Topic: Darwinism
A Scientific Consensus: Darwinism is Dead
Although they can rally against Creationism in one voice
and riot against colleagues who advocate Intelligent Design with an
outrage worthy of religionists, the weird little secret is that science
knows Darwinism is dead.by Paul Benedict
(libertarian)
Saturday, July 2, 2011
Stephen C. Meyer, expounding Intelligent Design in his book Signature in the Cell,
makes a point he does not seem to appreciate: for decades
microbiologists have been abandoning Darwinism. Breakthrough
technologies have shown that life at the cellular level is complex
beyond anything Darwin or any 19th century biologist could
have predicted. From the variety of cellular functions to the complex
information transmitted in the gene, many outstanding scientists
recognize that the math just doesn't work. Intelligent Design represents
only one concession to the statistical impossibility that chance caused
the life of simple cells. Interrupting the following parade of
microbiologists who, like Meyers, recognize that random chance alone
cannot have produced the simplest cellular life, are conclusions flowing
from this scientific consensus.
Christian de Duve,
for example, a Nobel Prize winner, and in no way an advocate of
Intelligent Design, has abandoned random chance as the agent of upwards
evolution or the ascent of man. He envisions primordial planet earth as a
chemical reaction waiting to happen. Recognizing that the odds of random chance being impossibly against
the formation of a single cell, let alone man, he has ceaselessly been
searching for the string of chemical reactions that, once started, must
have inevitably and, without chance, led to mankind. So far... no luck.
Ilya Prigogine, won his 1977 Nobel Prize for his theory that biological life self-assembled from inorganic non-life through the non-equilibrium thermodynamic
processes. Again, random chance was abandoned, this time for the notion
of an outside force arising in a thermodynamic process that, somehow,
energized evolution. Such a force has never been identified.
Manfred Eigen,
won the Nobel Prize in 1967 for his work measuring extremely fast
chemical reactions brought about by energy pulses. Though proud to use
the term evolution, his models of the origin of life are not based on
chance but on self-organizing chemical reactions that cycle to higher
and higher levels. He is also the author of Eigens Paradox that explains a critical problem in positing cycles of RNA that lead to DNA.
Freeman Dyson, feeling random chance and self-organizing molecular scenarios are insufficient seems to believe
in a combination of Eigens self-organizing RNA cycles andLynn Margulis
sense that cellular evolution was the result of parasites.
Bernd-Olaf Kppers, like Michael Polanyi, supports his notions that the whole (the living cell) is greater than the sum of its parts (chemical reactions) with evidence that random chance cannot result in the irreducible complexity of a living organism (60) nor explain the information it transmits.
Bernd-Olaf Kppers, using methodology like that of noted Darwinian apologist Richard Dawkins,
also modeled mathematical algorithms that guide randomly generated
computer simulations of origin of life scenarios. Kuppers calls his
theory of self-organization the molecular-Darwinistic approach. It is
hard to tell what Kuppers means by statements like, inanimate matter
organized itself of its own accord into animate systems (82).
Chance
and randomness as the source of life is dead, as dead as Darwinism.
Modern culture may have been convinced by the Copernican Revolution that
science can be both counter-intuitive and true. Hence, the
counter-intuitive notion of chance as the author of life may have become
as widely accepted as the faith in the invisible electron. However,
since the 1960s humanitys knowledge of the living cell, just the living
cell alone, magnifies what we have known intuitively about the order,
beauty and majesty of existence: it could not have happened
accidentally.
Fred Hoyle, superb mathematician and astronomer who, according to some reports,
deserved a Nobel Prize for his role in showing that we are all
stardust, also abandoned Darwin. He was well-known for comparing the
possibility of the random rise of a single cell to the chance that a
tornado hitting a junkyard would produce a 747. He is not an Intelligent
Design theorist in the traditional sense. Instead, he believed life
came from outer space by way of Panspermia. What will they think of next?
Stuart Kauffmans work has steadily evolved. His first book The Origins of Order: Self-Organization and Selection in Evolution
involves a great deal of Darwinian affirmation while it systematically
demolishes any chance for a single cell to have arisen by way of random
processes. However, his second book, At Home in the Universe, is much more forthright. In his more recent publication, Reinventing the Sacred,he
expresses an admiration for the innate creativity of our universe. Of
course his work is not religious; its all very scientific.
In
the late 1950s there was a legitimate consensus of most scientists that
chance gave rise to life even as Darwins theory predicted. This
reinvigorated neo-Darwinism was well represented by scientists such as
Jacques Monod, Stanley Miller, and Alexander Oparin. However, in the
late 1960s this changed. As 1967 was a social crack in time for America,
1968 cracked the facade of Darwinism. The breakthrough mathematics can
be found in the work of Von Neumann, Wigner, and Morowitz. Many others,
like Kuppers and Polanyi, corroborated these results. Whats sad is that
this was an age ago. Almost two more generations of young people have
been indoctrinated into what is, today, plainly junk science about the
origin of life.
John D. Barrow and Frank J. Tipler, in Anthropic Cosmological Principle point
out 10 steps in the course of human evolution, such as the development
of the DNA base genetic code, so improbable that before it could have
occurred the sun would have ceased to be a main sequence star, and would
have incinerated the earth.
Eugene Wigner, winner of the Nobel Prize in Physics in 1963, calculated the odds of chance giving rise to the first cell at zero! (Paragraph 3). According to Kuppers, Wigner associated himself with a teleological model (p. 80 ), or a belief in an unknown biological principle that differs from the mechanical laws of inanimate matter.
Robert Sauer of MIT reported the odds of a functional series of amino acids arising in several of the 100 known proteins were 1 in 1063. Try the odds of getting a series of these proteins together in self-replicating chains.
Harold Morowitz has also abandoned chance as the reason for the origin of life. He believes that thermo-dynamic energy is stored in chemical bonds of higher and higher complexity. His theory is unproven. Morowitz testified against the Creationists in 1982.
Alexander Cairns-Smiths
alternative to Darwinian randomness as the source of life is called the
clay theory. It became an allegory for a type of self-organizing
process that might have occurred in pre-biotic earth. Though his theory
is not widely accepted, since the odds are zero that random chance alone
generated a single cell, the search for such a pre-biotic missing link
continues.
Leslie Orgel, a classical Darwinist to the end, nevertheless took on a variety
of his contemporaries origin of life scenarios such as self-organizing
molecules arising through catalytic cycles, the contributions of meteor
activity, and that life started on volcanic ocean vents. Orgel also
challenged the likelihood
of the pre-biotic RNA world suggested by Joyce, Szostak, and Holliger.
His conclusion is that the odds against these theories are
insurmountable at this time.
All of the above speculative
notions arose because the scientific complexity of the cell was nothing
Darwinism predicted or could explain. The scientific consensus is that
there is no way chance could produce something so complex. There had to
be, therefore, additional naturalistic answers. There just had to be.
Theyve looked for forty years; so far, nothing. No promised land...
nothing. Have we heard about the wandering reductionists plight in our
lowly high schools and state colleges? No... mores the pity.
Like Richard Dawkins, though, Orgel would say that based on what we know now
there is no chance that a single cell arose by random processes. These
scientists have faith in Darwinism. This is why, at its core, the Darwin
Theory is a philosophy of science. Will some breakthrough someday show
that random chance caused life? That premise is not falsifiable; it is
not testable. It is not scientific and cannot be disproved. However,
right now the odds that random processes generated even a single living
cell are zero. That is the provable, consensus science today.
If
random processes cannot produce even a single cell, how much more
impossible is it that they produced a daffodil, a dolphin, or a man?
Darwinism is dead.
Although a number of microbiologists such as Gerald Joyce, 2009 Nobel Prize winner Jack Szostak, and Philipp Holliger
profess to be inspired by Darwins notion of incremental evolution
through random chance, their methodology is one of conscious synthesis.
On the one hand, they have begun designing RNA molecules in an attempt
to construct a series of incremental steps consistent with classical
Darwinism. In 2009 Joyces group produced a self-replicating RNA strand,
and recently Hollingers group made RNAzymes
of 93 bases that self-replicate even more reliably than Joyces. These
molecules are enzymatically active. On the other hand, Hollinger
confesses the sheer joy of scientific accomplishment in finding their
needle in the haystack (paragraph 6) even if by way of synthetic biology (paragraph 7)
Neither
lab seems to have shown any interest in developing a statistical
analysis of the odds of RNAzyme arising by chance, but, even more
instructively, the choice of methodology dismisses any genuine belief in
chance as an agent of molecular design. Using highly sophisticated
laboratory techniques to develop previously unknown forms of RNA instead
of working with billions of unaltered generations of a virus, shows
recognition of the odds against chance giving rise to a cell. What is
designed by man and what is natural are, almost by definition, distinct.
In fact, the use of molecular design shows that intelligent design is one way the first cells could have been formed (Meyer p. 26/63).
Intelligent Design Proponents
Dean H. Kenyon:
Now a proponent of Intelligent Design, Kenyon began as a
Self-Organization theorist who fell into heretical Creation Science in
1980. However, Kenyons form of Creation Science did not include a young
earth or having dinosaurs on Noahs arc.
Robert J. Marks, II, set his career at Baylor at Risk for his convictions about Intelligent Design.
Charles Thaxton, like Kenyon, Thaxton felt the need to change the vocabulary of his views to separate himself from some Creationist positions.
William Demski, like Robert Marks, set his career at risk for his convictions about Intelligent Design.
Douglas Axe, followed up Sauers work in greater detail. He estimated 1064 for the possibility of low functioning sequences of amino acids to arise by chance and 1077
as the possibility for a specifically functioning protein to arise. Try
the odds of putting together a series of these proteins so as to be
self-replicating.
Paul Nelson is a critic of common descent. His critiques involve recent advances in embryology and genetic homology.
Jonathan Wells has demolished another key piece of the Darwin theory in his work with advances in the understanding of genetics and homology.
Michael Behes first book, Darwins Black Box popularized the failure of the Darwin theory to explain the origin of even a single cell. His second book, The Edge of Evolution,
represents advances in theIntelligent Design philosophy of science. He
delineates what mutation and chance can and cant do along a series of
frontiers while expanding what Intelligent Design can and has predicted
about natural science.
Here is a list of scientists sympathetic to Intelligent Design from Discovery Institute. It looks like about a thousand names.
Tradition
dies hard in every generation. Ignorance is not a lack of information;
it is willfully ignoring knowledge. Centralized bureaucratic power
breeds fear even in professionals, but tenured teachers can do better.
It's time to tell the kids: it is statistically impossible that Darwin's
explanation of the origin of life is correct.
