On Wed, 27 Nov 1996 09:43:26 -0600, Russell Maatman wrote:
[...]
RM>Why is it, in an effort to refute Behe's irreducible complexity
>argument, people cite some complex system _not_ mentioned by Behe,
>and then proceed to refute their own example?
Yes. Until someone writes a paper in a scientific journal that gives
a plausible evolutionary account of the origin of the crucial
biomolecular systems that Mike mentions, his argument that there is
*no* plausible evolutionary account of their origin remains
unrefuted. Evolutionists just confirm Behe's argument, the more they
put up and refute their own examples, and not the ones mentioned by
Behe, which include:
1. Cilia:
"The amount of scientific research that has been and is being done on
the cilium-and the great increase over the past few decades in our
understanding of how the cilium works lead many people to assume that
even if they themselves don't know how the cilium evolved, somebody
must know. But a search of the professional literature proves them
wrong. Nobody knows." (Behe M.J., "Darwin's Black Box: The
Biochemical Challenge to Evolution", Free Press: New York, 1996,
p69)
2. Bacterial Flagellum:
"The general professional literature on the bacterial flagellum is
about as rich as the literature on the cilium, with thousands of
papers published on the subject over the years. That isn't
surprising; the flagellum is a fascinating biophysical system, and
flagellated bacteria are medically important. Yet here again, the
evolutionary literature is totally missing. Even though we are told
that all biology must be seen through the lens of evolution, no
scientist has ever published a model to account for the gradual
evolution of this extraordinary molecular machine." (Behe, 1996,
p72)
3. Blood clotting:
"Recall that Doolittle's audience for the article in thrombosis and
Haemostasis are the leaders in clotting research -they know the state
of the art. Yet the article does not explain to them how clotting
might have originated and subsequently evolved; instead, it just
tells a story. The fact is, no one on earth has the vaguest idea how
the coagulation cascade came to be." (Behe, 1996, p96)
4. Vesicular transport:
"Vesicular transport is a mind-boggling process...its development
staunchly resists gradualistic explanations, as Darwinian evolution
would have it. A search of the professional biochemical literature
and textbooks shows that n one has ever proposed a detailed route by
which such a system could have come to be. In the face of the
enormous complexity of vesicular transport, Darwinian theory is
mute." (Behe, 1996, pp115-116)
5. Immune system:
"We can look high or we can look low, in books or in journals, but
the result is the same. The scientific literature has no answers to
the question of the origin of the immune system." (Behe, 1996, p139)
6. AMP Biosynthesis
"No one has a clue how the AMP pathway developed. Although a few
researchers have observed that the pathway itself presents a severe
challenge to gradualism, no one has written about the obstacle posed
by the need to regulate a cell's metabolic pathway immediately at its
inception. Small wonder-no one wants to write about road kill."
(Behe, 1996, p159)
On Thu, 28 Nov 1996 00:01:29, Glenn Morton wrote to Chuck Warman:
CW>A related question is, why do so many who define themselves as
>*theistic* evolutionists feel compelled to find ways in which
>evolution could have proceeded with no divine intervention or
>oversight?
GM>I can't speak for anyone but myself, but I believe that God is a
>good enough designer to design a system that required little
>tinkering with after wards. This view makes God at least as good
>as a GM engineer. Would you be pleased with the design of your car
>if a GM engineer had to live under your hood constantly tinkering
>as you drove?
This is a good example of how evolutionists use straw men and verbal
manipulation to carry their arguments. Firstly, no one is claiming
that God is "constantly" intervening - my consistent argument is that
God has intervened in biological history *at strategic points* only.
Secondly, the word "tinkering" has pejorative connotations:
"tinker n. 'Mender (esp. itinerant) of kettles, pans, etc.-
(Scotland and N. Ireland) gipsy(U.S.) jack-of-all-trades; act of
tinkering. - v. Repair, patch (up) roughly- work amateurishly or
clumsily at, esp. in attempt to repair or improve." (Coulson J., et
al, eds., "The Oxford Illustrated Dictionary", Book Club Associates:
London, Second Edition, 1980, p890)
Remove the straw man "constantly" and change the word "tinkering" to
something more positive and Glenn's argument collapses.
