Darwinism irrefutable in the world of science?

[Gordon]

Gordon, your response is such utter bilge on so many levels it deserves to be either ignored or systematically deconstructed. I have decided on the latter.

First, the total, absolute incorrectness of your premises

Gordons First False Premise: The qualifications of the six hundred are known. All you have to do is follow the link: http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/filesDB-download.php?command=download&id=660
Strike one!

Gordon's Second False Premise:I have not admitted to not knowing in detail what they have subscribed to, yet you claim "everyone has admitted" this.
Strike Two!

Gordon's Third False Premise:I did not call the signatories uneducated idiots. I expressed surprise that anyone with a proper education could be a signatory. That is quite a different matter. It is entirely possible for intelligent, educated people to use neither of those attributes.
Strike Three!

Now let us examine what is being signed. It is a simple declaration:

"We are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged."

Out of context this declaration is all but meaningless. Consider:

We are skeptical of claims
All scientists should be skeptical of all claims. It is part of the scientific methodology.

for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life.Random mutation and natural selection are not the only factors at work in evolution. The Modern Sysnthesis is not so poor as to rely on these alone, therefore not to express skepticism about the ability of these two alone to generate the diversity of life would be to take a singularily outdated stance.

So the first sentence, as written and out of any other context, is one that no bona fide scientist should have any problem signing.

In context, it is another matter. The declaration is the product of the Discovery Centre, the prime promoter of Intelligent Design. The Discovery Centre wholly rejects Darwinism, neo-Darwinism, and distinguishes (needlessly and irrelevantly) between micro-evolution and macro evolution.

In that context, this delcaration becomes a statement not of natural scientific objectivity (skepticism) and of current knowledge of the processes of evolution (more than mutation and natural selection), but a casting aside of the former and a rejection of the latter.

Therefore, for an individual to sign such a declaration definitively calls into question the quality and extent of their education, and casts a dark shadow on the question of their intellect. Such a conclusion is validated by a thorough consideration of the pertinent circumstances, as outlined above. It is not, as you have implied blind, irrational, unscientific prejudice, but the exact reverse. You may apologise at any time.

If you really did do that checking before my post I apologise that you at least did not do what I suggested, although whether other contributors were so diligent must remain in doubt.

To comment about the main discussion. The theory espoused by Dawkins and even Gould and many others still contains the idea of mutations and natural selection. This is the core of neo-Darwinism - whatever you add around the edges. We now know from scientific resarch in bio-chemistry that this is not how cells work. There are very intricate checking mechanisms to ensure that mutations are eradicated.

'2) Cellular Repair Capabilities. First, then, all cells from bacteria to man possess a truly astonishing array of repair systems which serve to remove accidental and stochastic sources of mutation. Multiple levels of proofreading mechanisms recognize and remove errors that inevitably occur during DNA replication. These proofreading systems are capable of distinguishing between newly synthesized and parental strands of the DNA double helix, so they operate efficiently to rectify rather than fix the results of accidental misincorporations of the wrong nucleotide. Other systems scan non-replicating DNA for chemical changes that could lead to miscoding and remove modified nucleotides, while additional functions monitor the pools of precursors and remove potentially mutagenic contaminants. In anticipation of chemical and physical insults to the genome, such as alkylating agents and ultraviolet radiation, additional repair systems are encoded in the genome and can be induced to correct damage when it occurs.'

- Boston Review Feb/March 1997 Article by James Shapiro, PhD (Genetics) Department of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology, University of Chicago


What we have is a cellular system that is encoded not only with vast sets of data but also complex process and algorithm information to enable it to use the data in different ways. In other words cells have both data and software encoded within them.

