Reflectorites
On Thu, 28 Sep 2000 21:53:33 -0700, Ralph Krumdieck wrote:
RK>Slow down, Steve. Take a couple of deep breaths.
OK. I've done that. Nah it didn't work. I am still feel the same way about
Hirsch's article! :-)
[...]
>SJ>Here is an excerpt from a speech by a Dr. Roland Hirsch in accepting a
>>Distinguished Service Award from The American Chemical Society. In it
>>Dr Hirsch makes the *stunning* claims that:
>>
>>1. based on molecular biological data "the Darwinian theory itself is
>>fundamentally, perhaps fatally flawed. "
RK>For all I know, this may be the first time someone is using
>molecular biological data to call Darwinism wrong.
This does not compute with Ralph's claim below that he has "read Behe".
Behe is a *molecular biologist*. He claims that "Science has made
enormous progress in understanding how the chemistry of life works, but
the elegance and complexity of biological systems at the molecular level
have paralyzed science's attempt to explain their origins. There has been
virtually no attempt to account for the origin of specific complex
biomolecular systems, much less any progress.":
"Modern science has learned that, ultimately, life is a molecular
phenomenon: All organisms are made of molecules that act as the
nuts and bolts, gears and pulleys of biological systems. Certainly
there are complex biological features (such as the circulation of
blood) that emerge at higher levels, but the gritty details of life are
the province of biomolecules. Therefore the science of
biochemistry, which studies those molecules, has as its mission the
exploration of the very foundation of life.
Since the mid-1950s biochemistry has painstakingly elucidated the
workings of life at the molecular level. Darwin was ignorant of the
reason for variation within a species (one of the requirements of his
theory), but biochemistry has identified the molecular basis for it.
Nineteenth-century science could not even guess at the mechanism
of vision, immunity, or movement, but modern biochemistry has
identified the molecules that allow those and other functions.
It was once expected that the basis of life would be exceedingly
simple. That expectation has been smashed. Vision, motion, and
other biological functions have proven to be no less sophisticated
than television cameras and automobiles. Science has made
enormous progress in understanding how the chemistry of life
works, but the elegance and complexity of biological systems at the
molecular level have paralyzed science's attempt to explain their
origins. There has been virtually no attempt to account for the
origin of specific complex biomolecular systems, much less any
progress. Many scientists have gamely asserted that explanations
are already in hand, or will be sooner or later, but no support for
such assertions can be found in the professional science literature.
More importantly, there are compelling reasons-based on the
structure of the systems themselves-to think that a Darwinian
explanation for the mechanisms of life will forever prove elusive.
(Behe M.J., "Darwin's Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to
Evolution," 1996, p.x)
Note the sub-title: "The *Biochemical* Challenge to Evolution"
RK>But
>a mere announcement that a scientist has some doubts about
>Darwinism is old news.
Agreed about it being "old news" that "a scientist has some doubts about
Darwinism". But as Ralph said, this was "a scientist" who "has some
doubts about Darwinism" based on "molecular biological data", which is
*not* "old news".
>SJ>2. "cellular processes are ... irreducibly complex" in that "gradual,
>step-by-step evolution of the process would not work, for none of the
>>intermediate stages would be "selected" because none of the intermediate
>>stages would be functional."
RK>OK. He's read Behe. So have we. Again, old news.
So what was Ralph's point above that "For all I know, this may be the first
time someone is using molecular biological data to call Darwinism wrong"?
>SJ>3. "recent research in information theory...concludes that random mutations
>>cannot create complex, biologically-specified genetic information."
RK>Hasn't this been discussed over and over in this very group?
Yes. To date no evolutionist on this List has yet given an example where
"random mutations" has created "complex, biologically-specified genetic
information'.
>SJ>4. Natural selection has been considered by many to be the unifying
>>principle of biology. But these and other flaws seriously compromise the
>>theory" and it "has thus far in my opinion failed."
RK>Rack up one more scientist whose personal opinion is that Darwinism
>has failed.
It is interesting that when a scientist claims "that Darwinism has"
succeeded, that is *fact*. But when a scientist claims that Darwinism has
failed" then that is just his "personal opinion"!
BTW I know Hirsch said it was his "opinion" but in the context it is his
*professional* opinion based on evidence in his field and stated in his
farewell address in front of his peers.
RK>As you know from this group, personal opinions are not
>in danger of extinction.