Glenn's argument here is *philosophical*, not Biblical. Like Howard
Van Till, Glenn seems unable (or unwilling) to grasp the idea that
God could *plan* to intervene. The idea of God in eternity,
*planning* to intervene in time, is firmly rooted in Scripture. For
example, Scripture plainly states that God in eternity planned for
Jesus to intervene in this world's history, in His incarnation, death
and resurrection.: He was "the Lamb that was slain from the creation
of the world" (Rev 13:8).
On Wed, 27 Nov 1996 09:30:00 -0700, Allan Harvey wrote to Russell
Maatman:
AH>*IF* Behe has a meaningful definition of "irreducible complexity",
>then it is perfectly legitimate to examine other systems *IF* those
>other systems meet the definition. A scientist shouldn't restrict
>up front the ways in which other scientists are allowed to test his
>hypotheses. If you only allow Behe's handpicked systems, that makes
>the effective definition of irreducible complexity "these particular
>systems for which no evolutionary explanation has been found", at
>which point the argument becomes circular.
This is an amazing defence! Even Darwin thought that *one* example
of "irreducible complexity" would destroy his theory *as a general
explanation* of biological complexity building:
"If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which
could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight
modifications, my theory would absolutely break down." (Darwin C.R,
"The Origin of Species", 6th Edition, 1872, Everyman's Library, J.M.
Dent & Sons Ltd: London, 1967 reprint, p170).
If Darwinists can simply say that any example of "a complex
organ...which could not possibly have been formed by numerous,
successive, slight modifications", "Sorry, but that's a `handpicked
system'", then Darwinism really *is* unfalsifiable! :-)
Behe does not claim that *all* biomolecular systems are irreducibly
complex, but only that *some* are, and he gives examples of very
important systems, eg. cilium, bacterial flagellum, blood-clotting,
intracelular transport.
He also defines "irreducible complexity" independently:
"By irreducible complexity I mean a single system composed of several
well-matched, interacting parts that contribute to the basic
function, wherein the removal of any one of the parts causes the
system to effectively cease functioning." (Behe M.J., "Darwin's
Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution", Free Press: New
York, 1996, p38)
He then applies it to Darwin's central test:
"An irreducibly complex system cannot be produced...by slight,
successive modifications of a precursor system, because any precursor
to an irreducibly complex system that is missing a part is by
definition nonfunctional. An irreducibly complex biological system,
if there is such a thing, would be a powerful challenge to Darwinian
evolution. Since natural selection can only choose systems that are
already working then if a biological system cannot be produced
gradually it would have to arise as an integrated unit, in one fell
swoop, for natural selection to have anything to act on." (Behe,
1996, p38)
On Wed, 27 Nov 1996 22:31:43 -0600, Chuck Warman wrote:
CW>A related question is, why do so many who define themselves as
>*theistic* evolutionists feel compelled to find ways in which
>evolution could have proceeded with no divine intervention or
>oversight?
I must admit this puzzled me at first. I thought all Christians
believed that God intervenes in nature as He sees fit. When I pray I
`routinely' ask God to intervene in natural processes, and so do
other Christians in corporate Church prayer. And when God answers,
I/we thank God that He has so intervened in the normal course of
events.
I don't have a problem with TEs looking for naturalistic explanations
for the ongoing operations of the cosmos and life - no creationist
denies that God normally works through so-called `natural' causes in
day-to-day operations. I don't even have a problem with TEs looking
for naturalistic explanations for the origin of the cosmos, life and
life's major groups - I don't believe they will be successful, but I
don't mind them trying. But what I do have a problem with is the
fierceness with which some TEs attack creationists when the latter
seek alternative supernaturalistic interventionist explanations for
the *origin* of things.
On Thu, 28 Nov 1996 21:56:02 -0500, Terry M. Gray wrote:
TG>I'm amazed that we (TE's and EC's) have to keep saying this, but
>I'll say it again. There is no such thing as evolution that
>proceeded with no divine intervention or oversight.
and On Thu, 28 Nov 1996 22:45:17 -0500, Bill Hamilton wrote:
BH>What also amazes me is that when one of us says the above, there
>is seldom a response. Does that mean all you PC's ID advocates and
>YEC's agree with Terry?
