Reflectorites
On Thu, 21 Sep 2000 00:46:08 -0400, Ivar Ylvisaker wrote:
[...]
>>PN>Hi Wesley:
>>>
>>>Do you have any examples of natural selection
>>>actually generating CSI?
[...]
>SJ>To which Wesley, after a bit of huffing and puffing, replied, in effect (see
>>below), "well actually no Paul...but we have some *great* excuses why we
>>haven't"!
[...]
IY>I'm not aware of an example of anything that can be labeled CSI. I've
>seen claims by Dembski and others but have never seen any explicit
>justification for such a claim.
How about the genetic code for starters? Dawkins says of this:
"After Watson and Crick, we know that genes themselves, within
their minute internal structure, are long strings of pure digital
information. What is more, they are truly digital, in the full and
strong sense of computers and compact disks, not in the weak sense
of the nervous system. The genetic code is not a binary code as in
computers, nor an eight-level code as in some telephone systems,
but a quaternary code, with four symbols. The machine code of the
genes is uncannily computerlike. Apart from differences in jargon,
the pages of a molecular-biology journal might be interchanged
with those of a computer engineering journal." (Dawkins R., "River
out of Eden," 1996, pp.19-20)
How does unintelligent natural processes write "machine code" which is so
"uncannily computerlike", that it could be "interchanged with" human
designed code in "a computer engineering journal"?
And there is not just one code. It is now realised that there are *several* quite
*different* codes to be explained:.
"Four decades of dissecting genome function at the molecular level
have brought many insights that were not anticipated in 1953. Two
of the most far-reaching are: (1) There exist many different genetic
codes in addition to the triplet code for amino acids. These codes
affect many diverse aspects of genome function, such as replication,
transcription, recombination, DNA packaging and chromatin
organization, imprinting, RNA and proteinprocessing, and
chromosome localization, pairing and movement." (Shapiro J.A.,
"Genome system architecture and natural genetic engineering in
evolution," Annals of the New York Academy of Science, 1999,
May 18, Vol. 870, pp.23-35)
Materialist-naturalistic evolution could not even explain the original DNA
"triplet code for amino acids" but now it has "many different genetic codes
in addition" to explain.
Science's universal experience is that only intelligent designers write codes.
There is nothing in non-living nature which even remotely resembles
a *code*. This is the whole premise that SETI is based on.
And the good old `Swiss army knife', `one-explanation fits all observations'
favourite of Darwinian RM&NS doesn't work here, because these
molecular and cellular level codes are needed before RM&NS will work at
all! This is the same problem as trying to use RM&NS in prebiological
evolution:
"One way out of the problem would be to extend the concept of
natural selection to the pre-living world of molecules. A number of
authors have entertained this possibility, although no reasonable
explanation has made the suggestion plausible. Natural selection is
a recognized principle of differential reproduction which
presupposes the existence of at least two distinct types of self-
replicating molecules. Dobzhansky appealed to those doing origin-
of-life research not to tamper with the definition of natural selection
when he said:
`I would like to plead with you, simply, please realize you cannot
use the words "natural selection" loosely. Prebiological natural
selection is a contradiction in terms.' (Dobzhansky T., "In The
Origins of Prebiological Systems and of Their Molecular Matrices,"
1965, p310)
Bertalanffy made the point even more cogently:
`Selection, i.e., favored survival of "better" precursors of life,
already presupposes self-maintaining, complex, open systems which
may compete; therefore selection cannot account for the origin of
such systems.' (von Bertalanffy L., "Robots, Men and Minds",
1967, p82).
(Thaxton C.B., Bradley W.L. & Olsen R.L., "The Mystery of Life's
Origin," 1992, p.147).
IY>Of course, Dembski wants to demonstrate the existence of miracles.
>Wesley's genetic algorithms will, probably, not be deemed an
>adequate substitute.
This is a common misunderstanding. ID in general and "Dembski" in
particular, do not propose (or even need) to "demonstrate the existence of
miracles":
"When design is faulted for not properly being a part of science,
however, it is not for making living things an object of study.
Rather it is for attributing living things to non-naturalistic causes-to
miracles and supernatural designers-and thereby making these non-
naturalistic causes objects of study as well. In answering this
criticism let us first of all be clear that intelligent design does not
require miracles. Just as humans do not perform miracles every time
they act as intelligent agents, so there is no reason to assume that
for a designer to act as an intelligent agent requires a violation of
natural laws. There's an important contrast to keep in mind here.
Science, according to Ruse and Scott, studies natural causes
whereas to introduce design is to invoke supernatural causes. This
is the wrong contrast. The proper contrast is between undirected
natural causes on the one hand and intelligent causes on the other.
Intelligent causes can do things that undirected natural causes
cannot. Undirected natural causes can explain how ink gets applied
to paper to form a random inkblot but cannot explain an
arrangement of ink on paper that spells out a meaningful message.
To obtain such a meaningful arrangement requires an intelligent
cause. Whether an intelligent cause is located within or outside
nature (i.e., is respectively natural or supernatural) is a separate
question from whether an intelligent cause has acted within nature.
Design has no prior commitment to supernaturalism. Consequently,
science can offer no principled grounds for excluding design or
relegating it to religion." (Dembski W.A., "Intelligent Design,"
1999, p.259)
Steve
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
"It is therefore of immediate concern to both biologist and layman that
Darwinism is under attack. The theory of life that undermined
nineteenthcentury religion has virtually become a religion itself and in its
turn is being threatened by fresh ideas. The attacks are certainly not limited
to those of the creationists and religious fundamentalists who deny
Darwinism for political and moral reasons. The main thrust of the criticism
comes from within science itself. The doubts about Darwinism represent a
potential revolt from within rather than a siege from without. What is even
more surprising is that these doubts are arising simultaneously from several
independent branches of science. With a growth in the appreciation of the
philosophy of science-largely due to the influence of the philosopher Karl
Popper-has come a doubt about whether Darwinism is, strictly speaking,
scientific. Is the theory actually testable-as good theories must be? Is the
idea of natural selection based on a tautology, a simple restatement of some
initial assumptions? From within biology the doubts have come from
scientists in half a dozen separate fields." (Leith B., "The Descent of
Darwin: A Handbook of Doubts about Darwinism," Collins: London, 1982,
p.10)
Stephen E. Jones | Ph. +61 8 9448 7439 | http://www.iinet.net.au/~sejones
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Oct 05 2000 - 20:10:55 EDT