Stephen Jones wrote:
(continued)
> >SJ>Gould is right that evolution did not in fact happen that
> >>way.
>
> DM>No. Gould agrees that evolution happens just this way. What
> >Gould and the PE's are saying is that other natural things
> >have also been happening to generate the pattern and
> >diversity of life that we see today. Evolution and
> >extinction are not the only ways for life to deal with
> >environmental change.
>
SJ> No. Gould gives lip-service only to "Neo-Darwinian mechanisms". He
> studied at Columbia under Dobzhansky, the co-founder of the Modern
> Neo-Darwinian Synthesis, yet he wrote 20 years later as a Professor
> at Harvard that the Neo-Darwinism he learned as a student was
> "effectively dead":
>
> "I well remember how the synthetic theory beguiled me with its
> unifying power when I was a graduate student in the mid-1960's.
> Since then I have been watching it slowly unravel as a universal
> description of evolution. The molecular assault came first,
> followed quickly by renewed attention to unorthodox theories of
> speciation and by challenges at the level of macroevolution itself.
> I have been reluctant to admit it-since beguiling is often
> forever-but if Mayr's characterization of the synthetic theory is
> accurate, then that theory, as a general proposition, is effectively
> dead, despite its persistence as textbook orthodoxy.' (Gould S.J.,
> "Is a new and general theory of evolution emerging?", Paleobiology,
> vol. 6(1), January 1980, p120)
I wonder if this was written when Mayr was describing Gould and Eldredge
as saltationists, and PE as saltationism.
You might also note that, 18 years later, neo-Darwinian evolution is
anything but "dead". But PE, as a theory incompatible with neo-Darwinian
processes, is "terminal".
SJ> The only reason Gould stays just within the pale of Neo-Darwinism
> is not that he believes wholeheartedly in it, but that his "new and
> general theory of evolution" never emerged:
It never needed to emerge. Neo-Darwinian theory has not been found
wanting.
> "Gould's uncomfortable situation reminds me of the self-created
> predicament of Mikhail Gorbachev in the last years of the Soviet
> Empire. Gorbachev recognized that something had gone wrong with the
> Communist system, but thought that the system itself could be
> preserved if it was reformed.
Diversion: I have frequently wondered whether Gorbachev knew exactly
what he was doing, since I find it difficult to believe that a man of
his obvious intelligence could not forsee the consequence of introducing
glasnost to a means of governance based on systematic lying to the
population!
Just as it had to be the monarchist Prime Minister Howard, rather that
the republican Prime Minister Keating, who could acceptably prepare
Australia's conversion from monarchy to republic, it was also necessary
that Soviet communism be first undermined by a Communist leader.
SJ>His democratic friends warned him
> that the Marxist fundamentalists would inevitably turn against him,
> but he was unwilling to endanger his position in the ruling elite by
> following his own logic to its necessary conclusion.
Arguably, if Gorbachev had gone the whole way, he would have been ousted
before he had succeeded. Ultimately, he was ousted, but by then the
changes had gone so far (just) that he was ousted by someone who would
take democracy further, not return the Soviet Union to communism.
SJ> Gould, like
> Gorbachev, deserves immense credit for bringing glasnost to a closed
> society of dogmatists.
I agree. It has enhanced evolutionary theory immensely to have had
paleontological observations and PE concepts such as stasis and
habitat-tracking forced on it.
SJ>And, like Gorbachev, he lives on as a sad
> reminder of what happens to those who lack the nerve to make a clean
> break with a dying theory." (Johnson P.E., "The Gorbachev of
> Darwinism",First Things 79, January 1998, pp14-16.
> http://www.firstthings.com/ftissues/ft9801/johnson.html)
This sets a new record for how much garbage can be contained in one
sentence. The only accurate part is "he lives on".
My quotes of Eldredge and Dawkins in the previous message show this
claim up as nonsense. It could be argued that Johnson, along with
millions of others, "lives on as a sad reminder of what happens to those
who lack the nerve to make a clean break with a dying" religion.
> >SJ>So the obvious answer is that it was not *naturalistic*
> >>evolution, ie. it was naturalistic evolution with supernatural
> >>assistance. That is, it was progressive (mediate) creation!
>
> DM>Nice try, but an even more obvious answer is that it was/is
> >naturalistic processes, but not only evolution.
