Ovi -
we cover every issue
newsletterNewsletter
subscribeSubscribe
contactContact
searchSearch
Stop human trafficking  
Ovi Bookshop - Free Ebook
Tony Zuvela - Cartoons, Illustrations
Ovi Language
Michael R. Czinkota: As I See It...
The Breast Cancer Site
Tony Zuvela - Cartoons, Illustrations
Stop human trafficking
 
BBC News :   - 
iBite :   - 
GermanGreekEnglishSpanishFinnishFrenchItalianPortugueseSwedish
Evolutionists on Evolution 3/3 Evolutionists on Evolution 3/3
by Jack Wellman
2009-04-19 09:17:46
Print - Comment - Send to a Friend - More from this Author
DeliciousRedditFacebookDigg! StumbleUpon

Scientists say that Darwin and his theory helped to advance science. Nobel Laureate Ernst Chain wrote that his discovery of penicillin (with Howard Florey and Alexander Fleming) and the development of bacterial resistance to that antibiotic and it owed nothing to Darwin's and Alfred Russell Wallace's evolutionary theories.
 
This continued to be the case in the 20th Century: The mapping of genomes, research on medications and drug reactions; the characterization of the ribosome, the double helix structure’s discovery, the structure of the double helix, improvements in food production and sanitation; even new surgeries, and other developments.
 
By the stretch of logic, many of those same scientists say that a DNA molecule containing four billion bytes of perfectly arranged information did not come from a source of intelligence. It just "happened!"   In Charles Ruhla's The Physics of Chance (1992), he learns how to derive the predictions of quantum theory.  The predictions show that two distant objects can exert influence on one another, even, "faster than the speed of light".
 
The text begins with rather simple treatments of probability, applied to coin tosses and telephone queues, on to Boltzmann Statistics, and then finally to quantum theory. So as your reading through the chapters in the book, you pick up the "tools" you need as you go along, in order to understand the more difficult material later on. Ruhla's writing style is engaging, although aggregately difficult to stay with.
 
One thing that is evidently missing in textbooks or any other serious books about life’s mathematical possibilities are the probabilities quotient. Who in their right mind would ever believe that a dropped Scrabble game spelled out exactly, the Gettysburg Address? Every designed product in the human experience points to a designer. The design argument is literally as old as the hills. That’s why it does not matter how loudly the skeptic shouts “chance.” The skeptic has not been able to conquer our counter-intuitive certainty—that information assumes a mind. And so the skeptic, filled with contradictions, ends up giving designed arguments to argue against design. How ironic.
 
Now it is important to note what is being said here. We are not just talking about aesthetic design (time plus matter plus chance can possibly explain aesthetic design), what is being discussed here is intelligent design. You see friends, If you were to walk around on Mars and see stones in a perfect circle, you could possibly assume that it all came together over eons of time by chance. But if you were to come upon a plastic Wal-Mart bag, you would certainly not say, “Look what the atmospheric pressure has done here.” Why is that? Because information assumes intelligence. And so there is a fine twist to this argument.

It is actually better called the “argument to design,” the original information density in human order. Evolution cannot, simply cannot explain the information order of the human cell. You see, all order has not evolved. Think of this: there is enough information in a single thread of human DNA to fill 600,000 pages of information. That is specified complexity, not just aesthetics.
 
If I were to make an absolute statement such as, "There is no gold on the moon," what is needed for that statement to be proven true? I need to have absolute or total knowledge of the moon, from its surface to its core. I need to have information that there is no gold in any of the rock, all the way to the core, in any crevice, even one speck, of the entire moon. If there is one flake of gold, then my statement is false and I have no basis for it. Therefore, by necessity, I need to have absolute knowledge before I can make an absolute statement of that nature. No human being has all knowledge. Therefore, none of us is able to truthfully make this assertion.
 
One of the greatest scientist minds who ever lived, Thomas Edison, said, "We do not know a millionth of one percent about anything." Let me repeat: Let's say that you have an incredible one percent of all the knowledge in the universe. Would it be possible, in the ninety-nine percent of the knowledge that you haven't yet come across, that there might be ample evidence to prove the existence of God? If you are reasonable, you will be forced to admit that it is possible. Somewhere, in the knowledge you haven't yet discovered, there could be enough evidence to prove that God does exist.
 
One scientist has remarked that the possibility of the human enzyme and our chemical makeup coming together by accident is one in ten to the 40,000th power. Ten to the 40,000th power is more than all the atoms in all of the known galaxies of the universe. Any mathematician understands that when you reach that level of improbability, then it can be reasonable stated that it could never happen! If there is design, then there must be a purpose. Stephen Hawking once wrote that if we knew the “why” of life, we would know the mind of God.
 
Dawkins is perhaps the world's most popular science writer who is extremely gifted science writer. The Blind Watchmaker is a brilliant and fascinating tour de force. However, the God Delusion contains little science but mainly emphasizes philosophy and theology and enormous portions of social commentary denigrating religion.
 
In the middle of the book, "Why There Almost Certainly is No God," Dawkins explains, philosophically, why there almost certainly isn't any such person as God? Almost certainly sounds a little like horseshoe-faith. Regardless, he goes on to say that the existence of God is monumentally improbable. Just how improbable? The astronomer Fred Hoyle famously claimed that the probability of life arising on earth (by purely natural means, without special divine aid) is less than the probability that a flight-worthy Boeing 747 should be assembled by a hurricane roaring through a junkyard. Dawkins appears to think the probability of the existence of God is in that same neighborhood and to be so small as to be not be taken seriously. Why does he think so?
 