I have several times responded whene I have seen Terry post this type
of argument, but rarely (if ever) does Terry offer a counter-
response. Johnson says that: "As Thomas Kuhn taught us, a shaky
paradigm lives on through its power to make anomalies invisible."
("Darwin on Trial", 1993, p211), so perhaps I should take being
ignored as a compliment? :-)
What Terry means here by "intervention" is quite different from what
the word usually means. The word "intervene" is made up of two Latin
roots: "inter" = "between" + "vene" = "come", hence "coming
between", as the following dictionary quotes show:
"intervene v.i. Come in, as something extraneous; occur in the
meantime; lie, be situated, between; (of person or thing) come
between, interfere, so as to prevent or modify result etc.- (law)
interpose in lawsuit to which one was not an original party (esp. of
Queen's (King's) Proctor in divorce cases). Intervener, intervention
ns. intervenient adj." (Coulson J., et al, eds., "The Oxford
Illustrated Dictionary", Book Club Associates: London, Second
Edition, 1980, p439)
"intervene /,inta'vi:n/ v.intr. (often foll. by between, in) 1
occur in time between events. 2 interfere; come between so as to
prevent or modify the result or course of events. 3 be situated
between things. 4 come in as an extraneous factor or thing. 5 Law
interpose in a lawsuit as a third party. intervener n. intervenient
adj" (Hughes J.M., et al., eds., "The Australian Concise Oxford
Dictionary", Oxford University Press: Melbourne, Second edition,
1995 reprint, p592)
"intervene /inte'vin/, v.i, -vened,-vening 1 to come between in
action; intercede: to intervene in a dispute. 2. to come or be
between, as in place, time, or a series. 3. to fall or happen
between other events or periods: nothing interesting has intervened
4. (of things) to occur incidentally so as to modify a result. 5. to
come in, as something not belonging. 6. Law. to interpose and
become a party to a suit pending between other parties. [L
intervenire come between ] -Intervener, n. - Intervenient, adj"
(Delbridge A., et al., eds., "The Macquarie Encyclopedic Dictionary",
The Macquarie Library Pty Ltd: Macquarie University NSW., 1991
reprint)
For example, when Christ entered into Mary ova, turned the water into
wine, and stilled the storm, he "intervened" in (ie. came between),
the normal forces of nature (which He controls). When most people
use the words "Divine intervention", they mean God *supernaturally*
coming between his normal operations in nature.
For example, non-theist Paul Davies in Time magazine to the
man-in-the-street, contrasts taking place "naturally" with
"divine intervention":
"Weighed against these threatening factors is the uplifting picture of
the universe that the ubiquity of life and consciousness implies. A
cosmos that starts out in a sterile Big Bang and gradually progresses
through complex chemistry to life, intelligence and culture-and
sentient beings who can look back and reflect on the meaning of it all-
is profoundly inspiring. The fact that this advance can take place
entirely naturally, without divine intervention, adds to the wonder."
(Davies P., "The Harmony of the Spheres", Time, February 19, 1995, p66)
Kitty Ferguson admits that this belief that God intervenes
in the universe is the *normal* belief common to Judaism
and Christianity and other religions:
"As we proceed with this chapter we must be careful not to equate a
belief that God interacts with and intervenes in the universe in ways
similar to the events described in the Bible (a belief to be found
across the full range of Judaism and Christianity, from conservative to
liberal, and in other religions as well) with a belief that every event
described in the Bible actually did occur precisely as described there."
