On Mon, 14 Apr 1997 12:00:14 -0400, Pim van Meurs wrote:
>SJ>There is no doubt that the Second Law of "thermodynamics poses a
>problem for the spontaneous origin of life". Only Intelligent
>Design can resolve that "problem".
PM>Two problems with that. 1) thermodynamics does NOT pose a problem
for the spontaneous origin of life, I thought that such anti-
scientific arguments had died out
How about some *evidence* Pim? I have cited evidence fron Thaxton et
al, that "thermodynamics" *does* "pose a problem for the spontaneous
origin of life:
"Since the important macromolecules of living systems (DNA, protein,
etc.) are more energy rich than their precursors (amino acids,
heterocyclic bases, phosphates, and sugars), classical
thermodynamics would predict that such macromolecules will not
spontaneously form. Roger Caillois has recently drawn this
conclusion in saying, "Clausius and Darwin cannot both be right."
(Caillois R., "Coherences Adventureuses", Paris: Gallimard, 1976).
This prediction of classical thermodynamics has, however, merely set
the stage for refined efforts to understand life's origin. Harold
Morowitz and others have suggested that the earth is not an isolated
system, since it is open to energy flow from the sun. Nevertheless,
one cannot imply dismiss the problem of the origin of organization
and complexity in biological systems by a vague appeal to
open-system, non-equilibrium thermodynamics. The mechanisms
responsible for the emergence and maintenance of coherent
(organized) states must be defined." (Thaxton C.B., Bradley W.L. &
Olsen R.L., "The Mystery of Life's Origin", 1992, pp116-117)
It is up to you to supply counter-*evidence* to support your view.
PM>2) the idea that only intelligent design can solve this is also
>faulty. Why would intelligence be able to violate a law of nature?
>Unless of course one assumes that the intelligence acts outside the
>laws of nature reducing it to an argument that cannot be tested in
>science.
Who said anything about "intelligence" *violating* "a law of nature"?
If Intelligent Design can resolve the "problem" that "thermodynamics
poses" for "the spontaneous origin of life", then that must be
included *inside* "the laws of nature".
PM>Either way the statement that the Second Law of thermodynamics
>poses a problem for the spontaneous origin of life in absence of an
>explanation remains an argument by assertion. Given the fact that
>from a scientific point of view there is no such problem this is not
>surprising.
Pim, *I* have cited *evidence* "from a scientific point of view" for
my claim that "the Second Law of thermodynamics poses a problem for
the spontaneous origin of life". *You* have cited no *evidence*, but
just have relied on "an argument by assertion"!
[...]
>SJ>Agreed. Once there is an intelligently designed "machine", then
>the "thermodynamics...barrier" can be overcome.
PM>That is one way of overcoming such a problem but there not the
>only one. The assumption that a machine is necessary as a third
>factor implies a 'designer' were there need not be one.
Fine. Show how a "machine" can be assembled without "a 'designer'".
>SJ>Agreed. The only "naturalistic assumption" that can account for
>"specific machines" and "work" that "must be specified" is
>intelligence. And since on "naturalistic assumptions", intelligence
>itself was the *end result* of a long process of evolution:
PM>Faulty assumptions lead to faulty conclusions. No intelligence is
>required for such processes. Since this appears to be the
>underlying foundation of your argument, the rest of your argument
>becomes subject to a sudden collapse.
Please cite your *evidence* Pim. Just making "an argument by
assertion" cuts no ice with me! Indeed, your failure to cite evidence
tells me that you have none.
>SJ>They have been trying to tell us "how" for 44 years - since the
>Miller-Urey experiment in 1953, and indeed long before tbat. The
>long delay indicates that they will *never* now come up with a
>plausible naturalistic explanation. As Cairns-Smith admits "we
>would know by now if there was some much easier way":
PM>Much has happened since the Miller-Urey experiments. I refer for
>example to the research by Fox, Prigogine etc. Your assumption that
>the delay indicates a 'never' merely ignores the significant
>advances made by science in addressing the how. As such science has
>made more progress than the needless assumption that an intelligent
>designer is required.
This is just naturalistic propaganda. Without unduly disparaging the
work of "Miller-Urey", "Fox, Prigogine etc", a naturalistic solution
to the mystery of life's origin is just as far away as it was in 1871
when Darwin speculated about life beginning in a "warm little pond".
Robert Shapiro admitted as much when he wrote regarding Thaxton, et.
al.'s book:
"The authors have made an important contribution to the origin of life
field. Many workers in this area believe that an adequate scientific
explanation for the beginning of life on Earth has already been made.
