Daar word op die oomblik in die kerk meer gepraat oor self-ontplooiing as oor self-opoffering.-Anon.......As ‘n kerk haar woorde begin devalueer, dan word die kerk ‘n ramp vir die volk. - K Schilder

3/03/2009

'n Bekendstelling aan die ID beweging

(Jammer vir die tweetaligheid)

Die ID beweging fasineer my vir die eenvoudige rede dat dit 'n baie eenvoudige en volkome wetenskaplike agenda het. As ek dit moet opsom dan is William Dembski se definisie vir my die akkuraatste:

Dembski: "Intelligent design is the science that studies signs of intelligence."

Enige definisie of argument wat hier aangeheg word sal veroorsaak dat onnodige strydvrae ontstaan. Die feit van die saak is dat hard gebakte naturaliste en materialiste het al reeds 'n groot probleem met hierdie definisie op sy eie. Net jammer dat ek nog nie gehoor het presies wat hulle werklike probleem is behalwe dat hulle botweg en sonder rede weier om te aanvaar dat die heelal en lewe self 'n "sign of intelligence" kan wees. Maar hierdie ongegronde kritiek ter syde... ID soek na tekens van intelligensie in al die waarneembare verskynsels in ons heelal, niks meer nie.

Voorbeelde van hierdie wetenskap sluit in:
  • Forensic science
  • Cryptography
  • Archaeology
  • Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence (SETI)
  • All scientists has to account for intelligent artefacts in their investigations.
Dit is daarom duidelik dat op die oomblik is die soeke na artifakte wat deur intelligensie veroorsaak is 'n algemene form van dedaktiese wetenskap.

Terwyl ons nou weet WAT "Intelligent design" is kan ons kyk na hoe die moderne beweging ontstaan het. My notas volg hier en beskryf die geskiedenis aan die hand van 4 kern figure in die beweging. (Ek gaan met opset nie in die detail van die organisasie van die beweging op die oomblik, omdat hierdie net 'n bekendstelling is.)

1. Michael Denton wrote:

Written in 1985

  • Denton is a self-described agnostic
  • He found that:
  • Darwinian micro evolution is quite plausible
  • The macro evolutionary thesis suffers a chronic weakness of empirical support.
  • In summary Denton found that:
"One might have expected that a theory of such cardinal importance, a theory that literally changed the world, would have been something more than metaphysics, something more than a myth. Ultimately the Darwinian theory of evolution is no more nor less than the great cosmogenic myth of the twentieth century.... In final analysis we still know very little about how new forms of life arise. The "mystery of mysteries" - the origin of new beings on earth - is still largely as enigmatic as when Darwin set sail on the Beagle."

2. Phillip E. Johnson wrote:
Johnson is a Tenured Law Professor at the UC Berkeley
  • He is not a literalist regarding the Bible
  • In 1987 he read both "Evolution: A theory in crisis" and " The Blind Watchmaker" by Richard Dawkins. Dawkins's rhetorical brilliance impressed him BUT Denton persuaded him that macro evolution by natural selection was more mythical than empirical
  • He spent his sabbatical to research the topic. 1987-1988
  • He wrote a paper on Darwinism. In September 1988 he defended the paper at a Berkeley faculty seminar
  • During the nineties he spoke widely at universities and expanded his criticisms in five more books
  • Reason in the Balance (1994)
  • Testing Darwinism (1997)
  • Objections Sustained (1998)
  • The Wedge of Truth (2000)
  • The Right Questions (2002)
  • Johnson says that key philosophical assumptions, especially "metaphysical naturalism" buttress evolutionary biology and protect it from questioning
  • Naturalism - The belief that the universe is a "closed system" of material causes and effects that cannot be influenced by any "outside entity" like God.
3. Michael Behe wrote:


Behe is a Biology professor at Lehigh University

  • He put design into the spotlight with "Darwin's Black Box" in 1996
  • This lodged the "Design inference" as a plausible scientific notion in American consciousness
  • His criticisms was based on his own field of investigation - BIOCHEMISTRY
  • He used the term Irreducible Complexity to explain the issues with Darwinian evolution
  • New York Times summarized it:
  • "...many of the biochemical machines inside the cell, such as the tiny outboard motor called the flagellum, exhibited an eerie kind of complexity that defied Darwinian explanations."
  • The flagellum is the little outboard motor that propell some types of bacteria:



  • Ever since "Darwin's Black Box" Behe has been considered a Darwinian heretic.
  • His criticisms made sure that it did not fit the creationist genre:
  • He attacked the credibility of neo-Darwinism on strictly scientific grounds
  • Behe is also not a fundamentalist (literalist), being Roman Catholic.

4. William Dembski wrote:

Dembski holds a Doctorate in mathematics and in the philosophy of science
  • In 1996 he proposed a procedure for detecting design called the "explanatory filter".
  • It is a step-by-step matrix of statistical and logical criteria whereby Dembski claimed an investigator can reliable detect which phenomena or objects in the universe are designed and which are not.
  • His "explanatory filter" was researched and published in "Mere Creation" 1998 and the highly technical "The design inference" 1998
  • The Design Inference was peer reviewed as part of the Cambridge University Press's monograph series, "Cambridge Studies in Probability, Induction and Decision Theory.
  • The detail of this peer reviewed publication is discussed in a later publication "The design revolution" to silence his critics.

3 comments:

Yf said...

