On Sun, 05 Jul 1998 15:54:43 -0500, Glenn R. Morton wrote:
[...]
GM>One of the most fascinating areas of the creation/evolution
>debate concerns the specificity of the DNA, RNA and proteins upon
>which life is constructed (specificity is the ability of a molecule to
>perform a given function). Anti-evolutionists have traditionally
>believed that the information for the manufacture of life forms and
>their further evolution could only come directly, rather than
>indirectly, from the hand of the creator. The anti-evolutionary
>position has traditionally excluded God dealing in an indirect
>fashion.
No "anti-evolutionary position" that I have ever encountered
"has...excluded God dealing in an indirect fashion". For example Phil
Johnson says that God could have worked "through a natural
evolutionary process":
"I believe that a God exists who could create out of nothing if He
wanted to do so, but who might have chosen to work through a
natural evolutionary process instead." (Johnson P.E., "Darwin on
Trial," 1993, p14)
Glenn here sets up a straw man argument so that his theistic-
naturalistic evolutionary position can win the point by default:
"Straw man. Another way to stack the deck against the opposition is
to draw a false picture of the opposing argument. Then it is easy to
say, "This should be rejected because this (exaggerated and distorted)
picture of it is wrong." The name of the fallacy comes from the idea
that if you set up a straw man, he is easier to knock down than a real
man. And that is exactly the way this fallacy works: set 'em up and
knock 'em down. It is argument by caricature. It avoids dealing with
the real issues by changing the opposition's views." (Geisler N.L. &
Brooks R.M, "Come, Let Us Reason, 1990, p101)
[...]
GM>And as far as science is concerned, I am going to attempt to
>show that information for the development of new structures in
>living forms comes from the environment, not directly from the hand
>of God.
Glenn compounds his Straw Man fallacy with a Faulty Dilemma
fallacy:
"Faulty Dilemma. ...Here the opponent forces one into an either/or
answer when the question has a third alternative. He says, "Accept
this or that, both of which are contrary to your position," but doesn't
mention a third alternative. The key to avoiding the dilemma is simply
to find the third alternative." (Geisler N.L. & Brooks R.M, "Come,
Let Us Reason:, 1990, p110)
The false dilemma that Glenn is trying to set up is that it is EITHER
"information for the development of new structures in living forms
comes from the environment" OR it comes "directly from the hand of
God." Then all he needs to do is show a few examples of information
coming from the environment and he is home free!
There are in fact not two but at least *four* possibilities:
1. Naturalistic-all "information for the development of new structures
in living forms comes from the environment."
2. Supernaturalistic-"information for the development of new
structures in living forms comes...directly from the hand of God."
3. Naturalistic-Supernaturalistic-some "information for the
development of new structures in living forms comes from the
environment" and some "comes...directly from the hand of God."
4. Naturalistic & Supernaturalistic-"information for the development
of new structures in living forms comes" ...directly from the hand of
God" through "the environment".
GM>In fact, some creationists have recognized this is the case with
>evolution for over 30 years. Other anti-evolutionists seem not to
>be aware of it. I would suggest that God created the environment
>so the information can be transmitted from the environment into
>the genome.
I have no problem with this in principle. Clearly God *could have*
created both the environment and the genome so the information can
be transmitted from the environment into the genome. What I do
have a problem with is Glenn's Theistic-Naturalistic assumption that it
is the *only* possibility to be considered.
GM>The information is ultimately from God as is everything else in
>this world. Bradley and Thaxton define two types of information (a
>distinction which is not contained in information theory).
Another straw man. Bradley and Thaxton do not say there are "two
types of information" but "two kinds of *order*"
"Through the application of information theory, it is now realized that
there are actually two kinds of ORDER. The first kind (the
snowflake's) arises from constraints within the material a thing is
made of (in this case water molecules). We cannot infer an intelligent
cause from it, except possibly in the remote sense of something
behind the natural cause. The second kind, however, is not a result of
anything within matter itself. It is in principle opposed to anything we
see forming naturally. This kind of order does provide evidence for an
intelligent cause." (Bradley W.L. & Thaxton C.B., "Information &
the Origin of Life", in Moreland J.P. ed., "The Creation Hypothesis",
1994, p203. My emphasis).
