of secular religion....today
also, for more than one eminent evolutionist, evolution in a way
functions as a kind of secular religion...Edward O. Wilson..s quite
categorical about wanting to see evolution as the new myth, and all
sorts of language like this. That for him, at some level, it's
functioning as a kind of metaphysical system..." (Ruse M.,
"Nonliteralist Anti-Evolutionism: The Case of Phillip Johnson", 1993
Annual Meeting of the AAAS, Symposium "The New Antievolutionism",
February 13, 1993)
BH>People like Stephen Gould have gotten justifiably frustrated with
>creationists' efforts to use their research to support creationism.
Can you really blame "creationists" using "research" by "Stephen
Gould" "to support creationism" when he says things like "the
synthetic theory..." ie. Neo-Darwinism "...is effectively dead":
"I well remember how the synthetic theory beguiled me with its
unifying power when I was a graduate student in the mid-1960's.
Since then I have been watching it slowly unravel as a universal
description of evolution. The molecular assault came first, followed
quickly by renewed attention to unorthodox theories of speciation and
by challenges at the level of macroevolution itself. I have been
reluctant to admit it-since beguiling is often forever-but if Mayr's
characterization of the synthetic theory is accurate, then that
theory, as a general proposition, is effectively dead, despite its
persistence as textbook orthodoxy." (Gould S.J., "Is a new and
general theory of evolution emerging?", Paleobiology, vol. 6(1),
January 1980, p120).
BH>Some workers in the field see a potential threat to future
>research grants, and so in their view they are fighting to save a
>branch of science -- one they have invested considerable time and
>effort in, and one they consider worth pursuing.
These are understandable human considerations, but they could work
against the noblest ideals of science, as "a search for truth, no
holds barred." (Ratzsch D.L., "The Battle of Beginnings", p168).
On Thu, 05 Dec 1996 10:46:11 -0500, Brian D. Harper wrote:
RL>"The intuitive feeling that pure chance could never have achieved
>the degree of complexity and ingenuity so ubiquitous in nature has
>been a continuing source of scepticism ever since the publication of
>the Origin of the Species; and throughout the past century there has
>always existed a significant minority of first-rate biologists who
>have never been able to bring themselves to accept the validity of
>Darwinian claims..." (Denton, 1985, p327)
BH>This is very nice, Randy, but its a strawman since Darwinians do
>not claim that pure chance "achieved the degree of complexity and
>ingenuity so ubiquitous in nature".
They did once. Nobel prize-winning molecular biologist Jaques
Monod wrote:
"...chance alone is at the source of every innovation, of all
creation in the biosphere. Pure chance, absolutely free but blind,
at the very root of the stupendous edifice of evolution..." (Monod
J., "Chance and Necessity, Collins: London, 1972, p110).
(Denton M., "Evolution: A Theory in Crisis", Burnett Books: London,
1985, p43)
Julian Huxley, one of the founders of Neo-Darwinism, emphasised the
random nature of mutations, saying they take place "in all
directions" and they are "as unpredictable as the jumping of an
electron from one orbit to another inside an atom":
"Mutation merely provides the raw material of evolution; it is a
random affair, AND TAKES PLACE IN ALL DIRECTIONS. Genes are giant
molecules, and their mutations are the result of slight alterations
in their structure. Some of these alterations are truly chance
rearrangements, AS UNCAUSED OR AT LEAST AS UNPREDICTABLE AS THE
JUMPING OF AN ELECTRON FROM ONE ORBIT TO ANOTHER INSIDE AN ATOM;
others are the result of the impact of some external agency, like
X-rays, or ultra-violet radiations, or mustard gas. But in all cases
they are random in relation to evolution. Their effects are not
related to the needs of the organism, or to the conditions in which
it is placed. They occur without reference to their possible
consequences or biological uses." (Huxley J., "Evolution in Action",
Penguin: Middlesex, 1963, pp43-44. My emphasis.)
Indeed, despite his protestations, when Dawkins chose to illustrate
his "blind watchmaker" vision of evolution, he used a computer (and
therefore presumably its random number generator) to generate
`mutations':
"EVOLUTION basically consists of endless repetition of REPRODUCTION.
In every generation, REPRODUCTION takes the genes that are supplied
to it by the previous generation, and hands them on to the next
generation but with minor random errors - mutations. A mutation
simply consists in + 1 or - 1 being added to the value of a randomly
chosen gene." (Dawkins R., "The Blind Watchmaker", Penguin: London,
1991 p56. Capitalisation by Dawkins).
