On Fri, 17 Sep 1999 16:12:26 EDT, Biochmborg@aol.com wrote:
[...]
>SJ>And some creationists (like me) who have no problem with common
>>ancestry but believe that known natural processes cannot generate new
>>information and therefore increases in information (eg. new designs)
>>were by *non-*random (ie. *directed*) mutation!
KO>Stephen is of course welcome to his belief. Meanwhile, scientists and
>information theorists will continue with their work in defiance of his
>ignorance
This charging me with "ignorance" I take to be just the usual ad hominem
bluffing that TE/ECs regularly use on this Reflector in order to try to
intimidate creationists. I am *encouraged* by such bluffing because I
regard it as a sign of *weakness* in the naturalist position because if
naturalists had any real evidence they would not need to bluff.
KO>...constantly turning out new evidence and theories that demonstrate
>precisely how "known natural processes" not only can but regularly do
>"generate new information".
This bit of `vapour-ware' by Kevin gives the game away. It reminds me of
what Einstein was reputed to have said when he was told there were a
number of physicists who had refutations of his theory of relativity: "one
would be enough!"
So it is with Kevin's "constantly turning out new evidence and theories".
All that "scientists and information theorists" would need to do is show
*only once* "precisely how `known natural processes'...can... `generate
new information"! The reason they are "constantly turning out new
evidence and theories" is because *none* of them are good enough!
If Kevin had any actual *evidence* of "precisely how `known natural
processes'...can...`generate new information" (as opposed to just
reshuffling existing information) *in a quantity and quality that is sufficient
to account for the massive information build up from bacteria to
bacteriologist*, the he would have posted it.
KO>By the way, "*directed*" does not automatically mean supernatural
>intelligence, no matter how emphatically the word is written.
Who would claim otherwise? Clearly "directed" *can* be by human
intelligence but it also *can* be by "supernatural intelligence". If there is
evidence of direction by intelligence in the history of life before man
appeared on the scene then that is conclusive evidence of "supernatural
intelligence" (unless one wants to postulate aliens or time-travel).
KO>Many phenomena are in fact directed by naturalistic mechanistic forces
Kevin in using the word "directed" here in a different sense. While as a
theist I agree that God is directing "naturalistic mechanistic forces", He is
doing so in a different sense than if He intervened supernaturally and made
something happen that would not otherwise happen by His usual directing
of "naturalistic mechanistic forces".
There are at least three different senses that the word "directed" could be
used in this context:
Directed #1: God directing by the initial conditions, laws and constants He
has built into and sustains in His creation. An example would be Darwinian
natural processes of random mutation and natural selection which no
creationist denies occurs;
Directed #2: Humans directing by intelligently choosing one alternative
over another. An example would be artificial selection by a breeder of
favourable variations thrown up by Darwinian natural processes and
protecting the resulting offspring from being naturally selected against.
Directed #3: God directing analogous to 2. but vastly more powerful. For
example human breeders must wait for natural processes in 1. above to
throw up the right mutation, and it might never happen in the right place at
the right time. But God could cause a whole sequence of mutations to
occur in the right plant or animal, in the right place, at the right time, over
and over again, in a way that He does not/can not do in 1., and far beyond
what humans can do in 2.
KO>that are distinctly non-random.
Kevin also seems to be using the word "random" in a different sense than it
is used by Darwinists, which is what I was contrasting it with:
"There is a fifth respect in which mutation might have been nonrandom.
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 nonrandom with respect to
advantage." (Dawkins R., "The Blind Watchmaker", 1991, p312).
This special Darwinist sense of "random" (ie. "not systematically biased in the
direction of adaptive improvement") is the *result* of naturalistic mechanistic
forces.
If Kevin is claiming to believe in a theory of evolution by "naturalistic mechanistic
forces" that "are distinctly non-random", he is not talking about mainstream
science's Neo-Darwinist theory of evolution!
KO>Stephen is promoting a false dichotomy when he insists that our
>only choice is between chance or supernatural intelligence.
Kevin is "promoting a false" *strawman*! I said *nothing* about a
"dichotomy between chance or supernatural intelligence". Indeed I did not
even use the words "chance", "supernatural" or "intelligence" in my post!
Steve
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Stephen E. (Steve) Jones ,--_|\ Email: sejones@iinet.net.au
3 Hawker Avenue / Oz \ Web: http://www.iinet.net.au/~sejones
Warwick 6024 -> *_,--\_/ Phone: +61 8 9448 7439
Perth, Western Australia v "Test everything." (1 Thess. 5:21)
--------------------------------------------------------------------