On Sun, 17 Mar 1996 00:08:41 -0500 you wrote:
[continued]
>BH>A minor point, the term "meaningful information" has no meaning
>in information theory :). The terminology I prefer is organized
>complexity. In any event I would tend to agree that the generation
>of organized complexity is most likely the biggest hurdle to overcome
>in origin of life research. Interesting work is being done in this
>area by Stuart Kauffman and others.
>SJ>Fine. But "meaningful information" is meaningful information to
>human beings, even if it can find no place in the
>materialist-naturalist paradigm.
BH>Meaning is not an intrinsic property of a message, i.e. meaning is
>not contained in the structure of the words themselves. Here's an
>illustration from Yockey that I like:
Agreed.
> ...there is no mathematical measure for
> 'value' or 'meaning'. The meaning of words depends on the
> language and the context. 'Meaning' cannot be measured. ...
>
>Now I know you are going to like this part :-). It is the
>"materialist-naturalist"'s who Yockey accuses of violating the
>rules of information theory [another conspiracy?]
I don't know why you keep going on about me allegedly believing in
"conspiracies". For the umpteenth time I don't believe that
materialist-naturalists are engaged in a "conspiracy". Please take
this on board and let's move on, shall we? :-)
BH>Yockey continues from the above:
>
> ...Eigen feels free to introduce conjectures cooked
> up ad hoc to suit each problem. One can solve (sic) any problem
> with enough ad hoc conjectures....
> -- Yockey, in bionet.info-theory [part of Yockey#1 that I
> posted earlier]
Yes. I have read each one of your Yockey posts.
>[...]
>BH>This is one of the things that I find most interesting about
>Yockey. He concludes that there is a gap beteen nonliving and living
>matter that is impossible to be filled in by a gradual process of
>chemical evolution. If ever there were a place where one might
>conclude that intelligent design is required surely this must be it
>(assuming, of course that Yockey's conclusion is correct). Yet
>Yockey does not conclude intelligent design. Why? An interesting
>question.
>SJ>Agreed. Does he actually rule out intelligent design? Has it ever
>been put to him? If Yockey say that "chemical evolution" is
>"impossible" yet he fails to consider intelligent design, is this
>not a prime case of paradigm blindness? Why exactly *is*
>intelligent design not scientific in OOL, when it is scientific
>in archaeology and SETI:
BH>Of all the people I know, Yockey seems to be the least likely
>person to be guilty of "paradigm blindness".
If he is not a theist, then by definition he is in some sense "blind"
(Rom 1:21; 2Cor 4:4). But I can accept that there are degrees of
blindness. I have great admiration for the insight of Michael Denton,
even though he is not a Christian, nor even a theist.
BH>He wants to do something
>which seems to me to be unheard of, i.e. to sweep the decks clean
>and start over. I don't know if he's ever considered intelligent
>design or not, but it seems like his suggestion is the best case
>scenario imaginable for intelligent design. With the deck swept
>clean intelligent design would be on equal footing with anything
>else. The race is on. Can ID produce evidence that is not based
>on the argument from the false alternative?
See above. I don't believe it is "the false alternative'. Even if the
deck is swept clean, a new *naturalistic* structure will be built ny
naturalists. They can do no other. What is needed is *repentance*,
ie. a total change of mind from unbelief to faith.
I believe as my fundamental starting point that God is real, and
naturalism false *by definition*, just as naturalism believes that
theism is false *by definition*. I don't accept the rules of the game
that are made by atheists! :-)
BH>Here is a long quote from Yockey's book which may better explain
>his position on the Origin of Life [my comments in brackets]:
>
> That path to "The broad goal [which] is to arrive at an
> intellectually satisfying theory of how living forms could
> have emerged step by step from inanimate matter on the
> primitive Earth" (Dickerson 1978) _is not in sight_, contrary
> to Dickerson's optimistic statement. The considerable work
> on the origin of life in the last decades has resulted in
> many facts, most of them inconvenient. What is needed is
> creative skepticism, fettered hy facts, however inconvenient,
> rather than endless unfettered speculation. There is no
> justification today for believing that life is about to be
> created _in flagrante delicto_ in the laboratory as was
> proposed by Jacques Loeb (1912).
>
>[my guess is that Yockey would consider intelligent design to be
>"unfettered speculation" :)]
Yes. Instead of "creative skepticism" the Bible would suggest he
start with 'the Unless he starts with "The fear of the LORD" he has
not even arrived at "the beginning of wisdom" (Ps 111:10; Pr 1:7; Pr
9:10). Still, "creative skepticism" might be a preliminary to
BH> Although it was justified when the work started, chemical
> evolution, a latter-day alchemism, is still-born and no
> amount of work on that paradigm, however religiously it
> may be carried out, will tell us how life originated.
> However, this will not shake the faith of the true believers.
> A true believer confronted with evidence contrary to his
> doctrine regards this as merely a test of his faith. His
> greatest fear is heresy and treason to his infallible
> doctrines. He views the world behind a fact-proof screen
> that protects his infallible doctrine from heretics and
> unbelievers (Jukes, 1987a; Hoffer, 1951).
Interesting. But everyone is a "true believer", even Yockey. He is
a "true believer" in the power of "creative skepticism". The trick is
to be a "true believer" in the truth! :-)
> Science often finds itself attempting an explanation that is
> far beyond its capability at the time. Many examples of this
> are discussed by Kuhn (1957, 1970). We know that life originated
> on Earth and we know the approximate timespan in which this
> occurred. But we are frustrated in finding a means by which it
> happened. It is worth reading Sir Arthur Eddington's (1926)
> chapter entitled 'The source of stellar energy'. By the
> application of the basic laws of thermodynamics and of quantum
> theory as known at the time, he correctly put his finger on
> the main source of stellar energy, namely the burning of hydrogen.