Now that this appears to have become an apologetic problem for
Darwinism, they have switched to downplaying the randomness of
mutations. Doubtless later they will switch back again to emphasise
randomness! Such is the plastic nature of Darwinism.
In any event, Denton *one the very same page* makes it clear what he
means by "pure chance", and it is the same meaning as Dawkins gives
it, namely "blind to the adaptive needs and requirements of the
organism":
"It is important at this stage to be clear about Darwin's view of
variation, the raw material of evolution. Although the mechanism of
heredity was not understood in Darwin's day, it was self evident that
individual organisms were not identical but varied in a number of
different ways: some individuals were slightly taller than others,
some had slightly different colours and so on. Darwin believed, and
we now know that he was, correct, that the mechanism responsible for
these genetic variations WAS ENTIRELY BLIND TO THE ADAPTIVE NEEDS AND
REQUIREMENTS OF THE ORGANISM. If a beneficial variation occurred
which conferred upon an organism some slight adaptive advantage or
improvement this was entirely fortuitous. In other words the changes
were undirected and as likely to be detrimental or neutral to the
organism's survival as beneficial. The purely random nature of the
mutational input or the direction of variation served to
differentiate Darwin's theory from all the other vitalistic
evolutionary theories such as Lamarck's, for in all these pre-
Darwinian theories variations are not random but rather directed,
adaptive and purposeful. Ultimately, Darwin's theory implied that
all evolution had come about by the interactions of two basic
processes, random mutation and natural selection, and it meant that
the ends arrived at were entirely the result of a succession of
chance events." (Denton, 1985, p43. My emphasis.)
BH>Richard Dawkins, in his new book <Climbing Mount Improbable>, goes
to great pains to distance himself from such a notion as this.
Indeed he does, but he admits it is due to *Darwinists* own
over-emphasis:
"But is this one of those rare cases where it is really true that
there is no smoke without fire? Darwinism is widely misunderstood as
a theory of pure chance. Mustn't it have done something to provoke
this canard? Well, yes, there is something behind the misunderstood
rumour, a feeble basis to the distortion. One stage in the Darwinian
process is indeed a chance process- mutation. Mutation is the
process by which fresh genetic variation is offered up for selection
and it is usually described as random. But Darwinians make the fuss
that they do about the 'randomness' of mutation only in order to
contrast it to the non-randomness of selection, the other side of the
process. It is not necessary that mutation should be random in order
for natural selection to work. Selection can still do its work
whether mutation is directed or not. Emphasizing that mutation can
be random is our way of calling attention to the crucial fact that,
by contrast, selection is sublimely and quintessentially non-random.
It is ironic that this emphasis on the contrast between mutation and
the nonrandomness of selection has led people to think that the whole
theory is a theory of chance." (Dawkins R., "Climbing Mount
Improbable", Penguin: London, 1996, pp70-71)
In fact Denton was writing in the mid-1980's about the Darwinist
emphasis on "blind chance" that *Dawkins himself* was supporting:
"The Darwinian claim that all the adaptive design of nature has
resulted from a random search, a mechanism unable to find the best
solution in a game of checkers, is one of the most daring claims in
the history of science. But it is also one of the least
substantiated. No evolutionary biologist has ever produced any
quantitative proof that the designs of nature are in fact within the
reach of chance. There is not the slightest justification for
claiming, as did Richard Dawkins recently:
`...Charles Darwin showed how it is possible for blind physical
forces to mimic the effects of conscious design, and, by operating as
a cumulative filter of chance variations, to lead eventually to
organised and adaptive complexity, to mosquitoes and mammoths, to
humans and therefore, indirectly, to books and computers.' (Dawkins
R., "The Necessity of Darwinism", New Scientist, Vol. 94, No. 1301,
15 April, 1982, p130).
(Denton M., "Evolution: A Theory in Crisis", Burnett Books: London,
1985, p324)
BH>Darwinism involves random mutations + natural selection. Natural
>selection is about as opposite from pure chance as one could get.
Agreed. But it is the *combination* of "random mutations" with
"natural selection" that makes the *whole* process essentially
random:
"In remarks that have by now become well known, Jacques Monod
observed with some sorrow that under Darwin's theory, it is chance
that plays the crucial role in the emergence and evolution of life.
Dawkins proposes to deny this. His views and those of Monod are in
conflict, a point clear to anyone able to read the English language.
Mr Dawkins's continuing insistence that two contradictory
propositions are mutually consistent is evidence of an alarming
logical deficiency. In fact, Mr. Dawkins has simply misunderstood
the fundamental character of the theory to which has committed his
passionate defense. Darwin's theory is both random and
deterministic. True enough. Mutations occur randomly, but once they
have occurred, natural selection acts deterministically to cull the
successes and discard the failures. By and large, true again.
