From: Josh Bembenek (jbembe@hotmail.com)
Date: Tue Nov 12 2002 - 16:30:25 EST
Dr. Campbell-
"However, it remains internally consistent, albeit highly implausible, for
the atheist to claim that we just happen to be incredibly lucky."
See also Dawkins' Chapter 6 "Origins and Miracles" in Blind Watchmaker...
"Another problem is that some ID advocates (not you) jump to the conclusion
that low probabilities would rule out the possibility that God used natural
means to create these low-probability structures. Low probabilities are
equally compatible with a miraculous creation of the structure and with a
series of low-probability but fully natural reactions, mutations, etc.
occurring under God's providence."
I think my main hesitation to jump on board with this explanation is the
lack of mechanism. Here is what I mean, evolution seems more like alchemy
to me where the ingredients of random mutation, natural selection, spiced
with loads of Time generate biological complexity. In this scenario, there
is no driving force, why should anything have accumulated complexity?
Christians can envision God as a motive force for evolution to proceed
upwards towards his goals, but even then, how does this give us a mechanism?
Nothing about an ecological niche DEMANDS for it to be harnessed, it is
simply available. Nothing about chance or selection demands for these
things to operate towards the harvest of ecological niches. And supplying
God to drive the whole scenario forward leaves us with the open question
that Peter Ruest points out in "Creative Providence in Biology" PSCF 53 #3
2001 remains inaccessible to science. There may be a direct causal link
between a gust of wind altering the course of a butterfly's flight and the
deer that jumps out in front of your car, just as there is a causal link
between the big bang and God's provident evolution of biological systems
such as the flagellum, but can our limited methods and understanding ever
figure it out? And is there something called a natural law which could
describe such a causal link?! This is not of course to argue that indeed ID
offers a much more satisfying effort to answer this question, but I think ID
more directly applies the need for God's action in creation than the former
explanation. I also think that the current state of our understanding
allows plenty of room for the ID hypothesis to remain a viable course of
inquiry.
"However, the biological relevance is not the specification that has been
the focus of popular ID. Rather, the focus has been on the degree of
complexity, which is replicated by a long random string of characters."
I think the ultimate goal of the ID movement will be to connect biological
specification with the analysis of random strings of letters. Right now you
have a specialized mathematician trying to apply his theory to a biological
situation and you won't get perfect harmonization until someone with
expertise can bridge the two (and incorporate the variables we are
discussing here.)
"Although there are plenty of proteins that do not perform useful functions
(at least, not in light of the biochemistry of known organisms), insoluble
proteins can be useful in association with lipid membranes, etc."
Well we can articulate all day the extremely diverse variety of classes of
soluble and insoluble proteins, but my point mainly clarifies the fact that
within the entire sequence landscape, functional landscapes of a more
limited number (how limited is the question) must be sorted out through - on
the table currently - evolution or intelligent causation or intelligent
causation through evolution, etc.
"This is an important point. The threshold would generally be lower in such
a setting, though how much lower is totally unknown. In experimental
attempts to produce new enzymatic function, the opportunities for
advantageous mutation are initially quite large, as even a little function
is better than none. As the functionality of the novel enzyme increases,
the magnitude of improvement diminishes, until a plateau is reached where
several slight improvements and diminishings are possible. Most enzymes in
modern organisms are at this level, where mutations may slightly improve or
diminish their efficiency, but large improvement seems unlikely. Prebiotic
to early biotic settings would have had a much wider field of opportunity
for innovation."
To me this seems purely imagination fueled by a committment a priori to
evolution. To elaborate, the advances of creating novel enzymes (as far as
I've investigated to date and have previously mentioned require further
investigation on my part) are extremely modest in terms of their
capabilities, leaving a wide gap between the capability of what has been
made by the experimentalist and the final forms found in nature today (yes I
realize that evolution would have had billions of years and investigators
haven't had the same amount of time...) I place a much higher premium upon
the facts of today, notably that the current sequence landscape occupied by
living organisms occupy an infinitesimally small area of the total sequence
space, rather than anticipating further advances with producing novel
enzymatic activities to support my conclusion. How exactly would you weight
the "facts as they are," and what fuels your opinion to believe that the
"inroads" (so to speak) through the sequence landscape to generate current
enzymes are very wide making their probability small? I am extremely
skeptical of the hypothesis that inroads to modern proteins within the
sequence landscape exist to any significant extent whatsoever.
Finally, please elaborate on the point:
"and my theological sense of God's usual self-limitation, suggests that He
made extensive use of natural means."
To me something like a resurrection is a huge announcement and taking things
into your own hands (not to be argumentative, but simply thinking of how
these two things might relate in my own estimation.) Perhaps you can
specify what ways God self-limits and how that applies?
Josh
_________________________________________________________________
Tired of spam? Get advanced junk mail protection with MSN 8.
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Thu Nov 14 2002 - 01:10:05 EST