untitled
Date: Wed, 8 Jun 2005 17:22:56 -0400
From: Mike Ryder <mike@mryder.com> Add To Address Book
Subject: Re: the book - part 1
To: [Family member B]
Cc: [Family member A]
Hi there
I have now read the remainder of Dr Jeffrey's book although I admit to
skimming some of the repetition.
I hope I have not advanced an agenda in my previous email. My
purpose was to comment on Dr Jeffrey's observations, assertions and
assumptions. Dr Jeffrey's agenda was to assert that creation has
been proved by observations. I take issue with this.
> thanks for taking time to read chapter one and intro
of G Jeffrey. you did not offend
> me. i hope my reply to your points does not
offend either.
>
> You say any life form is as complex as it needs to be
to survive in its environment. I
> agree with this but fail to see what it has to do with
favouring evolution over creation,
> if indeed that is what you were trying to convey?
My observation is that any life form is necessarily complex enough to
survive in its environment. Were the environment to allow it, the life
form could be less complex. To assert that the existence of
complex life forms points to intelligent design is a leap of faith -
not evidence and certainly not proof.
> You say Jeffrey defines evolution as random chance
rather than gradual change, the latter
> being the correct definition. I think if you
trace gradual change back to its original
> roots no matter how much change occurs over a given
time there must be a starting point
> - posing the problem for the evolutionist - how does
something come from nothing? Hence
> the Shakespearean play illustration by Jeffrey.
Any way in an effort not to split hairs -
> I do agree some things change over time. However
if evolution is taking place in that
> change should we not see things changing for the
better? It seems to me that a lot of
> changes are for the worse, eg disease, genetic defects
as you mentioned. As for the
> colour blind illustration of a positive change - I
think you will agree that is only a
> theory not a fact. maybe I'm wrong and there are many
positive mutations but i just don't
> see any. Take for example commonsense - if a
computer develops a gliche what are the
> chances it will run better? Usually it requires
its creator to sort it out does it not?
I agree that following gradual change back to the depths of time,
logically you arrive at a point where one minute there is no life, the
next there is life. I think it's fair to say that evolution has
nothing to say on this topic. Evolution is a change in the traits
of living organisms over generations. This implies that there is
an origin organism and a subsequent organism. The question you
pose has no origin organism. I'm not trying to duck the question
- just to point out by definition it is not part of evolution theory.
To address the question of the spark of life, I'm afraid everything is
pure conjecture. I think there is reasonable fossil evidence to
suggest that the older a fossil is the more relatively simple it
is. It's certainly possible that environment and energy
'conspired' to form amino acids - but is at present pure
conjecture. It has not, to my knowledge, been repeated in a lab
with any great success. An alternative is to suggest that simple
life forms arrived on meteors from outer space. This is possible, but
certainly not satisfying. And in any even only takes the issue
further back in time. An intelligent creator is another
possibility, but to my mind is no more satisfying than the outer space
theory. It raises questions as to the nature, location and origin
of the intelligent creator, why they would start with something so
simple, unless of course one were to believe (against all empirical
evidence) that homosapiens (and I guess every other creature) have
existed since life began.
In regards to your point about why we do not see things changing for
the better. It's all about perspective. From a biological
point of view any change that makes you more successful in your
environment is a change for the better. Disease (eg mutating
viruses etc) from a human point of view is definitely a change from the
worse. However from the point of view of the virus, it is most
definitely a change for the better if it offers more opportunity to
procreate and grow. Also we (you and I) are far too short-lived
to personally witness a direction of change. Most defects will
result in the untimely death of the organism causing the mutation to
die out.
Actually I meant the colour blindness as an example of change.
Whether it is positive, negative or neutral is a matter of
opinion. My point was to exemplify a possible manifestation of
change. As to it being 'only' theory. I think we can
agree that the difference in colour perception if a fact. The whole
subject matter under discussion is theory (ie creation, evolution outer
space fertilization, etc).
Ahh commonsense - if only it were in fact common. The computer
example you pose is interesting, but a very poor analogy. By
'glitch' I assume you are referring to the software doing something
unexpected. It's a poor example because a computer does EXACTLY
what it's creator(s) programmed it to do. Nothing more, nothing
less. It is inanimate. It cannot change in response to its
environment except in a manner pre-programmed in to its
code. Any 'glitch' that develops is in fact an failing on the
part of the creator to accurately communicate the required instructions
to the computer (via programming). The computer merely reflects
the creator's error. Of course the creator is require to their
own mistake.
To draw parallels between inanimate and animate objects when discussing
metaphysics is almost always invalid.
---- more later......
bravenet.com