>SJ> What information engineer would attribute the development of
>code and code- content to chance? Such a postulate would be
>refuted immediately in all other areas of science- except the
Neodarwinian biology....But biology retains this plain nonsense in
the sole interest of materialistic philosophy." (Wilder-Smith,
A.E., "The Natural Sciences Know Nothing of Evolution", 1981, p8-9)
PM>Not even the evolutionist would attribute this to chance only so
>the question is merely rethorical and does not address the real
>issue here that there is a guiding mechanism in evolution (natural
>selection).
SJ: No. Wilder-Smith is discussing the origin of life-before "natural
selection" came into existence:
SJ: "One way out of the problem would be to extend the concept of
natural selection to the pre-living world of molecules. A number of
authors have entertained this possibility, although no reasonable
explanation has made the suggestion plausible. Natural selection is
a recognized principle of differential reproduction which
presupposes the existence of at least two distinct types of
self-replicating molecules. Dobzhansky appealed to those doing
origin-of-life research not to tamper with the definition of natural
selection when he said:
Which of course is merely semantics. So perhaps the mechanism is not
natural selection but molecular selection ? The same idea under a
different name. Fine with me.
To use this as an argument shows however poor logic and evasion of
addressing that even in the prebiotic soup mutuation and selection could
have played a similar role in pre-life as it does in life.
PM>The lack of understanding of evolution and thermodynamics is no
>excuse for these anti-scientific comments.
SJ: Pim, to date it is *you* who have shown the "lack of understanding
of evolution and thermodynamics"!
Perhaps you could show me some examples ? After all you claimed that
evolution violates the SLOT, without proof.... That surely implies a lack
of understanding of thermodynamics.
>PB>I agree with many that creationists often over-reach with the
>2nd law argument, wanting to apply this to the entire process of
>evolution (when the machinery is present), the fall, and so on.
>SJ>Agreed. This gives Darwinists the opportunity to counter-attack
>and thus to evade the main problem - the origin of "the machinery".
PM>'Darwinists' do not care about the origin of the machinery
>whether it be creation or naturalist processes. They look at the
>available evidence of 'evolution' not abiogenesis and explain this
>in naturalistic terms. However this does not mean that there is no
>effort to explain the origin of life as well in a scientific
>manner.
SJ: First, you just tried to use a "Darwinist" solution to the origin of
life, namely "natural selection"! Please clarify.
That I tried such a solution has no relevance to what Darwinism says about
evolution. That there might be a similarity between evolution and
abiogenesis is irrelevant for evolution, just convenient.
To clarify my point, what if mutation and competition (selective forces)
favoured the 'survival' of chemicals which could adapt to the
circumstances better than their 'competitors'. A combination of mutation
and selective forces could result in the evolution of chemicals leading to
a form of 'proto life' leading to life.
SJ: Second, "Darwinist's" routinely discuss "the origin of the
machinery", as part of their defence of Darwinism. For example,
Dawkins' The Blind Watchmaker, devotes a whole Chapter (6 "Origins
and miracles") containing 27 out of 334 pages (or about 8% of the
book), to the origin of life.
Appeal to authority. That evolutionists make the similar mistake (if you
are correct) does not mean that you should be allowed to make the same
mistake.
That evolutionists discuss origin of life does not mean that evolution
needs to address the origin of life.
SJ: Thirdly, if "the origin of the machinery" was by "creation" rather
than "naturalist processes", then it is possible that "creation" was
the solution to other intractable difficulties in the *development*
of the "machinery". I repeat what Johnson said:
SJ: "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)
Based on the erroneous assumption that Darwinists keep the creator out of
the picture. Science cannot accomodate a creator but cannot prove or
disprove its existance either. To claim that evolutionists have to provide
an explanation for the origin of life for evolution to be viable is
illogical. What is next ? The origin of the universe ? The origin of the
deity ?
PM>Of course this is based on the erroneous assumption that
>spontaneous generation lead to a giant leap and generated the
>Escherichia Coli in one step or DNA in one step. While such
>arguments might appear to be scientific to the laymen, scientists
>have since long come to understand the logical fallacy in such
>arguments. It appears that rethoric rather than science is the
>only argument against evolution or abiogenesis given the simplistic
>and unrealistic assertions made above.