GM>The first kind of information is order, the information required
>to form a crystal. The second kind of information is complex
>specificity, that is, information which contains 'meaning' or
>'biological specificity.' They write:
>
>"Order with low information content (the first kind) does arise by
>natural processes. However, there is no convincing experimental
>evidence that order with high information content (the second kind
>or specified complexity) can arise by natural processes. Indeed, the
>only evidence we have in the present is that it takes intelligence to
>produce the second kind of order."
Even Glenn's own quote shows that B&T do not say "two types of
information" but two kinds of *order* one "with low information content"
and one "with high information content."
GM>"Scientists can synthesize proteins suitable for life, Research
>chemists produce things link insulin for medical problems in greater
>quantities. The question is, How do they do it? Certainly not by
>means of chance or natural causes. Only by highly constraining their
>experiments can chemists produce proteins like those found in living
>things. Placing constraints on the experiment limits the 'choices' at
>each step of the way. That is, it adds information.
>
>"If we want to speculate on how the first informational molecules
>came into being, the most reasonable speculation is there was some
>form of intelligence around at the time. We cannot identify that
>source any further from a scientific analysis alone. Science cannot
>supply a name for that intelligent cause. Walter Bradley and Charles
>Thaxton, "Information and the Origin of Life," in J. P. Moreland,
>editor, Creation Hypothesis (Downer's Grove: Illinois: Intervarsity
>Press, 1994), p. 209
I agree with this. Since Christians believe that there *was*
"intelligence around at the time," ie. God, most have no problem
assuming that such "information" came "directly from the hand of
God."
It is only those who have been taken captive by the hollow and
deceptive philosophy (Col 2:8) , called scientific naturalism who rule
this out apriori.
GM>Lane Lester and Ray Bohlin write:
>
>"Intelligence is a necessity in the origin of any informational code,
>including the genetic code, no matter how much time is given."
>Lane Lester and Ray Bohlin, The Natural Limits to Biological
>Change, (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1984), p. 157
>
>Let's examine two things in the above quotations. The scientists are
>adding information to the molecules they are creating. This is
>absolutely correct. But the scientist is doing it INDIRECTLY by
>creating an environment in which the molecules behave in particular
>ways.
That is precisely the point. The "scientist" must *create* "an
environment in which the molecules behave in particular ways."
Those molecules *never* "behave in" those "particular ways" *of
their own accord*", as Fred Hoyle points out:
"In effect, talk of a primitive aggregate collecting up potential
enzymes really implies the operation of an intelligence, an intelligence
which by distinguishing potential enzymes possesses powers of
judgment. Since this conclusion is exactly what those who put
forward this argument are anxious to avoid, their position is absurd.
To press the matter further, if there were a basic principle of matter
which somehow drove organic systems toward life, its existence
should easily be demonstrable in the laboratory One could, for
instance, take a swimming bath to represent the primordial soup. Fill
it with any chemicals of a non-biological nature you please. Pump any
gases over it, or through it, you please, and shine any kind of
radiation on it that takes your fancy. Let the experiment proceed for a
year and see how many of those 2,000 enzymes have appeared in the
bath. I will give the answer, and so save the time and trouble and
expense of actually doing the experiment. You would find nothing at
all, except possibly for a tarry sludge composed of amino acids and
other simple organic chemicals. How can I be so confident of this
statement? Well, if it were otherwise, the experiment would long
since have been done and would be well known and famous
throughout the world The cost of it would be trivial compared to the
cost of landing a man on the Moon." (Hoyle F., "The Intelligent
Universe," Michael Joseph: London, 1983, pp19-21)
GM> The scientist does not directly take an individual nucleotide
>and holding it carefully in his fingers attach it to another nucleotide.