Update 6-14-2011
I did name Stephen Meyer’s Signature in the Cell
as my reference point for “A Scientific Consensus: Darwinism is Dead”;
however, because the many posts below refer to me and my views, I want
to revisit the credit due Dr. Meyer. Stephen Meyer’s work led me to
almost all of the scientists I’ve listed above. I simply checked Dr.
Meyer’s sources and documented them, as well as I could, in an online
environment.
I will take the heat for considering the
list a scientific consensus. Dr. Meyer is simply referring to the work
of others to augment studies of his own.
Libertarian Update 6-14-2011
I
was pleasantly surprised to learn that, apparently, “A Scientific
Consensus: Darwinism is Dead” contains views not incompatible with the
views of Ron Paul himself. See Ron Paul UTube video linked here:
The views expressed
in this article are those of Paul Benedict only and
do not represent the views of Nolan Chart, LLC or its affiliates.
Paul Benedict is solely responsible for the contents
of this article and is not an employee or otherwise affiliated
with Nolan Chart, LLC in his/her role as a columnist.
We have implemented a new forum for reader comments. If you have not yet
established a new account in the new Nolan Chart vbulletin Forums, you will need to REGISTER in order to
post a comment to this article. To learn more about this recently implemented change,
read about the decision to add the new vbulletin forums to the site.
Posted By: Paul Burnett
Date: July 3, 2011 10:56:11 AM
Unlike most creationists - including intelligent design
creationists - science knows that Darwin is dead. He has been dead for
over a century - but the science of evolution which he helped establish
over a century and a half ago has moved on and continues to fluorish.
But creationists have demonized Darwin, and continue to flog "Darwinism"
as if the established observed fact of evolution and the separate
theoretical explanation of evolution can be stuffed back into the bottle
of ignorance by simple name-calling.
While there is scientific consensus that Darwin is dead, there is no
scientific consensus whatsoever that evolution is dead. The American
Association for the Advancement of Science, the National Academy of
Sciences and essentially every other actual science organization in
America have issued statements supporting evolution and denouncing
intelligent design creationism as a pseudoscience - not science at all.
(Look up the Wikipedia article "List of scientific societies explicitly
rejecting intelligent design" for the complete list - we're not allowed
to post links in this forum.) The consensus that "Darwinism" is dead
is not a scientific consensus, but a religious consensus based on
wishful thinking, not science.
Stephen C. Meyer's book Signature in the Cell did receive rave reviews -
but only in the religious media - it was roundly and soundly panned in
the world of actual science. Dembski, Behe, Wells and most other
supporters of intelligent design creationism openly support intelligent
design creationism for religious - not science-based - reasons. Philip
Johnson, the acknowledged godfather of the intelligent design
creationism movement, said on a Christian radio talk show in 2003: "Our
strategy has been to change the subject a bit, so that we can get the
issue of intelligent design, which really means the reality of God,
before the academic world and into the schools." And here's a 1996 quote
from Philip Johnson: "This isn't really, and never has been, a debate
about science. It's about religion."
William Dembski, a major intelligent design creationism theoretician
wrote: "Christ is never an addendum to a scientific theory but always a
completion." in his book, Intelligent Design, on page 207. More quotes
from Dembski's book: "[A]ny view of the sciences that leaves Christ out
of the picture must be seen as fundamentally deficient." and "[T]he
conceptual soundness of a scientific theory cannot be maintained apart
from Christ."
Dr. Barbara Forrest’s paper, “Understanding the Intelligent Design
Creationist Movement: Its True Nature and Goals,” provides an
explanation as to why religious fundamentalists are so opposed to
science, biology and evolution. Everyone interested in this debate
should read it - look it up (we're not allowed to post links in this
forum, but Google is your friend).
Posted By: Paul Benedict
Date: July 3, 2011 12:05:47 PM
You seem to be missing the point of the artilce. Every microbiologist (except a few who are designing RNA molecules) freely confess that some other force besides random chance must be part of the origin of the cell.
To be sure, a great number of these folks are naturalists-- that is they
see the source of all natural phenomenon as being the result of
something existing in the natural world. However, their explanations are
not Darwinian.
The Darwin theory without random chance + natural selection as its engine does not work. It's over.
This article takes no position on anything further. It takes faith in
the mainstream media to assume this article is about anything other than
what the scientific evidence says. Click on the links. Look up the
terms. See for yourself.
Posted By: Paul Burnett
Date: July 3, 2011 12:57:11 PM
Come now - "Every microbiologist...freely confess(es)
that some other force besides random chance must be part of the origin
of the cell." I would love to see a literature ciitation on that claim.
Can you cite any articles in microbiology professional journals which
support this absurd claim?
And even if it happened to be true (which I seriously doubt) that would
have no impact whatsoever on the truthiness of intelligent design
creationism.
But let's take a look at what actual biologists' professional societies'
official position statements have to say about intelligent design
creationism:
American Society for Biochemistry and Molecular Biology, which
represents 12,000 biochemists and molecular biologists: ""Intelligent
design" is not a theory in the scientific sense, nor is it a scientific
alternative to the theory of evolution. ..."intelligent design" might be
appropriate to teach in a religion or philosophy class, but the concept
has no place in a science classroom and should not be taught there."
National Association of Biology Teachers: "Scientists have firmly
established evolution as an important natural process. ... Explanations
or ways of knowing that invoke metaphysical, non-naturalistic or
supernatural mechanisms, whether called “creation science,” “scientific
creationism,” “intelligent design theory,” “young earth theory,” or
similar designations, are outside the scope of science and therefore are
not part of a valid science curriculum."
Lehigh University's Department of Biological Sciences: "It is our
collective position that intelligent design has no basis in science, has
not been tested experimentally, and should not be regarded as
scientific." (Lehigh is Michael Behe's employer.)
Posted By: Paul Burnett
Date: July 3, 2011 01:18:53 PM
Paul Benedict wrote: "Here is a list of scientists sympathetic
to Intelligent Design from Discovery Institute. It looks like about a
thousand names."
I dumped the list into an Excel spreadsheet and quickly determined it
contains not a thousand names but 822 names, many (most) of whom are not
biologists. In fact, there are only 18 names on the list associated
with the words "microbiologist" or "microbiology." I will propose a
hypothesis that there are significantly more than 18 microbiologists on
the planet - that these 18 do not constitute "every" microbiologist by
several orders of magnitude.
And as has been pointed out for years, the Discovery Institute's list of
dissenters comprises about one-tenth of one per cent of practicing
scientists. That's just pitiful.
Posted By: Paul Benedict
Date: July 3, 2011 03:20:57 PM
Hi Paul,
This artilce is not saying these scientists all support Intelligent Design. It is saying Darwinism is dead.
Certainly every one of the above microbiologists has indeed specified
that random chance alone cannot account for a single living cell.
Is this every microbiologist in the world? I trow not. However, it does
include many, who have been the most influencial in the field. A
significant number are Nobel Prize winners.
This is not an ID site and not every name is a microbiologist.
The chilling thing is that without Darwinism to fall back on, the
naturalist position tends to evaporate quickly. It really bugs people.
What if Someone is out there?
I don't know what to make of ID. Is it a philosophy? It is not a
religion, but it has religious implications. Is it science when an
archeologist finds a scuptured head lying in the desert sands and
wonders what kind of intelligence formed it's imperious frown?
I hate to say this, but I've grown very sceptical of the sincerity of
organizations of scientists. It's become a blizzard out there.
I think the article betrays a deep confusion about Darwin's
theory, and about science in general. First, Darwinian theory deals
with the evolution of reproducing organisms, and has nothing to do with
how "chance alone" might have produced the simplest cellular life.
Moreover, the ideas of all the scientists you list, taken together, do
not form a consensus against any "ism" at all - they are all ideas put
forth in the marketplace of scientific theories, attempting to
progressively improve our ability to explain and predict our world.
Creationism, in contrast, is an "ism" indeed - a set of fideistic
beliefs in search of evidence.
All real scientific and philosophical thinkers are always welcome to
contribute to scientific discourse, whether or not their ideas
contradict currently held theories. What is never welcome is the sort
of "us vs. them" mentality that this article displays, where the author
lists anyone who suggests additions, modifications, or changes to
current theories and pretends this represents some sort of overturning
of "Darwinism" (and, by fallacious implication, support for
Creationism).
Posted By: Paul Burnett
Date: July 4, 2011 12:35:36 AM
The article summary states "science knows Darwinism is dead."
Yet the only reference the author can produce supporting this contention
is from Andrew Cohen, not a scientist at all but a spiritualist accused
of being a manipulative spiritual teacher by his own mother and others.
Science doesn't even use the term "Darwinism" - essentially only enemies
of science use the term "Darwinism," as a code word for evolution,
which they vehemently oppose. Here's why evolution is so hated and
feared by fundagelical Christians, who prefer to take comfort in
scientific illiteracy and willful ignorance:
The story of Adam and Eve is obviously a myth - it's simply not true.
And since there were literally no such persons as the obviously
mythological Adam and Eve, there was thus no such thing as Original Sin.
Thus death did not enter the world through the sinful actions of Adam
and Eve, and humans do not need to be saved from anything - and the
whole Christian edifice falls apart - because it is based on a myth.
The scientific fact of evolution kills not just Adam and Eve, but
reveals Christ's death as atonement for Original Sin to be completely
pointless, as there was no such thing as Original Sin.
Now, because of that, fundagelical Christians wish desperately and
fervently for evolution and all other sciences (biology, geology,
astronomy and almost every other branch of science) to go away - because
science disproves their comforting fairy tale. But just because some
people prefer ignorance does not make evolution untrue. Wishing for
something does not make it happen, except in fairy tales.
Essentially every supporter of intelligent design creationism is a
covert or overt religious fundamentalist. Such fundamentalists do not
oppose "Darwinism" or evolution or biology or science for scientific
reasons - they oppose it for religious reasons, and try desperately to
make their arguments sound all sciencey.
Posted By: Bob Carroll
Date: July 4, 2011 06:26:43 AM
By referring to "Darwinism," you introduce unnecessary
confusion. Do you mean Darwin's original ideas, written over 150 years
ago? I'd guess not, but then why call it by this name? Very few
scientific concepts remain unchanged over such a long time. One thing
remains, however: Evolution need say little about the origin of life
itself. Evolution is centrally about the changes that life undergoes,
once life exists. For Darwin's original concepts to be true, all that
is necessary is that reproduction occurs, in which characteristics of an
organism are passed on to progeny, and the passing on is less than
perfect. Then, if not all the progeny survive, those that do reproduce
in turn will have a tendency to be more capable of survival in their
current environment, than those that do not. That plus time is all that
is necessary to generate long term change. By concentrating your essay
on our current lack of knowledge as to how life began, you are changing
the subject.
