At 09:12 AM 7/9/99 EDT, Bertvan@aol.com wrote:
>
> Hi Glenn,
>
>I read your web pages. They are impressive, although much of the computer
>stuff was too technical for me. First, I want to emphasize that I don't
>regard any belief as dangerous, but strongly oppose attempts to suppress
>ideas--any ideas. I have been indignant about the tactics used to discredit
>anyone who questioned "random mutation and natural selection", but I should
>have realized both sides of any controversy can be equally capable of
>intolerance. Not being a Christian, I haven't talked to many "young earth
>creationists". I admire your independence of thought, and am glad of such
>diversity of belief among Christians. My problem is not necessarily with
>evolution, but with the specific mechanism of "random mutation and natural
>selection" as an explanation of macro evolution.
Several comments. First, not all ideas are equally worthy of discussion
and not all people are equally qualified to speak about certain areas.
Thus what you may be interpreting as an attempt to suppress ideas may be an
attempt to educate someone who is talking out of his field and is too lazy
to go get educated in that field. One of the things that frustrates me
about young-earth creationists (and did when I was one) is that they state
with certainty conclusions which they have no basis in knowledge to make.
Being new back here after an absence I don't know your profession. But I
bet my considered opinions are not worth much next to your considered
opinions about your field. For me to claim that you are wrong in your area
of expertise would be highly arrogant on my part. If I am going to do that,
I better go get some good documentation.
Secondly, maybe you should talk to some young earthers. You would find
that they mostly read their own literature and don't read much of the
scientific data.
Thirdly, if the computer stuff was too technical for you, then you have
three choices, work really hard to understand what is being said (this is
the best way), believe those who are recognized authorities in the field
(I am not claiming to be one) or believe what you want to believe
regardless of what data is out there. If you choose the latter path, you
are choosing the path of the YEC. I don't find it rational for a person to
refuse to work really hard to understand some scientific area and ignore
what people who have studied the areas say. That is laziness and self
deception. So, I would challenge you to either work really hard and
understand the area of nonlinear dynamics, which has large implications for
the evolution debate or cease to claim that you don't understand how random
mutations can cause evolution. If you refuse to learn the field that is
relevant your claim that random mutations can't drive evolution is merely
your believe and your belief is not as good as someone else's knowledge!
Because of the irrational
>passion with which many biologists defend the theory, I have become
skeptical
>of biologists. (I have no particular skepticism of science in general, or
>geologists, or the accepted age of the earth.) I would be grateful if you
>could answer some questions to help me understand your philosophy and
beliefs.
>
>Do you believe the laws of nature were designed--or came into existence by
>accident?
designed
If you believe the laws of nature were designed by God, do you
>believe he did so for any purpose?
yes, for us (and maybe purposes unknown to us).
Do you believe the universe is the
>result of accidental processes?
no.
The result of random, chance events?
God rigged the roulette wheel of the universe to ensure that chance would
bring about his result. THat is what nonlinear dynamical systems has
taught me. Random chance can create wonderful organized systems. And if
you don't understand nonlinear dynamics, you can't possibly state
categorically that random chance can't drive evolution.
If
>everything is the result of chance, what part, if any, could God have
played?
As I said, God rigged the univere's roulette wheel via nonlinear dynamics.
Are you aware that according to information theory the most randomized
sequence of characters has the largest information? I bet you haven't
studied info theory either. If you haven't, how can you state
categorically that this isn't true?
> I don't know enough about computers to understand most of your theories,
but
>I do realize computer do not pop into existence by chance: they are designed
>by intelligent humans. . Do you have any objection to the concept of
design?
No Christian has an objection to design. But do you have an objection to
God designing a system that would eventually give rise to us via evolution?
If so, what is the factual basis or mathematical basis of your objection?
> Most advocates of "random mutation and natural selection" believe such
>things as altruism, love and emotions are also the result of "random
mutation
>and natural selection". Is that part of your belief?
One can see altruism among animals. A baboon sacrificed his life to take
out a leopard in order to save his troop. As I have said, God rigged the
system. And you can do that with nonlinear systems (or at least God could
have).
I admit that
>evolution is probably the result of mutations, but why do you insist they
>must be random?
Because random chance plus a set of rules (selection) always equals some
type of complexly organized system. If you really want the answers you will
go take the time to learn about these systems. If you don't want the
answer, you will continue to question things you admit you don't have
enough background to understand.
And if mutations aren't random, but occur according to some
>rational plan or design, natural selection wouldn't necessarily be important
>to the process--except to eliminate mistakes, would it?
mutations are random. But impose a set of rules on the mutations and they
create!
Natural selection
>would not be a creative force in that case, but merely a force for stasis,
>wouldn't it?
Natural selection works on the mutation. The mutations actually create,
selection just filters things.
As a Christian, you must surely believe free will plays a part
>in the evolution of human thought and culture. Do you eliminate will as
>playing any part in biological evolution?
God says he foreknows what we will be and what we will do. Given the
results I have seen in nonlinear dynamics, I can envision us being
constrained to particular results regardless of what decisions we make.
Pharoah was constrained to let the Hebrews go regardless of whether he said
no or yes. If his will had been aligned with God, he would have lived.
Nonlinear dynamics unites chance with necessity in a way that is just
amazing. Sierpinski's gasket on my web page is made by random choices. But
I KNOW that everytime I make those random choices, Sierpinski's gasket will
come about--chance and necessity united.
Isn't symbiosis a collection of
>individual events involving will? Do you rule out any form of
>Lamarckism--mutations influenced by use?
Lamarckism has never been observed that I am aware of.
Do you think biologists' insistence
>on randomness might have kept anyone from even investigating an
environmental
>component of mutation?
no. There are always mavericks like me.
glenn
Foundation, Fall and Flood
Adam, Apes and Anthropology
http://www.flash.net/~mortongr/dmd.htm
Lots of information on creation/evolution