On Tue, 2 Apr 1996 11:50:37 -0400 you wrote:
TG>Goodwin seems to be saying that self-replication can only occur if
>the whole "cellular context" is already in place? If so, this seems
>near-conclusive evidence for Intelligent Design and a near-disproof
>of the Darwinian blind watchmaker evolutionary paradigm?
TG>I hope that you chuckled when you wrote this. Goodwin is an
>evolutionist and he doesn't believe that his notions undermine
>evolutionary theory or contravene the *vast evidence* for it.
Well, according to your last message, you think that I'm "an
evolutionist"! :-)
I never said or even implied that "Goodwin" is not "an evolutionist".
And whether or not he *believes* "that his notions undermine
evolutionary theory" was not my point. My point was that what he
wrote *does* "undermine evolutionary theory", whether Goodwin believes
it or not.
Darwinist blind watchmaker "evolutionary theory" maintais that a
cell is too complex to arise in a single-step. Therefore, it must
have arisen from a self-replicating molecule (like DNA) which
evolved upward into ever greater complexity, until the first living
cell was formed. This requires (amongst other things) that a
self-replicating molecule must be able to grow in complexity over
time. However, when this basic postulate of Darwinism was
tested by Spiegelman in 1967, it was found that the opposite
happened:
"In a classic experiment, Spiegelman in 1967 (Spiegelman, S. 'An in
vitro analysis of a replicating molecule' American Scientist 55
(1967), 221-64) showed what happens to a molecular replicating system
in a test-tube, without any cellular organization around it. The
replicating molecules (the nucleic acid templates) require an energy
source, building-blocks (i.e. nucleotide bases), and an enzyme to
help the polymerization process that is involved in self-copying of
the templates. Then away it goes, making more copies of the specific
nucleotide sequences that define the initial templates. But the
interesting result was that these initial templates did not stay the
same; they were not accurately copied. They got shorter and shorter
until they reached the minimal size compatible with the sequence
retaining self-copying properties. And as they got shorter, the
copying process went faster. So what happened was natural selection
in a test-tube: the shorter templates that copied themselves faster
become more numerous than the slower, while the larger ones were
gradually eliminated. This looks like Darwinian evolution in a
test-tube. But the interesting result was that this evolution went
one way: towards greater simplicity. Actual evolution tends to go
towards greater complexity, species becoming more elaborate in their
structure and behaviour, though the process can also go in reverse,
towards simplicity. But DNA on its own can go nowhere but towards
greater simplicity. In order for evolution of complexity to occur DNA
has to be within a cellular context; the whole system evolves as a
reproducing unit. So the notion of an autonomous replicator is
another spot on the leopard that turns out to be an incorrect
abstraction and it fades out. " (Goodwin B., "How The Leopard Changed
Its Spots: The Evolution of Complexity", Phoenix: London, 1994, p34)
If "naked DNA" outside of a cell, does not evolve, but instead
*devolves*, and if "evolutionary theory" requires that DNA *evolves*,
then that "evolutionary theory" has been tested and found wanting.
This is good support for progressive creation and intelligent design,
but I wouldn't expect "an evolutionist" like Goodwin to even
realise it, much less admit it.
TG>Goodwin is an opponent of the
>neo-Darwinian view and for that matter, the Gouldian view (at least in
>terms of notions of contigency) of evolution. Does Goodwin believe in
>common ancestry? Yes. Does that make him an evolutionist? Yes.
Goodwin is an "evolutionist", not because he believes in "common
ancestry", but because he believes that there is a 100%
naturalistic *mechanism* (or mechanisms) that made a Biology professor
out of prebiotic chemicals,
TG>Perhaps Brian Goodwin is that second beast of Rev. 13.
There is no smiley, so I presume you are serious? I made no statement
that any *individual*. I didn't even say that Darwinism was "that
second beast of Rev. 13". I said jokingly:
"But no doubt Darwinism will, LIKE the "beast" in Revelation 13:3, who
suffered "a fatal wound', but later "the fatal wound had been healed",
accommodate this new discovery, and proclaim that it is still
"evolution"! :-) (emphasis mine)
TG>Goodwin is part of that new evolutionary synthesis that I mentioned
>in a previous post. So he makes critical comments about
>neo-Darwinism while still being a full-fledged evolutionist. Your
>use of Goodwin in support of PC is like YEC using Gould and Eldredge
>and punctuated equilibrium in support of their view. Johnson plays
>the same games. He uses internal debates among people who are
>convinced of evolution to show that evolution is not true when
>neither side believes that their comments lead to that conclusion.