SJ: Well then, please explain how "DNA" or indeed "abiogenesis" occurred
step-by-step, *before* there was natural selection:
I guess this means you agree with the fallacy of the giant leap. I merely
showed the errors of such an assumption. Why btw are you assuming that
there was no such force similar to natural selection ?
SJ: "The basic difficulty in explaining how life could have begun is
that all living organisms are extremely complex, and Darwinian
selection cannot perform the designing even in theory until living
organisms already exist and are capable of reproducing their kind.
True, that is why Darwinian evolution has nothing to say about the origin
of life. Which does not mean that similar mechanisms could have played a
role in chemical evolution.
SJ: The challenge of chemical evolution is to find a way to get some
chemical combination to the point where reproduction and selection
could get started." (Johnson P.E., "Darwin on Trial", 1993,
pp103-104)
Reproduction is not limited to biological entities. The survival of
chemical entities can equally well depend on the ability to reproduce and
out perform its competitors. Only those chemicals which can adapt to such
challenges will be able to survive. The only difference is that chemical
evolution takes place at a smaller scale than biological evolution and
that the former acts on 'non life or proto life' while biology deals only
with life.
PM>Much headway is made in understanding the self-assembly scenarios
>both in theory as well as in experiments.
SJ: Please give details of what this "Much headway" is. Thanks.
Kaufman, Fox, Eigen, Prigogine for instance.
See Aspects of Chemical evolution, ed. G. Nicolis, Advances in Chemical
physics Vol. LV, Wiley and Sons, NY, 1984.
>SJ>What the materialist really needs is something fairly ordinary
>that flows naturally from the normal laws of physics and chemistry,
>eg. Darwin's "warm little pond" with chemicals + energy. Anything
>that is too sophisticated sounds like prior planning.
PM>While it might sound like prior planning there is no evidence
>that it need to point to such. Arguments from incredility are in
>general considered to be anti-scientific. Combine this with a
>subjective term as 'sounding sophisticated' and one has a recipe
>from argument from rethoric.
SJ: Pim, your whole post has been one long "argument from rhetoric"! How
about including some *evidence* to back up your assertions?
Let's first ask you that question Steve ?
>SJ>Anything that is unsophisticated but requires bringing together
>of all the components in the right place at the right time in the
>right order, sounds like intelligent intervention.
PM>Again, it might sound like such but need not be.
SJ: At present the only known natural cause that can "bring
together...components in the right place at the right time in the
right order" is human "intelligent intervention". If "components'
were brought together "in the right place at the right time in the
right order" *before* there was human "intelligent intervention",
then the most reasonable explanation is that it was effected by
supernatural "intelligent intervention".
Wrong again. We can see that in stars the right components get together
for fusion to happen without the need of an intervention by intelligence.
There are natural processes which can bring back components at the right
time and place. The only difference with man as interventor is that man
can decide which is the right time and place and what chemicals will be
brought together. In nature there is more an element of chance to it while
in experiment the same process can be repeated at will anywhere, anytime.
Only by looking back can we determine which processes brought together
which chemicals at the right time and place. This does not require
intelligent intervention though. Just chance could be enough for this to
happen. Only when we look back an marvel at the 'coincidence in time and
space' could we perceive the need to invoke intelligent intervention to
explain a natural phenomenon. Just because we perceive a need for purpose
and reason does not mean that there is actually such a purpose behind such
processes.
Perhaps our problem lies in our need for a creator and a purpose.
>SJ> If there was something simple and plausible that does not
>require intelligent design it would have been discovered by now.
PM>Which of course is not dissimilar from arguments that might have
>been heard in centuries ago when people claimed that the earth was
>the center of the universe. Science luckily has advanced us beyond
>these arguments of incredulity towards arguments from facts and
>data.
SJ: Fine. Please post the "facts and data"! To date all I have seen
from you are "arguments of" *credulity*!
Don't project your arguments on me Steve. You claimed that if it could be
done it would have been done by now.
>SJ>"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
PM>Adequate no, but much has been learned in the last few decades
>about this topic and much science has been performed to address the
>origin of life.
