A pitiless universe?

I want to make a few comments on an article called A Third Way, written by James A. Shapiro.

Quotes and comments;

'There are far more unresolved questions than answers about evolutionary processes, and contemporary science continues to provide us with new conceptual possibilities. [1.]

- Don't anyone tell Eugenie Scott; this might ruin her whole day.

2. 'Although our knowledge of the molecular details of biological organization is undergoing a revolutionary expansion, open-minded discussions of the impact of these discoveries are all too rare. The possibility of a non-Darwinian, scientific theory of evolution is virtually never considered.'

- Never considered because the Darwinists are afraid to back down. They've stated that evolution (M2M) is a fact so many times that they feel they can't back down. They're afraid it would make them look bad, and make the creationists look good.

Is that any way to do science? Is refusing to admit problems good scientific method? (The situation is getting more and more like the Stalinists defending Lysenko.) We see that the Darwinists are trying hard to ban any criticism of their theory. Is that any way to do science? Is banning criticism of a theory scientific? How do you get from all reality merely being matter in motion to banning criticisms of a theory? (That would amount to matter in motion banning matter in motion :=}

It's hard to imagine people like Rich Dawkins admitting that Darwinism is wrong... or even that it has any problems. His ego wouldn't stand the implosion. He's a man who needs to be right, and needs other people to be wrong. This is what fuels his anger, and his anger fuels his writing. If he had to admit he was wrong, all that anger would disappear.

3. 'After a discussion of technical advances in our views about genome organization and the mechanisms of genetic change, I will focus on a growing convergence between biology and information science which offers the potential for scientific investigation of possible intelligent cellular action in evolution.

4. 'The past five decades of research in genetics and molecular biology have brought us revolutionary discoveries. Upsetting the oversimplified views of cellular organization and function held at mid-century, the molecular revolution has revealed an unanticipated realm of complexity and interaction more consistent with computer technology than with the mechanical viewpoint which dominated the field when the neo-Darwinian Modern Synthesis was formulated.
The conceptual changes in biology are comparable in magnitude to the transition from classical physics to relativistic and quantum physics.

- Neo-Darwinism (ND) was invented to deal with a radically more simple view of biology. In my opinion it can't begin to deal with the newly found complexity. It's an utterly outmoded theory. Darwinists try to soldier on by ignoring this complexity. If they say anything it's just to reiterate that somehow X evolved; we don't know how... but we will. ND will never be able to deal with information codes we see in living forms. Chance, mutation and selection will not do the job. Code isn't chemistry; chemicals react they don't create or send information.

6. 'Localized random mutation, selection operating "one gene at a time" (John Maynard Smith's formulation), and gradual modification of individual functions are unable to provide satisfactory explanations for the molecular data, no matter how much time for change is assumed. There are simply too many potential degrees of freedom for random variability and too many interconnections to account for.

- I think what he's saying (in simple form) is that things (functions) are too highly tuned to allow the blunt, heavy handed changes demanded by ND. ND would be like trying to fix a watch with a flame thrower.

7. '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.

- ND practically equates errors (and damage with) evolution. A major problem is that cells have various ways of preventing changes caused by errors. They seem designed to fight against the possibility of evolution. Another problem for ND is to explain how errors (loss of information) can lead to the creation of new organs and functions. I see no way for this to happen. This is the hope that a huge amount of errors will lead to something positive. I see no basis for such hope.

8. 'It has been a surprise to learn how thoroughly cells protect themselves against precisely the kinds of accidental genetic change that, according to conventional theory, are the sources of evolutionary variability. By virtue of their proofreading and repair systems, living cells are not passive victims of the random forces of chemistry and physics. They devote large resources to suppressing random genetic variation and have the capacity to set the level of background localized mutability by adjusting the activity of their repair systems.

- It's refreshing to see an evolutionist admit some of these things; things creationists have been talking about for decades. (No wonder he's an unknown to the media elite; no such heretic can be allowed a public platform.)

9. 'The second major lesson of molecular studies into the origins of genetic change is that all cells possess multiple biochemical agents for natural genetic engineering--processes that include the cutting and splicing of DNA molecules into new sequence arrangements.
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.'

10. '...cancer is now seen as a disease of the molecular information processing routines that ensure orderly cell growth and behavior in the healthy organism. Aberrant tumor cell growth appears to result from at least two kinds of malfunction: the loss of checkpoint controls, or the failure of decision-making routines that dictate programmed cell death (apoptosis) for cells in inappropriate surroundings.

- I don't know how any organism could survive without these systems in place. How then could they have evolved?
Earlier he referred to this system like this; 'One can characterize this surveillance/inducible repair/checkpoint system as a molecular computation network demonstrating biologically useful properties of self-awareness and decision-making.'

- To go from inert matter to this kind of sophistication requires more than ND can give us. Matter doesn't work this way; chemicals aren't interested in repair or health. ND is no longer even plausible. How long it will take for the Dawkins crowd to admit I don't know, but I'm certain evolutionary theory is going to change radically.

What Dawkins said about the universe being without pity etc. is what is true about matter.
"The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but blind, pitiless indifference."

Since the universe means everything there is, it's not the universe that has no pity it's matter. (i.e. No one would argue that every creature on earth is pitiless.) So how do you get from pitiless, uncaring, indifferent matter to self repair functions? Since matter is indifferent (as Dawkins admits) why did it create living organisms? And where did it get the blueprints, the designs, the information from? We all know that matter doesn't contain true information... that's perhaps why it's indifferent.... that's no doubt why it has no purpose.

11. 'Novel ways of looking at longstanding problems have historically been the chief motors of scientific progress. However, the potential for new science is hard to find in the Creationist-Darwinist debate.'

Both sides appear to have a common interest in presenting a static view of the scientific enterprise. This is to be expected from the Creationists, who naturally refuse to recognize science's remarkable record of making more and more seemingly miraculous aspects of our world comprehensible to our understanding and accessible to our technology.'

- I really don't know what he means by this. It's by no means true. I don't know of a creationist alive today doesn't admit to this. The fact we know so much more about living organisms (etc.) now than we did doesn't make them seem less miraculous, but more so. (One tires of hearing people make ignorant comments like this. Does the man even know a single creationist? or is he safely hiding in the anti-ID refuge of the campus. Maybe he should pop his head out and talk to a few folk.)

Summary;
I hate to contradict such an esteemed figure as Richard Dawkins, but life is th one thing we would not expect to see if all that existed was matter in motion.

Mike Johnson

Notes;
1. A Third Way - James A. Shapiro
Originally published in the February/ March 1997 issue of Boston Review
- to the best of my knowledge Shapiro is not a creationist.
2. 'In an important way, then, biology has returned to questions debated during the mechanism-vitalism controversy earlier this century.
- I don't know anything about this guy, but it sounds as if he might be some kind of a vitalist.
3. Life is the one thing we would not expect to see if all that existed was matter in motion.
4. Vitalism, as defined by the Merriam-Webster dictionary, is;
a. a doctrine that the functions of a living organism are due to a vital principle distinct from biochemical reaction.
b. a doctrine that the processes of life are not explicable by the laws of physics and chemistry alone and that life is in some part self-determining.
- what's missing in our view of the universe isn't some vitalistic life force, but information. (I suppose we could call information theory the new vitalism, but that might be confusing.)
5. '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.'