Strefa dla członków PTKr
Stan Robertson, "Review: By Design or by Chance? by freelance writer Denyse O'Leary" (2005)
Zapomniałeś hasła?
Kody genetyczne wyższego rzędu
Stan Robertson, "Review: By Design or by Chance? by freelance writer Denyse O'Leary" (2005)
By Design or by Chance? by freelance writer Denyse O'Leary
> <strong>Review by Stan Robertson, Ph.D. Physics
> <br> Anyone who finds the title to be of interest is very likely to favor only one of the three points of view presented in this book. Given the nature of the subject, it is then likely to be perceived as unbalanced and mostly against their point of view. In fact, however, it is a well balanced and generally fair treatment of all. It is well written, with many sidebars of interest. This book is in four parts:
> <br> 1 Was the universe created or was it always here?
> 2. What about life? Did it start by design or by chance?<br> 3. In the beginning, there was....creationism!
> 4. Design...the picture is coming In.<br>
> Let me say at the outset, that I have my own biases. I have a genuine interest in the possibilities for Intelligent Design theory, which I consider to be a research agenda. I also have a genuine antipathy for the "young earth" variety of creationism and also for the orthodox religion of atheistic Darwinism.<br>
> With respect to the first, as a physicist, I am constrained by our understanding of nuclear rate processes. We know how to build H-bombs, understand how stars work, and we routinely engineer nuclear isotopes for medical and other purposes. These nuclear processes provide accurate clocks that tell us the ages of earth's strata and fossils. The earth is old and life changed over time, progressing in fits and starts from small and simple to large and complex. These are hard, cold facts. With respect to Darwinism, the question for me is not whether changes of life forms over time have occurred; it is whether Darwinism is the best explanation for them. As noted by Ms. O'Leary, Darwinism is the creation story of atheism. It is a framework of history that is both a unifying idea and very possibly superfluous, whereas life is biochemistry with its origins lost in time.<br>
> Part One frames the questions of design vs. chance, reviews our current understanding of a universe that had a beginning in time, and introduces major points of the three following parts on Darwinism, Creationism and Intelligent Design. For the reader unfamiliar with the astronomy and cosmology presented here by Ms. O'Leary, be assured that her statements are accurate. In Part One, O'Leary opines that the discovery (mostly within about the past fifty years) that the universe had an apparent beginning in time about fourteen billion years ago has stimulated the public to think anew about our origins. In an infinitely old universe there would be time enough for everything to evolve, but perhaps not in just the age of the earth. (It has always baffled me how one could look out at stars merrily burning their fuel and believe that they could be infinitely old!) After many years of teaching astronomy classes, I must say that my experience has been that the public is blissfully unaware of the evidence favoring a finite age of the universe, and when brought to attention it is more likely to generate hostility than to be embraced. The reason for this is that astronomers describe a creation without a creator. As O'Leary has written, to avoid leaving the impression that there is anything special about our universe they imagine infinite numbers of universes. Ours, but one of many with perhaps wildly differing physical laws, just chances to be suitable for us. When I first realized that this many universes view was taken seriously, I remember thinking "God help the atheists to find a better fairy tale!" A central tenet of an acceptable scientific hypothesis is that it be testable. I don't see how we could possibly know of the existence of other universes short of a divine revelation. ( Perhaps only atheists get them?)<br>
> It is also a cold, hard fact that the physics of our universe is finely tuned in ways that allow us to exist now. Moreover, we could not have existed in the earliest times of our universe before the very chemical elements of which we are made were cooked up in early generations of stars. But the poetic realization that we are made of stardust has not, in my opinion, been well received. Part One ends with a brief chapter on the best arguments for design. One argument is that Darwinists' clinging to chance explanations of everything leaves it no predictive power. It merely offers an ad hoc explanation for any observation. The other major argument is that we observe things in both the physical and biological realms that are too complex to have occurred via long chains of fortuitous happenstance. The weakness of this complexity argument, however, is that what may seem too complex for one person merely reflects a lack of wit to another. (I encounter this almost daily in my own quixotic war against black holes. Most astronomers merely say, "What else could they be?" and give up without thinking. For the record, Einstein hated the idea of black holes.)<br>
> Part Two is primarily a history of Darwinism and its skirmishes, both early and lately with religions. I suspect that most readers will already be fairly well informed on this subject, nevertheless, this section is well written and well worth reading. The scientific critiques of Darwinian theory table on pages 98 and 99 are points generally well taken. One thing that stands out is the humorless hostility of Darwinists for any alternative point of view. They have been very successful at enforcing the proposition that anything besides Darwinism is (1) NOT science and (2) IS creationist religion. I have always found it to be particularly amusing, that they argue so passionately that life is a meaningless series of accidents.<br>
> Part Three concerns Creationism. Anyone familiar with Dr. Smith will be familiar with the views discussed here. As with Darwinism, much of the material of this section deals with history of the creationist movement. If it was not previously clear, this is a book about beliefs, and not a book intended to settle the arguments.<br>
