Reflectorites
On Fri, 15 Sep 2000 11:44:15 EDT, FMAJ1019@aol.com wrote:
[...]
SJ>Note "New lines of thinking" and "new modes of thinking" are needed.
>There is one "mode of thinking" they all reject out-of-hand, namely
>intelligent design! If in fact intelligent design was how the origin of life
>happened, then they are doomed to frustration forever trying to find out
>how it happened by unintelligent natural processes.
FJ>If they accepted ID then why would there be the need for more research?
Why would there not be "the need for more research"? Knowing something
is designed would not preclude finding out more about how it was
designed.
Indeed, if design is scientifically demonstrated it would probably
be the biggest shot in the arm for "research" *ever*.
FJ>It's
>the present approach which has lead to new discoveries, new lines of thinking
>etc.
That's not what Dose said in the quote I posted. Here it is again:
"More than 30 years of experimentation on the origin of life in the
fields of chemical and molecular evolution have led to a better
perception of the immensity of the problem of the origin of life on
Earth rather than to its solution. At present all discussions on
principal theories and experiments in the field either end in
stalemate or in a confession of ignorance. New lines of thinking and
experimentation must be tried. ...The flow sheet shown in Figure 2
is a scheme of ignorance. Without fundamentally new insights in
evolutionary processes, perhaps involving new modes of thinking,
this ignorance is likely to persist. (Dose K., "The Origin of Life:
More Questions Than Answers", Interdisciplinary Science Reviews,
Vol. 13, No. 4, 1988, pp.348,355).
"New lines of thinking ... new modes of thinking" does not mean endlessly
recycling old ways of thinking. There is *one* new mode of thinking that
science has steadfastly tried to ignore for the last 140 years and that is
*design*!
Here is an earlier ID prediction on OoL that has so far proved true:
"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. 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, p.185. Emphasis in
original.)
Steve
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Finally, there is the question of natural selection. In one sense, the
influence of the theory of natural selection on sociology was enormous. It
created for a while, in fact, a branch of sociology. It seems now to be felt
that the influence on sociology of the doctrine of 'survival of the fittest' was
theoretically speaking, unfortunate, chiefly because it seemed to offer an
explanatory short cut, and encouraged social theorists to aspire to be
Darwin's when probably they should have been trying to be Linnaeuses or
Cuviers. As Professor MacRae points out, in sociology the principle
explains too much. Any state of affairs known to exist or to have existed
can be explained by the operation of natural selection. Like Hegel's
dialectic and Dr Chasuble's sermon on The Meaning of Manna in the
Wilderness, it can be made to suit any situation." (Burrow J.W., "Evolution
and Society: A Study in Victorian Social Theory," [1966], Cambridge
University Press: London, 1968, reprint, p.115)
Stephen E. Jones | sejones@iinet.net.au | http://www.iinet.net.au/~sejones
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sun Sep 17 2000 - 18:51:12 EDT