(Ferguson K., "The Fire in the Equations", Bantam Books: London,
pp194-195)
Indeed, Del Ratzsch, a TE, understands "intervene" in this normal
way. He contrasts "preprogrammed" initial design with
"intervention":
"The first question we must ask is whether or not guidance truly
demands deliberate intervention. It is not clear that it does. If
development was built in from the very beginning, if it was
deliberately and designedly precontained in the very laws, structures
and initial conditions of the cosmos, then we might reasonably say
that this preprogrammed development was deliberate, designed and
guided. The guidance would not be interventive during the
development, but does that mean that it would not be guidance
nonetheless? Given that God ordained the laws by which a single cell
develops into a newborn child, is it inappropriate to say that this
development is guided, even though it is governed by the outworking
of preset biological laws? If not, then guidance does not
necessarily entail intervention." (Ratzsch D.L., "The Battle of
Beginnings: Why Neither Side is Winning the Creation-Evolution
Debate", InterVarsity Press: Downers Grove Ill., 1996, p186)
He discusses "probabilistic law" opening up the possibility of God
intervening in "causal gaps":
"If there are causal gaps in the ultimate physical processes of the
cosmos, those gaps provide space for intervention that would still be
wholly within the boundaries of natural law. For example, God could
either bring about or prohibit the radioactive decay of a particular
atom at a particular time, but given the way probabilistic laws
function, either of those would be totally within the bounds of all
of the relevant physical laws." (Ratzsch., 1996, p187)
Ratzsch takes it further and speaks of God deliberately and
purposefully intervening by decreeing the decay of an individual
atom:
"Suppose that whether or not some mutation arises depends on whether
or not some radioactive atom incorporated into some organism's DNA
decays at a specific moment. And suppose that the mutation is
essential to the next step in the evolution of the species in
question. The atom's decaying and not decaying are both consistent
with physical law. Thus, were God deliberately to intervene and
decree the decay of the atom for the very purpose of triggering the
next evolutionary step, that purposeful intervention would be an
instance of divine guiding intervention and also would involve no
violation or suspension of any law of nature. Counterintuitive as it
might initially seem, in the context of fundamentally probabilistic
law an event's being wholly within the boundaries of natural law
while simultaneously being the result of deliberate divine
intervention is perfectly logically consistent." (Ratzsch, 1996,
p187)
Finally Ratzsch sounds just like a TE when he speaks of God
intervening directly, suspending natural law and inserting new
genetic material to facilitate the emergence of new traits:
"So it is far from clear that the attempt in question to establish
the internal inconsistency of theistic evolution works. But suppose
it did. Suppose contemporary evolutionary theory had blind chance
built into it so firmly that there was simply no way of reconciling
it with any sort of divine guidance. It would still be perfectly
possible for theists to reject that theory of evolution and accept
instead a theory according to which natural processes and laws drove
most of evolution, but God on occasion abridged those laws and
inserted some crucial mutation into the course of events. Even were
God to intervene directly to suspend natural law and inject essential
new genetic material at various points in order to facilitate the
emergence of new traits and, eventually, new species, that miraculous
and deliberate divine intervention would by itself leave unchallenged
such key theses of evolutionary theory as that all species derive
ultimately from some common ancestor. Descent with genetic
intervention is still descent-it is just descent with nonnatural
elements in the process." (Ratzsch, 1996, pp187-188)
In fact TE/ECs must use the word "intervention" in this usual sense,
in order to denounce what they call "interventionism":
"Adjacent to the pit of deism is the quicksand of interventionism.
According to that perspective, most things in the material world
happen "naturally" (in essence, naturalistically), but on certain
special occasions God breaks into this realm and supernaturally
intervenes in the affairs of the material world or its
creatures...God need not `intervene' or `break into' the natural
machinery of the cosmos as if it were already running independently
of him. God's active presence is required at all times, not just on
special occasions that demand supernatural intervention." (Van Till
H.J., "The Fourth Day: What the Bible and the Heavens are Telling us
about the Creation", Eerdmans: Grand Rapids MI, 1986, p225).
If Terry really means that "evolution...proceeded with...divine
intervention" in the above sense of God supernaturally coming between
His normal operations of nature (as Ratzsch and Van Till so uses it),
then Terry has parted company with Neo-Darwinist macroevolution and
has become a PC! :-)
On Fri, 29 Nov 1996 14:11:22 -0500, Terry M. Gray wrote:
TG>First off, I did not choose the words "no divine intervention or
>oversight"--they came from Chuck's original post. I don't
>particularly like the word intervention but since we use it in this
>discussion I must say that God continuously intervenes in his
>interaction with the world through providence, governance,
>sustenance, and concurrence.
