Some months ago, Dawkins asserted that it was *natural selection* which
is responsible for increasing the genetic information content of the genome:
"The suspicion increased sharply when I was challenged to produce an
example of an evolutionary process which increases the information
content of the genome. It is a question that nobody except a creationist
would ask. A real biologist finds it an easy question to answer (the answer
is that NATURAL SELECTION INCREASES THE INFORMATION
CONTENT OF THE GENOME all the time - that is precisely what natural
selection means)..." (Dawkins R., in Williams B., "Creationist deception
exposed," The Skeptic, Vol 18, No 3, Sept 1998.
http://www.spacelab.net/~catalj/deception_exposed.htm. Emphasis mine).
However, recently I found an article on Darwinism by Nobel prizewinner Sir
Peter Medewar, which states that it is *random mutation* which is
responsible for increasing the genetic information content of the genome:
"It is to be noted that although the Mendelian process of shuffling and
reshuffling genes provides the variants upon which natural selection works,
yet new genes, i.e. NEW GENETIC INFORMATION (See Genetic Code),
CAN ARISE ONLY BY THE TOTALLY RANDOM AND
UNPREDICTABLE PROCESS OF MUTATION." (Medawar P.,
"Darwinism," in Bullock A. & Trombley I., eds., "The Fontana Dictionary
of Modern Thought," 1988, p201. Emphasis mine).
These unsubstantiated and contradictory assertions by two eminent Darwinists
tell me that Darwinists really don't know how the genetic information in the
genome arose. As good Darwinists they `know' it must have been either by
random mutation or natural selection (because nothing else materialistic-
naturalistic was available), therefore they just assume, without any
evidence, that it simply *must* be one or the other!
Since they have only two nodes on their materialist-naturalist explanatory
filter: 1. chance (random mutation), and 2. necessity (natural selection) and
neither is correct, they must forever oscillate between the two. They are
like a bug-ridden computer program forever stuck in its own self-imposed
loop.
It never occurs to Darwinists (because it *cannot* occur to them while
they remain materialist-naturalists), that there is another node on the
explanatory filter that scientists like archaeologists, forensic scientists
and exobiologists recognise and use all the time, namely: 3. intelligent
design!
Steve
--------------------------------------------------------------------
"...chance has no power to do anything because it simply is not anything. It
has no power because it has no being...Chance is not an entity. It is not a
thing that has power to affect other things. It is no thing. To be more
precise, it is nothing. Nothing cannot do something. Nothing is not. It has
no `isness.' Chance has no isness. I was technically incorrect even to say
that chance is nothing. Better to say that chance is not. What are the
chances that chance can do anything? Not a chance. It has no more chance
to do something than nothing has to do something." (Sproul R.C., "Not a
Chance: The Myth of Chance in Modern Science and Cosmology," Baker:
Grand Rapids MI, 1994, p6)
--------------------------------------------------------------------