>
SJ> So now "evolution" is not even enough. We must have additional
> "naturalistic processes" that are not even "evolution"!
Neo-Darwinian evolutionary processes are sufficient to explain
evolution. However, the history of life includes a great deal of
phenomena that are not evolutionary. Why should evolutionary theory be
sufficient to explain those phenomena?
SJ>I am reminded
> of Darwin's recantation in the Descent of Man of his earlier wrong
> belief in the power of natural selection, and his proposing to fill
> the void with a mysterious new mechanism which acted "uniformly and
> energetically during a lengthened period" to produce "structures,
> which...are neither beneficial nor injurious":
>
> "...I did not formerly consider sufficiently the existence of
> structures, which as far as we can at present judge, are neither
> beneficial nor injurious and this I believe to be one of the
> greatest oversights as yet detected in my work...It is, as I can now
> see, probable that all organic beings, including man, possess
> peculiarities of structure, which neither are now, nor were formerly
> of any service to them, and which, therefore, are of no
> physiological importance. We know not what produces the numberless
> slight differences between the individuals of each species, for
> reversion only carries the problem a few steps backwards, but each
> peculiarity must have had its efficient cause. If these causes,
> whatever they may be, were to act more uniformly and energetically
> during a lengthened period (and against this no reason can be
> assigned), the result would probably be not a mere slight individual
> difference, but a well-marked and constant modification though one
> of no physiological importance....Uniformity of character would,
> however, naturally follow from the assumed uniformity of the
> exciting causes...During successive periods, the same organism might
> in this manner acquire successive modifications, which would be
> transmitted in a nearly uniform state as long as the exciting causes
> remained the same..." (Darwin C., "The Descent of Man", 1871,
> Modern Library, pp441-442)
>
> Of which Himmelfarb comments:
>
> "Even more interesting, however, than the confession itself was what
> followed it: the admission of a new factor in the variation of
> species,
> more momentous in its implications for his theory than even sexual
> selection...Falling under none of the other categories that he
> recognized as responsible for evolution-natural selection, sexual
> selection, the direct action of the environment, the effect of use and
> disuse, and correlation of structure- the variation induced by this
> new
> factor was of no service to the organism, either in its inception or
> in
> its later development. And the nature of its cause was unknown.
> Darwin could only assume that, whatever its cause, so long as it
> continued to act "uniformly and energetically" over a long period, the
> result would be the production not of "mere slight individual
> differences, but well- marked constant modifications." (Darwin C.,
> "Descent of Man", 1st edition, Vol. I, p153) Not only did these
> variations arise "spontaneously," in the sense he had used the term in
> the Origin, but-and here he went far beyond the Origin-having so
> arisen, they were not subject to any selective process, natural or
> sexual, since they were in no way beneficial to the organism (although
> injurious variations would be eliminated by selection). And these
> variations would persist so long as either the original conditions
> producing them persisted or as the free crossing of individuals
> insured
> the normal operation of heredity. The latter, he suspected, was more
> important than the former: "They relate much more closely to the
> constitution of the varying organism, than to the nature of the
> conditions to which it has been subjected." ("Descent of Man", 1st
> edition, Vol. I, p154) Darwin had come far indeed from the doctrine
> of natural selection." (Himmelfarb G., "Darwin and the Darwinian
> Revolution,", 1996 reprint, pp368-369)
To what, in all of this, am I meant to respond - the fact that Darwin
developed and revised his ideas between the publications of "Origin" and
"Descent" - or something else?
> DM>If the proponents of Intelligent Design want to be heard, then
> >they need to have something interesting to say. As near as I can
> >tell, the defining statements of Intelligent Design's position are
> >something like: God directly intervened in natural evolutionary
> >processes, because such a belief fits with our theology. We
> >believe that, if God intervenes in the human world, then there's no
> >reason why he wouldn't intervene in the natural world as well, and
> >we believe that he did. We don't know where God specifically
> >intervened, or what processes were used.
>
SJ> Derek, I own and have read dozens of evolution books. How many
> Intelligent Design books do you own, or at least have read?
I own, and have read, "Science and the Bible" by Henry Morris and "The
Christian View of Science and Scripture" by Bernard Ramm. I have also
read every Johnson and Behe quote you have sent me, and many others that
have appeared on the Reflector. And I have read your own arguments for
ID.