Nonetheless, Darwin's theory is essentially stochastic, a term which
in statistics refers to a process involving a random sequence of
observations. Let me call a random mutation together with its
deterministic consequences an evolutionary episode. The proto-tiger
develops claws; he lives to mate successfully. Such is a single
evolutionary episode. According to Darwin's theory, evolutionary
episodes are independent. A snapshot of any given episode does not
suffice to determine the character of future episodes. And for
obvious reasons: future events are contingent on further random
events. It follows that the episodes must themselves be represented
by what probability theorists (and everyone else) call a random
variable. And processes represented by a random variable are by
definition stochastic. These facts are understood by anyone in
possession of the requisite technical concepts. For all his flaws as
a philosopher, Monod was quite clear about the character of Darwin's
theory." (Berlinski D., "Denying Darwin: David Berlinski and
Critics", Commentary, September 1996, p25)
BH>Interestingly, random mutations is not even pure chance in the
> sense that that word is used in probability. In Darwinism, random
>as in random mutation means only that the appearance of a mutation
>does not anticipate the needs of an organism. It does not mean that
>one particular mutation is selected at random from the vast number
>of possible mutations with equal probability.
Agreed. Darwinists do not claim that the "random" in mutation means
"equally likely" as in "probability":
"There are people for whom 'random' would have the following meaning,
in my opinion a rather bizarre meaning. I quote from two opponents
(P. Saunders and M-W. Ho) of Darwinism, on their conception of what
Darwinians believe about 'random mutation': 'The neo-Darwinian
concept of random variation carries with it the major fallacy that
everything conceivable is possible'. 'All changes are held to be
possible and all equally likely'... Far from holding this belief, I
don't see how you would begin to set about making such a belief even
meaningful..." (Dawkins R., "The Blind Watchmaker", Penguin:
London, 1991, p307).
Dawkins, after a bit of beating around the bush, gives his definition
of "random":
"This all began with a discussion over what is meant when we say that
mutation is 'random'. I listed three respects in which mutation is
not random: it is induced by X-rays, etc.; mutation rates are
different for different genes; and forward mutation rates do not have
to equal backward mutation rates. To this, we have now added a
fourth respect in which mutation is not random. Mutation is
non-random in the sense that it can only make alterations to existing
processes of embryonic development. It cannot conjure, out of thin
air, any conceivable change that selection might favour. The
variation that is available for selection is constrained by the
processes of embryology, as they actually exist. There is a fifth
respect in which mutation might have been non- random. We can
imagine (just) a form of mutation that was systematically biased in
the direction of improving the animal's adaptedness to its life. But
although we can imagine it, nobody has ever come close to suggesting
any means by which this bias could come about. It is only in this
fifth respect, the 'mutationist' respect, that the true, real-life
Darwinian insists that mutation is random. Mutation is not
systematically biased in the direction of adaptive improvement, and
no mechanism is known (to put the point mildly) that could guide
mutation in directions that are non-random in this fifth sense.
MUTATION IS RANDOM WITH RESPECT TO ADAPTIVE ADVANTAGE,
ALTHOUGH IT IS NON-RANDOM IN ALL SORTS OF OTHER RESPECTS. It is
selection, and only selection, that directs evolution in directions
that are non- random with respect to advantage..." (Dawkins R., "The
Blind Watchmaker", Penguin: London, 1991, p312. Emphasis mine.)
It is essential for Dawkins to maintain that "mutation is random with
respect to adaptive advantage" because if he allowed any form of
determinism into "adaptive advantage", he would be giving eyes to his
"blind watchmaker" and Paley's watchmaker God would rear His ugly (to
Dawkins) head:
"According to the doctrines of orthodox Darwinism and Mendelian
genetics, the "improvements"* in this and all other Darwinian
scenarios come from gene mutations that are random in the sense that
they are not directed either by God or by the needs of the organism
(such as its wish or need to become a flying creature). This point
is important because if an unevolved intelligent or purposeful force
directed evolution, the blind watchmaker would not be blind and a
supernatural element would be introduced into the system.
"Evolution" in which the necessary mutations were directed by a
preexisting intelligence (which did not itself evolve
naturalistically) would be a soft form of creationism and not really
evolution at all, in the sense in which Dawkins and other leading
Darwinists use the term." (Johnson P.E., "Reason in the Balance",
InterVarsity Press: Downers Grove Ill., 1995, p79)
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) |
-------------------------------------------------------------------