On Fri, 29 Mar 1996 11:02:41 -0500 you wrote:
[...]
BH>Taking his DNA into his own hands, the Darwinist proselytiser
>Richard Dawkins this week left his nest at New College, Oxford, and
>flew to the United States for a two-week lecture tour.[...]
The journalist has it wrong. According to Dawkins, it is his DNA that
has taken Dawkins in its own hands:
"DNA neither cares nor knows. DNA just is. And we dance to its
music." (Dawkins R., "God's Utility Function", Scientific American,
Vol. 273, No. 5, November 1995, p67)
BH>"The steep side was meant to reflect the creationist point of view.
>The gentle slope was evolution," explained Dawkins. "You can get up a
>mountain, no matter how high, provided you take the gentle slope. It is
>impossible the other way even though that is what the creationists would
>have us believe."
I am glad that Dawkins keeps saying it is "impossible" for unaided
nature to climb the steep slope, because the evidence is that it
*did*, and therefore it *was* aided.
BH>The new book is a further exposition of his Darwinist ideas,
>written again in a cool, clear prose understandable even to
>scientific nincom poops. There is work on the evolution of the eye,
>an organ considered by scientists to be the temple of biological
>achievement but which has long been a favourite of creationists.
>Until now they have used it in their "now try explaining your way out
>of that one" arguments....
Dawkins can explain how the eye might have been formed gradually,
step-by-step over millions of years, but the problem is that it
didn't. There is no fossil evidence of the myriads of intermediate
steps that must have led up to the eye (although there are various
unrelated organisms that have different types of eyes):
"What are the weaknesses in this statement? I will point out two,
although there may be more. 1) Doubtless one can collect samples from
various species to build up a nicely graded series of eyes, but this
has nothing whatever to do with the way the specific human eye was
developed. Hardin admits this when he says that "such a series...is
not supposed to be the actual historical series." Since it is the
historical series we are asking for, he is giving us stones for bread.
2) Collecting a group of samples would actually show that nature had
solved the problem in a number of different ways; but when we cannot
explain even one way, the mystery only deepens when we see that nature
has worked out several. (Macbeth N., "Darwin Retried: An Appeal to
Reason", Garnstone Press: London, 1978 (reprint), p100-101)
Indeed, the trilobite, one of the earliest animals, had a highly
developed eye:
"One example of this is the little animal called the trilobite. There
are a great many fossils of the trilobite right there at the beginning
with no build-up to it. And, if you examine them closely, you will
find that they are not simple animals. They are small, but they have
an eye that has been discussed a great deal in recent years-an eye
that is simply incredible. It is made up of dozens of little tubes
which are all at slightly different angles so that it covers the
entire field of vision, with a different tube pointing at each spot on
the horizon. But these tubes are all more complicated than that, by
far. They have a lens on them that is optically arranged in a very
complicated way, and it is bound into another layer that has to be
just exactly right for them to see anything....But the more
complicated it is, the less likely it is simply to have grown up out
of nothing. And this situation has troubled everybody from the
beginning-to have everything at the very opening of the drama. The
curtain goes up and you have the players on the stage already,
entirely in modern costumes. The creationists say, 'That is abrupt
appearance,' and they hammer away at that. Instead of building up bit
by bit, it appears suddenly, and that to them signifies creation. I
don't want to argue that, but I admit it is very strange that there is
no slow build-up. The evolutionists have strained very hard to find
earlier fossils and have had very meager results" (Sunderland L.D.,
"Darwin's Enigma: Fossils and Other Problems", Master Book
Publishers: El Cajon, CA, Revised Edition, 1988, p150-151)
BH>It is an odd thing to meet a man who truly has no belief in God, no
>hope of an afterlife or of divine remission for good behaviour....
Dawkins might say he "has no belief in God" but his behavior shows
that the idea of God bothers him very much:
"The best letter was from another evolutionary biologist, Gabriel
Dover, who wrote, "There are two classes of questions, natural and
unnatural. Can science answer both of them? No, science cannot
answer the question why Dr. Dawkins is unnaturally drawn to theology
like a moth to the flame. Only theology can answer that, and it has a
lot to answer for." (Johnson P.E., "Reason in the Balance",
InterVarsity Press: Downers Grove Ill., 1995, p236)
Indeed, theology's answer is that Dawkins (like all men), knows in his
heart that there is a God, but suppresses and distorts this knowledge:
"The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the
godlessness and wickedness of men who suppress the truth by their
wickedness, since what may be known about God is plain to them,
because God has made it plain to them. For since the creation of the
world God's invisible qualities--his eternal power and divine
nature--have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been
made, so that men are without excuse." (Rom 1:18-20)
Thanks for the article.
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) |
----------------------------------------------------------------