My picture of Comet McNaught

Here is my best picture of Comet McNaught, taken tonight 16 January 2007 at about 9:15pm on the beach at Sorrento, about 20kms (~13 miles) north of Perth, Western Australia.

It was slightly disappointing (as were my photographs!), not being anywhere near as bright as Venus as predicted (Venus was there in the sky too), but still the best comet I have seen in my 60 years, including Comet Halley (1986) and Comet Hale-Bopp (1997).

See better photos of the comet taken by an aquaintance of mine.

Stephen E. Jones, BSc. (Biol).

---

Genesis 50:15-21. ¹⁵When Joseph's brothers saw that their father was dead, they said, "What if Joseph holds a grudge against us and pays us back for all the wrongs we did to him?" ¹⁶So they sent word to Joseph, saying, "Your father left these instructions before he died: ¹⁷'This is what you are to say to Joseph: I ask you to forgive your brothers the sins and the wrongs they committed in treating you so badly.' Now please forgive the sins of the servants of the God of your father." When their message came to him, Joseph wept. ¹⁸His brothers then came and threw themselves down before him. "We are your slaves," they said. ¹⁹But Joseph said to them, "Don't be afraid. Am I in the place of God? ²⁰You intended to harm me, but God intended it for good to accomplish what is now being done, the saving of many lives. ²¹So then, don't be afraid. I will provide for you and your children." And he reassured them and spoke kindly to them.

`If I were a religious man, I would say that everything we have learned about life ... shows that we are ... special in God's sight'

This is one of the most amazing quotes I have ever read by a non-theist.

[Above: "Are we alone?" The Poetry of Rick Ellis]

Physicist James S. Trefil, who describes himself as "[not] a religious man," nevertheless concludes that "we are alone in the galaxy" and that "everything we have learned about life in the past twenty years shows that we are unique, and therefore special in God's sight" (my emphasis)!:

"What if We Are Alone? The most common argument that I have seen advanced against the proposition that we are alone in the galaxy is that it is anti-Copernican, and, therefore, goes against five centuries of Western intellectual tradition. There are a number of retorts that can be made against this argument. First, ideas are not Copernican or anti-Copernican; they are right or wrong. Second, after so many impeccably Copernican books have been written showing that we must be very junior and unimportant members of the Galactic Club, it is time for someone to marshal the rather formidable arguments that can be made for the opposite viewpoint. For, as we have seen in this book, the evidence we have at present clearly favors the conclusion that we are alone. From the formation of the sun as a single G star to the evolution of the earth's atmosphere to the conditions of the earth's recent climate, everything points to the same conclusion-we are special. But we are living on an insignificant speck of rock going around an undistinguished star in a low-rent section of the galaxy. We are not the center of the universe. Maybe so, but we are special. But we share our biochemistry with millions of life forms, from flatworms on up. We are one member of a large family of animals using one particular variant of carbon chemistry known as DNA. Maybe so, but we are special. Why? Because on this particular bit of rock, circling this particular sun, all of the millions of factors happened to work themselves out so that the first fragile molecules had enough time to form complicated chains, and these chains were given just the right amount of protection to form simple living systems, and these living systems changed their environment in just the right way so as to narrowly escape twin catastrophes and put oxygen into the atmosphere. This in turn allowed life to emerge onto land, and since the planet's orbit was just right, the weather changed, forcing the apelike creatures on the African savannah to build tools, fashion shelters, and start to think about the world around them. Because only on this insignificant speck of rock have beings evolved who can look at the universe and ask the question, `Why?' If I were a religious man, I would say that everything we have learned about life in the past twenty years shows that we are unique, and therefore special in God's sight. Instead I shall say that what we have learned shows that it matters a great deal what happens to us. We are not the snail darters of the galaxy-one more life form whose ultimate fate is of little moment in the grand scheme of things. If we succeed in destroying ourselves, it will be a tragedy not only for the human race but for the entire galaxy, which will have lost the fruit of a 15-billion-year experiment in the formation of sentient life." (Trefil, J.S., "Conclusions: James S. Trefil," in Rood, R.T. & Trefil, J.S., "Are We Alone?: The Possibility of Extraterrestrial Civilizations," Charles Scribner's Sons: New York NY, 1981, pp.251-252. Emphasis original).