> He was frustrated at finding a mechanism by which that might
> occur but, to his great credit, he did not resort to unfounded
> speculation and factoids (they only simulate facts). We are
> in the same situation as Eddington with regard to the origin
> of life. The currently accepted scenarios are untenable and
> the solution to the problem will not be found by continuing to
> flagellate these scenarios.
Yockey confuses *operations* with *origins*. The "source of stellar
energy, namely the burning of hydrogen" is an ongoing regular
ocurrence. The origin of life was a unique, unrepeatable *event*.
BH> There are two approaches to the origin of life problem. We may
> take the suggestion which Bohr made in 1933 that life is to be
> accepted as an axiom and proceed from there, or we may continue
> the search for the origin of life from non-living matter. Let
> us first consider Bohr's suggestion. Chaitin (1988) has pointed
> out that if we try very hard to solve a problem without success
> the reason may not be that we are not smart enough or haven't
> tried long enough; the reason may be that there is no solution.
> There may be no pattern or law that leads inexorably to the
> origin of life from non-living matter.
Or it might be that "there is no" *naturalistic* "solution".
> [...]
>
> I have no scenario to explain the origin of life. My purpose
> is to demonstrate that for a successful explanation to emerge
> it is important to eliminate _factoids_ and clear away the
> encumbrances of failed scenarios and paradigms. [...]
> -- H.P. Yockey, _Information Theory and Molecular Biology_,
> Cambridge University Press, 1992, p. 289-291.
>
>[and along similar lines in the epilogue:]
Great! But the clearing away of "failed scenarios and paradigms" will
not be complete until the ultimate "paradigm" (unbelief in the living
God) is recognised and dealt with.
BH> The history of science shows that a paradigm, once it has
> achieved the status of acceptance (and is incorporated in
> textbooks) and regardless of its failures, is declared invalid
> only when a new paradigm is available to replace it.
> Nevertheless, in order to make progress in science, it is
> necessary to clear the decks, so to speak, of failed paradigms.
> This must be done even if this leaves the decks entirely
> clear and no paradigms survive. It is a characteristic of
> the true believer in religion, philosophy and ideology that
> he must have a set of beliefs, come what may (Hofer, 1951).
Yockey of course is exempt from this! :-)
> Belief in a primeval soup on the grounds that no other paradigm
> is available is an example of the logical _fallacy of the false
> alternative_.
So this is where you get your "false alternative". Note that Yockey
is not talking about metaphysical ultimates, but different
*naturalistic* alternatives. He seems to take for granted that
supernaturalism is only held by "the true believer in religion"?
BH> In science it is a virtue to acknowledge ignorance.
> This has been universally the case in the history of science
> as Kuhn (1970) has discussed in detail. There is no reason that
> this should be different in the research on the origin of life.
Johnson says that this is not possible in science:
"Now suppose you say, `well I don't believe that theory is true. I
don't believe those, well, forces of mutation and selection could do
all that creating.' Do you know what you will be answered with?
`What is your alternative?' `What is your alternative?'
Now at this point you can only make one of two moves and both of
them are wrong! You could say, `Well, my alternative is - God
created.' You see why that's wrong? That's outside of science. That's
not science. We put that aside in our very definition of science.
You're
not only talking about science - you're talking about religion. You go
over there to the Church... and don't bother the serious people who
are trying to find out how things really happened, because that's for
science. And you have made a suggestion that's outside of science. So
that's a foul ball - strike one!
"Now you say, `well all right,' let's forget about God. We won't talk
about God. I'll obey the rules. How about, `We don't know'? Strike
two! Because that's every bit as much against the rules as `God did
it'. The reason is that science is defined, you will be told (I've
been told on countless occasions), as a process that continually
progresses from relatively inferior explanations of things to
relatively superior explanations. And you see, to simply say the
theory that you've got, it has certain flaws, all right every theory
doesn't explain quite everything, some details need to be filled in,
and so on. But we've got this theory and if you say you want
scientists to throw out that theory, to say that it is not true, and
to substitute nothing but `we don't know' - that's outside the rules
of science every bit as much as God is.
What you must do is you must propose a better alternative and the
alternative must satisfy the philosophical ground rules, that is it
must involve nothing but material processes that are purposeless and
naturalistic. So the question then becomes not what is there, but
what is the best naturalistic and materialistic speculation anybody's
produced about how we could have gotten here, assuming there is no
God."
(Johnson P.E., "Darwin On Trial" , 2 tape set, First Evangelical
Free Church, Fullerton, CA, Oct 1992)
BH> The best advice that one could given to the alchemist would
> have been to study nuclear physics and astrophysics, although
> that would not have been helpful at the time. We do not see
> the origin of life clearly, but through a glass darkly.
I am interested in the Biblical phrases that crop up in Yockey's
writings. I wonder if he has had a Christian background?
BH Perhaps
> the best advice to those who are interested in the origin of
> life would be to study biology. After dispensing with failed
> paradigms in Chapters 8, 9 and lO,
^^
So you use a scanner too? :-)
BH> I have shown that the
> problem to be solved in the origin of life and in evolution
> is the means by which complexity (as defined in this book) was
> generated. Half the solution to the problem is to define the
> question clearly.
> -- Yockey, ibid, p. 336
Agreed. The next "half" is to not rule out *any* answers! :-)
God bless.
Steve
----------------------------------------------------------------
| 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) |
----------------------------------------------------------------