Further, terms like "random" and "chance" have to be taken in context.
Chemical changes are far from random, and all the cellular changes
involve chemistry. Randmness here refers to whether the differences
between parent and offspring are favorable or not for survival. (And
some recent work suggests that even this limited sort of randomness is
not always the case.) Your essay also ignores the nonrandom screening
processes originally described as "natural selection."
Your essay joins a very long lst of claims that Darwinism is dead.
Indeed, since evolution preceded Darwin by at least 50 years, such
claims existed before he wrote "On the Origin." Glen Morton has compiled
an extensive list showing about 200 years of wishful thinking in this
regard. Currently, the Discovery Institute is keeping up this tradition.
Posted By: Paul Benedict
Date: July 4, 2011 10:58:27 AM
Hi Bob,
Jonathan Wells book Icons of Evolution ran through a list of textbooks
whose basic description of Darwinian processes have remained unchanged
since my high school days—and that was almost within the time frame of
the first uses of the word evolution. Well, it was a decade or two after
the neo-Darwinist watershed of the 1950’s anyhow.
The Miller-Urey experiments explaining the origin of life as random
chance are often taught. What should be taught is that for almost forty
years the scientific consensus has been that the Darwin Theory’s
explanation of life arising through purely random chemical processes is
inadequate.
Any teacher, professor, textbook or curriculum committee that says otherwise is either disingenuous or unintelligent.
I will predict this also Bob: if true science shows that random
processes cannot originate a single living cell, then, when science gets
there (and it is moving really fast right now), it will show that
random mutations/variations cannot possibly explain entirely new systems
of hereditary information relative to each new species of life. This
seems self-evident.
Posted By: Dr. Gary Hurd
Date: July 4, 2011 11:01:51 AM
Mr. Benedict, the errors of fact and logic in your recent post
are so extensive that their corrections have taken a longer essay than
your original. It easily exceeds the posting limits here, and I have
made it a post to my blog, Stones and Bones, titled "Darwinism is dead" Oh really?.
Posted By: Paul Benedict
Date: July 4, 2011 11:13:26 AM
Aigury,
Tradition dies hard and it can be very emotional. Please don't shoot the
messenger. My article states that the consensus is that random
processes could not have given rise to a single cell. I mentioned that
many of the scientists sought other explanations besides Intelligent
Design. I said nothing about Creationism, which to many includes a whole
young earth theory that has nothing to do with microbiological
processes.
There is no us vs. them mentality in my view. In fact this is an attempt
at reaching common ground. Creationist, Intelligent Design, Panspermia
adherent or molecular-Darwinist all agree that the cell couldn't have
occurred on earth by chance. I will add that I would recommend that we
stop teaching the Miller-Urey experiments
as fact, and that we explain to high school studnets the inadequacy of
the Darwin Theory in explaining the origins of life. Additionally,
because the recognition of the implication of the science on the cell
has taken so long, the corrected elements of the Darwin theory should be
on state tests.
Posted By: Paul Benedict
Date: July 4, 2011 11:29:26 AM
Dr. Hurd:
Besides the needless mockery-- most unscientific-- I gather from your blog that you agree with the premise. Random processes cannot account for the origin of a single cell.
The neo-Darwinist tack, that assumes life began by chance (which is
logically consistent with the notion that macroevolution and the ascent
of man arises by chance mutation), that puts the Miller-Urey experiments
in high school texts, you acknowledge should be removed in favor of
Darwin's original words.
I concur, for this leads to healthy questions like where, then, did the
Darwin's "at most only four or five progenitors (of man)" come from?
Posted By: Dr. Gary Hurd
Date: July 4, 2011 12:02:01 PM
Mr. Benedict makes much of a list of scientists who, according
to him, "recognize that random chance alone cannot have produced the
simplest cellular life." I'll quote Benedict's remarks, and interpose
corrections in[COLOR="blue"] Blue[/COLOR]
Christian de Duve, for example, a Nobel Prize winner, and in no way
an advocate of Intelligent Design, has abandoned random chance as the
agent of upwards evolution or the ascent of man. He envisions primordial
planet earth as a chemical reaction
[COLOR="blue"](secondary citation to de Duve, �Contingency and
determinism� Pier Luigi Luisi, doi: 10.1098/rsta.2003.1189 Phil. Trans.
R. Soc. Lond. A 2003 361, 1141-1147 )[/COLOR]
waiting to happen. Recognizing that the odds of random chance being impossibly against
[COLOR="blue"](Links to a 1995 OOL review article, "The Beginnings of
Life on Earth" in American Scientist for general readers. De Duve did
not make a single reference to any probability, or �odds� or �random
chance� opposing the natural origin of life. Just the opposite, in fact.
The main thrust of the article was de Duve�s well known argument for
the centrality of thioester chemistry to the OOL, and that life will be-
must be- ubiquitous in the universe. This is not a surprising error for
a creationist like Mr. Benedict to have made, either from ignorance, or
dishonesty)[/COLOR]
the formation of a single cell, let alone man, he has ceaselessly
been searching for the string of chemical reactions that, once started,
must have inevitably and, without chance, led to mankind. So far... no
luck.
[COLOR="blue"]De Duve, like Gould and others rejects the strict
teleological argument that somehow humanity is the "goal" of evolution,
or the Universe. Mr. Benedict seems to have no actual grasp of any of
these issues which should have been clear if he had tried to read the
references he scattered in his comment, particularly Luigi
Luisi.[/COLOR]
Posted By: Dr. Gary Hurd
Date: July 4, 2011 12:19:55 PM
Ilya Prigogine, won his 1977 Nobel Prize for his
theory that biological life self-assembled from inorganic non-life
through the non-equilibrium thermodynamic processes. Again, random
chance was abandoned, this time for the notion of an outside force
arising in a thermodynamic process that, somehow, energized evolution.
Such a force has never been identified.
[COLOR="blue"]Like every creationist I have ever encountered, Mr.
Benedict is clueless about thermodynamics. There is no �outside force�
invoked by Prigogine.
Two resources for Benedict to read are;
�The second law of thermodynamics and evolution� by Frank L. Lambert, Professor Emeritus
Occidental College, Los Angeles, CA 90041
(Link blocked)
C. Bustamante, J. Liphardt, F. Ritort
�The Nonequilibrium Thermodynamics of Small Systems�
Physics Today, vol. 58 (2005) 43-48
(Link blocked, available at arxiv)
The "Laws" of thermodynamics only operate within boundary conditions, no
different from Newton's "Laws" of motion. They are just dandy within
their boundary conditions, but utterly fail beyond them. In particular,
it is known that the 2nd law does not hold at extremely small scales,
such as found within cells. The 1st law fails in quantum vacuums. This
is real science, not superstition, or mysticism.[/COLOR]
Posted By: Dr. Gary Hurd
Date: July 4, 2011 12:56:50 PM
Manfred Eigen, won the Nobel Prize in 1967 for his
work measuring extremely fast chemical reactions brought about by energy
pulses. Though proud to use the term evolution, his models of the
origin of life are not based on chance but on self-organizing chemical
reactions that cycle to higher and higher levels. He is also the author
of Eigens Paradox that explains a critical problem in positing cycles of
RNA that lead to DNA.
Mr. Benedict has this problem; he doesn�t have any idea of what �random�
or �chance� or �random chance� mean in probability theory, chemistry,
or how they might apply in evolutionary theory, or studies of the origin
of life. When I have taught statistics and probability at the college
level, I had the advantage of very intelligent students committed to
learning. I doubt that this is currently the situation.
One of the greatest philosophical advances of all time was the notion
that real life should be the basis for our understanding of the
universe. This was in direct contradiction of Platonic ideas of some
�perfect� reality which was beyond the perception of mere humanity. But,
this appeal to reality is what makes science �work.� In this specific
context of the �Eigen�s Paradox,� we can default to real physical data
which trumps philosophical speculation. The particular result I have in
mind is;
�d�m Kun, Mauro Santos & E�rs Szathm�ry
2005 �Real ribozymes suggest a relaxed error threshold� Nature Genetics
37, 1008 - 1011 Published online: 28 August 2005 | doi:10.1038/ng1621
Abstract: The error threshold for replication, the critical copying
fidelity below which the fittest genotype deterministically disappears,
limits the length of the genome that can be maintained by selection.
Primordial replication must have been error-prone, and so early
replicators are thought to have been necessarily short. The error
threshold also depends on the fitness landscape. In an RNA world, many
neutral and compensatory mutations can raise the threshold, below which
the functional phenotype, rather than a particular sequence, is still
present. Here we show, on the basis of comparative analysis of two
extensively mutagenized ribozymes, that with a copying fidelity of 0.999
per digit per replication the phenotypic error threshold rises well
above 7,000 nucleotides, which permits the selective maintenance of a
functionally rich riboorganism with a genome of more than 100 different
genes, the size of a tRNA. This requires an order of magnitude of
improvement in the accuracy of in vitro�generated polymerase ribozymes.
Incidentally, this genome size coincides with that estimated for a
minimal cell achieved by top-down analysis, omitting the genes dealing
with translation.
The Miller-Urey experiments explaining the origin of life as
random chance are often taught. What should be taught is that for
almost forty years the scientific consensus has been that the Darwin
Theory’s explanation of life arising through purely random chemical
processes is inadequate.
Although Darwin did address the question of abiogenesis briefly, those
speculations were not part of his theory of evolution (which deals only
with organisms that reproduce with semi-conservative heredity).
Moreover, you (and apparently Wells) are confused about chemical
processes, which are never "purely random". If chemistry was purely
random, we could never understand or predict anything about it. In
fact, we have learned a great deal about the regular, highly constrained
processes of chemical reactions.
Whether or not you think we have made substantial progress on
understanding how first life arose, your thinking on the matter relies
on a false dichotomy: In your arguments, you imply that there are two
possible answers to the question of how first life arose, which are (1)
"purely random chemical processes" and (2) "intelligent intervention".
In reality, neither of these "answers" are explanations of any use at
all. Neither "unspecified intelligent cause" nor "unspecified
unintelligent cause" tell us anything whatsoever about anything!
Nothing follows from either of these claims; we can't make any
predictions or check our explanations against the facts, because neither
of these "answers" describe the cause being proposed in any way.
In order to actually explain the origin of first life (or anything else), we need to propose something
that we can characterize specifically enough to go about seeing if
we're right or not. Perhaps the true explanation can be expressed by
what we already know about physics and chemistry, or perhaps we need to
learn something new about physics/chemistry, or perhaps we need to learn
about something new entirely in order to understand how (or even if) life arose from non-life.