SJ: Big deal. Performing "much science...to address the origin of
life" yet it still remaing not "Adequate" is evidence that
"science" is on the wrong track.
Perhaps it is on the wrong track or perhaps it has not gone far enough.
However this is not evidence of failure of science or even more relevant
insufficiency of science to provide a scientific method.
PM>With what purpose? So that I understand that science has a long
>way to go towards fully understanding the origin of life on this
>earth? No big news here.
SJ: The "big news" is that as Thaxton et al point out, it is not what
"science" does not know, but what it now *does* know regarding "the
origin of life":
Or what it believes it knows ?
SJ: "Notice, however, that the sharp edge of this critique is not what
we do not know, but what we do know. Many facts have come to light
in the past three decades of experimental inquiry into life's
beginning. With each passing year the criticism has gotten
stronger. The advance of science itself is what is challenging the
nation that life arose on earth by spontaneous (in a thermodynamic
sense) chemical reactions." (Thaxton C.B., Bradley W.L. & Olsen
R.L., "The Mystery of Life's Origin", 1992, p185)
Which does not mean that such a challenge is fatal to a scientific
explanation. Just that the explanation is more intricate than expected ?
PM>On the other hand science has made significant steps towards such
>understanding, despite Steve's strawman argument that science should
>have understood fully the pathways by now.
SJ: Why is this a "strawman argument"? Unless one knows in advance that
there *was* a naturalistic origin of life, the fact that every
"naturalistic origin of life" scenario has failed, is good evidence
that there was *not* a "naturalistic origin of life"!
Incorrect. The failure to provide a naturalistic origin does not mean
there was none, just that we might not have looked far enough. To conclude
further that this shows evidence FOR supernatural origin is even more
incorrect since there is no scientific method which can incorporate such a
notion nor is the failure to find a naturalistic explanation automatically
proof for supernatural. Perhaps we were created by another intelligent
race ? No need for supernatural... And any absence of evidence can always
be explained away similarly to a supernatural explanation....
PM>I do support the book's contribution towards an understanding
>that science has not fully explained the origin of life (yet) and
>that many of the hypotheses still have problems and inadequacies.
SJ: The fact is that "science has not..."explained the origin of
life" *at all*, and has no prospects of doing so:
So you claim. But that is a subjective interpretation based on an argument
from authority rather than based on fact.
SJ: When the current crop of researchers who started their work in the
1950-60's retire, it is possible that science will *never* "explain
the origin of life".
Perhaps. But that still is no evidence FOR a supernatural creator.
PM>I just hope that the book also addresses that little progress has
>been made in the theory of intelligent design and the origin of
>life in the time science has advanced it's knowledge and
>understanding of these origins.
SJ: Actually "the book" is part of *the beginning* of "the theory of
intelligent design and the origin of life", so it goes without
saying that "little progress has been made" to date.
So they claim, and I disagree. Depends on the meaning of the word progress.
PM>If as I understand from Shapiro's comments the authors of the
>book conclude that inadequacies in theory or hypotheses points
>towards a total failure of science then I have to agree with
>Shapiro's comments about not sharing the final philosophical
>conclusion reached.
SJ: Why am I not surprised? ;-) For Shapiro it appears that *no* amount
of "failure of science" would change his faith in naturalism:
Which for a scientist is laudable. Failure of science should not lead to
the (ab)use of the supernatural as an explanation. History has taught us
the follies of such time after time.
PM>I also do not understand the term 'non-theist' in reference to my
>beliefs. Are you suggesting that I cannot believe or do not
>believe in a deity because I believe that science can find a
>scientific explanation for the origins and evolution of life on
>this earth?
SJ: I assumed that you were a "non-theist" by your response to the
following:
<...>
SJ: Perhaps you would clarify what "naturalistic rather than theistic"
means if it does not mean "non-theist"?
My scientific viewpoint is naturalistic. My viewpoint in the existance of
a deity is theistic in that I do not believe there to be a problem for
science or theology as long as the two remain in their own realm. Science
in scientific realm and religion in the personal belief of something which
can never be proven scientifically.
So yes I do believe in the existance of a deity but I do not believe that
the deity actively played a role in evolution other than by providing the
boundary conditions making it possible for the big bang to have happened.
Sort of a large experiment left to itself.