See above.
RK>This is not "stunning" news, Steve, no matter how you cut it.
Now that *is* a matter of "personal opinion" - Ralph's!
>SJ>Note these claims are all based on the *data* that Hirsch knows in his
>>field.. Dr Hirsch is not associated with the ID movement, but hopefully he
>>soon will be!
RK>He made no mention of ID, at least not in the excerpt you passed along.
He mentioned irreducible complexity and "complex, biologically-specified
genetic information". Here it is again from the "excerpt" I "passed along":
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
On Fri, 29 Sep 2000 06:39:07 +0800, Stephen E. Jones wrote:
SJ>Rather few cellular processes are enabled solely by the presence of a
>single gene product. Indeed, in some cases several different proteins must
>be present simultaneously, or the process does not take place at all. Such a
>process is called irreducibly complex. It does not occur at all unless every
>essential protein is present. So gradual, step-by-step evolution of the
>process would not work, for none of the intermediate stages would be
>"selected" because none of the intermediate stages would be functional. I
>should add that this point is supported by recent research in information
>theory, which concludes that random mutations cannot create complex,
>biologically-specified genetic information. [...]
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Even Ralph concluded from the excerpt from Hirsch's address I posted that
"He's read Behe". So what is this double-talk?
RK>Surely, if he thought he had proof (or even just a strong presumption) of
>ID, he would have said something?
See above.
RK>Here is his vision:
> >>I think that understanding function and its chemical
> >>basis offers a much more secure foundation for biology
>I'm confident that if anyone can squeeze ID out of that, you're the man,
>Steve.
See above. Hirsch also says in the very paragraph quoted :by Ralph: "Natural
selection ... the unifying principle of biology" has "flaws [that] seriously
compromise the theory" and a biology based on a :chemical basis" "will be
far more productive than the backward-looking Darwinian approach":
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Natural selection has been considered by many to be the unifying principle
of biology. But these and other flaws seriously compromise the theory.
Explaining biology by trying to identify origins using the potentially
hundreds of different trees of life or using the uncertain and unprovable
mechanisms of change in the distant past has thus far in my opinion failed.
No doubt some useful scientific information may result from such studies.
However, I think that understanding function and its chemical basis offers
a much more secure foundation for biology, and will be far more
productive than the backward-looking Darwinian approach.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
>SJ>I am becoming more confident that what we are starting to see is the
>>beginning of a trickle of scientists, which will gradually build up
>>into a flood-tide in repudiating the 19th century materialistic paradigm
>of >Darwinism and replace it with a new 21st paradigm of intelligent design!
>>This is shaping up to be a scientific revolution that will make the
>>Copernican and Darwinian revolutions look like a Sunday school picnic.
>>What an exciting time to be alive!
RK>I'm excited at all times to be alive. :) If all this ferment leads to a
>theory that does a better job of explaining how life developed than
>Darwinism does, then I'm all for that theory, be it ID or anything else.
Great!
>SJ>I call on those evolutionists (particularly Christians) who have opposed
>>the ID movement to re-evaluate their position in the light of this emerging new
>>evidence and not go down with the sinking ship of scientific materialism
>>out of misguided loyalty to science (as it is currently conceived). Your
>>loyalty as scientists should be to the *data*, not to
>materialistic-naturalistic philosophy.
RK>Why should Christian evolutionists ("particularly"), jump on ID's rescue
>ship?
All evolutionists' "loyalty as scientists should be to the *data*, not to
materialistic-naturalistic philosophy." But maybe it could be argued that for
non-Christians they have *some* excuse?
But I can think of *no* excuse for a scientist who claims to be a Christian
to persist with to persist with a "loyalty" to a "materialistic-naturalistic
philosophy" rather than to the "data".
That of course does not mean that there *is* no excuse. It is just that I
personally cannot think of one. Mind you it would be interesting to see if
any "Christian evolutionist" on this List would supply an excuse why they
should have a loyalty to a "materialistic-naturalistic philosophy" rather than
to the "data".
Steve
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Biology is the study of complicated things that give the appearance of
having been designed for a purpose." (Dawkins R., "The Blind
Watchmaker," [1986], Penguin: London, 1991, reprint, p1)
Stephen E. Jones | Ph. +61 8 9448 7439 | http://www.iinet.net.au/~sejones
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Oct 09 2000 - 19:36:13 EDT