But you suggest that our failure so far to understand the origin of life
somehow means that no amount of further discovery could ever explain
it, and so we must instead invoke an unspecified entity that we decide
can simply do anything we need It to do in order to explain whatever it
is we're trying to explain. Your suggestion has nothing to do with
rational inquiry.
Posted By: Dr. Gary Hurd
Date: July 4, 2011 01:39:23 PM
Lynn Margulis believes parasites aided random chance in the evolution of the cell.
I had to chuckle that Mr. Benedict should bring Lynn Margulis to his
little party. One of her big objections to Darwinian thinking is that
she thinks that Darwin�s emphasis on competition, and struggle is merely
an expression of capitalist imperialism. And, she is not totally wrong.
Darwin�s thinking was very focused on individual reproductive success,
and he didn�t see interspecies cooperation as a major selective
advantage. This thinking was strongly influenced by economists starting
with Malthus, but especially Herbert Spencer. It was Spencer who coined
the phrase �survival of the fittest,� and it was he and not Darwin who
thought this should be applied to societies as well. In Chapter 5 of the
"Decent of Man," Darwin wrote regarding the protection of the weak and
ill,
�Nor could we check our sympathy, even at the urging of
hard reason, without the deterioration in the noblest part of our
nature. The surgeon may harden himself whilst performing an operation,
for he knows that he is acting for the good of his patient; but if we
were to intentionally neglect the weak and helpless it could only be for
a contingent benefit, with an overwhelming present evil.�
I am also puzzled because Margulis has nothing to say about the origin
of life, or �randomness,� however Benedict might mean it. Her major
contribution was to find real data to support the endosymbiosis
speculation first proposed by the Russian botanist, Konstantin
Mereschkowski. What this resulted in was the realization that the great
leap in evolutionary complexity from bacteria to Eukaryote cells was not
as difficult as had been imagined. This is hardly a point to raise
against evolutionary theory.
My article states that the consensus is that random processes could not have given rise to a single cell.
As I and others have tried to explain to you, nobody thinks that
random processes gave rise to cells. You need to stop using this word
"random", because it has nothing to do with the issues at hand.
Darwinian evolution refers to mutations that are random with regard to
fitness, but all this means is there is no correlation between an
organism's needs and the mutations that occur.
There is no us vs. them mentality in my view.
What I mean is that you think by pointing out dissent among scientists,
or failure of some research program or another, you have somehow
discounted "random" processes which in turn provides support for
"intelligent" processes. This is the nonsense I am objecting to.
Posted By: Dr. Gary Hurd
Date: July 4, 2011 01:48:59 PM
2. Freeman Dyson, feeling random chance and self-organizing molecular scenarios are insufficient seems to believe
[COLOR="blue"](The associated link seems a random reference bluff, as
it is not related to Dyson, or evolutionary biology, or the origin of
life)[/COLOR]
in a combination of Eigens self-organizing RNA
cycles and Lynn Margulis sense that cellular evolution was the result
of parasites.
[COLOR="blue"](Dyson, a physicist, is an
active, practicing Christian, and received the Templeton Prize in 2000.
He might be broadly considered a pantheist- there is a cosmic �mind of
god.� He has dabbled in origin of life speculations, and some serious
OOL researchers, eg. David Deamer appreciated some of his ideas. I don't
know of any that actaully have lead to any actual experiments).[/COLOR]
Posted By: Dr. Gary Hurd
Date: July 4, 2011 02:12:34 PM
3. Michael Polanyi, whose interest in science often
impacted his philosophic notions, rejected chance as the origin of life
in "Life’s Irreducible Structure."
[COLOR="blue"]I am not going to extend any discussion of Polanyi beyond
noting that the article linked by Mr. Benedict is to a 1968 paper. There
Polanyi makes two rather regretable assertions, “Life is like a
machine," and "DNA is a blueprint.” When scientists try to explain
things to non-scientists they often employ terrible analogies, like
cells are machines, or that DNA is a "blueprint." In this case, I think
that Polanyi more or less really meant what he said. If he did, then he
was wrong. For example, we can make DNA by the cup, or liter. We can
copy the DNA of any living organism, or make up our own unique DNA
sequences. We can knock chunks of DNA out of an organism, or stick new
DNA into them. We know that DNA is not a "blueprint." If any of you have
ever worked in construction, you will also know that a "blueprint"
isn't the exact guide to what is built, either.
None of this could have been known by Polanyi writting over 40 years
ago. This is why we avoid obsolete references in active research. They
are only interesting historically, or to creationists trying to fake-up
an argument favoring magic over science. [/COLOR]
4. Bernd-Olaf Kuppers, [COLOR="blue"](PhD biophysics under
Eigen)[/COLOR] like Michael Polanyi, supports his notions that the whole
[COLOR="blue"](the living cell)[/COLOR] is greater than the sum of its
parts (chemical reactions) [COLOR="blue"](This points to a religious
website and a secondary citation to, “Understanding Complexity“, in: A.
Beckermann, H. Flohr and J. Kim (eds.), Emergence or Reduction?, Berlin
1992: 241-256 (reprinted in: R. J. Russell, N. Murphy and A. R.
Peacocke (eds.), Chaos and Complexity, Vatican City State 1995: 93-105).
Needless to say, but there is no evidence of anything presented at
all).[/COLOR] with evidence that random chance cannot result in the
irreducible complexity of a living organism (60) nor explain the
information it transmits. [COLOR="blue"](This is a meaningless citation
to a book, “Information and the origin of life” The argument is
regarding Karl Popper’s (incorrect according to K�pper) probability
argument about the abiotic synthesis of an enzyme. Since no serious OOL
researcher is proposing that enzymatic proteins self assembled, this is a
meaningless discussion).
[/COLOR]
5. Bernd-Olaf Kuppers, using methodology like that of noted Darwinian
apologist Richard Dawkins, also modeled mathematical algorithms that
guide randomly generated computer simulations of origin of life
scenarios. [COLOR="blue"](Dawkins has not modeled origin of life)
[/COLOR]Kuppers calls his theory of self-organization the
molecular-Darwinistic approach. It is hard to tell what Kuppers means by
statements like, inanimate matter organized itself of its own accord
into animate systems (82). [COLOR="blue"](This is another meaningless
citation to a book, “Information and the origin of life” The argument is
regarding Karl Popper’s (incorrect according to K�pper) probability
argument about the abiotic synthesis of an enzyme).
[/COLOR]
I would be very surprised if Mr. Benedict could explain what he thought these citations were supposed to have proven.
I'm not a conspiracy monger. I don't think 9/11 was
perpetrated by the Bush administration. I don't think the Apollo Moon
landings were a hoax. I don't think the Protocols of Zion are real.
But... I do find something interesting in the list of "Intelligent
Design Proponents" provided by Mr. Benedict:
Dean Kenyon is a Senior Fellow of the Discovery Institute
William Dembski is a Senior Fellow of the Discovery Institute
Douglas Axe is director of the Discovery Institute's Molecular Biology Research Program
David Berlinksi is a Senior Fellow of the Discovery Institute
Charles Thaxton is a Fellow of the Discovery Institute
Paul Nelson is a Fellow of the Discovery Institute
Jonathan Wells is a Senior Fellow of the Discovery Institute
Michael Behe is a Senior Fellow of the Discovery Institute
Stephen Meyer is a founder of the Discovery Institute
Isn't it interesting that nearly every "scientist" or proponent of ID
listed by Mr. Benedict is an officer of the same hyper-conservative
political lobbying organization funded by the radical Christian Right?
Isn't it interesting that the supposed "science" of these men is just a
ploy, AS THEIR OWN STRATEGY PAPER SAYS, "to replace materialistic
explanations with the theistic understanding that nature and human
beings are created by God."
If this all seems a bit fishy, it is. This whole Intelligent Design
nonsense is a marketing strategy for Christian fundamentalists, and is
laid out in detail in the leaked strategy paper "The Wedge".
I don't know if Mr. Benedict is a member of this political action
campaign, or is simply a dupe who fell for the marketing hype and didn't
do his homework. Either way, he doesn't appear to have any respect for
truth, and therefore is not deserving of respect in return.
Posted By: Bob Carroll
Date: July 4, 2011 04:40:58 PM
Hi, Paul,
This discussion has developed in a manner similar to many others I've
read and/or participated in. We start with a very general statement:
in this case "Scientists agree that Darwinism is dead." It seems to be
the conclusion of a (presumably) non-scientist, based on extensive
reading on the subject. Others chime in, including some scientists,
demurring. Extensive quotes are provided by the original author. The
discussion entails pointing out some comprehension errors - in this
case , a number of technical terms that are misused, including in our
case, "random." The examples provided by the author do not address the
subject of the original broad claim. Here I am referring to the fact
that no specific processes of the origin of life are required for
evolution to occur. Origin of life is an important research field, to be
sure, but not central to Darwinism.
The author broadens his claim by introducing new topics without
addressing the objections already introduced. Here we see objections
about the Miller-Urey experiments as not showing the origin of life,
something these experiments did not claim to show. As the discussion
develops, it becomes clear that the author is taking his lead from a
specific book, the one by Jonathan Wells, which most scientists would
regard as a polemic by an individual with a very specific ax to grind.
That list of "scientists" who object to Darwinism, the last time I
looked at it, includes outright non-scientists such as William Dembski,
and other prominent members of the Discovery Institute, and very few,
if any, researchers with direct experience in the scientific field of
interest. Furthermore, the statement they all signed is so vague and
wishy-washy that almost any scientist could sign it, supposing that the
signer wasn't concerned about what use the signature would be put to.
On a lighter note, consider the similar list compiled by the NCSE, This
list of well over 1000, with a much stronger statement supporting
evolution, consists of scientists in pertinent fields whose name is
"Steve," or cognates.
Paul, I'd like to think that you would agree that your original
statement, while useful to attract attention and to get a good
discussion going, has been sufficiently disposed with, and shown to be
false.
Now, I don't know if Darwinism is in fact dead, I do know that
in fact Darwin is dead. What I don't know is how a chemical bond works,
not that it works, but how it works? Not an act of faith, which is what
chemistry is all about, along with intelligent design.
Posted By: Dr. Gary Hurd
Date: July 4, 2011 05:29:18 PM
Now, I don't know if Darwinism is in fact dead, I
do know that in fact Darwin is dead. What I don't know is how a chemical
bond works, not that it works, but how it works? Not an act of faith,
which is what chemistry is all about, along with intelligent design.
Really? If you want to learn chemistry, Community Colleges are the best
bargain in education. Take freshman chemistry + the laboratory. It is
all about the chemical bond. There is no need to take anything in
science on "faith" unless you are too lazy, or too busy to take a few
classes. (Well, there is too stupid, or crazy, but they tend to reject
science anyway).