Again from the same article by James Shapiro:

'The point of this discussion is that our current knowledge of genetic change is fundamentally at variance with neo-Darwinist postulates. We have progressed from the Constant Genome, subject only to random, localized changes at a more or less constant mutation rate, to the Fluid Genome, subject to episodic, massive and non-random reorganizations capable of producing new functional architectures. Inevitably, such a profound advance in awareness of genetic capabilities will dramatically alter our understanding of the evolutionary process. Nonetheless, neo-Darwinist writers like Dawkins continue to ignore or trivialize the new knowledge and insist on gradualism as the only path for evolutionary change.'

and again,

'But the neo-Darwinian advocates claim to be scientists, and we can legitimately expect of them a more open spirit of inquiry. Instead, they assume a defensive posture of outraged orthodoxy and assert an unassailable claim to truth, which only serves to validate the Creationists' criticism that Darwinism has become more of a faith than a science.'

So there is plenty of skeptical criticism from other evolutionists and those with better credentials of the workings of cells than many neo-Darwinists.

In fact the debate now enters the world of Information Theory. In general terms this requires that information of the sort encoded in the cell requires the code to be devised and then the information input, using the code. In fact totally analogously to using computers. Neither the code nor the information can self generate in accordance with the orthodox theory. In fact in accordance with orthodox Information Theory there is actually 'information entropy' in the same way as energy entropy.

So there is a sound rational basis for a 'master programmer' (by whatever name such an entity might be called) unless of course some new variation of Information Theory can be devised to give a mechanism for spontaneous self generating information and coding. I am not aware of any such mechanism having been so far proposed however.


regards,


Gordon.

 

[Ophiolite]

So there is a sound rational basis for a 'master programmer' (by whatever name such an entity might be called) unless of course some new variation of Information Theory can be devised to give a mechanism for spontaneous self generating information and coding. I am not aware of any such mechanism having been so far proposed however.

Firstly, thank you for your gracious reply.
Secondly, your detailed response merits careful consideration before offering a proper reply and I am presently rushed. I shall respond, eventually.
Thirdly, in regard to your point above, would the work of Kaufmann on complexity and emergent properties not constitute such a mechanism?

 

[Diogenes' Dog]

I think it's good that key scientific theories such as evolutionary biology are constantly challenged, especially by those (e.g. Shapiro) without an ulterior agenda.

However, I can't help feeling that "The Discovery Institute" are clumsily looking for God's fingerprints on the universe. I think any master programmer (aka God) would work WITHIN the existing laws of the universe, not be having to intervene to create new species. I realise this does leave many questions for us theists about the inefficiencies and side-effects of evolution. However, the alternative raises more problems about why God didn't do a better job of creating us by ID! He left in a seemingly purposeless appendix, and left out one key enzyme in the vitamin C synthesis pathway....

P.S. I know very little about information theory, however - wouldn't 'information entropy' follow similar rules to 'thermodynamic entropy'? i.e. you can locally decrease entropy by increasing it elsewhere. It is only in a closed system that entropy must increase? By linking the two forms of entropy e.g. some version of Maxwell's demon, couldn't you gain complexity through expenditure of energy?

 

[Gordon]

Firstly, thank you for your gracious reply.
Secondly, your detailed response merits careful consideration before offering a proper reply and I am presently rushed. I shall respond, eventually.
Thirdly, in regard to your point above, would the work of Kaufmann on complexity and emergent properties not constitute such a mechanism?

Thanks for pointing towards Kaufmann. I have not read his works but will now do so.

Without prejudging anything that I have not read yet, it is important to distinguish between types of information. In programming for instance data can be input from many standard types in any order and then re-ordered as required in accordance with very standard concepts (numbers ordered 1,2,3 etc.). Software which is essential to do something useful to the data has however to follow syntax and grammar applicable to that language alone which is more critical than in an ordinary written book. Software in one language may not work with software in another just as a Russian may not necessarily understand an English book. Someone of course has to write the computer languages and their rules and this is totally independent and outside of the actual software (and the data) used by the computer and requires much greater capabilities on the part of the author than the machine on which the software is used. The Gates empire has yet to produce a version of Windows that can write itself a new operating system from scratch! In fact this is logically impossible as without the operating system no computer could of course do anything at all to start itself off!

Anyway I shall read Kaufmann and renew the discussion (after probably a slight lapse!).

Thanks again,



Gordon.