At 10:14 AM 10/30/97 -0700, Don N Page wrote:
> On a slightly different aspect, I'm not quite sure that I fully
>understand the argument Glenn Morton has with ID supporters on this issue,
>since presumably they could claim that the genetics were "designed" but the
>environmental and quantum features were "natural" (or some such word that is
>hard to agree about). However, I might be agreeing with Glenn when I put the
>issue thus: Suppose the environmental influences are admitted not to be
>"specially designed" in the sense of some "intervention" or suspension of the
>mathematical laws of nature and are hence what might be nontheistically called
>"historical accidents." (Of course, as theists we can regard them as parts
>within a total universe that God has designed as a whole, and calling them
>"accidents" just means that we cannot predict them in detail.) Then what is
>the motivation for supposing that the human genes are, unlike the
environmental
>effects, "specially designed" in the sense of some "intervention" or
suspension
>of the mathematical laws of nature?
My problem is not only with the ID group; it is with all who use the
argument that biological systems are too complex to have been evolved. They
required a specified information to be placed into the cells. The ID guys
are not saying what you are saying. They are saying that the full
information must be placed into the cells. Behe says of something very simple,
"The only way a cell could make a flagellum is if the structure were already
coded for in its DNA." Darwin's Black Box, p. 192
Now a brain is vastly more complex than a flagellum, yet its structure is
not completely specified in the DNA!
The issue of information cuts to the very heart of the evolution/creation
issue. The concept that the sequences of DNA are too unlikely for life to
have arisen is partly an informational issue. The issue that complex
structures can't arise by chance and need functional information is related
to the concept that the blueprint for life was placed into the cells by a
Designer.
Behe states:
"Since the simplest possible design scenario posits a single cell-
formed billions of years ago--that already contained all information
to produce descendant organisms, other studies could test this
scenario by attempting to calculate how much DNA would be required to
code the information (keeping in mind that much of the information
might be implicit). If DNA alone is insufficient, studies could be
initiated to see if information could be stored in the cell in other
ways-- for example, as positional information." Behe, Darwin's Black
Box, p. 231
Now, the calculation I presented the other day showed that there is not
enough DNA to specify a human brain let alone the estimated 500 million
fossil species. While I don't fully understand Behe's positional
information proposal, in the first cell, I can't see how the cell would
have more information if it was in location A rather than location B, and I
know that this is not what Behe intends. To put all the info for all the
species into the first cell would be ridiculous.
Other writers like Davis and Kenyon state, "Today there is a growing
recognition among scientists of the dramatic implication that the principle
of uniformity holds for the origin of functional information. This is not
an argument against Darwinian evolution. it is, however, an important
scientific inference in favor of the intelligent origin of genetic
messages." Of Pandas and People, p. 64
But according to Terrance, the brain, being underspecified (informationally)
engages in a great survival of the fittest game among the neurons as it is
being formed.
glenn
Foundation, Fall and Flood
http://www.isource.net/~grmorton/dmd.htm