> Part Four discusses Intelligent Design (ID). The gist of ID is that there exist irreducibly complex systems. These are systems with many parts and all must be present for the system to function at all. An analogue might be an automobile lacking only a coil wire. Further, such systems by their mere existence provide evidence of design. The most important advocates of ID claim their strongest support in the molecular machinery of cells; in DNA, RNA and proteins. The fact of design would tell us nothing of the designer, though most religious person attribute the designs of life to God. But in principle, the designer could be some absent-minded cosmic inventor with no affection for us. ID conceivably could even occur as a result of some principle of self organization (as opposed to random chance) operating in a godless universe. Many of the founders of the ID movement have no quarrel with evolution, but merely contend that Darwinism does not adequately account for it or for the origin of life itself.<br>
> There are several reasons for looking for design in cellular machinery. First is the fact that DNA is incredibly information rich, so much so that it is difficult to imagine it being written in random small steps within the age of the earth. Second, the element of irreducibility may be present in ways that Darwinism cannot explain. As an example, consider vision. An organ with little light sensitivity might, by detecting a shadow, warn of a predator's presence and provide a survival advantage to a creature. One can then imagine it being improved in small increments over time to become the sharp eye of a hawk. But this traditional Darwinian tale is mere nonsense if there are no biochemical pathways at the cellular level that lead to the sharp eyed hawk. At the level of physiology, it is difficult to imagine anything that could not be improved in small increments until, after many generations, organisms became exquisitely adapted to their environments. But at the level of the cells, it may not have been possible for them to develop incrementally. (This is an open question in which there is conflicting evidence and opinion; e.g., see discussions of mitochondria as interlopers in cells.) ID is a research agenda that will require some time to develop. It is incumbent upon ID researchers to produce convincing examples of irreducible complexity. But if they do then the face of modern science will change, as will public opinion.<br>
> O'Leary makes a good case that ID is neither creationism nor theology of any kind, though Darwinists try to portray it as both. Its roots are deeply empirical - look at the evidence and then see what it implies. ID will be good for science by forcing Darwinists out of their arrogance and into debates on the evidence (and perhaps out of their pitiful embrace of even social Darwinism, which they defend rather than admit that anything is beyond the scope of their theory).<br> <br/> Finally, O'Leary's book has offended persons of all science and religious persuasions, drawing fire from all directions. It would probably have been more widely accepted as the evenhanded treatment that I perceive it to be had she not included her Afterword. In it, she admitted being a post-Darwinian and called Darwinism the PC of science, demanding loyalty to dubious propositions as a demonstration of faith in the system. I have enjoyed this book; couldn't put it down, but it reinforces my prejudices. I have often jokingly told Dr. Smith that I find both creationist and Darwinian theories to be preposterous. I do not see ID as being preposterous. It is merely unproven at this point.
> <strong>Review by Stan Robertson, Ph.D. Physics
> <br> Anyone who finds the title to be of interest is very likely to favor only one of the three points of view presented in this book. Given the nature of the subject, it is then likely to be perceived as unbalanced and mostly against their point of view. In fact, however, it is a well balanced and generally fair treatment of all. It is well written, with many sidebars of interest. This book is in four parts:
> <br> 1 Was the universe created or was it always here?
> 2. What about life? Did it start by design or by chance?<br> 3. In the beginning, there was....creationism!
> 4. Design...the picture is coming In.<br>
> Let me say at the outset, that I have my own biases. I have a genuine interest in the possibilities for Intelligent Design theory, which I consider to be a research agenda. I also have a genuine antipathy for the "young earth" variety of creationism and also for the orthodox religion of atheistic Darwinism.<br>
> With respect to the first, as a physicist, I am constrained by our understanding of nuclear rate processes. We know how to build H-bombs, understand how stars work, and we routinely engineer nuclear isotopes for medical and other purposes. These nuclear processes provide accurate clocks that tell us the ages of earth's strata and fossils. The earth is old and life changed over time, progressing in fits and starts from small and simple to large and complex. These are hard, cold facts. With respect to Darwinism, the question for me is not whether changes of life forms over time have occurred; it is whether Darwinism is the best explanation for them. As noted by Ms. O'Leary, Darwinism is the creation story of atheism. It is a framework of history that is both a unifying idea and very possibly superfluous, whereas life is biochemistry with its origins lost in time.<br>
> Part One frames the questions of design vs. chance, reviews our current understanding of a universe that had a beginning in time, and introduces major points of the three following parts on Darwinism, Creationism and Intelligent Design. For the reader unfamiliar with the astronomy and cosmology presented here by Ms. O'Leary, be assured that her statements are accurate. In Part One, O'Leary opines that the discovery (mostly within about the past fifty years) that the universe had an apparent beginning in time about fourteen billion years ago has stimulated the public to think anew about our origins. In an infinitely old universe there would be time enough for everything to evolve, but perhaps not in just the age of the earth. (It has always baffled me how one could look out at stars merrily burning their fuel and believe that they could be infinitely old!) After many years of teaching astronomy classes, I must say that my experience has been that the public is blissfully unaware of the evidence favoring a finite age of the universe, and when brought to attention it is more likely to generate hostility than to be embraced. The reason for this is that astronomers describe a creation without a creator. As O'Leary has written, to avoid leaving the impression that there is anything special about our universe they imagine infinite numbers of universes. Ours, but one of many with perhaps wildly differing physical laws, just chances to be suitable for us. When I first realized that this many universes view was taken seriously, I remember thinking "God help the atheists to find a better fairy tale!" A central tenet of an acceptable scientific hypothesis is that it be testable. I don't see how we could possibly know of the existence of other universes short of a divine revelation. ( Perhaps only atheists get them?)<br>