Just as I predicted - a lot of vague phrases, which of themselves
say *nothing* in any detail about *intervention*. By saying that
"God continuously intervenes", Terry is in effect saying that God
*never* "intervenes" (ie. in the universally accepted sense of the
word).
If Terry really is "amazed that we (TE's and EC's) have to keep
saying this" then indeed he will have to "say it again" and "again"
and "again".... That's because he just skirts around the issue and
does not resolve it, one way or the other.
On Thu, 28 Nov 1996 22:12:38 -0500, Terry M. Gray wrote:
[...]
TG>It seems to me that the complexity, self-organization people could
>agree with your class 2 and not call it design. This in my view is
>the weakest link in Mike's argument. Many evolutionists already
>acknowledge the existence of irreducibly complex systems. Mike
>looks at the complex system and says--it's too complicated--it could
>not have arisen by "natural" means. People like Stuart Kauffman
>look at the complex system and say--I wonder if such complexity can
>be generated relatively easily and then do simulations and
>experiments to check it out. The initial results seem to suggest
>that the answer is yes.
Behe *does* consider Kauffman and complexity theory. He points out
that it does not explain the origin of *real-world* complex
biomolecular stuctures:
"Complexity theory has so far attracted few followers but much
criticism. John Maynard Smith, under whom Kauffman did graduate
work, complains that the theory is too mathematical and is
unconnected to real-life chemistry." (Smith, J. M., "Life at the
Edge of Chaos?" New York Review, March, 1995, pp28-30, in Behe,
1996, p30)
"It is clear from his writings that Kauffman is a very smart guy, but
the connection of his mathematics to chemistry is tenuous at best.
Kauffman discusses his ideas in a chapter entitled "The Origin of a
Connected Metabolism," but if you read the chapter from start to
finish you will not find the name of a single chemical- no AMP no
aspartic acid, no nothing. In fact, if you scan the entire subject
index of the book, you will not find a chemical name there either.
John Maynard Smith, Kauffman's old mentor, has accused him of
practicing "fact-free science." 16 That is a harsh accusation, but
the complete lack of chemical details in his book appears to justify
the criticism." (Behe, 1996, p156)
"A second example is The Origins of Order by Stuart Kauffman, who
argues that the origins of life, metabolism, genetic programs, and
body plans are all beyond Darwinian explanation but may arise
spontaneously through self-organization. Neither book explains
biochemical structures: Kimura's work has to do simply with
sequences, and Kauffman's is a mathematical analysis." (Behe, 1996,
p178)
"In fact, Kauffman never claims that such new and complex structures
can be produced suddenly according to complexity theory. Complexity
theory may yet make important contributions to mathematics, and it
may still make modest contributions to biochemistry. But it cannot
explain the origin of the complex biochemical structures that
undergird life. It doesn't even try." (Behe, 1996, p192)
I saw Dawkins debating Kauffman's complexity theory with Paul Davies
on TV. According to Dawkins, if self-organising complexity was
eventually shown to exist, it would just be an alternative source of
genetic variation, like random mutations. The *real* building of
complexity would (according to Dawkins) still be by the `blind
watchmaker' mechanism of cumulative natural selection.
Indeed, the most interesting thing about Stuart Kauffman is that he
exists. He was a graduate student of leading Neo-Darwinist John
Maynard Smith, yet rejects Neo-Darwinism. Stephen Jay Gould is
another - he studied Neo-Darwinism under Neo-Darwinism's co-founder
Dobzhansky at Columbia, yet declared it "beguiling" but "effectively
dead". The fact that these two brilliant students can study
Neo-Darwinism under two of its the greatest proponents and still find
it lacking tells me that at bottom it is unconvincing. If
non-theists like Kauffman and Gould are not convinced by
Neo-Darwinism, why should we theists be?
Happy New Year!
Steve
-------------------------------------------------------------------
| Stephen E (Steve) Jones ,--_|\ sejones@ibm.net |
| 3 Hawker Avenue / Oz \ Steve.Jones@health.wa.gov.au |
| Warwick 6024 ->*_,--\_/ Phone +61 9 448 7439 (These are |
| Perth, West Australia v my opinions, not my employer's) |
-------------------------------------------------------------------