By "Copernican" above is meant the so-called Copernican Principle or Mediocrity Principle, which in turn is based on the plurality of inhabited worlds doctrine of the ancient Greek materialist philosopher Epicurus (341-270 BC). Epicurus was the father of Epicurean materialism, the anti-God philosophy which was "used ... in the Enlightenment as a weapon to undermine Christianity (and continues to be used to the present day for the same purpose)", as Benjamin Wiker, a Roman Catholic theologian and Discovery Institute Senior Fellow, explains, "The assertion of a plurality of worlds both rests on, and reinforces, the assumption that creation of complexity is easy, so easy that the combining and recombining of atoms creates not just one world, but many. So easy, indeed, that invoking a divine cause is completely superfluous" (my emphasis):

"To achieve this reductionism even more completely, Epicurus found another ingenious way to help eliminate our natural awe. It may sound, at first, a strange way to do it, but he reduced the universe by expanding it. The universe, according to Epicurus, is unlimited, both in respect to size and in respect to the `number of bodies and the magnitude of the void.' [Inwood, B. & Gerson, L.P., "The Epicurus Reader," Hackett: Indianapolis, 1994, 10.41-42] That means that, given an infinitude of time with an unlimited number of atoms in an infinite expanse of the void, there will be `an unlimited number of cosmoi [the plural of `cosmos'], and some are similar to this one and some are dissimilar ... [for] there is no obstacle to the unlimitedness of worlds.' [Ibid., 10.45] ... in Epicurus's argument, the hypothetical infinity is useful for asserting that, since there is an unlimited number of atoms and they move eternally and combine easily, then there must be an unlimited number of worlds. This `plurality of worlds' argument is essential to Epicurean materialism, and is used again in the Enlightenment as a weapon to undermine Christianity (and continues to be used to the present day for the same purpose). Why, then, would a plurality of worlds be so useful to Epicureanism? The assertion of a plurality of worlds both rests on, and reinforces, the assumption that creation of complexity is easy, so easy that the combining and recombining of atoms creates not just one world, but many. So easy, indeed, that invoking a divine cause is completely superfluous. There must be a plurality of worlds, the materialist reasons, because an infinite universe during an infinite time using an unlimited number of atoms in perpetual motion, simply must produce a multitude of complexity out of simplicity. This belief is the origin of the `monkey-at-the-typewriter' argument, where even a monkey, randomly pecking away, can produce Shakespearean sonnets, if only it has an infinite amount of time to do it. The goal of this belief is to allow enough time and material so that chance can replace intelligence: if the monkey can replace Shakespeare, then almighty chance can replace almighty God. And so, even though there was no empirical evidence of eternal atoms, no empirical evidence that such atoms combine easily to form complex structures, no empirical evidence that the universe was infinite or the number of atoms unlimited, and no empirical evidence that there actually was a plurality of worlds, the belief in a plurality of worlds actually functioned, for Epicurus, to sustain the undemonstrated arguments on which his system itself rested. That is, the belief in a plurality of worlds reinforced the belief in the simplicity, of the atom and the case with which it could combine to create complexity. Whether for Epicurus or the modern materialist, the circular reinforcement ultimately serves to release adherents of materialism from the disturbing thought that a divine Intelligence is behind it all. Are we surprised to find that the late Carl Sagan, the chief spokesperson for materialism in the last quarter of the twentieth century, calculated that in the Milky Way galaxy alone, there would have to be one million civilizations capable of interstellar communication?" (Wiker, B., "Moral Darwinism: How We Became Hedonists," InterVarsity Press: Downers Grove IL, 2002, pp.41-42. Emphasis original)

As for example when science populariser (i.e. propagandist) the late Carl Sagan (1934-1996) puts in the mouth of "an ... extraterrestrial observer" that we are "idiots" for thinking that "We're at the center":

"You might imagine an uncharitable extraterrestrial observer looking down on our species over all that time-with us excitedly chattering, `The Universe created for us! We're at the center! Everything pays homage to us!'-and concluding that our pretensions are amusing, our aspirations pathetic, that this must be the planet of the idiots." (Sagan, C.E., "Pale Blue Dot: A Vision of the Human Future in Space," Random House: New York NY, 1994, p.17).

But as Denyse O'Leary astutely observes, "Sagan's alien is, of course, really Sagan himself, an atheist giving his own view":

"In the meantime, another related change was taking place in the way scientists viewed the universe. In the 20th century, it was fashionable to view it as blind, pitiless, and indifferent, and to describe earth as a mediocre planet in a suburban galaxy, far from the center of things. This was one of the most popular themes in the art and literature of the period. As cosmologist Stephen Hawking has said: `We are such insignificant creatures on a minor planet of a very average star in the outer suburbs of one of a hundred billion galaxies. So it is difficult to believe in a God that would care about us or even notice our existence.' [Hawking, S., in "Master of the Universe," BBC TV, 1989] This was also a key theme of Pale Blue Dot: A Vision of the Human Future in Space, by astronomer Carl Sagan (1934-1996). In this book, Sagan muses on the idea that the universe is favorable to us, saying: `You might imagine an uncharitable extraterrestrial observer looking down on our species over all that time-with us excitedly chattering, `The Universe is created for us! We're at the center! Everything pays homage to us!'-and concluding that our pretensions are amusing, our aspirations pathetic, that this must be the planet of the idiots.' [p.12] Sagan's alien is, of course, really Sagan himself, an atheist giving his own view. In the next paragraph, he says that his judgment is too harsh. Indeed, it is. But not just because the judgment isn't polite. Sagan is in fact simply wrong. There is good reason to think that the cosmos is fine-tuned to allow for our existence." (O'Leary D., "By Design or by Chance?: The Growing Controversy on the Origins of Life in the Universe," 2004, pp.21-22).