> It is also a cold, hard fact that the physics of our universe is finely tuned in ways that allow us to exist now. Moreover, we could not have existed in the earliest times of our universe before the very chemical elements of which we are made were cooked up in early generations of stars. But the poetic realization that we are made of stardust has not, in my opinion, been well received. Part One ends with a brief chapter on the best arguments for design. One argument is that Darwinists' clinging to chance explanations of everything leaves it no predictive power. It merely offers an ad hoc explanation for any observation. The other major argument is that we observe things in both the physical and biological realms that are too complex to have occurred via long chains of fortuitous happenstance. The weakness of this complexity argument, however, is that what may seem too complex for one person merely reflects a lack of wit to another. (I encounter this almost daily in my own quixotic war against black holes. Most astronomers merely say, "What else could they be?" and give up without thinking. For the record, Einstein hated the idea of black holes.)<br>
> Part Two is primarily a history of Darwinism and its skirmishes, both early and lately with religions. I suspect that most readers will already be fairly well informed on this subject, nevertheless, this section is well written and well worth reading. The scientific critiques of Darwinian theory table on pages 98 and 99 are points generally well taken. One thing that stands out is the humorless hostility of Darwinists for any alternative point of view. They have been very successful at enforcing the proposition that anything besides Darwinism is (1) NOT science and (2) IS creationist religion. I have always found it to be particularly amusing, that they argue so passionately that life is a meaningless series of accidents.<br>
> Part Three concerns Creationism. Anyone familiar with Dr. Smith will be familiar with the views discussed here. As with Darwinism, much of the material of this section deals with history of the creationist movement. If it was not previously clear, this is a book about beliefs, and not a book intended to settle the arguments.<br>
> Part Four discusses Intelligent Design (ID). The gist of ID is that there exist irreducibly complex systems. These are systems with many parts and all must be present for the system to function at all. An analogue might be an automobile lacking only a coil wire. Further, such systems by their mere existence provide evidence of design. The most important advocates of ID claim their strongest support in the molecular machinery of cells; in DNA, RNA and proteins. The fact of design would tell us nothing of the designer, though most religious person attribute the designs of life to God. But in principle, the designer could be some absent-minded cosmic inventor with no affection for us. ID conceivably could even occur as a result of some principle of self organization (as opposed to random chance) operating in a godless universe. Many of the founders of the ID movement have no quarrel with evolution, but merely contend that Darwinism does not adequately account for it or for the origin of life itself.<br>
> There are several reasons for looking for design in cellular machinery. First is the fact that DNA is incredibly information rich, so much so that it is difficult to imagine it being written in random small steps within the age of the earth. Second, the element of irreducibility may be present in ways that Darwinism cannot explain. As an example, consider vision. An organ with little light sensitivity might, by detecting a shadow, warn of a predator's presence and provide a survival advantage to a creature. One can then imagine it being improved in small increments over time to become the sharp eye of a hawk. But this traditional Darwinian tale is mere nonsense if there are no biochemical pathways at the cellular level that lead to the sharp eyed hawk. At the level of physiology, it is difficult to imagine anything that could not be improved in small increments until, after many generations, organisms became exquisitely adapted to their environments. But at the level of the cells, it may not have been possible for them to develop incrementally. (This is an open question in which there is conflicting evidence and opinion; e.g., see discussions of mitochondria as interlopers in cells.) ID is a research agenda that will require some time to develop. It is incumbent upon ID researchers to produce convincing examples of irreducible complexity. But if they do then the face of modern science will change, as will public opinion.<br>
> O'Leary makes a good case that ID is neither creationism nor theology of any kind, though Darwinists try to portray it as both. Its roots are deeply empirical - look at the evidence and then see what it implies. ID will be good for science by forcing Darwinists out of their arrogance and into debates on the evidence (and perhaps out of their pitiful embrace of even social Darwinism, which they defend rather than admit that anything is beyond the scope of their theory).<br> <br/> Finally, O'Leary's book has offended persons of all science and religious persuasions, drawing fire from all directions. It would probably have been more widely accepted as the evenhanded treatment that I perceive it to be had she not included her Afterword. In it, she admitted being a post-Darwinian and called Darwinism the PC of science, demanding loyalty to dubious propositions as a demonstration of faith in the system. I have enjoyed this book; couldn't put it down, but it reinforces my prejudices. I have often jokingly told Dr. Smith that I find both creationist and Darwinian theories to be preposterous. I do not see ID as being preposterous. It is merely unproven at this point.