SJ> If you
> want to state the case for Intelligent Design, how about some quotes
> from ID literature that you have read?
I don't want to state the case *for* intelligent design; I want to state
the case *against* intelligent design.
SJ> After all, I could just as easy characterise your position as "God"
> has *not* "directly intervened in natural evolutionary processes,
> because such a belief fits with our" *anti-*"theology"!
That's certainly some of it! However, you have not included the
important point that my position is heavily influenced by my
understanding that no one has discovered *any* specific direct
interventions by God in the evolutionary process and that many devout
theists and biologists do not see any theological or biological
requirement for such interventions.
SJ> As for not knowing "where God specifically intervened", ID has for
> example put forward specific examples of what appears to be
> irreducible complexity, that naturalistic theories have been unable
> to explain, such as the blood-clotting cascade:
>
> "Other examples of irreducible complexity abound, including aspects
> of protein transport, blood clotting, closed circular DNA, electron
> transport, the bacterial flagellum, telomeres, photosynthesis,
> transcription regulation, and much more. Examples of irreducible
> complexity can be found on virtually every page of a biochemistry
> textbook. But if these things cannot be explained by Darwinian
> evolution, how has the scientific community regarded these phenomena
> of the past forty years? A good place to look for an answer to that
> question is in the Journal of Molecular Evolution. JME is a journal
> that was begun specifically to deal with the topic of how evolution
> occurs on the molecular level. It has high scientific standards, and
> is edited by prominent figures in the field. In a recent issue of
> JME there were published eleven articles; of these, all eleven were
> concerned simply with the analysis of protein or DNA sequences. None
> of the papers discussed detailed models for intermediates in the
> development of complex biomolecular structures. In the past ten
> years JME has published 886 papers. Of these, 95 discussed the
> chemical synthesis of molecules thought to be necessary for the
> origin of life, 44 proposed mathematical models to improve sequence
> analysis, 20 concerned the evolutionary implications of current
> structures, and 719 were analyses of protein or polynucleotide
> sequences. There were zero papers discussing detailed models for
> intermediates in the development of complex biomolecular structures.
> This is not a peculiarity of JME. No papers are to be found that
> discuss detailed models for intermediates in the development of
> complex biomolecular structures in the Proceedings of the National
> Academy of Science, Nature, Science, the Journal of Molecular Biology
> or, to my knowledge, any journal whatsoever." (Behe M.J.,
> "Molecular Machines: Experimental Support for the Design
> Inference", C.S. Lewis Society, Cambridge University, Summer1994.
> http://www.arn.org/arn/articles/behe924.htm)
Isn't this an "Absense of knowledge is knowledge of absense" argument.
In other words, just because no one has yet reduced the complexity of a
particular biological process, it is deemed to be, by default,
irreducible. This is not right. Since there are many *known* reducible
biological processes, and not a single *known* irreducible biological
process, then the default assumption should be "reducible", not
"irreducible".
The *appearance* of irreducible complexity is not the same as the
*actuality* of irreducible complexity. It seems to me that "irreducible
complexity" is a mathematical/logical concept and that the *actual*
existence of an example should be provable, at least to a high degree of
reliability.
I suppose I should be grateful that, as least as far as individual
claims of irreducable complexity are concerned, ID is falsifiable.
SJ> As for "not knowing what processes were used", the point is that God
> does not need to use *any* processes, but can act directly on
> matter. For example, God could directly cause a series of genetic
> mutations over time or instantaneously, to modify the genetic code
> to produce a new feature that unaided nature could not plausibly
> produce.
No argument. But if no discoverable processes are involved, what is the
scientific point of the ID hypothesis? Have you just admitted that ID is
a 100% theological hypothesis?
> DM>We can't predict where or how God will intervene again.
> >There are some processes in evolution that we don't
> >understand naturalistically at the present time; until
> >someone else demonstrates otherwise, we accept these
> >processes as direct interventions of God.
>
SJ> It is true that ID cannot predict exactly where or how God
> intervenes, but macroevolution theory is no better. It cannot
> predict in advance where evolution is going to work its alleged
> wonders either.
I don't agree with this. And not just because I see no evidence for
macro-evolution as something intrinsically different from sequential
micro-evolution episodes. Evolutionary theory does describe, with
observation and models based on mathematical equations, the conditions
under which evolution occurs.