Their point of view has been widely disseminated in texts and the
media, and to a large extent, has been accepted by the public. This
new work BRINGS TOGETHER THE MAJOR SCIENTIFIC ARGUMENTS THAT
DEMONSTRATE THE INADEQUACY OF CURRENT THEORIES. Although I do not
share the final philosophical conclusion that the authors reach, I
welcome their contribution. It will help to clarify our thinking....
I would recommend this book to everyone with a scientific background
and interest In the origin of life...." -Robert Shapiro, Professor of
Chemistry at New York University. Dr. Shapiro is coauthor of Life
Beyond Earlh."
(Thaxton C.B., Bradley W.L. & Olsen R.L., "The Mystery of Life's
Origin", 1992, back cover. My emphasis)
>SJ>Yes. The only problem for naturalistic evolution is that
>"machinery" must assemble itself, when the Second Law says that
>matter, in the absence of "machinery", tends towards dis-assemble
>itself:
PM>Again this is based upon a simplistic and erroneous understanding
>of the second law of thermodynamics. After all we do know that
>increase in order and complexity is possible. Of course the
>'machinery' in that case is for instance the energy from the sun.
Sorry Pim, but "machinery" is not "energy" any more than a motor
vehicle is the petrol. Thaxton, et. al. use this as an example:
"An automobile with an internal combustion engine, transmission, and
drive chain provides the necessary mechanism for converting the
energy in gasoline into comfortable transportation. Without such an
"energy converter," however, obtaining transportation from gasoline
would be impossible. In a similar way, food would do little for a
man whose stomach, intestines, liver, or pancreas were removed.
Without these, he would surely die even though he continued to eat.
Apart from a mechanism to couple the available energy to the
necessary work, high-energy biomass is insufficient to sustain a
living system far from equilibrium. In the case of living systems
such a coupling mechanism channels the energy along specific chemical
pathways to accomplish a very specific type of work. We therefore
conclude that, given the availability of energy and an appropriate
coupling mechanism, the maintenance of a living system far from
equilibrium presents no thermodynamic problems." (Thaxton C.B.,
Bradley W.L. & Olsen R.L., "The Mystery of Life's Origin", 1992,
p124)
>SJ>"The laws of physics-the laws of thermodynamics- also contradict
>evolutionary theory. For according to the experimental results on
>which these laws are based, matter alone tends toward chaos or
>increased entropy.
PM>Of course the matter alone is the reason why this argument fails
>to address the issue. Evolutionary theory 1) does not address
>origin
This is a common ploy, used by Gould:
"In an article correcting "Justice Scalia's Misunderstanding," Gould
tried to set the matter straight. Evolution, he wrote,"is not the
study of life's ultimate origin, as a path toward discerning its
deepest meaning." Even the purely scientific aspects of life's first
appearance on earth belong to other divisions of science,
because 'evolution" is merely the study of how life changes once it
is already in existence." (Johnson P.E., "Darwin on Trial", 1993,
pp102-103)
But this argument is based on a play on words. What it really means
is that *biological* "evolution" does not address "life's ultimate
origin". But this is a truism. Before "life's ultimate origin"
there is by definition no biology. But *pre-biological* (aka
chemical) "Evolution" *is* "the study of life's ultimate origin":
"In fact, Justice Scalia used the general term "evolution" exactly as
scientists use it-to include not only biological evolution but also
prebiological or chemical evolution, which seeks to explain how life
first evolved from nonliving chemicals. Biological evolution is just
one major part of a grand naturalistic project, which seeks to
explain the origin of everything from the Big Bang to the present
without allowing any role to a Creator. If Darwinists are to keep
the Creator out of the picture, they have to provide a naturalistic
explanation for the origin of life." (Johnson P.E., "Darwin on
Trial", 1993, p103)
PM>2) is in no manner contradicted by the laws of thermodynamics.
In your own words, this is "an argument by assertion", Pim. Please
cite your *evidence*.
SJ>It does not tend toward autoorganization, even if one irradiates
>it with photon energy.
PM>Again wrong.
Another "argument by assertion", Pim? Please state *why* it is
"wrong".
>SJ>Only with the aid of teleonomic energy consuming machines, the
>construction of which require energy and planning, can entropy be
>reduced in matter and order and organization increased.
PM>Again wrong. Prigogine has shown that no 'planning' is required
>for order and organization to increase.
Please cite *where* "Prigogine has shown" this, *in the context of
the origin of life*, which is what Wilder-Smith is claiming.
PM>I wonder why such anti-scientific arguments are still being used.
>The abuse of the second law of thermodynamics to support one's
>arguments either against evolution or in favour of creation indicate
>a lack of real arguments. Is the intent of the 'abusers' to
>encourage total abandonment of their ideas by abuse of science?