Dankie Michael,
lekker gelees aan jou volledige artikel en ook hier. Ons het al dikwels gesels oor die evolusiemodel en gepaardgaande besware, so ek gaan nie weer ou grond herdek nie. Behalwe net vir een aspek. Indien ek 'n evolusionis sou wees, sou ek sê die beste pad vir bewyse vir evolusie lê langs die weg an die genetika, meer spesifiek DNA wat verwantskappe kan aandui aangesien makro bewyse vir evolusie nie onbetweisbaar is nie. Maar selfs met genetika, is daar meer vrae as antwoorde. Bewyse van verwantskappe is net dit, dit bewys verwantskappe maar evolusie veronderstel vordering na 'suksesvolheid' en dis nie te sê dat verwante spesies wat op mekaar volg, altyd opeenvolgend 'n verbetering van 'n vorige spesie is nie. Afhangende hoe jy daarna kyk, maar bloot op suiwer naturalistiese wyse is die mens nie die mees suksesvolle spesie nie, al is ons huidiglik die dominante een. Die mens (insluitend protomens) = 4miljoen jaar; bv. krokidille = 200 mil. jaar. Sien wat ek bedoel? Maar vir my is die mees tergende vraag betreffende DNA. Sonder om nou te tegnies te raak, hoe dit kon vermeerder het van die eenseliges tot by ons en meer nog hoe dit opsigself kon gestop het? DNA het tog nie 'n bewussyn of denke nie, hoe het dit 'geweet' om op te hou vermeerder. Om dit anders te stel - DNA is 'n biologiese 'pakkie inligting.' Om mee te begin, waar kom die pakkie inligting vandaan? Sover ek weet is daar nie 'proto' DNA wat later ontwikkel het in 'volledige' DNA nie. Hoe kan 'n afgesluite 'pakkie' inliging homself vermeerder? 'n 'pakkie' inligting van sê maar 10 elemente kan wel verdeel word in 10 pakkies van een element elk, maar dit bly nog steeds net 10 elemente. Daar het nog niks bygekom hie. Miskien weet jy hoe biologiese inligting dit self kan vermeerder?

Michael said...

Hallo Yf,

Die vraag oor biologiese inligting se ontstaan is volgens een van die voorste biologiese inligtingkundiges onverklaarbaar.

Uit Wikipedia:
He [Hurbert Yockey] has studied the application of information theory to problems in biology and published his conclusions in the Journal of Theoretical Biology from 1974 onwards. He is very critical of the primordial soup theory of the origin of life, and believes that "the origin of life is unsolvable as a scientific problem".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hubert_Yockey

Daar is 'n magdom probleme met biologiese inligting en tradisionele evolusie. Hier is die uittreksel uit 'n baie onlangse wetenskaplike publikasie. Let veral op die probleme met die "Tree of live" wat na vore kom uit moderne studie van gene. Dan is daar ook ander probleme wat hier uitgelig word. Ek moet klem lê op die feit dat hierdie is erkennings uit die voorpunt van biologiese studies. Dit is nie ou nuus nie, kyk na die datum en dit is hoofstroom wetenskap.

SURVEY AND SUMMARY
Darwinian evolution in the light of genomics
Eugene V. Koonin*
National Center for Biotechnology Information, National Library of Medicine, National Institutes of Health,
Bethesda, MD, USA
Received January 9, 2009; Revised January 30, 2009; Accepted February 4, 2009

ABSTRACT
Comparative genomics and systems biology
offer unprecedented opportunities for testing central
tenets of evolutionary biology formulated by
Darwin in the Origin of Species in 1859 and
expanded in the Modern Synthesis 100 years later.
Evolutionary-genomic studies show that natural
selection is only one of the forces that shape
genome evolution and is not quantitatively dominant,
whereas non-adaptive processes are much
more prominent than previously suspected.
Major contributions of horizontal gene transfer and
diverse selfish genetic elements to genome evolution
undermine the Tree of Life concept. An adequate
depiction of evolution requires the more
complex concept of a network or ‘forest’ of life.
There is no consistent tendency of evolution
towards increased genomic complexity, and when
complexity increases, this appears to be a nonadaptive
consequence of evolution under weak purifying
selection rather than an adaptation. Several
universals of genome evolution were discovered
including the invariant distributions of evolutionary
rates among orthologous genes from diverse genomes
and of paralogous gene family sizes, and the
negative correlation between gene expression level
and sequence evolution rate. Simple, non-adaptive
models of evolution explain some of these universals,
suggesting that a new synthesis of evolutionary
biology might become feasible in a not so
remote future.

Michael said...

Ek moet erken dat dit wat deur evolusioniste aanvaar word as 'n vermeerdering van genetiese inligting is wat ons al lank al raak sien in ons geforseerde teel programme as ook die natuurlike variasie wat plaasvind binne spesies.

Hierdie "nuwe" genetiese inligting volg in werklikheid al die stappe van die degradering van kode binne 'n sisteem wat kode self-repliseer. Nuwe genetiese eienskappe in 'n suiwer natuurlike toestand kan steeds beter vergelyk word met 'n kode wat degradeer as ons dit vergelyk met wat Koonin in die uit treksel uitwys:
"There is no consistent tendency of evolution
towards increased genomic complexity, and when
complexity increases, this appears to be a nonadaptive
consequence of evolution under weak purifying
selection rather than an adaptation."

Die lading wat hierdie studie op die waarskynlikheid dat huidige biologiese eienskappe ewekansig binne 3.5 biljoen jaar te ontstaan is oorweldigend vir enige teorie. Dit vereis, soos Koonin ook uitwys, dat evolusie hersien moet word (al weer!!!)

"...Simple, non-adaptive
models of evolution explain some of these universals,
suggesting that a new synthesis of evolutionary
biology might become feasible in a not so
remote future."

Groete,
Michael
P.S. Daar is om presies te wees nog geen model wat kan aantoon hoe enige fisiese verskynsel "self bewus" kan wees of selfbewus geword het nie. Alles dui daarop dat ons bewussyn is nie 'n fisiese eienskap nie. Ons liggaam weerspieël eenvoudig net die werking van ons bewussyn/siel/verstand/gees.