Suppose the evidence of evolution suggests that all living creatures have evolved from some elementary form of life [although there is no fossil evidence of such].. My questions would be: How does that show that the universe is without design? If the universe has not been designed, then the process of evolution is unguided, unorchestrated, by any intelligent being; it is, as Dawkins suggests, blind. And equally, if not more so, mathematically impossible. His evidence of evolution is that evolution is unplanned, unguided, unorchestrated by any intelligent being.
 
Dr. Stephen C. Meyer, employed by the National Institutes of Health, in association with the Smithsonian Institution, served as the managing editor of the Smithsonian-affiliated journal, Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington. In 2004, Sternberg chose to publish a tightly argued paper by the Discovery Institute's Dr. Stephen C. Meyer, titled "The Origin of Biological Information and the Higher Taxonomic Categories." In brief, Meyer contended that neo-Darwinism has failed to provide a convincing explanation for the massive infusion of new genetic information into the fossil record a reported 570 million years ago.
 
Popularly known as the Cambrian Explosion, this relatively brief period of pre-history witnessed the emergence of most forms of complex animal life, seemingly without any evolutionary trail. To date, evolutionary biologists have made little progress in resolving the mystery of their origins. Meyer took a stab at it, arguing deductively that only "rational agents" have shown the ability to design and organize functional, information-rich systems. "Natural selection lacks foresight," Meyer continued. "What natural selection lacks, intelligent selection – purposive or goal-directed design – provides."
 
Before interviewing Dr Patterson, the author read his book, Evolution, which he had written for the British Museum of Natural History. In it he had solicited comments from readers about the book’s contents. One reader wrote a letter to Dr Patterson asking why he did not put a single photograph of a transitional fossil in his book. On April 10, 1979, he replied to the author in a most candid letter as follows:
 
"… I fully agree with your comments on the lack of direct illustration of evolutionary transitions in my book. If I knew of any, fossil or living, I would certainly have included them. You suggest that an artist should be used to visualize such transformations, but where would he get the information from? I could not, honestly, provide it, and if I were to leave it to artistic license, would that not mislead the reader?"
 
’I wrote the text of my book four years ago. If I were to write it now, I think the book would be rather different. Gradualism is a concept I believe in, not just because of Darwin’s authority, but because my understanding of genetics seems to demand it. Yet Gould and the American Museum people are hard to contradict when they say there are no transitional fossils. As a paleontologist myself, I am much occupied with the philosophical problems of identifying ancestral forms in the fossil record. You say that I should at least “show a photo of the fossil from which each type of organism was derived.” I will lay it on the line—there is not one such fossil for which one could make a watertight argument.
 
Author Luther Sunderland in his book Darwin's Enigma, spoke with Dr. Colin Patterson, a senior paleontologist at the British Museum of Natural History, who agreed about the lack of fossil evidence connecting man with a lower primate. In addition, none of the five museum officials whom Luther Sunderland interviewed could offer a single example of a transitional series of fossilized organisms that would document the transformation of one basically different type to another. Other's included Dr Eldredge [curator of invertebrate paleontology at the American Museum] who said that the categories of families and above could not be connected, while Dr Raup [curator of geology at the Field Museum of Natural History in Chicago] said that a dozen or so large groups could not be connected with each other. Dr Patterson spoke most freely about the absence of transitional forms.
 
Constant change is what evolution is all about, whether gradual or in gigantic leaps. The problem for evolution is that we do not see the “leaps” or “creeps” in the fossil record. All fossils are of complete animals and plants, not works in progress "under construction". If evolution's continuously morphing, then almost every fossil should show a least some change. There have never been found any fossils with parts of a species in a state of change…or in various stages of completion. This is well documented in the Cambrian explosion.

We should expect to see for every successful change, there should be many more leading up to these successful changes in that species. There is no record of such. The whole process is random trial and error, without direction. Charles Darwin described the problems with his theory in great detail writing, "The number of intermediate varieties which have formerly existed on earth must be truly enormous. Why then is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely graduated organic chain; and this, perhaps, is the most obvious and gravest objection which can be urged against my theory." If living today, Darwin would not be able to retract those words.


   
Print - Comment - Send to a Friend - More from this Author

Comments(2)
Get it off your chest
Name:
Comment:
 (comments policy)

Emanuel Paparella2009-04-19 14:58:17
Indeed Jack, the ability to see randomness and chaos and celebrate that ability with cinicism, rather than the ability to see order and purpose and wonder at it and even worship, is a modern phenomenon sometimes characterized as nihilism. Tha ancient Stoics would certainly have found it strange and curious, to say the least.


Jack2009-04-19 20:42:03

If we are just an accident by chance and nothing more, it would be a greater miracle than that of a creation! How can matter be uncaused? Thru chance and randomness? If a glass of milk is spilled, and it looked exactly like the Mona Lisa, would we say that there was intent or purpose or intelligent design behind it? Of course not. It was accidental. But if a living, 3-dimensional Mona Lisa who blushes when flattered or embarrased when exposed naked, shows a greater sense of morality and self-awareness than my dog and animals in general, who think nothing of being without clothes. I doubt very much they worry about tomorrow or what happened yesterday. Hence morality, self-actualization, etc. infers "a priori" internal mind-sets; not that is aquired thru "survival of the fittest".

I have accidents, God, I don't believe, does.

Let us leave randomness and chance to the Abstract Expressionism paintings of Jackson Pollock, where it is assumed and obvious, that there is intelligence behind it's creation.


© Copyright CHAMELEON PROJECT Tmi 2005-2008  -  Sitemap  -  Add to favourites  -  Link to Ovi
Privacy Policy  -  Contact  -  RSS Feeds  -  Search  -  Submissions  -  Subscribe  -  About Ovi