And also that begs the question that there are "extraterrestrial observer[s]". If there are in fact none, then we are "at the center" of the Universe in the far more important sense that, as Trefil concludes, "only on this insignificant speck of rock have beings evolved [sic] who can look at the universe and ask the question, `Why?'". Then it would be Sagan and his Epicurean scientific materialist ilk who are the "idiots" (to use his own word). Or as the Bible puts it:

"Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools" (Romans 1:22 KJV)!

Stephen E. Jones, BSc. (Biol).

---

Genesis 48:3-4. ³Jacob said to Joseph, "God Almighty appeared to me at Luz [Bethel] in the land of Canaan, and there he blessed me ⁴and said to me, 'I am going to make you fruitful and will increase your numbers. I will make you a community of peoples, and I will give this land as an everlasting possession to your descendants after you.'

Re: I just have to hear you say "I believe that Christianity is the one true faith" and that tells me everything about you that I need to know!

AN

As is my usual practice when I receive a private message about Christianity, I am responding via my blog CED, minus your personal identifying information. Please don't send me any more private messages. Thanks.

[Left: "Jesus is the Only Way Poster," BK's Schoolhouse]

----- Original Message -----
From: AN
To: Stephen E. Jones
Sent: Saturday, January 13, 2007 5:56 AM
Subject: your blog

>Steven I just have to hear you say "I believe that Christianity is the one true faith" and that tells me everything about you that I need to know!

Well, since Jesus claimed to be "the way and the truth and the life" and that "No one comes to the Father except through me" (my emphasis):

John 14:6 "Jesus answered, `I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.'"

and the Apostles preached in Jerusalem, the capital of another religion, Judaism, that "Salvation is found in no one else" but Jesus, "for there is no other name under heaven given to men by which we must be saved" (my emphasis):

Acts 4:12 "Salvation is found in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given to men by which we must be saved."

and that there is only "one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus":

1 Tim 2:5 "For there is one God and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus,"

I do in fact "believe that Christianity is the one true faith."

So thanks for the compliment that, "I just have to hear you say `I believe that Christianity is the one true faith' and that tells me everything about you that I need to know." It tells you that I am a consistent Christian!

>People like you can't be reasoned with

Actually I can "be reasoned with." I just gave my reasons above why "I believe that Christianity is the one true faith": 1) Jesus claimed it; and 2) the Apostles taught it.

I will also quote some more reasons from "Objection #5: It's Offensive to Claim Jesus Is the Only Way to God," in Christian apologist Lee Strobel's book, "The Case for Faith: A Journalist Investigates the Toughest Objections to Christianity" (Zondervan, 2000).

Strobel notes that, "In a day of religious pluralism and tolerance, this exclusivity claim" in "the outrageous words of Jesus Christ: `I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.' [John 14:6]" is politically incorrect," and "Many people consider it arrogant, narrow-minded, and bigoted for Christians to contend that the only path to God must go through Jesus of Nazareth". Indeed, Strobel says of himself, "When I was an atheist, I bristled at assertions by Christians that they held a monopoly on the only correct approach to religion. 'Who do they think they are?' I'd grouse":

"To some people, such are the outrageous words of Jesus Christ: `I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.' [John 14:6] Many people consider it arrogant, narrow-minded, and bigoted for Christians to contend that the only path to God must go through Jesus of Nazareth. In a day of religious pluralism and tolerance, this exclusivity claim is politically incorrect, a verbal slap in the face of other belief systems. Pluralist Rosemary Radford Ruether labeled it `absurd religious chauvinism,' [Hick, J. & Knitter, P.F., eds., "The Myth of Christian Uniqueness," SCM Press: London, 1987, p.141] ... Certainly an approach like the one expressed by Indian philosopher Swami Vivekenanda is much more acceptable today: `We [Hindus] accept all religions to be true,' he told the World Parliament of Religions in 1893. The real sin, he said, is to call someone else a sinner.' [Copan, P., "True for You, But Not for Me," Bethany House: Minneapolis MN, 1998, p.34] That kind of open-mindedness and liberality fits well with our current culture of relativism, where no `fact' is considered universally true at all times, at all places, for all people, and in all cultures. Indeed, fully two thirds of Americans now deny there's any such thing as truth. [Colson, C., "Introduction," in Zacharias, R., "Can Man Live Without God," Word: Nashville TN, 1994, p.ix] When I was an atheist, I bristled at assertions by Christians that they held a monopoly on the only correct approach to religion. 'Who do they think they are?' I'd grouse. `Who are they to judge everyone else? Where's the love of Jesus in that?' Charles Templeton called it `insufferable presumption' [Templeton, C., "Farewell to God," Toronto: McClelland & Stewart, 1996, p.27] for the Bible to claim that besides Jesus there is `no other name under heaven ... by which we must be saved.' [Acts 4:12] Templeton added: `Christians are a small minority in the world. Approximately four out of every five people on the face of the earth believe in gods other than the Christian God. The more than five billion people who live on earth revere or worship more than three hundred gods. If one includes the animist or tribal religions, the number rises to more than three thousand. Are we to believe that only Christians are right? ' [Templeton, Ibid., p.27. Emphasis added] Despite Templeton's woeful undercounting of the number of gods worshiped in the world, his point remains. The exclusivity claim of Jesus is among the biggest obstacles to spiritual seekers today. With a subject this volatile, I knew I needed to talk with an expert who has a crisp, analytical mind, a sound philosophical background, and extensive experience with a wide range of different world religions. Those criteria led me to a suburb of Atlanta, Georgia, and the office of Ravi Zacharias, who was born and raised in India." (Strobel, L.P., "Objection #5: It's Offensive to Claim Jesus Is the Only Way to God," in "The Case for Faith: A Journalist Investigates the Toughest Objections to Christianity," Zondervan: Grand Rapids MI, 2000, pp.146-147)