>The creation of DNA or RNA or proteins in a test tube is a case of
>indirect creativity by an intelligence. This is analogous to God
>creating the universe in a fashion in which biomolecules would be
>constrained by their environment to behave in certain manners.
First, this is begging the question:
"Petitio Principii (begging the question) This is an argument where
the conclusion is sneaked into the premises. It says, "Accept this
conclusion as true because the premise from which it comes is true."
It is a circular argument, where the conclusion actually becomes a
premise. If you start out with the conclusion as the first premise, it
really doesn't matter what the second premise is, you can still reach
the conclusion you want. We call this "begging the question," because
the very question being asked is given the desired answer before any
reasoning is done." (Geisler N.L. & Brooks R.M, "Come, Let Us
Reason: An Introduction to Logical Thinking," 1990, p100)
That is, the conclusion "biomolecules" is assumed in the premises. It
is the naturalistic *origin* of such "biomolecules" that we are
discussing. Once we have "biomolecules" we already *have*
information!
Second, there is no evidence that the "environment" *can* constrain
molecules that are not "biomolecules" "to behave in certain manners"
ie. in the sense of creating infomation, at least in any significant and
sustained way.
GM>In the Lester and Bohlin quote, they say that intelligence is a
>necessity for any informational code. This would seem to require an
>intelligence to produce the genetic code for a wing, or a feather, or
>a leg. If the direct application of intelligence is necessary for the
>each part of the genetic code then it is also a necessity for the
>evolution of any new information which was not in the genome
>earlier. Lester and Bohlin's requirement, if proven, would require at
>the very least, progressive creation, at the most, special creation of
>each species.
While Lester and Bohlin may agree with the above, structly speaking
they are only arguing in the quote above that "Intelligence is a
necessity in the ORIGIN of any informational code..." (Lester L.P. &
Bohlin R.G., "The Natural Limits to Biological Change," 1989, p157.
My emphasis). It is possible that intelligence was needed for the
origin of the genetic code and major modifications to it, but the
capacity for some limited information build-up was designed into
genomes.
GM>However, there is a weakness in the requirement that all
>information must come come directly, rather than indirectly, from
>the Creator.
Why is this necessarily a "weakness"? But in any event, L&B don't
say that "all information must come come directly, rather than
indirectly, from the Creator." I am sure they would agree that a
Creator could create information through the intelligent direction of
secondary causes.
GM>In my view information is from the creator regardless of the
>directness the transmission. Information can come from the
>environment and natural selection is the informational pump.
It is interesting that in a recent post Glenn was downplaying
Darwinian natural selection. But here, when it is needed, the `blind
watchmaker', ie. natural selection, returns to centre-stage:
"Manipulation of the terminology also allows natural selection to
appear and disappear on command. When unfriendly critics are
absent, Darwinists can just assume the creative power of natural
selection and employ it to explain whatever change or lack of change
has been observed. When critics appear and demand empirical
confirmation, Darwinists can avoid the test by responding that
scientists are discovering alternative mechanisms, particularly at the
molecular level, which relegate selection to a less important role. The
fact of evolution therefore remains unquestioned, even if there is a
certain amount of healthy debate about the theory. Once the critics
have been distracted, the Blind Watchmaker can reenter by the back
door.". (Johnson P.E., "Darwin on Trial," 1993, pp153-154)
Glenn needs to provide empirical *evidence* that Darwinian mutation
and natural selection can consistently build significant new
information, not just assume it as a fact in his premises.
[continued]
Steve
"Evolution is the greatest engine of atheism ever invented."
--- Dr. William Provine, Professor of History and Biology, Cornell University.
http://fp.bio.utk.edu/darwin/1998/slides_view/Slide_7.html
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Stephen E (Steve) Jones ,--_|\ sejones@ibm.net
3 Hawker Avenue / Oz \ Steve.Jones@health.wa.gov.au
Warwick 6024 ->*_,--\_/ Phone +61 8 9448 7439
Perth, West Australia v "Test everything." (1Thess 5:21)
--------------------------------------------------------------------