Posted By: Dr. Gary Hurd
Date: July 4, 2011 06:03:45 PM
Hi, Paul,
This discussion has developed in a manner similar to many others I've read and/or participated in.
...
That list of "scientists" who object to Darwinism, the last time I
looked at it, includes outright non-scientists such as William Dembski,
and other prominent members of the Discovery Institute, and very few,
if any, researchers with direct experience in the scientific field of
interest. Furthermore, the statement they all signed is so vague and
wishy-washy that almost any scientist could sign it, supposing that the
signer wasn't concerned about what use the signature would be put to.
On a lighter note, consider the similar list compiled by the NCSE, This
list of well over 1000, with a much stronger statement supporting
evolution, consists of scientists in pertinent fields whose name is
"Steve," or cognates.
Paul, I'd like to think that you would agree that your original
statement, while useful to attract attention and to get a good
discussion going, has been sufficiently disposed with, and shown to be
false.
I would say, Bob, that you are totally correct. You might be interested
that when we formulated the statement for "Project Steve" (remember
Google) considerable discussion was devoted to the origin of life
question. We knew that creationists from the Discovery Institute were
using the fact that OOL is still an open question to insinuate that
therefore all of biology was false. But, in the end we came to the
conclusion that since evolutionary biology was independent of OOL, we
didn't need to address it.
The Project Steve Statement has been signed by every Noble winning Steve alive today;
Evolution is a vital, well-supported, unifying principle of
the biological sciences, and the scientific evidence is overwhelmingly
in favor of the idea that all living things share a common ancestry.
Although there are legitimate debates about the patterns and processes
of evolution, there is no serious scientific doubt that evolution
occurred or that natural selection is a major mechanism in its
occurrence. It is scientifically inappropriate and pedagogically
irresponsible for creationist pseudoscience, including but not limited
to "intelligent design," to be introduced into the science curricula of
our nation's public schools.
Posted By: National Velour
Date: July 4, 2011 07:51:12 PM
Excellent article Mr. Benedict! How sad for those still
clinging to the hopeless notion that blind, random chance could create
the complex life found even in the 'simplest' cell. BTW, looking at
some of the responses, it seems you're experiencing firsthand what
happens to those who DARE to point out the emperor (darwin's theory) has
no clothes. Kudos for having the courage to stand up for the truth.
Posted By: dcochran@dnx.net
Date: July 4, 2011 09:09:29 PM
Reply to RickK:
"Isn't it interesting that nearly every "scientist" or proponent of ID
listed by Mr. Benedict is an officer of the same hyper-conservative
political lobbying organization funded by the radical Christian Right?"
So what? Birds of a feather often flock together. Darwinain/Evolution
fans/scientists do too. It's the science that counts, not the politics
or religion. And the science ain't pointing to Darwinain/Evolution.
Posted By: elroyjetsn
Date: July 5, 2011 08:19:40 AM
Paul,
Thanks for your gutsy and balanced treatment of the demise of Darwinism.
While Darwin made valid points about the significance of adaptation in
nature and that adaptation could bring about interesting changes in
remote and isolated populations, adaptation doesn't require any new
genetic information necessarily. You could just as easily say that
variability for such adaptive change could have been already written
into the genetic code. The reality is that the cell is a finely tuned
machine and intolerant of much change. Just like random brushstrokes
won't improve on the Mona Lisa. As we can see here, many in the
scientific establishment prefer to stick their heads in the sand and
demand that we all cowtow to Darwinian orthodoxy. As long as they do so
science will lanquish and it's credibility will continue to wither away.
It's amazing how many organizations have sprung up to enforce Darwinian
orthodoxy. Most can see that their desire isn't to protect the truth,
but to rally the troops to sandbag the breeches in their levees.
Posted By: Bob Carroll
Date: July 5, 2011 11:11:47 AM
Elroy, hopefully my breeches don't need sandbagging, a least while I am wearing them!
I think we can all agree that it is not true that "undirected chance
change is solely responsible for the observed variety of life." No one
is arguing in favor of this, nor did Darwin. What is typically ignored
here is the distinctly non-random processes which act on mutational
changes in the genome, which Darwin introduced as "natural selection."
There is considerable discussion in the literature as to the importance
of this evolutionary mechanism as opposed to other processes, such as
founder effect or genetic drift. And don't forget that Darwin
introduced a second mechanism, sexual selection.
Can we say that "Darwinism" is dead? I don't see how! Of course it may depend on your definition of "Darwinism."
Posted By: Paul Benedict
Date: July 5, 2011 03:37:59 PM
Aigury�I did not lend support to Intelligent Design.
Random mutations and random chemical processes are not identical, but
they are often taught as such in high school textbooks. The consensus
that random chemical processes cannot produce a single cell should be
taught plainly in high school textbooks. Additionally, the Miller
experiments should not be taught.
Although there is not yet a consensus on
a. how macroevolution could take place or
b. what kinds of random mutations must occur for a new species to arise
I will assert that if random chemical processes cannot give rise to a
single cell, it will be equally evident, as science advances, that the
changes in an organism that must take place for it to become a new
species cannot take place by random mutation.
RickK
I thought I was extremely up front about which scientists were
Intelligent Design advocates and which were not. The idea behind the
article is that many different groups of extremely influential scientist
agree: there is no scientific evidence that random chemical process
gave rise to a single cell.
Bob,
Thank-you for conceding the core of the argument, that random chance
chemical process could not have given rise to a single cell.
I will likewise concede, that variation in living species is the result
of adaptation and heredity. I don�t believe this is even open to
discussion. However, I don�t consider this to be the core of the Darwin
theory but rather of Mendel�s laws.
I will raise you one�Although this article does not say there is a
scientific consensus on this point at all, I assert that microevolution
(via Mendel�s laws) is everywhere evident macroevolution is not.
Further, science will soon discover that the systemic differences
between each species will show that, as with the cell, it is
mathematically impossible that species differentiation could have
occurred by random mutation.
To All above and to Dr. Hurd�it seems to me that you often repeat what I
have said as though I didn�t say it in an effort to cast what you�ve
heard in this light: I object to Darwinism on religious grounds. That is
absolutely false.
However, I do worry that whether because of a religious education in
your own background, or the twinges of conscience, that each of you feel
that I would send you to church. You are mistaken. I simply don�t like
nonsense disseminated in the name of science.
Posted By: Bob Carroll
Date: July 5, 2011 08:02:30 PM
My "concession" referred to the variation in living organisms
introduced by evolutionary processes. I've repeated that there is no
requirement in bio evolution that specifiesng how living cells came to
be, so that the method by which cells originally appeared is distinct
from "Darwinism." Now, once again, I'll try to state it clearly: NO
scientist argues that random errors in genome replication or elsewhere
are solely responsible for evolution. These errors, which certainly do
occur, are the raw material on which the decidedly nonrandom selection
processes work. These selection processes can be severe. For example,
as many as 50% or more of human fertilized ova fail to implant in the
uterus. These potential humans fail to "make the cut" for a variety of
reasons.
(I speculate here: they may fail simply because of incompatibility
between fetal and maternal tissues, or perhaps because they have gross
problems which make the embryos nonviable. More subtle
incompatibilities may become apparent later in an individual's life.)
I see too often this overemphasis on randomness. The existence of any
random factors in these processes seems to bother some folks, leading
them to dwell on this characteristic. Once again, the random behavior
that introduces variation is followed by the non-random wiinnowing of
selection.
This has nothing at all l to do with the processes leading to the formation of premordial cells.
Paul Benedict said: "I thought I was extremely up front
about which scientists were Intelligent Design advocates and which were
not. The idea behind the article is that many different groups of
extremely influential scientist agree: there is no scientific evidence
that random chemical process gave rise to a single cell. "
No... one group of scientists with a stated conservative, religious
political agenda actively promote Intelligent Design. They are all part
of the same political organization, funded by a man so conservative he
believes we should return to Old Testament laws and that it is not
necessarily wrong to stone women for adultery. This organization, the
Discovery Institute, publishes press releases daily attempting to refute
that species evolve through natural, unguided means - a stance that
99.5% of biologists find utter nonsense.
The remainder of your article is a random set of quotes cherry picked and arranged to attempt to look like support of ID.
As for your comment that "there is no scientific evidence that random
chemical process gave rise to a single cell", you utterly ignore the
interesting discoveries in origin of life research.
Here's what else you ignore - you ignore history, you ignore
rationality, and you ignore the lessons of nature. You complain that we
haven't proved origin of life by undirected means in the past 50 years
that the idea has been seriously researched. You are saying that
because science hasn't yet reproduced a billion years of chemical
reactions and evolution, that the answer must be a guiding force.
In making that claim, you are ignoring the THOUSANDS of examples
throughout history where similar claims were proved wrong. The Sun is
not a god, the moon is not a goddess, earthquakes are not caused by god,
volcanoes have nothing to do with angry spirits - the list goes on and
on and on for the past 2000+ years.
You are ignoring, Mr. Benedict, the simple fact that if you or ANYONE is
going to claim that a particular natural phenomenon has something other
than a natural, unguided cause, you're making a claim that historically
has a 100% failure rate. The burden of proof is on you, not on the
scientists doing OOL research.
I'll say it again so you get it. You're arguing against the scientific
approach that has NEVER been proved wrong, and using an argument that
has NEVER been proved right. What makes you different than all the
other failures throughout history? What makes you so special?
So take your little quote collection and your cadre of scientists on the
payroll of a psychotic Old Testament Reconstructionist, find some
integrity and do some actual science.
Posted By: Bob Carroll
Date: July 5, 2011 10:35:19 PM
Hi Paul: one more comment and then it's time to hit the sack.
Now that I've sufficiently distinguished betweem origin of life and
evolution, I'll add (gratuitously) my ideas on how life may have arisen,
as the fossils tell us, about 3.5 bilion years ago. This is
speculative, since OOL studies are not as far along as EVO.
First an oddity: for the earth's first 0.5 to 0.8 billon years,
geological evidence strongly suggests that the earth was too hot for
life to exist.. I have a strong feeling that liquid water is necessary
for our sort of life. So, much of earth's first billion years was spent
cooling off, getting rid of the heat due to kinetic energy of
collisions. And suddenly, there is life! It doesn't look like much
time was wasted after the earth cooled sufficiently.
This suggests to some scientists that panspermia might be needed. My take on this is that ok, for a local sort of panspermia.
Mars is just a bit smaller than earth, and would have cooled off sooner. And Mars had liquid surface water, early on.
Life could have gotten a start on Mars, and due to late bombardment,
might have made a trip to earth, piggybacking on a chunk of ejected
material, after a collision. This is one good reason to continue Mars
exploration. If life ever existed on Mars, it probably still does,
perhaps well below the surface. A DNA comparison betwen earth and Mars
organisms would be terrific.
