In a message dated 9/28/2000 9:43:29 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
ralphkru@OREGON.UOREGON.EDU writes:
> >Reflectorites
> >
> >Here is an excerpt from a speech by a Dr. Roland Hirsch in accepting a
> >Distinguished Service Award from The American Chemical Society. In it
> >Dr Hirsch makes the *stunning* claims that:
> >
> >1. based on molecular biological data "the Darwinian theory itself is
> >fundamentally, perhaps fatally flawed. "
>
> For all I know, this may be the first time someone is using
> molecular biological data to call Darwinism wrong. But
> a mere announcement that a scientist has some doubts about
> Darwinism is old news.
>
Indeed, if this is a reason for others to abandon Darwinism then it seems
obvious that it is not a scientific decision.
> >2. "cellular processes are ... irreducibly complex" in that "gradual,
> step-by-
> >step evolution of the process would not work, for none of the intermediate
> >stages would be "selected" because none of the intermediate stages would
> >be functional."
>
> OK. He's read Behe. So have we. Again, old news.
>
I just wish that he had also read the evidence that shows that Behe was wrong.
> >3. "recent research in information theory...concludes that random mutations
> >cannot create complex, biologically-specified genetic information."
>
> Hasn't this been discussed over and over in this very group?
>
Again, the data seem to contradict his assertions. Natural selection and
random mutations have been shown to be able to generate information.
[...]
> >Note these claims are all based on the *data* that Hirsch knows in his
> >field.. Dr Hirsch is not associated with the ID movement, but hopefully he
> >soon will be!
>
> He made no mention of ID, at least not in the excerpt you passed along.
> Surely, if he thought he had proof (or even just a strong presumption) of
> ID, he would have said something? Here is his vision:
> >>I think that understanding function and its chemical
> >>basis offers a much more secure foundation for biology
> I'm confident that if anyone can squeeze ID out of that, you're the man,
> Steve.
>
Since ID has a problem of excluding a natural selection and natural processes
as the intelligent designer, I'd argue that his arguments fall well within
the realm of ID. Of course I doubt that many ID'ers would agree with
including natural selection as an intelligent designer. After all the main
purpose of ID was to show that natural selection was not sufficient.
>
> >I call on those evolutionists (particularly Christians) who have opposed
> the ID
> >movement to re-evaluate their position in the light of this emerging new
> >evidence and not go down with the sinking ship of scientific materialism
> >out of misguided loyalty to science (as it is currently conceived). Your
> >loyalty as scientists should be to the *data*, not to
> materialistic-naturalistic
> >philosophy.
> >
> Why should Christian evolutionists ("particularly"), jump on ID's rescue
> ship?
> ralph
>
Indeed, especially when they are accused of being misguided in their loyalty,
ontologically materialistic and not having evaluated the data. As Lamoureux
correctly argued, such arguments are not going to be very convincing and are
actually quite insulting to our fellow Christians but also to scientists in
general.
I'd encourage our fellow (Christian) ID supporters to deal with the many
issues that are facing them before they claim victory. So far the impact of
ID on scientific thinking has been minimal and the vaste problems of ID to
separate natural designers from intelligent designers will not go away.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Sep 29 2000 - 13:01:03 EDT