Neither I, nor "Johnson" are playing "games". We have no doubt that
all the evolutionists regard themselves as "full-fledged
evolutionists". Indeed we do quote from such "full-fledged
evolutionists" to point out the internal contradictions between
"people who are convinced of evolution to show that evolution is not
true". Indeed, what is the alternative? If you are claiming that
non-evolutionists are not allowed to quote from evolutionists, then
this is a neat way of protecting evolution from ever being criticised
by non-evolutionists! On that basis *no* paradigm could ever be
overthrown. What a wonderful defence that would be for Christian
apologists: those who would point out alleged Biblical contradictions
are not allowed to quote from the Bible because the writers were all
convinced theists! :-)
The YEC Snelling makes a good point:
"Evolutionists have often protested unfair to quoting an evolutionist
as if he were against evolution itself. So let it be said from the
outset that the vast majority of authorities quoted are themselves
ardent believers in evolution. But that is precisely the point, and
the value of The Revised QUOTE BOOK. The foundations of the
evolutionary edifice are hardly likely to be shaken by a collection of
quotes from the many scientists who are biblical creationists. In a
court of law, an admission from a hostile witness is the most
valuable. Quoting the evolutionary palaeontologist who admits the
absence of in-between forms, or the evolutionary biologist who admits
the hopelessness of the mutation/selection mechanism, is perfectly
legitimate if the admission is accurately represented in its own
right, regardless of whether the rest of the article is full of hymns
of praise to all the other aspects of evolution." (Snelling A., "The
Revised Quote Book", Creation Science Foundation: Brisbane,, 1990,
inside cover)
TG>The other thing I see here, Steve, is that you don't seem to
>recognize that there is any other evolutionism besides the
>neo-Darwinian synthesis. Many evolutionist recognize that
>neo-Darwinism is inadequate. Of course, it still has it's
>supporters: Dawkins, Dennett, etc.
I do indeed recognise there are other forms of "evolutionism besides
the neo-Darwinian synthesis". Some of these may be more compatible
with Christian theism than others. Indeed Progressive Creation may
arguably be one of these "other forms of evolutionism", although I
would not call it that.
But it is a vast understatement to say that "Many evolutionist
recognize that neo-Darwinism is inadequate" but "...it still has it's
supporters..." The "neo-Darwinian synthesis" is still *by far the
dominant* theory of evolution taught in our schools and universities.
My daughter's university Biology textbook contains no "other
evolutionism besides the neo-Darwinian synthesis."
Indeed, Dawkins maintains that no "other evolutionism besides the
neo-Darwinian synthesis" is even possible in principle:
"I suspect that it may be possible to show that, regardless of
evidence, Darwinian natural selection is the only force we know that
could, in principle, do the job of explaining the existence of
organised and adaptive complexity...My approach will be to examine the
only available alternatives to Darwinian natural selection, and show
that, even if the evidence did not go against them, they would not be
capable of doing the conceptual job we ask of them." (Dawkins R.,
"The Necessity of Darwinism, New Scientist, 15 April 1982, p130)
"I want to persuade the reader, not just that the Darwinian world-view
happens to be true, but that it is the only known theory that could,
in principle, solve the mystery of our existence....A good case can be
made that Darwinism is true, not just on this planet but all over the
universe wherever life may be found." (Dawkins R., "The Blind
Watchmaker", Penguin: London, 1991, ppxiv)
"The theory of evolution by cumulative natural selection is the only
theory we know of that is in principle capable of explaining the
existence of organized complexity. Even if the evidence did not
favour it, it would still be the best theory available! "(Dawkins R.,
"The Blind Watchmaker", Penguin: London, 1991, p317)
And the scientific establishment has rewarded Dawkins with the post of
"Charles Simonyi Chair of Public Understanding of Science at Oxford"!
And Neo-Darwinist "blind watchmaker" evolution, with its insistence
that undirected, purposeless natural processes natural processes are
sufficient to explain the development of a Biology professor from
non-living chemicals, is still the greatest threat to Christian
theism, because, if true, it makes atheism "logically tenable":
"...although atheism might have been logically tenable before Darwin,
Darwin made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist."
(Dawkins R., "The Blind Watchmaker", Penguin: London, 1991, p6)
TG>But to quote Steve Gould in his anti-neo-Darwinian comments in
>support of a PC position seems ridiculous.
You are confusing *analysis" with *conclusions*. No doubt the Apostle
Paul's quotes of pagan philosophers in support of Hebrew theism seemed
"ridiculous" to the convinced "convinced evolutionists" in Acts 17.
It only "seems ridiculous" to those who are "convinced evolutionists".
TG>Gould, Goodwin, Kauffman, Eldredge, etc. are advocating a new
>perspective and our Christian apology suffers when we're fighting
>positions that criticizing evolutionary positions that evolutionists
>themselves are criticizing in the name of a creationist apologetic.
Indeed "Gould, Goodwin, Kauffman, Eldredge, etc. are advocating a new
perspective", which only goes to show that the "old perspective"
which has a monopoly position in my daughter's university biology
textbook, has been found wanting.
When "Gould, Goodwin, Kauffman, Eldredge, etc."'s "new perspective" is
itelf found wanting, then no doubt someone else will arise with a new
"new perspective"! And so it goes.... I quote Hendriksen with no
necessary assertion, but only "He who has an ear, let him hear" (Rev
13:9):
"The second beast is the false prophet (19:20). It symbolizes false
religion and false philosophy in whichever form these appear
throughout the entire dispensation. Although this beast outwardly
resembles the Lamb it inwardly conceals the dragon. In other words,
whatever strikes the eye is very appealing and attractive. The beast
looks very innocent: a nice little lamb, a pet for the children. But
speech reveals the inner thought, life, essence and character. And
this lamb speaks like the devil himself! This second beast,
accordingly, is the lie of Satan dressed up like the truth. It is
Satan masquerading as a shining angel (2 Cor. 11:14). It symbolizes
all false prophets in every era of this dispensation. They come
disguised as sheep, but inwardly they are ravenous wolves (Mt. 7:15)"
(Hendriksen W., "More than Conquerors: An Interpretation of the Book
of Revelation" Tyndale Press: London, p140)
Happy Easter!
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) |
----------------------------------------------------------------