You wrote a couple of weeks ago:
> Has anyone other than me read "The Lost World," Michael Crichton's sequel
> to "Jurassic Park?"
I didn't know there was a sequel, but your post prompted to go out and
get it. I thought the book was exceedingly like many movie sequels --
just a second version of the original plot. But what I found fascinating
about the book was what you pointed out:
> Theologically, though, Crichton is amazingly frank about the
> limitations of evolution. Page 205-210 has the naive mathematician Ian
> Malcom discussing evolution.
The argument that Crichton makes through Malcom is one that has long been
significant to me. The only hope for an evolutionary mechanism is one based
on some self-organizing property of systems. There must be some yet
undiscovered properties of the universe (perhaps hinted at by things like
fractals) that can explain how the immense complexity of life can arise
through naturalistic mechanisms --- as the only obvious mechanism is
a supernatural-one, creationism, which is `just plain wrong.'
Either Crichton is a closet creationist with his tongue firmly planted in
his cheek, or he is the most honest evolutionist I have ever encountered.
He has admitted that there is incredible evidence that suggests external
design, but rejecting God, he must declare an incredible faith that
nature somehow has tucked away some self-organizing principle which can
mimic a designer.
One of the most telling aspects of his argument is that without recent
hints provided in fields like chaos and complexity, there was actually
no hope for evolution -- just faith. To me this seems like an admission
that evolutionists had for a long time advocated their position based
solely on faith, not evidence. As Phil and others argue, naturalistic
evolution is currently propped up only by faith in naturalism.
Of course Crichton's views are probably not typical of evolutionists.
Like Stephen Jay Gould does from time-to-time, he admits far too much
of the difficulties. (If Crichton's viewpoint is really erroneous,
perhaps Glenn or Terry can indicate where he has gone wrong).
I was greatly encouraged by the book. Perhaps evolution will turn out to
be true, but that will only show that the universe is far more fascinating
than we have yet seen (I didn't know about tannin in trees). The crux will
be whether men choose to honor the creation (e.g. `nature') or give thanks
to God.
--Dave