SJ> But ID would expect that if God has intervened it would be at
> strategic points in the history of life, and/or where known
> naturalistic processes seem to be inadequate:
>
> "Second, the model does not appeal to or attempt to explain in light
> of God and his activities to cover our ignorance, but only when good
> theological or philosophical reasons are present, such as when
> certain theological or philosophical reasons would cause us to
> expect a discontinuity in nature where God acted via primary
> causation (e.g., the origin of the universe, first life, basic
> "kinds" of life)." (Moreland J.P., "The Creation Hypothesis", 1994,
> pp59-60).
Make up your mind! Are we talking about "where known naturalistic
processes seem to be inadequate", i.e. where science needs more work, or
are we talking about "when good theological or philosophical reasons are
present"? In other words, is ID primarily about higher quality
scientific enquiry or is it about apologetics, i.e. making Christianity
more believable?
> DM>Is this really something the scientific community should be
> >taking seriously? I don't think so. Where are the laws and
> >theories of ID, backed up by observation and experiment?
> >What tools do the ID community use in their investigations?
>
SJ> I've got news for you Derek. The "scientific community" *is*
> "taking" ID very "seriously" indeed.
So they should. It provides a very strong impetus to scientifically
research the processes that Behe claims may be irreducably complex. I
expect that our knowledge of these processes will increase dramatically
as a result of this research. Is your expectation that our knowledge of
these processes will not increase dramatically since they are
"irreducably complex"?
SJ>Behe's "Darwin's Black Box" was
> instantly reviewed/attacked by leading scientific journals, rather
> than the year it took for them to review Johnson's Darwin on Trial.
So, how do you respond to Behe's critics' claim that "Darwin's Black
Box" is little more than the "argument from design" rehashed at
molecular level, and an argument from personal incredulity?
Some references that I expect you have already read.
http://www.amsci.org/amsci/bookshelf/Leads97/Darwin97-09.html
http://www-polisci.mit.edu/bostonreview/br21.6/orr.html
http://mcgraytx.calvin.edu/evolution/irred_compl.html
This last reference is Terry Gray's response to Behe. I would be
particularly interested in your response to his Item 4 - Premature
appeal to special divine activity to explain the world around us damages
the Christian theistic apologetic.
SJ> Behe's book was the first anti-evolution book published by a major
> secular publisher (Free Press) in 40 years.
>From the excerpts I've seen of it and other anti-evolution works, it
appears to be the only one that examines scientifically discoverable
processes.
SJ> I correspond privately with leading ID theorists who visit secular
> universities and they report very encouraging interest shown by
> professors (including Biology) and even Deans.
Excellent. The wider the interest, the better. As I said above, it has
the potential to provoke serious detailed research in areas where our
knowledge is badly lacking.
SJ> As for ID's own investigations, this is a furphy. Science is
> supposed to be public knowledge largely paid for by public taxes,
> and ID theorists are quite entitled to use existing scientific
> findings to support their case.
No argument. To their credit, it appears that ID theorists are using
real scientific findings as a basis for their argument. If nothing else
useful comes out of ID, at least it shows up how much better (or maybe
non-existent) YEC could be if it was prepared to embrace intellectual
honesty.
SJ> There is some original
> investigations going on, but at this early stage it is quite
> properly laying the theoretical groundwork, so it largely
> philosophical.
Notice how different this is to Darwin's approach, where the examination
and documentation of volumes of observations *preceded* his "laying the
theoretical groundwork".
SJ> If you want to underestimate ID and dismiss and ignore it, that's
> just great!!
Not at all! I expect that, while ID itself will lose credibility as more
and more of its claimed irreducably complex processes are shown to be
reducible, the research involved in showing these processes to be
reducible will generate enormously valuable knowledge.
> >SJ>I further predict that ID will continue to gain ground and
> >>in the early 21st century will become a viable alternative
> >>paradigm for science.
>
> DM>I see. ID is going to gain ground while, following a totally
> >uneventful entrance into the new millenium without the world
> >ending, Christianity continues its inexorable slide into
> >obscurity, firstly in the West, then in the East, and finally in
> >Africa.