But my gut feeling about OOL is that it doesn't take much encouragement
for life to start up. I suspect it is a natural chemical process,
requiring merely the right conditions, and a bit of time, perhaps just a
few thousand years.
What about those long odds to come up with a cell? For the most part, the calculations I've seen are obviously phony.
No one in their right mind would suggest that life began with a normal
protein molecule with, say, a string of 400 amino acids and 20
possibilities of a specific amino acid at every spot. That certainly
would give a really daunting probability. A more reasonable approach
would be to look for simpler structures, with interesting
characteristics, such as the catalytic abilitiy to replicate themselves.
The idea here is to generate a "prebiotic system' which may grow in
complexity over time.
Work on OOL goes on.. I am completely confident that we will soon have
unequivocal examples of human-generated living cells. We are about at
that point right now. We can now construct a virus to order from
off-the-shelf chemicals. It won't belong until we can make bacterial
cells similarly. And soon we wil be able to make prebiotic systems, and
watch them evolve and develop.
It might be a few years until we can describe with any confidence the
processes which occured on the earth, during the days leading up to
life. There is little remaining evidence of those processes -or maybe
we are overlooking some obvious examples thereof.
Why am I so confident of the direction and speed of research? Not,
unfortunately, because I am directly involved in the research myself.
But there is a long standing pattern which I am merely extending a bit.
Until 1828, chemists thought that organic chemicals (those produced by
living things) - could only be synthesized in living sysyems. Then
Wohler demonstrated that a nonliving process could indeed generate
organic compounds. This was a severe blow to the concept of 'vitalism'
- that living organisms were chemically completely different from the
nonliving.
In the last half of the 19th century, Darwn and others demonstrated that
species did not have clearly established boundaries- specied turned
out to be a convenient label, but ultimately fuzzy.
Skipping a bit, we arrive at the 1920s, for the discovery of filterable
viruses- tiny particles which either were simple living systems or
perhaps were mimicking some of the characterstics of life. They could
be crystallized like ordinary chemicals, and yet they reproduced!
There is no clearcut way to decide whether these viruses are living or
not; it depends how you define "living."
21th century! We now can compare the human genome to that of chimps
,viruses, and so many critters in between. It is no longer rationally
possible to deny common descent.
Now we are extending our knowledge further- it's good to remember that
the learning process requires us to also unlearn our past errors.
Bob said: "I see too often this overemphasis on randomness. The
existence of any random factors in these processes seems to bother some
folks, leading them to dwell on this characteristic."
Isn't it obvious why people focus on "randomness"? If they are the
result of "random", unguided natural processes, then they're NOT the
result of a caring deity who personally designed them. People who deny
natural, unguided abiogenesis and evolution do so because their
awesomely inflated egos can't accept that they are not the central
purpose of the universe.
Don't get me wrong - I'd LOVE to find out that we (and particularly my
kids) are watched over by some ever vigilant god who has their best
interests in mind. But the utter, remorseless, 2000-year failure of the
supernatural to successfully explain ANYTHING cannot be ignored.
If there's one thing we've learned from the billions of facts and
observations of nature throughout man's recorded history, it is this:
natural phenomena have natural causes. There has not been a single
exception to this rule in spite of all the generations who wanted to
find proof of the divine.
One final point - it is fascinating to me to see the hypocrisy of people
who deny evolution - either openly like Young-Earth Creationists, or
steathily like "Intelligent Design proponents" who are funded by
Young-Earth Creationists. They say science hasn't answered the
abiogenesis question and therefore it can't ever answer it.
My 10 year old daughter knows more about the fundamentals of human
origin than did all philosophers and theologians that ever lived prior
to about 300 years ago. That's a pretty impressive achievement, all
based on the simple approach: "assume natural causes, then go find
them".
Posted By: Bob Carroll
Date: July 6, 2011 06:43:20 AM
Right, RickK. However, I want to avoid imputing motives to
other participants in this discussion. It does seem odd to me that
randomness is seen to be something so negative, perhaps even
frightening, considering all of the random events which affect our
lives. We might start with the realization that our natures are
strongly affected by which sperm cell, among many thousands, arrives
first at the ovum when we are conceived..
Irrelevant, but I, like many biologists, am not an atheist. However, I
see no reason to beleive that a deity controls all of these random
factors. Oh, reading that sentence, I'm not a biologist, either. I'm a
physical chemist.
Posted By: Paul Benedict
Date: July 6, 2011 12:09:23 PM
Bob Carrol
Thanks for the late night letter on your views about OOL. I believe
there are citations in my original article that touch on many of your
points. However, the long odds you refute off-hand were done by a
variety of microbiologists and chemical engineers. Some of whom have won
Nobel Prizes.
I don't disagree with the notion of synthetic cells arising in the
future. I believe I did discuss these efforts in the last two paragraphs
of my article. These scientists don't do statistics on their work, but
their dependence on designing cells speaks for itself. As I wrote
to RickK, you are certainly welcome to cling to “hope” that someday the
Darwin theory will be proven relative to OOL, but that is a philosophy
of science, not science. Though I don't think it's wrong to hold any
philosophy that suits you, I do think it is wrong to insist your
philosophy of science is science itself.
Back to the merry-go-round:
Yes, natural selection can work when hereditary variations occur within species. Micro-evolution is not the issue.
There is no macro-evolution without positing random mutation that
originate not traits, but species. No macro-evolution, no origin of the
species. Oh, no macro-evolution, no random selection on the species.
Although this is not what this artilcle is about-- if no macroevolution then what is the
explanation for the perfect adaptation of each species to its habitat?
By the way, some argue that the evolutionary mechanisms of chance and
selection are really "smart," but most random forces leave marks,
destructive or imperfect marks-- less like sand on a beach which is the
result of endless regularities in nature, but more like a tornado in a
junk yard. There is nothing random about the perfcetion with which a
seal is adapted to the sea.
RickK,
The statistics are in. Read the writings of the Nobel Prize winning
scientists I've linked to. They are not cherry picked. The are the
leading microbiologists of their time. They looked at the math.
I also dealt with those who clinging to unfalsifiable claims like
Dawkins and Orgel. They like you don't want to quit on future research.
That is allowed but in my book that is a matter of faith not science...
It is faith in a naturalistic philosophy. I don't begrudge you your
faith, but I would have you be honest about it.
Additionally, ad hominem attacks
are logical fallacies and have no place in science. In other words, it
doesn't matter how horrible you think the man is, his arguments are all
that is up for discussion.
Paul,
The point of the article is that not all microbiologists agree with
Intelligent Design, but those listed above do agree that random chemical
processes alone could not have given rise to a single cell. Add to that
list Dr. Hurd and aiguy-- two of my staunchest critics.
I'm not a scientist, and neither is Paul Benedict.
I do understand the scientific process, but Paul Benedict gives no indication he's familiar with it.
if no macroevolution then what is the explanation for the perfect adaptation of each species to its habitat?
There is no perfection - at least not in the sense you are assuming.
From what I understand of the pseudoscientific brain-fart of
"macro-evolution", it is synonymous with speciation. And to deny that
speciation exists when it's been observed countless times is the
scientific equivalent of sticking fingers in one's ears and shouting
"LALALALALALALALALALA". It should be beneath one's dignity.
I won't even begin to get into the charade of "Darwinism". That is a
red herring in any discussion of the matter taking place after roughly
1880. Darwin was a hack. ...much like Paul Benedict. But Darwin never
professed to know; he simply asked questions and made observations. Others who were not hacks took his observations and said "Y'know, he's got a point. He phrased it rather clumsily, but he's got a point."
"Darwinism" is the modern term for an ignoramus's understanding of the
theory of evolution. They don't have the scientific background to
fathom it, so they reduce it to its pre-scientific hackery and argue
against that.
"Darwinism is dead"? Gee. Next you'll be saying that we're going to
run out of whale oil for our lamps and whale bones for our corsets.
most random forces leave marks, destructive or imperfect marks
Right. And the random forces which create population bottlenecks and
multiple puddles of a species right before the most rapid gains in
speciation have left marks all over the planet.
Additionally, ad hominem attacks are logical fallacies and have no place in science
Neither does straw manning, question begging, false causing or any of the other fallacies you employ, Paul.
It's rather difficult to argue against your argument without ad
hominizing when your argument is built to tightly upon your essential
character.
The crackpot-ism of Creationism avers that god created
everything, including life, and including the scientific principles by
which life lives, but that mere man - using the brain, Free Will, and
inquisitiveness "in his image" also created by god - cannot figure out
how life was created.
The pseudo-science of Intelligent Design does not propose a god
behind it all, just a non-random force [hereinafter referred to as
"little green men", to remove the temptation to devolve this into a
religious debate]; and mere man, unable to comprehend what those
too-clever-by-half little green men did shouldn't even bother trying.
Neither of those are science; one is actively anti-science, the other is "merely" a-scientific.
You want to gain credibility here Paul? Propose the little green men
with the technology far surpassing our own, and set about to prove them.
Leave your attempted debunkings of whomever alone, especially the
vagabond Darwin, and quit playing Battling Authorities. Yes, we get it:
every force has its equal and opposite, including PhDs. It doesn't
prove a damned thing.
You're overwhelmed by a science that you see as trivializing your belief system, so you allow a non-science to salve your ego.
It is you under discussion here, whether you understand it or not.
Posted By: Reginald Selkirk
Date: July 6, 2011 04:17:31 PM
You seem to be missing the point of the article. Every microbiologist (except a few who are designing RNA molecules) freely confess that some other force besides random chance must be part of the origin of the cell.
You don't say. Do you suppose that "some other force" could be natural selection?
(And no scientist would be slopy enough to label it a "force," which
has a specific definition within science.) Natural selection is
certainly not random, and it is bizarre to leave it out of the
discussion.
Posted By: Reginald Selkirk
Date: July 6, 2011 04:23:46 PM
(Fred Hoyle) was well-known for comparing the possibility of the random
rise of a single cell to the chance that a tornado hitting a junkyard
would produce a 747.
One of the problems with the 'tornado in a junkyard' argument is that it
is a strawman attack, it does not deal with the currently accepted
scientific explanation. Suppose, for instance that the single cell did
not suddenly and randomly rise, but instead evolved from a simpler form,
such as simple replicating molecules? Suddenly the probability
arguments used by Hoyle and so many ignorant creationists are seen to be
irrelevant and inapplicable. The 'tornado in a junkyard' argument is
analogous to saying that since a modern fuel-injected gasoline-powered
vehicle could not suddenly and randomly assemble itself, cavemen could
not have invented the wheelbarrow.