>but I would like to give you a quote from my book [...] and blog [...] so that you can see why I believe in God but don't believe in any mainstream religion.

Sorry, but I have neither the time, nor the inclination, to read why you "believe in God but don't believe in any mainstream religion." Especially since you claim of me, a complete stranger, that, "People like you can't be reasoned with" (because I am a consistent Christian who believes what Jesus and the Apostles taught), therefore I am returning the compliment!

>[...] Paraphrased from M. Scott Peck.

Here is the actual quote by Peck (1936-2005), who was a psychiatrist, not a theologian:

"Perhaps the greatest sin of the Christian church has been that particular brand of arrogance, or narcissism, that impels so many Christians to feel they have got God all sewn up and put in their back pocket. Those who think that they've got the whole truth and nothing but the truth, and that those other poor slobs who believe differently are necessarily not saved, as I'm concerned have a very small God. They don't realize the truth that God is bigger that their own theology." (Peck, M.S., "Further Along the Road Less Travelled," Touchstone, Second Edition, 1998, p.166)

and so his views on "the ... sin[s] of the Christian church" are merely those of "a scientist outside his field of expertise," i.e. "just another layman":

"Practicing scientists are of necessity highly specialized, and a scientist outside his field of expertise is just another layman." (Johnson, P.E., "Darwin on Trial," [1991], InterVarsity Press: Downers Grove IL, Second Edition, 1993, p.13).

Also your paraphrase (so-called) omits to point out that on the very same page immediately prior to the above, Peck wrote that he in fact is an adult convert to Christianity and that he rejects the view "that Christianity was a second-best religion" and " that one religion was as good as another" (my emphasis):

"I would not have become a Christian or have been baptised at the age of forty-three if I thought that Christianity was a second-best religion, or that one religion was as good as another. On the intellectual level, the reason I became a Christian, is that I gradually came to believe that, on the whole, Christian doctrine approaches the reality of God, and reality in general, more closely than the other great religions." (Peck, Ibid, p.166. My emphasis).

Indeed, Peck tried and rejected Buddhism and Islam and "made a firm Christian commitment":

"In one of his books, People of the Lie, he wrote, "After many years of vague identification with Buddhist and Islamic mysticism, I ultimately made a firm Christian commitment -signified by my non-denominational baptism on the ninth of March 1980..." (M. Scott Peck,Wikipedia)

In other words, Peck himself believed that Christianity is the first-"best religion," which means that he also therefore believed "that Christianity is the one true faith"!

So if Peck was only talking about the attitude of some Christians, then I (and most of the Christians I know and have known in my ~40 years a Christian) would agree with him.

As Strobel and Zacharias note, "It's one thing for Christians to believe" "Jesus saying he's the way, the truth, and the life" and "It's another thing to communicate it without sounding smug or superior" although often "it's not the manner in which the Christians try to spread their faith that's offensive" but "people are simply reacting to the message itself" and "Resistance to truth can be so strong that it can still engender violence and hate even when the person has done absolutely nothing wrong":