No one is "abusing of the second law of thermodynamics", Pim. And as
for "a lack of real arguments", to date this has characterised *your*
messages on this topic. You cite *no* scientific references, but
just rely on "argument by assertion".
>SJ>...Today energy and know-how (information, concept, logos) are
always added.-
PM>Know-how is not required for the miller-urey experiment to
>represent a possible first step in the origin of life. Know-how is
>only required in reconstructing this event and analyzing its
>results. The idea that science adds know-how to a process is
>misleading.
If "Know-how is...required in reconstructing this event", then there
is no way of showing that "Know-how is" not "required in" the
*original "event". All successful origin-of-life `simulation'
experiements depend for their success on the "crucial but
illegitimate role of the investigator":
"Over the years a slowly emerging line or boundary has appeared
which shows observationally the limits of what can be expected from
matter and energy left to themselves, and what can be accomplished
only through what Michael Polanyi has called "a profoundly
informative intervention. When it is acknowledged that most
so-called prebiotic simulation experiments actually owe their
success to the crucial but illegitimate role of the investigator, a
new and fresh phase of the experimental approach to life's origin
can then be entered. Until then however, the literature of chemical
evolution will probably continue to be dominated by reports of
experiments in which the investigator, like a metabolizing Maxwell
Demon, will have performed work on the system through intelligent,
exogenous intervention. Such work establishes experimental boundary
conditions, and imposes intelligent influence/control over a
supposedly "prebiotic" earth. As long as this informative
interference of the investigator is ignored, the illusion of
prebiotic simulation will be fostered. We would predict that this
practice will prove to be a barrier to solving the mystery of life's
origin." (Thaxton C.B., Bradley W.L. & Olsen R.L., "The Mystery of
Life's Origin", 1992, p185)
>SJ>(i.e., know-how has been added), scientists have become
>successful in their attempts to create artificial life.
PM>Well, at least it is admitted that artificial life has been
>'created', the question is now could this have happened without the
>intervention of the experimentor. i.e. is there evidence that
>similar processes existed and the answer
>is yes.
Please state what the "evidence" that there are "similar processes"
to "the intervention of the experimentor" but "with a naturalistic
origin".
>SJ> Why should it have been different at biogenesis if the laws
>governing the autoorganization of matter today have remained
>constant since the origin of matter? Why should matter plus energy
>plus chance have been vital at biogenesis, whereas today matter and
>energy plus know-how are required under the same laws?...Where in
>the history of experimental science does one
PM>No know how is required for biogenesis to happen today, just
>similar circumstances to those existing billion of years ago.
Every conceivable "similar circumstances to those existing billion
of years ago" has been tried, yet "biogenesis" *does not* "happen
today", except where an intelligent designer intervenes. This means
that all successful abiogenesis experiments are proving Supernatural
Creation, not Naturalistic Chemical Evolution:
"The scientific materialists are bending all their efforts to
demonstrate that, if a reaction leading up to life can take place
now, in laboratory reaction vessels, without supernatural aid, then
proof positive has been effectively delivered that no supernatural
agency was needed to produce life at the beginning, at
archebiopoesis. Thus any synthetic, laboratory production of life
in the laboratory, under what are presumed to be conditions
resembling those on the earth when life arose for the first time, is
heralded in many circles as driving the last nail in God's and the
supernaturalist's coffins. Who needs God and the supernaturalist
position if life on the earth can be effectively accounted for
without either? Before accepting this commonly assumed position let
us consider the following: Is it not remarkable that this view is
not generally recognized for what it is-an absolute contradiction?
For all the efforts of the scientific naturalists to prove their
point by the above mentioned method only serve, in fact, to verify
the correctness of the supernaturalist position. For, is it not
true that the scientific materialists are, in their experiment,
applying intelligence and thought to the ordering of matter? Under
the influence of intelligence they are hoping to produce living
matter from its nonliving base. This is precisely the
supernaturalist point of view." (Wilder-Smith, A.E., "The Creation
of Life", 1988, pp.xix-xx)
>SJ>Neodarwinism postulates the development through chance and
>autoorganization of the most refined coding system for a machine
>(the cell) ever seen. This cell machine is far more complex than
>any machine ever invented by man.
PM>The argument that DNA is far more complex that any machine
>invented by man is 1) based on subjective arguments
Wilder-Smith does not say "DNA" but "the cell". Leaving aside
"DNA" for the moment, do you deny that "the cell...is far more
complex than any machine ever invented by man"?
PM>2) does not mean that an intelligence far more complex than man
>is required for it to exist.
I will take up this point when you have clarified your point 1)
above.
[continued]
Regards.
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) |
-------------------------------------------------------------------