On Thu, 29 Feb 1996 19:50:57 -0500 you wrote:
SJ>If Yockey believes that "the origin of life...could not have
>happened by chance" then he is not a "Darwinist" in my book. Once
>it is admitted that the "origin of life" did not happen by "chance",
>then there is no justification for believe that it was "evolution"
>that "began after the origin of life".
BH>Got to disagree here, the question of how the first life arose is
>separate from the question of whether it evolved after that. There is
>nothing inconsistent with saying that God created the first life, but
>that it evolved subsequently (with or without further intervention).
Well this is what I said! :-)
---------------------------------------------------------
Johnson (and I) agree that God could have used
natural processes that could be called "evolution":
"The concept of creation in itself does not imply opposition to
evolution, if evolution means only a gradual process by which one kind
of living creature changes into something different. A Creator might
well have employed such a gradual process as a means of creation.
"Evolution" contradicts "creation" only when it explicitly or tacitly
defined as fully naturalistic evolution-meaning evolution that is not
directed by any purposeful intelligence." (Johnson P.E., "Darwin on
Trial", InterVarsity Press: Downers Grove, Ill., Second Edition,
1993, p3-4).
---------------------------------------------------------
I also said that it is *Darwinists* like Dawkins that reject
God-guided "evolution". The real problem is that plastic word
"evolution", which can seemingly mean just about anything! :-)
JF>Darwin did not say that life had to have arisen by chance; he seems
>to have been deliberately vague on the question:...
BH>I agree with Jim, biological evolution and chemical evolution
>are separate issues.
Then why is the same plastic word "evolution" used? Darwinists
themselves claim that cosmic, chemical and biological evolution
are fundamentally the same thing:
`Although this article is concerned with biological evolution, it should
be recognized that the concept of evolution is much broader.... There
is also cosmic or inorganic, evolution, and evolution of human
culture. One of the theories advanced by cosmologists sets the
beginning of cosmic evolution between 5 and 10 billion years ago.
The origin of life, which started biological evolution, took place 3 or
4 billion years ago. (T. Dobzhansky, Evolution, in 10
Encyclopedia Americana 734, 734, 1982).
(Bird W. R., "The Origin of Species Revisited", Vol. I, Regency:
Nashville, 1991, p434)
BH>There is one other point I want to make here. Yockey is a very
>good example of the dangers of stereotyping. One might think that a
>person who has devoted so much energy to bringing down the chemical
>evolution paradigm might be motivated by the view that Jim identifies
>above. This is not, however, Yockey's view. As far as I know, he is
>an agnostic. I haven't asked him directly, but this is the
>impression I get. I have also heard this second hand from various
>places. His view on the origin of life is that it is undecidable.
>He doesn't argue from the false alternative, evidence against
>chemical evolution is just that.
You seem to be agreeing with me. :-) My point was that
"Yockey...is not a "Darwinist". You have stated that: a)
"Yockey....As far as I know... is an agnostic"; and b) He doesn't
believe in "chemical evolution".
BH>Here again I think we have a problem with popularizations. I don't
>think there is any question that Dawkins would like to tie the
>origin of life with Darwinism.
Its not just "Dawkins" that "would like to tie the origin of life
with Darwinism." My daughter's university Biology textbook, by its
close association of "Darwin and Evolution" (Chapter 19),
"Evidences for Evolution" (Chapter 20), "The Evolutionary Process"
(Chapter 21), and "The Origin of Life" (Chapter 22), inextricably
ties "the origin of life with Darwinism." In fact, the Contents page
for Chapter 22 tells it all:
CHAPTER 22
Origins of Life 328
Study objectives 328
Chemical Evolution 329
Primitive Atmosphere 329
Simple Organic Molecules 329
Macromolecules 331
Biological Evolution 331
Protocell 331
True cells 332
(Mader S., "Biology", Wm. C. Brown: Indiana, Third Edition, 1990,
px)
Note that "Chemical Evolution" meets "Biological Evolution" on the
same page "331"!
In fact, my daughter's study objectives would only be met if she
could "tie the origin of life" ie. "Chemical Evolution" with
"Darwinism", ie. "Biological Evolution":
"Your study of this chapter will be complete when you can: 1. Trace
the steps by which chemical evolution produced the protocell."
(Mader S., "Biology", Wm. C. Brown: Indiana, Third Edition, 1990,
p328)
BH>Nor do I think that there is any
>question that Daniel Dennett considers this as part of "Darwin's
>Dangerous Idea". The intents of one of the Yockey posts that I
>submitted to the reflector was to uncouple Darwin from the prebiotic
>soup paradigm. Yockey's main point here is that people try to tie
>Darwin to this in view of his famous "warm little pond" quote.
There is no doubt that Darwin wrote it and can justly claim to be the
father of "the prebiotic soup paradigm":
"Darwin, bending somewhat to the religious biases of his time, posited
in the final paragraph of The Origin of Species that "the Creator"
originally breathed life "into a few forms or into one." Then
evolution took over: "From so simple a beginning endless forms most
beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being evolved." In
private correspondence, however, he suggested life could have arisen
through chemistry, "in some warm little pond, with all sorts of
ammonia and phosphoric salts, light, heat, electricity, etc.
present." For much of the 20th century, origin-of-life research has
aimed to flesh out Darwin's private hypothesis-to elucidate how,
without supernatural intervention, spontaneous interaction of the
relatively simple molecules dissolved in the lakes or oceans of the
prebiotic world could have yielded life's last common ancestor."
(Orgel L.E., "The Origin of Life on the Earth", Scientific American,
October 1994, p53).
BH>But this quote comes from a *private* letter. Yockey argues that
>one should not determine Darwin's position on this matter from
>private correspondence but rather from what he published for
>public scrutiny. Yockey then gives some quotations from OoS
>indicating that Darwin's views were very much like those of Niels
>Bohr, i.e. that life is inscrutable. Life just is. I believe Darwin
>also used gravity as an analogy. Why is there gravity?
One could with more justice argue that what Darwin wrote privately
better represented what he really thought, than what he published
publicly, especially in the milieu of 19th century Victorian England.
DeBeer says:
"Darwin's views on the relation between science and theology also
emerge from his conclusions about the origin of life. In his published
works he made no mention of this problem but was content to work
out the evolution of animals 'from at most four or five progenitors,
and plants from an equal or lesser number,' leaving the reader to
decide for himself how they arose. His reasons for doing this were
that in the state of knowledge then prevailing, speculation on the
origin of life, or even of matter, was unprofitable. He did not hide
from himself, or his friends the fact that if miraculous interposition
was not only unnecessary but inadmissible in the evolution of plants
and animals, it must be the same with their origin. For the problem of
the origin of life Darwin performed the same service that Herschel
performed for the origin of species." (de Beer G., "Charles Darwin:
Evolution by Natural Selection", Nelson: London, 1963, pp270)
God bless.
Stephen
----------------------------------------------------------------
| Stephen Jones ,--_|\ sjones@iinet.net.au |
| 3 Hawker Ave / Oz \ http://www.iinet.net.au/~sjones/ |
| Warwick 6024 ->*_,--\_/ phone +61 9 448 7439. (These are |
| Perth, Australia v my opinions, not my employer's) |
----------------------------------------------------------------