"`The clear implications of Jesus saying he's the way, the truth, and the life are that, first, truth is absolute, and second, truth is knowable. His claim of exclusivity means categorically that anything that contradicts what he says is by definition false.' 'It's one thing for Christians to believe that,' I said. `It's another thing to communicate it without sounding smug or superior. But Christians often come off that way.' Zacharias sighed. It was a charge he had heard all too often. `Yes, if truth is not undergirded by love, it makes the possessor of that truth obnoxious and the truth repulsive,' he said. `Having been raised in India and having all Hindu, Muslim, Buddhist, and Sikh friends growing up, I can appreciate some of their criticisms of Christians. Christianity's history has some explaining to do with its methodology. Violence, antagonism, and hostility are contrary to the love of Christ. One cannot communicate the love of Christ in non-loving terms. `In India we have a proverb that says once you cut off a person's nose, there's no point in giving him a rose to smell,' he continued. `And if a Christian's arrogance turns off somebody, that person won't be receptive to the Christian message. Mahatma Gandhi said, `I like their Christ, I don't like their Christians.' Friedrich Nietzshe said, `I will believe in the Redeemer when the Christian looks a little more redeemed.' Their points need to be taken. `However,' he added, `it is possible to lovingly claim exclusive truth, just as a scientist can very gently say, `This is the second law of thermodynamics' without adding, `Now, can we vote on how many of us can cooperate with it or not?' `So the criticism of Christians is often valid?' `Yes, sometimes we have run afoul of cultural sensitivities. At the same time, however, Eastern religions have a lot of soul-searching to do in this regard today. Clannish and political conflicts aside, I know of no Christianized country where your life is in danger because you are from another faith. But today there are many countries in the world-such as Pakistan, Saudia Arabia, and Iran-where to become a follower of Christ is to put your life and your family at risk.' I had read enough newspaper accounts in recent years to know that was accurate, including in Zacharias' native land, where several Christians have been killed by militant Hindus in recent years. But sometimes it's not the manner in which the Christians try to spread their faith that's offensive. Sometimes people are simply reacting to the message itself. `Even the one whose life was most perfectly lived ended up on a cross,' Zacharias noted. `Resistance to truth can be so strong that it can still engender violence and hate even when the person has done absolutely nothing wrong.'" (Strobel, Ibid, pp.150-151)

But if Peck was claiming that Jesus and the Apostles were wrong in their claim above that Jesus is "the way and ... No one comes to the Father except through" Him (John 14:6), and that "Salvation is found in no one else , for there is no other name ... by which we must be saved" (Acts 4:12) and there is only "one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus"(1 Tim 2:5) (my emphasis), i.e. "Christianity is the one true faith" (to use your words), then Peck would be, at best, an inconsistent Christian.

>In other words; I believe in God, I just don't trust anyone that works for him!

That is either: 1) self-refuting, because you are (or at least think you are), by writing your book and your blog about God, one "that works for him." But then, by your own statement, you would not "trust" yourself (in which case why would anyone "trust" your views on God if you did not trust them yourself?); and/or 2) you have, in effect set up your own religion that claims to be "the one true faith"!

Even the `tolerant' claim that "all religions are true" (apart from it being absurd since they all contradict each other in their central truth claims) is itself an absolute truth claim. Zacharias makes this point that: 1) "Christianity is not the only religion that claims exclusivity"; 2) "truth ... Is, by definition, exclusive ... If truth does not exclude, then no assertion of a truth claim is being made"; and 3) "even Baha'ism, which claims to be a cosmic embrace of all religions, ends up excluding the exclusivists":

"'Forgive me for being blunt,' I said in prefacing my question, `but isn't it grossly arrogant for Christians to claim Jesus is the one and only way to God? Why do Christians think they're justified in asserting that they're right and that everybody else in the world is wrong?' ... `Lee, I hear that question so much, especially in the East,' he said, his voice animated and his eyes looking sincere and concerned. `The first thing I do is try to deal with the misinformation that is inherent in it.' `Misinformation?' I asked. `Like what?' `First,' he said, `it's important to understand that Christianity is not the only religion that claims exclusivity. For instance, Muslims radically claim exclusivity-not just theologically, but also linguistically. Muslims believe that the sole, sufficient, and consummate miracle of Islam is the Koran. They say, however, it's only recognizable in Arabic, and that any translation desacralizes it. And it's not just a basic understanding of Arabic that's required, but a sophisticated knowledge of the language. `As for Buddhism, it was born when Gautama Buddha rejected two fundamental assertions of Hinduism-the ultimate authority of the Vedas, which are their scriptures, and the caste system. Hinduism itself is absolutely uncompromising on two or three issues: the law of karma, which is the law of moral cause and effect, so that every birth is a rebirth that makes recompense for the previous life; the authority of the Vedas; and reincarnation.' I interrupted. `But I've heard Hindus say quite nobly that Hinduism is a very tolerant faith,' I said, thinking of statements like the one made by Swami Vivekenanda near the beginning of this chapter. He smiled. `Whenever you hear that statement, don't take it at face value,' he said. `What it really means is that Hinduism allows you to practice your religion so long as it buys into their notion of truth, which is syncretistic,' he said. Syncretism is the attempt to blend together different or even opposing beliefs. `As for Sikhism,' he continued, `it came as a challenge to both Hinduism and Buddhism. Then there are the atheists-they reject the viewpoints of those who believe in God. And even Baha'ism, which claims to be a cosmic embrace of all religions, ends up excluding the exclusivists! Therefore, the statement that Christians are arrogant by claiming exclusivity ignores the reality that every other major religion does as well. So when people talk of arrogance, this cannot be a logical attack they are making.' I started to formulate my next question, but Zacharias anticipated where it was headed and jumped in to complete my sentence. `You believe that all truth-' I began. `Is, by definition, exclusive,' he said. `Yes, yes, I do. If truth does not exclude, then no assertion of a truth claim is being made; it's just an opinion that is being stated. Any time you make a truth claim, you mean something contrary to it is false. Truth excludes its opposite.' `There are those who deny that,' I observed. `Yes, but think about this: to deny the exclusive nature of truth is to make a truth claim, and is that person then not arrogant too? That's the boomerang effect that the condemner often doesn't pause to consider. The clear implications of Jesus saying he's the way, the truth, and the life are that, first, truth is absolute, and second, truth is knowable. His claim of exclusivity means categorically that anything that contradicts what he says is by definition false.'" (Strobel, Ibid., pp.148-151).

