On Mon, 31 Mar 1997 22:12:24 -0600, Glenn Morton wrote:
[...]
>GM>...Since this particular amino acid is not incorporated into a
>earth species, it cannot be contamination by terrestrial sources...
SJ>...if "no terrestrial creatures use it", what is its relevance to
>the origin of life on Earth?
GM>...It is relevant because if life evolved some mechanism would
>have had to create non-racemic amino acids.
That is also true if God created life using natural processes - ie.
Mediate Creation. But there is nothing really new about this that
warranted Glenn's fanfare. There are already "mechanism" known that
can "create non-racemic amino acids" (eg. "crystallization of a
racemate from a super-saturated solution", "Preferential interaction
with radiation", "Interaction with chiral surfaces", "Chemical
dissimilarities of enantiomer" and "physical and chemical properties"
(Croft L.R., "How Life Began", 1988, p61).
The problem with all of these is that like the Murchison meteorite,
the yield is too low.
[...]
SJ>If Glenn really believes in "planning, preparation and putting
>together", then he is not believing in "evolution" in the same sense
>that science uses it-he is believing in a form of mediate *creation*
>not "evolution".
GM>Correct!!! I and the other TEs have been trying to tell you this
>for a long time.
This is not even true. "TEs" hardly ever "tell" me this. Indeed,
they hardly ever mention God in their explanations. In Glenn's
triumphant announcement of 05 Mar 1997 concerning this discovery,
there is no mention of God, except to put down creationist for
believing that God was involved:
-------------------------------------------------------
Date: Wed, 05 Mar 1997 21:40:25 -0600
To: evolution@ursa.calvin.edu, asa@ursa.calvin.edu
From: grmorton@psyberlink.net (Glenn Morton)
Subject: left-handed non-biological amino acids
The creationist argument, that life could not arise spontaneously
because of the chirality problem, is beginning to look like a God of
the Gaps argument.
-------------------------------------------------------
GM>We do not believe in evolution as atheistic science believes. We
>believe either that God directs it or God set it up and let it run.
>In either event, God is involved.
If Glenn really believed "that God directs it" then it is Mediate
Creation, not "evolution". In any case, Glenn ruled this option:
-------------------------------------------------------
Date: Thu, 13 Mar 1997 22:08:39 -0600
To: "Stephen Jones" <sejones@ibm.net>,
"evolution@ursa.calvin.edu" <evolution@ursa.calvin.edu>
From: grmorton@psyberlink.net (Glenn Morton)
Subject: Re: left-handed non-biological amino acids
The FACT that a nonracemic, non-terrestrial form of amino acid was
found in a meteorite. If God himself made this then there is no
mechanism. But I don't think God did that.
-------------------------------------------------------
And if "God set it up and let it run", then it is *Deistic
Evolution":
"...deistic evolution is perhaps the best way to describe one variety
of what is generally called theistic evolution. This is the view
that God began the process of evolution, producing the first matter
and implanting within the creation the laws which its development has
followed. Thus, he programmed the process. Then he withdrew from
active involvement with the world, becoming, so to speak, Creator
emeritus. The progress of the created order is free of direct
influence by God. He is the Creator of everything, but only the
first living form was directly created. All the rest of God's
creating has been done indirectly. God is the Creator, the ultimate
cause, but evolution is the means, the proximate cause. Thus, except
for its view of the very beginning of matter, deistic evolution is
identical to naturalistic evolution for it denies that there is any
direct activity by a personal God during the ongoing creative
process." (Erickson M.J., "Christian Theology", 1985, p480)
GM>It has been a long time coming but I am glad you finally see this
>important and crucial point.
It has indeed "been a long time coming" for Glenn to admit that "God
is involved". One usually has to drag it out of him. Usually it is
so muted that one could think that he is a non-theist. Indeed, Glenn
once complained that a new Reflectorite thought he was an atheist!
>GM>I don't know why you think TEs on this list are denying God's
>design.
SJ>Good. I'll remember that next time I see "TEs on this list"
>attacking what they somewhat contemptiously refer to as "the design
>crowd".
GM>One can believe in design without believing the kind of design
>they do. Why must we believe their version of design when we don't
>think it works or fits the data?
If Glenn believes that "God directs it" then he *is* "believing the
kind of design they do"! Or if Glenn believes the second option:
that "God set it up and let it run" (Deistic Evolution) then that is
Mike Behe's argument - it doesn't "fit the data" as far as
at least some important highly complex molecular biological
sub-systems go.
This irreducible complexity is *exactly* the same problem that
prevents a fully naturalistic explanation of the origin of life:
"While it may be so that several of the common micro-components are
fairly simple molecules in themselves, they collaborate in a way that
is both highly organised and complex. This in itself might be
dismissed with a waving hand as a product of evolution (' - of course
things would have been much simpler to start with -'). But the real
trouble arises because too much of the complexity seems to be
necessary to the whole way in which organisms work. Our kind of life
is ' high-tech '. Even some of those essential micro-components are
not at all easily made" (Cairns-Smith A. G., "Seven Clues to the
Origin of Life", 1993 reprint, p5)
and
"What is wrong with the story that I have just been telling is that
it hardly touches the real difficulties: the difficulties that I was
piling up over the first four chapters. I will grant that the path
of chemical evolution seems sensible and in the right direction There
are a few obvious puddles to be avoided and some of the flagstones
are a bit uneven, perhaps. but there is the promise of an easy walk
up to the foothills of the mountain that we can see straight ahead of
us. It is a promise that is unfulfilled. The trouble with this path
is that it leads us toward. but it does not lead us to expect, a
sudden near-vertical cliff-face. Suddenly in our thinking we are
faced with the seemingly unequivocal need for a fully working machine
of incredible complexity: a machine that has to be complex. it
seems. not just to work well but to work at all. Is there cause to
complain about this official tourist route to the mountain ? Is it
just a garden path that we have been led along - easy walking. but
never getting anywhere? I think it is. And I think we have been
misled by what seem to be the two main clues: the unity of
biochemistry and what is said to be the ease with which 'the
molecules of life' can be made. If you take a quick look at these
signposts they seem set straight towards our distant visible goal.
But this straight route leads us to the cliff-face. Have we misread
the signposts?" (Cairns-Smith A. G., "Seven Clues to the Origin of
Life", 1993 reprint, p37)
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) |
-------------------------------------------------------------------