Posted By: Reginald Selkirk
Date: July 6, 2011 04:32:18 PM
Although this is not what this artilcle is about-- if no macroevolution then what is the
explanation for the perfect adaptation of each species to its habitat?
By the way, some argue that the evolutionary mechanisms of chance and
selection are really "smart," but most random forces leave marks,
destructive or imperfect marks-- less like sand on a beach which is the
result of endless regularities in nature, but more like a tornado in a
junk yard. There is nothing random about the perfection with which a
seal is adapted to the sea.
You mean like the fact that seals have to return to the surface to
breathe air, and that the bone structure of their flippers is clearly
derived from the wrist and hand/foot bones of land mammals, and that
they must return to land to raise their young?
Or, switching to humans, how about the frequency of back problems,
perhaps due to the relatively recent (less than 10 million years) climb
down from the trees of our primate ancestors? Or the fact that the
recurrent laryngeal nerve, connecting our brain to our vocal cords,
first goes down to the chest, wraps around the aorta, then goes back up
to the neck? Or the many perceptual and cognitive illusions to which we
are prone which show our nervous system and brain to be jury-rigged? The
list of imperfections goes on and on. And there is a common thread:
they are all the sort of imperfections which fit readily with an
evolutionary explanation, but which sudden creation cannot account for.
Posted By: Reginald Selkirk
Date: July 6, 2011 04:39:26 PM
Further, science will soon discover that the
systemic differences between each species will show that, as with the
cell, it is mathematically impossible that species differentiation could
have occurred by random mutation.
Very strange, since science has been steadily discovering exactly the
opposite. We now have the entire genomes of numerous species. Those
which evolution claims to be more closely related show more similarity
in their chromosomal make-up. Many specific differences can be readily
accounted for by known genetic processes - such as the clear evidence of
a chromosomal fusion event in humans which explains the difference in
the number of chromosomes from most of the other great apes. Such as the
broken gene involved in manufacturing vitamin C, which is broken in the
same place in humans and in most all primates.
The author is clearly not familiar with the great body of genetic and
evolutionary evidence available. Instead, it appears he started with his
conclusion and then went hunting for evidence which supported it.
Posted By: Reginald Selkirk
Date: July 6, 2011 05:02:36 PM
The Miller-Urey experiments explaining the origin of life as random chance are often taught.
As they should be. They are historically important. They were also
performed about 60 years ago. You could bring your exposure to the field
of abiogenesis research up to date a bit.
For example, here's an important work which appeared in 2009:
Synthesis of activated pyrimidine ribonucleotides in prebiotically plausible conditions
Powner, Gerland & Sutherland, Nature459, 239-242.
Paul Benedict said: "I don't begrudge you your faith, but I would have you be honest about it."
Yep, it's faith. I have faith that if I drop a hammer, it will fall
toward the center of the Earth. I base that faith on the data - every
time I've dropped a hammer, it has fallen more or less toward the center
of the Earth.
And my faith that life started through natural means is based on the
fact that everything we've EVER explained about nature has been
explained by natural causes. In addition, countless data points exist
where people tried to explain things through supernatural means, and
were proved wrong.
On the other side of the argument, you have faith in a supernatural
intervention that does not have a single datapoint in its favor. No
natural explanation has ever been replaced with a supernatural
explanation. No claim of "divine direction" or "divine intervention"
has ever withstood scrutiny.
So - yes, I am playing the odds. Maybe there's a supernatural being who
is diddling with DNA to make new species. But there is no evidence of
this. Your "long odds" claims are no different than a thousand other
examples throughout history where someone said "I can't imagine how this
could happen naturally". They were invariably wrong.
Why you're backing the side that has never once been proved right, I don't really understand. Now THAT takes faith.
Posted By: Paul Benedict
Date: July 7, 2011 12:04:55 PM
Dear RickK,
One last time...This article does NOT support ID as a science. The
science simply states that it is impossible that natural chemical
processes gave rise to the cell. Many of the scientists I note have
other ideas besides ID.
However, everyone assumes that I support ID because THEY feel that if
Darwinism is dead the only other PLAUSIBLE explanation is ID. That is
your conscience barking, not my article.
Posted By: Paul Benedict
Date: July 7, 2011 12:12:00 PM
Hi Reginald,
I've read somewhere... perhaps in the Epilogue to Signature in the Cell, or in Jonathan Well's online piece, that feature homology is NOT related (science is learning) to genetic homology.
In discovering the role of "junk" DNA it has become apparent that
certain features of DNA produce different macro-features according to
the series of sequences of DNA that does not directly produce proteins.
The online piece is much clearer I promise.
Anyhow, the question about seals is speculative. The science is not there yet.
Posted By: Paul Benedict
Date: July 7, 2011 12:14:33 PM
Hi Reginald
Please reread the last two paragraphs of the article above. I addressed,
more generally, a series of breakthroughs in RNA World related enzymes.
How the Miller experiments are taught is what is critical here. If they
were taught as an experiment discredited by later studies into the
environment of the younger earth and by the awesome complexity of
cellular life discovered since, that would be OK. Obviously that is not
how it is taught.
Posted By: Paul Benedict
Date: July 7, 2011 12:25:54 PM
rwilymz
For the 10,000th time: This article makes NO claims about Creationism or
ID-- Period. It states plainly that MANY, MANY non-ID SCIENTISTS,
several of them winners of a Nobel prize, have abandoned the notion, or
plainly refuted the notion, that random chemical processes gave rise to a
SINGLE cell.
That this is news to you is WHY i published this article. You're welcome.
Posted By: Dr. Gary Hurd
Date: July 7, 2011 06:09:03 PM
B.S.
You spread ID creationists all over your post, post DiscoTute links, and
then have a total lack of shame at saying, "This article makes NO
claims about Creationism or ID-- Period."
I am not going to make any further replies, as I don't consider you to be a rational person.
Posted By: Paul Benedict
Date: July 8, 2011 01:41:40 PM
Fine Dr. Hurd,
Keep your fingers in your ears, close your eyes, stomp your feet and accuse me of being irrational.
The ID scientists are clearly delineated as among many who are NOT ID or
Creationists. You, as others, hear your own logic. If some one says NOT
Darwin then the only plausible explanation must be ID. That is an ID
argurment. I did not make it.
The closest I came was a rhetorical question about the core of
Darwinism-- random mutation and the ascent of man. Even this was but a
prediction that the science will someday end this line of evolutionary
argument also. That day, by the way, is very close.
Paul Benedict said: "Even this was but a prediction that the
science will someday end this line of evolutionary argument also. That
day, by the way, is very close."
Since you're so fond of insisting what your article DOESN'T say, I'll ask - what EXACTLY do you mean by the above statement?
Are you saying that discoveries will disprove common descent - the
Darwinian idea that we all evolved from early, simple, common ancestors?
Are you saying that discoveries will disprove that species evolve through natural means, without divine/supernatural guidance?
Are you saying that discoveries will disprove that natural selection is one of the guiding forces of evolution?
Are you saying that science disproves the idea that a random burst of
good luck created the first fully-formed cell? Well, yeah, but nobody
is claiming that a fully-formed cell popped into being one day. So if
that's your point, you're arguing against a strawman of your own
creation.
Please cite what author in the past 20 years has claimed the first cell was created by a random explosion of good luck.
And while you're at it, can you name a single noteworthy biologist who
says that random genetic mutation (what you call "Darwinism" even though
Darwin knew nothing about genetics) is the only source of variation in
the evolutionary process? That's the strawman you've erected - but I
can't seem to find a single book on evolution written in the past 20
years where the author states that evolution progresses through random
mutation alone.
With all your defensive comments clarifying what you're NOT saying, I've lost the plot of what you ARE saying.
Please cite the actual claim you're trying to refute.
Posted By: Robertwll
Date: July 9, 2011 12:42:18 AM
I read down through the comments on this article, it is a
merry-go-round. The dissenters honestly believe that the vast majority
of scientists are straight up objective guys who would say otherwise if
they thought otherwise� sounds a little like clicking our heals to get
to Kansas anyone? The dissenter�s desperation blinds their rationality.
I would say that desperation does not befit otherwise obviously
intelligent men. The flippant religiosity of the dissenters in their
precious philosophical materialism fillets the flank of their attacks.
Lets open the doors a little further so we can see more clearly the man
behind the curtain. Certainly, the larger majority of scientists would
hold to their naturalistic religious indoctrination! They have poured
their lives into it. How many years and how much money does it cost to
get a PhD in Microbiology? How long does it take to become a tenured
professor or to get meaningful amounts of grant money? Are ethics
classes even required to get that PhD and what are the ontological
moorings for such ethics taught within a naturalistic framework
(remember, natural selection �natures red in tooth and claw� is at work
here!) Pulling the curtain a little harder reveals that the determinism
espoused by Hawking at the subatomic level leaves our dissenters unsure
if their own thoughts have been predisposed by random subatomic
fluctuations (that must be uncomfortable). The green man behind the
curtain is getting smaller and smaller and ugly as can be. But let�s
describe him in further detail. In fact, the same motivations and sadly
methodologies that produced at least 6 fraudulent hominid missing links
over the past what, 100 years are still in full effect. Produce links;
get paid. Buttress the party line; get paid. So what is the alternative?
Throw away your career, tenure, hard earned or borrowed money for that
precious PhD. What does the mob call it, oh yea, so you can have a
�professional hit� put out on you. Then, since your ethics class with no
foundation or moorings inspired you so much you can decide to be
completely candid and truthful about your thoughts on Macroevolution and
all the evidence you are finding against it. Then you can pay your
post-graduate loans off while working at McDonalds. Oh, yea there is
that great self-motivating factor of libertarian freedom without God� oh
shucks Hawking had to mess that up too. Oh well, at least the
appearance of libertarian freedom � every man then does what is right in
his own eyes. So the supposed myriads of rank and file scientists have
every reason to stay rank and file! Let�s grow up here. The
appearance of objectivity, motivation to produce results and the
loveless thought of the divine are well � giving charge of the bank
vault to the kleptomaniac.
Guys breaking rank and file are more believable! It has historically
always been that way rank and file have to much invested right down to
the middle school biology teacher! Like Behe said in his 10th
anniversary edition of Darwin�s black box. No significant work had been
done on the conundrums he presented in published work. Why, blind
chance, randomness cannot produce them! (Hey, if we had more time� so
millions of more students can be indoctrinated into philosophical
materialism, righht!) Big surprise. Id could have been axed years ago if
the hard science was there to dispute it. One of the goofball editors
of our local paper thinks that because some party line judge ruled
against intelligent design � well it must be faulty. Please?!
Posted By: Paul Benedict
Date: July 9, 2011 08:28:25 AM
RickK,
I've answered each and every one of your questions more than once. I
honestly don't get why you keep asking the same questions over and over.