This is "the boomerang effect that the condemner"of the exclusive truth claims of Christianity (like you) "often doesn't pause to consider" that the rejection of the claim "I believe that Christianity is the one true faith," is itself exclusivist (and therefore self-contradictory)!

The bottom line is that while "Anyone can claim to be the only path to God" (including you, in effect), "the resurrection of Jesus established him as being the son of God" and "If that's true [which it is], then all other faith systems cannot be true, because they each assert something contrary to his divinity":

"Anyone can claim to be the only path to God. In fact, quite a few crackpots have made that assertion throughout history. The real issue is why anybody should believe Jesus was telling the truth when he said it. `On what basis do you believe this claim by Jesus is true?' I asked Zacharias. `Ah, yes, that is the heart of the question,' he replied, his head nodding. `On one hand, you can say that the resurrection of Jesus established him as being the son of God. If that's true, then all other faith systems cannot be true, because they each assert something contrary to his divinity. And of course, the historical record concerning the Resurrection is extremely compelling.' ... `Finally, destiny is based on the resurrection of Jesus Christ, the historical event that proved his divinity and that opened the door to heaven for everyone who will follow him. Where else do you have anything that comes close to claiming this? ... Because the Resurrection is an actual historical event, we can be forgiven, we can be reconciled with God, we can spend eternity with him, and we can trust Jesus' teachings as being from God. ... That's why the apostle Peter said, `We did not follow cleverly invented stories when we told you about the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but we were eyewitnesses of his majesty.' [2 Peter 1:16] `He's saying, `This is true. This is reality. This can be trusted.' And, yes, this truth excludes that which is contrary.'" (Strobel, Ibid., pp.151-153).

>If you really are open to any outside ideas then have a look at my [...] or take a look at the PDF copy of my book which I have included here!
>
>AN >[...]

Sorry, but I have deleted your ~2Mb PDF file unread. I suggest that if you want people to read your book, you try a different approach to sending unsolicited ~2Mb files to complete strangers, accompanied with the statement, "People like you can't be reasoned with"!

As for if me being "open to any outside ideas," there are far more "outside ideas" than there is time to consider them. Therefore we all (including you) have to chose which ones we are no longer "open to" (I myself was once an atheist, then a deist before I became a Christian). As the late, great Christian apologist G.K. Chesterton (1874-1936) observed, "the object of opening the mind, as of opening the mouth, is to shut it again on something solid":

"But I think he [H.G. Wells] thought that the object of opening the mind is simply opening the mind. Whereas I am incurably convinced that the object of opening the mind, as of opening the mouth, is to shut it again on something solid." (Chesterton G.K., "The Autobiography of G.K. Chesterton," The Collected Works of G.K. Chesterton, [1936], Ignatius Press: San Francisco CA, 1988, reprint, p.212).

and like Chesterton, I have made my choice (in 1967 - 40 years ago this year) that Christianity is true. And despite reading many "outside ideas" and debating against all-comers on the Internet for over a decade (1994-2005), I am even more convinced 40 years later that my choice way back then was the right one. Along with Zacharias I can affirm that, "Jesus ... is not only the way, the truth, and the life; he is personal to me. He is my way, and my truth, and my life":

"I have traveled the world. I have searched high and low. I have found nothing that satisfies my mind, my heart, and the deepest longings of my soul like Jesus does. He is not only the way, the truth, and the life; he is personal to me. He is my way, and my truth, and my life-just as he can be for anyone who reaches out to him. "Because remember what Paul told the Athenians: `He is not far,' he said, `from each one of us."' [Acts 17:27]" (Zacharias, R., in Strobel, Ibid, p.166. Emphasis original).

Stephen E. Jones, BSc (Biol).

---

Genesis 47:28-30. ²⁸Jacob lived in Egypt seventeen years, and the years of his life were a hundred and forty-seven. ²⁹When the time drew near for Israel to die, he called for his son Joseph and said to him, "If I have found favor in your eyes, put your hand under my thigh and promise that you will show me kindness and faithfulness. Do not bury me in Egypt, ³⁰but when I rest with my fathers, carry me out of Egypt and bury me where they are buried." "I will do as you say," he said.