>
SJ> See above re underestimating ID. And you also show similar ignorance
> of Christianity. While Christianity has been declining in the West
> (even that's debatable if one discounts nominal Christians), it has
> been growing in leaps and bounds in the Third World.
This is why I expect that the decline will occur last in the Third
World. Perhaps I should also clarify that, while the decline of
Christianity in the West will be a migration into New Age beliefs,
agnosticism and atheism, the decline in the East will be a migration
into Buddhism, Islam, agnosticm and atheism, and the decline in Africa
will mostly be a migration to Islam.
SJ> In any event, the eventual decline of Christianity was a prediction
> of Christ as a sign of His imminent return:
>
> Luke 18:8 "...when the Son of Man comes, will he find faith on the
> earth?"; Mat 24:12 "Because of the increase of wickedness, the love
> of most will grow cold..."; 2 Thess 2:3 "Let no man deceive you by
> any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a falling
> away [Gk. apostasia] first..."
It is consistent with my understanding of the Biblical God's sense of
justice and mercy, that He would not want to end the world when it
contained the maximum number of Christians and, consequently the highest
proportion of dead and living people acceptable for Heaven.
> >SJ>But I do not necessarily predict that ID will become dominant
> >>or even more popular than materialistic-naturalism.
>
> DM>I doubt that it will ever be even as popular as creation
> "science". :-)
>
> Again you show your lack of knowledge of ID! Johnson has claimed
> that his ID movement is *already* more popular than
> creation-science.
When the ICR admits the accuracy of Johnson's claim, I'll believe it!
Alternatively, I'd need to see the results of some reliable polls. In
conjunction with the poll results, I'd need to see how a person was
defined as a proponent of YEC, ID or MN.
SJ> When I was in the USA I stayed with a very strong
> YEC-fundamentalist lady, who had heard that I was an evolutionist!
To a YEC-fundamentalist, you *are* an evolutionist (or is that
(evilutionist)! :-)
SJ> I explained to her about Phil Johnson and gave her a copy of his
> "Defeating Darwinism by Opening Minds", and she became very
> interested.
I hope she sees it for the vast improvement over YEC literature that it
surely must be.
SJ>IMHO creation-science has been strong in the past
> because it's the only option for creationists.
You appear to have a blind spot here. There is no reason why
creationists couldn't, as Glenn Morton has done, renounce their
creationism.
SJ>Now a more
> attractive creationist alternative is available, large numbers of
> creationists (as well as many theistic evolutionists) will switch
> allegiance to the ID movement.
There's no denying ID is more attractive than YEC; the only religious
practices less attractive than YEC involve death or torture.
I also consider that the world would be a safer place if ID proponents
took over the political power currently held by YEC's in the USA.
SJ> A good indicator is that the ICR is now sensing that Johnson is a
> threat to their patch, and starting to criticise him obliquely. See
> Henry Morris' article: "Neocreationism", Impact No. 296, Institute
> for Creation Research: El Cajon CA, February 1998
> http://www.icr.org/pubs/imp/imp-296.htm)
I wonder what represents the biggest threat - the "money drain" as the
"sheep" defect, the "brain drain" as the "shepherds" defect, or the
"power drain" as the politicians defect. ;-)
> >SJ>Disagree. Dawkins is absolutely right. There is *no* other
> >>naturalistic alternative to the `blind watchmaker'. Even Gould
> >>admits this: "...I know of no scientific mechanism other than
> >>natural selection with the proven power to build structures of
> >>such eminently workable design." (Gould S.J., "Darwinian
> >>Fundamentalism", New York Review of Books, June 12, 1997.
> >>http://www.nyb oks.com/nyrev/WWWfeatdisplay.cgi?1997061234F >>@p3)
>
> Does no comment signify agreement? ;-)
In this case, yes. Provisionally, of course!
Regards,
Derek
--------------0252E46062C48E8EAAA961CF
Content-Type: text/x-vcard; charset=us-ascii; name="vcard.vcf"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Description: Card for Derek McLarnen
Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="vcard.vcf"
begin: vcard
fn: Derek McLarnen
n: McLarnen;Derek
adr: ;;;Melba;ACT;2615;Australia
email;internet: dmclarne@pcug.org.au
title: Mr
x-mozilla-cpt: ;0
x-mozilla-html: TRUE
end: vcard
--------------0252E46062C48E8EAAA961CF--