Please reread the article carefully and my many comments.
Posted By: Paul Benedict
Date: July 9, 2011 08:31:48 AM
Hi Robert,
I've answered questions about my articles on a great number of pretty
controversial topics, but this group of critics suprised me-- not
because of their passion but because they kept ascribing things to my
artilce I didn't say and plainly didn't read the things I did say. An
odd experience.
Posted By: Robertwll
Date: July 9, 2011 05:42:50 PM
Hi Paul,
They equate naturalism with science. Anything outside of that paradigm
is crazy to them. The thought of moving one hairs breadth closer to
designer (which for me does imply theism) scares them so thoroughly for
more reasons then you could get them to admit. Loss of their perceived
libertarian freedom, think “Jonathon Edwards.” I would be processing
serious fear if I knew that 150 years of junk science, mountains of
inferences turned an entire culture against the being able to bring the
universe into existence out of nothing … yea … the only cosmological
model with evidence - big bang cosmology. Paul, fear is a powerful
motivator. Philip Johnson who wrote “The Wedge” years (it was brought up
earlier in a response) ago tagged most of these guys right on. He said
that most of them have no formal training in logic and couldn’t pick
apart a bad argument … it is just not their thing. Lawyers on the other
hand are wordsmith’s arguments are their playground. Johnson said he saw
the poor argumentation a mile away with these guys. It stems from the
lack of a classical education. (No time for it our children are studying
too much junk science via the state sponsored religion of naturalism.)
It is true; it is one of the more subtle reasons why our society hates
lawyers so much. So it probably feels bizarre, but it really isn’t to
them … but you kind of addressed that in the first two paragraphs of
your article. They are now in the place of the priests (the
establishment and national religion) and ID is in the place of
Copernicus and Galileo. A new generation will arise and clean the slate
just like with those distinguished scientists. Take care Paul.
Posted By: steve3007
Date: July 13, 2011 07:01:01 AM
Hello Paul Benedict,
I've read through your article and had a brief look at the huge list of
comments. It is a bit big and tangled! So I thought I'd start again with
just the article. Apologies if my points below have already been
addressed in previous comments.
I'm no biologist. Like yourself, I have no particular "allegiance" to
evolution or creationism or ID or anything else. I'm just interested in
good rigourous science and logical arguments.
---
Randomness
The thrust of your article seem to be:
"Random chance could not give rise to the cell"
and you seem to equate this with a thing that you call "Darwinism". I
don't know what this "Darwinsm" movement is, but I've read a little
about the the theory of evolution.
In a nutshell, I'm not sure what you mean by random chance giving rise
to the cell. My limited layman's understanding of the theory of
Evolution is that it involves random physiological variations,
(generated, as we now know, but Dariwn didn't know, by random genetic
mutations) being passed on to future generations by heredity and
selected out by the environment.
Obviously the environment is a non-random factor. So it seems to me that
evolution is not really a random process at all. No more random than if
I rolled a dice but only selected those dice which came up '6' and
threw away all the other results.
Or here's another analogy: Suppose I take a large random selection of
Lego bricks and throw them randomly over the floor, then I select the
bricks I need to make my model. Was my model created by random chance?
Maybe not a valid analogy. I don't know.
Anyway it seems that many of those researchers you list seem to be just
positing different processes that might be responsible for this
selection process. E.g. Lynn Margulis with her parasites. I don't see
how this says anything about the randomness. The randomness seems to
just provide the raw materials, not drive the building process.
---
Naturalism and Reductionism
Also, I'm not sure what you mean by the word "naturalistic". Do you mean
all processes that can, in principle, be observed by the senses? Are
you contrasting it with "super-natural"? If not, then what is there
apart from natural things?
You describe in your article the thoughts of scientists once they had abandoned the idea of life arising by chance:
"...There had to be, therefore, additional naturalistic answers.
There just had to be. They've looked for forty years; so far, nothing.
No promised land... nothing. Have we heard about the wandering
reductionists plight in our lowly high schools and state colleges? No...
mores the pity."
You seem to be suggesting that these scientists have failed to find
their answer because they were confining themselves to "naturalism" and
"reductionism". Am I right in thinking that?
So is it therefore your hunch that any alternative theory of the origins
of life would have to involve something that is super-natural and
non-reductionist - i.e. not suseptable to understanding by analysis of
its component parts? So it would have to be not perceptable, even in
principle, to the senses and it would have to also be an indivisible
holistic whole? Something like that?
---
Your main take-home message is, as the title says: "Darwinism is Dead",
by which you seem to mean: "Speciation and life arising by chance is
dead". You don't seem to object to evolution as such - just speciation
and a naturalistic cause for the origins of life.
I don't know about the origins of life - that's beyond my limited
knowledge! But do you have any suggestions as to what might replace the
evolutionary theory of speciation? It's just that it does seem a very
useful way of explaining all kinds of odd things, like the vestigial
hind legs on whales and the genetic code for manufacturing vitamin C
that is present in humans but switched off, and DNA retroviruses common
to different species. All that stuff that the defenders of evolution
always cite.
I guess any new explanation would have to give some kind of explaination all those things too?
---
I'd be interested to hear your thoughts on these things.
Posted By: Paul Benedict
Date: July 13, 2011 08:52:31 PM
Hi Steve,
It is probably best to refer to the neo-Darwinism of the 1950’s on which
my high school texts were still based several decades later. The
experiments of Stanley Miller represented the neo-Darwinian explanation
of the origin of life. Life arose by undirected combinations of
chemicals that, by chance, at random, combined in the conditions of the
early earth’s primordial soup.
Some of the scientists I note believe in “self-organizing” processes.
Graham Cairns-Smith’s theory works well as an analog for some of the
others. He speculated that crystal formation itself generated an
environment that collected more clay that allowed for more crystals to
form which collected more clay... and so on. This what self-organization
means for many that I have listed. Some seek self-organizing RNA or DNA
or other elements of the first cell. All of these scientists have
abandoned the neo-Darwinism of my high school days as represented by
Stanley Miller. None of these scientists have had any luck. No such
principles have arisen.
There are other scientists that postulate missing elements arriving on
meteor’s or in the volcanic depths of the oceans. These theories have
also all been disproven. All of these scientists, a significant number
of whom are winners of a Nobel Prize, all agree that the amazing
complexity of a single cell cannot have happened accidentally.
My point in this quote “"...There had to be, therefore, additional
naturalistic answers. There just had to be. They've looked for forty
years; so far, nothing. No promised land... nothing. Have we heard about
the wandering reductionists plight in our lowly high schools and state
colleges? No... mores the pity."
is that these scientists approach the problem of the origin of life from a faith standpoint or a philosophic model.
Yes, by naturalism I mean reductionism... a philosophical notion that
every phenomenon in life can be explained from a materialistic
standpoint.
I did spend some time talking about random mutations, natural selection,
and the ascent of man in the posts. It's not a major part of the
article because a consensus has not formed, as it has on the origin of
life. However, I suggest that if mathematics shows that undirected,
random processes can not explain the origin of a single cell, how likely
is it that random mutation can explain the ascent of man?
The issue is not supplying an alternative to neo-Darwinism in a science
book. I would be happy if everyone just told the truth. There’s plenty
of plain science for folks to learn without making stuff up.
Yes, a sort of nervousness sets in among some when it seems science
can't answer the biggest questions. That's OK. Maybe it's not science's
job.
Posted By: rwilymz
Date: July 19, 2011 09:59:36 AM
For the 10,000th time: This article makes NO
claims about Creationism or ID-- Period. It states plainly that MANY,
MANY non-ID SCIENTISTS, several of them winners of a Nobel prize, have
abandoned the notion, or plainly refuted the notion, that random
chemical processes gave rise to a SINGLE cell.
And in a forum of political philosophy that is a very misplaced animal. A person naturally attempts to seek motive in that.
Why are you writing this here rather than in, say, paleobiology.com? How on earth does this topic have a political philosophy component ... unless one was using it as a backhanded justification for the pseudo-science politics of Intelligent Design [sic]?
That this is news to you is WHY i published this article.
I let my subscription to Scientific American lapse many years ago, about
the time I discovered that I was more interested in how politics and
other social forces shape science than in the science itself. How do
people use and indeed abuse the principles of science to further their
own personal agendii...?
I am still left thinking that you are attempting to further some
political agenda which happily coincides with what a group of scientists
say, or ... you ... are ... um ... using what scientists say to further
your political agenda.
Posted By: steve3007
Date: July 23, 2011 04:21:05 AM
Hi Paul,
In answer to your response to my earlier response:
You said:
"Yes, by naturalism I mean reductionism... a philosophical notion that
every phenomenon in life can be explained from a materialistic
standpoint."
That is not a correct description of reductionism. Reductionism is the
process of examining a system by examining its component parts. We are
all reductionists whenever we say anything at all about the world. The
only way to avoid being a reductionist is to always regard the entire
universe as a single holistic whole. Obviously we don't tend to do that
in the normal course of life.
Materialism is the notion that there are no super-natural entities; no
entities that cannot be detected, directly or indirectly, by the senses.
It is not reductionism.
When you object to reductionism you are objecting to the very methods you use to argue against reductionism!
" I suggest that if mathematics shows that undirected, random processes
can not explain the origin of a single cell, how likely is it that
random mutation can explain the ascent of man?"
The thing to remember is that, as I said, evolution is not a random
process. I'm afraid your argument seems to be based on this initial
misunderstanding. As I said, just because there is randomness in a
process doesn't mean that process is random. Think of randomly throwing a
bag of Lego bricks across the floor so you can select the bricks you
need to build a model. The model is not built by a random process.
In my last message I quoted you in the article saying this:
"...There had to be, therefore, additional naturalistic answers. There
just had to be. They've looked for forty years; so far, nothing. No
promised land... nothing. Have we heard about the wandering
reductionists plight in our lowly high schools and state colleges? No...
mores the pity."
because it illustrates your conviction that naturalistic answers are not
enough to explain the origin of species. (Although you're confused as
to the definition of the word naturalism.) So I have to conclude that
you think there has to be a super natural origin. Am I wrong in that
conclusion?
We have implemented a new forum for reader comments. If you have not yet
established a new account in the new Nolan Chart vbulletin Forums, you will need to REGISTER in order to
post a comment to this article. To learn more about this recently implemented change,
read about the decision to add the new vbulletin forums to the site.
Other most recent articles published under this topic:
Old Myths Die Hard--Especially Overpopulation
by Kevin Roeten
Many myths are still popular in the western
culture--anthropogenic global warming, abstinence is outdated, etc...
The one that never quits is that overpopulation exists.