`origin of life ... the fatal fault of depending on the accidental formation of a highly complex molecule through ... random collision' (Keosian)

As mentioned in a previous post, I had finally located and ordered the original source of a great,

[Left: Noda, H., ed., "The Origin of Life" (1978)].

but poorly referenced quote by YEC Duane Gish of a John Keosian, former Professor of Biology at Rutgers University and origin of life specialist, who wrote an important book, "The Origin of Life" in 1964, with second edition in 1968.

I now have received the book the quote is in, Noda, H., ed., "The Origin of Life" (1978), and have read Keosian's paper in it, "The Crisis in the Problem of the Origin of Life." Keosian had evidently retired (he is footnoted as "Professor Emeritus, Rutgers University"), so this is his final, end-of-career, nothing-to-lose, pull-no-punches critique of all naturalistic origin of life theories by an insider who `knows where the body is buried'!

I agree with Gish that, "Keosian was now much less optimistic, almost to the point of despair":

"In 1964, John Keosian published a book on the origin of life in which he optimistically looked forward to a solution of the many problems which seemed intractable at that time for the origin-of-life chemist [Keosian, J., "The Origin of Life," Reinhold: New York, 1964] Fourteen years later, drawing on much more knowledge and experience from his own research and that of many others in the field, Keosian was now much less optimistic, almost to the point of despair [Keosian, J., "Origin of Life," 1978, pp. 569-574]." (Gish, D.T., "Creation Scientists Answer Their Critics," Institute for Creation Research: El Cajon CA, 1993, p.262).

I am surprised I have not heard more in the creationist/ID literature about Keosian's paper in Noda's book, because it is devastating critique of all fully naturalistic origin of life theories! It is significant that there appears to be nothing on Keosian that I can link to. It seems he has been expunged from the record because of his paper!

I won't post immediately the actual quote of Keosian mentioned by Gish but will work my way through Keosian's critique of each origin of life theory, with my comments.

But first, a quote from Keosian's own book on the origin of life, on one of the earliest origin of life theories, the`enzyme... bare of all body' (i.e. naked enzyme) theory of biochemist Leonard T. Troland (1889-1932), which was "the basis of the `naked gene' theory of the origin of life":

"DID LIFE START AS A GENE? A different approach to the origin of life is given by the gene concept. This theory was proposed by Muller in 1926 in an address before the International Congress of Plant Sciences, but was first published in 1929. He has restated it on many occasions, the latest in 1966. The essence of the theory is that life originated as a gene by the accidental combination of its constituent atoms in the proper order and that the gene is the basis of all life past and present. This theory has its origin in the `living molecule' or `moleculobiont' theory of the origin of life proposed by Troland [Troland, L.T., "The Chemical Origin and Regulation of Life," The Monist, Vol. 24, 1914, p.92] in 1914. Troland wrote: `Let us suppose that at a certain moment in earth-history, when the ocean waters are yet warm, there suddenly appears at a definite point within the oceanic body a small amount of a certain catalyzer or enzyme.' And further, `The original enzyme was the outcome of a chemical reaction, that is to say, it must have depended upon the collision and combination of separate atoms or molecules, and it is a fact well known among physicists and chemists that the occurrence and specific nature of such collisions can be predicted only by use of the so-called laws of chance.' ... `Consequently we are forced to say that the production of the original life enzyme was a chance event.' And again, `The striking fact that the enzymic theory of life's origin, as we have outlined it, necessitates the spontaneous production of only a single molecule of the original catalyst, renders the objection of improbability almost absurd ... and when one of these enzymes first appeared, bare of all body, in the aboriginal seas it followed as a consequence of its characteristic regulative nature that the phenomenon of life came too. ...It is the purpose of the present paper to combat the thesis of the new vitalism by showing how a single physicochemical conception may be employed in the rational explanation of the very life-phenomena which the neo-vitalists regard as inexplicable on any but mystical grounds.' Troland's ideas are the basis of the `naked gene' theory of the origin of life." (Keosian, J., "The Origin of Life," [1964], Reinhold: New York NY, Second Edition, 1968, pp.85-86. Emphasis original).

Note in the above quote that Troland proposed that "the production of the original life enzyme was a chance event" and just assumed in 1914 (it was not until the 1950s when the structure of proteins was proved by Sanger, Perutz and Kendrew to be comprised highly specific sequences of amino acids) that "the spontaneous production of only a single molecule of the original catalyst, renders the objection of improbability almost absurd" (my emphasis).

However, as origin of life theorist Robert Shapiro pointed out, "For a typical enzyme of 200 amino acids, the odds would be obtained by multiplying the probability for each amino acid, 1 in 20, together 200 times," which is "1 in 10¹²⁰" (actually it is 1 in 20^-200 = 1 in 10²⁶⁰)! But since "What matters is the function of the enzyme, rather than the exact order of amino acids within it" and "A large number of amino acid sequences might provide enzymes with the proper function" therefore "the chances of obtaining an enzyme of the appropriate type at random were `only' 1 in 10²⁰"! "In fact, things are much worse" because "A tidy set of twenty amino acids, all in the L-form, was not likely to be available on the early earth" (my emphasis):

"We are now ready to handle the chances for the spontaneous generation of a bacterium. ... Many scientists have attempted such calculations; we need cite only two of them to make the point. The first was provided by Sir Fred Hoyle, whose ideas we shall discuss in detail later in the book. He and his colleague, N. C. Wickramasinghe, first endorsed spontaneous generation, then abruptly reversed their position. Why did they do this? Quite obviously, they calculated the odds. Rather than estimate the chances for an entire bacterium, they considered only the set of functioning enzymes present in one. Their starting point was not a complex mixture, but rather the set of twenty L-form amino acids that are used to construct biological enzymes. If amino acids were selected at random from this set one at a time and arranged in order, what would be the chances that this process would produce an actual bacterial product? For a typical enzyme of 200 amino acids, the odds would be obtained by multiplying the probability for each amino acid, 1 in 20, together 200 times. The result, 1 in 10¹²⁰ [sic] , places us on floor 120 of the Tower of Numbers, immensely higher than the level where we find the number of trials. Things need not be that bad, however. What matters is the function of the enzyme, rather than the exact order of amino acids within it. A large number of amino acid sequences might provide enzymes with the proper function. With this in mind, Hoyle and Wickramasinghe estimated that the chances of obtaining an enzyme of the appropriate type at random were `only' 1 in 10<sup>20</sup> . To duplicate a bacterium, however, one would have to assemble 2,000 different functioning enzymes. The odds against this event would be 1 in 10<sup>20</sup> multiplied together 2,000 times, or 1 in 10<sup>40,000</sup> . This particular item would then be available on floor 40,000 of the Tower of Numbers. If we consider that the number of trials brought us only to the fifty-first floor, we can understand why Hoyle changed his mind. His estimate of the likelihood of the event was that it was comparable to the chance that `a tornado sweeping through a junk-yard might assemble a Boeing 747 from the materials therein.' ["Hoyle on evolution," Nature, Vol. 294, 12 November 1981, p.105] In fact, things are much worse. A tidy set of twenty amino acids, all in the L-form, was not likely to be available on the early earth. This situation has not even been approached by the very best Miller-Urey experiments. Nor does a set of enzymes constitute a living bacterium." (Shapiro, R., "Origins: A Skeptic's Guide to the Creation of Life on Earth," Summit Books: New York NY, 1986, pp.125,127-128)

Now, after that long preamble, here is the first quote by Keosian from his paper, "The Crisis in the Problem of the Origin of Life," at the 1978 Second ISSOL (International Society for the Study of the Origin of Life) conference, in which he stated, "Both the enzymic and `naked gene' theories of the origin of life have the fatal fault of depending on the accidental formation of a highly complex molecule through the random collisions of atoms and inorganic molecules" but "Such an event, as the basis for the origin of life, is an event of zero probability" (my emphasis):

"Life's Origin-Molecular Theories In answer to the vitalists, TROLAND (1914, 1916, 1917) proposed a mechanistic explanation of the origin of life. He attempted to simplify the problem of the origin of life by making the assumption that the simplest possible form of life was a single molecule-an autocatalytic (self-replicating) enzyme which also had the properties in common with enzymes in general, of metabolic regulation (heterocatalysis) and mutation. He reasoned that, given enough time, the random interactions among atoms and molecules in the warm primordial seas would eventually bring forth such a molecule (TROLAND, 1914). Troland dismissed the objection of improbability of such an occurrence since the theory required the spontaneous formation of only a single molecule. MULLER (1929) adopted Troland's ideas, substituting the `naked gene' for Troland's `enzyme bare of all body.' ... Both the enzymic and `naked gene' theories of the origin of life have the fatal fault of depending on the accidental formation of a highly complex molecule through the random collisions of atoms and inorganic molecules. Such an event, as the basis for the origin of life, is an event of zero probability. An autocatalytic enzyme or a naked gene is alive only by the author's proclamation, and in the absence of organic compounds, has not even a theoretical future." (Keosian, J., "The Crisis in the Problem of the Origin of Life," in Noda, H., ed., "Origin of Life: Proceedings of the Second ISSOL Meeting, the Fifth ICOL Meeting," Center for Academic Publications: Japan, 1978, pp.569-574, p.569. Emphasis original).

Although Keosian also critiques above the "naked gene" theory of Nobel laureate geneticist Hermann J. Muller (1890-1967), I will comment on that in my next post in this series (part #2), because Keosian has more on it specifically.

Stephen E. Jones, BSc. (Biol).

---

Genesis 45:4-9. ⁴Then Joseph said to his brothers, "Come close to me." When they had done so, he said, "I am your brother Joseph, the one you sold into Egypt! ⁵And now, do not be distressed and do not be angry with yourselves for selling me here, because it was to save lives that God sent me ahead of you. ⁶For two years now there has been famine in the land, and for the next five years there will not be plowing and reaping. ⁷But God sent me ahead of you to preserve for you a remnant on earth and to save your lives by a great deliverance. ⁸"So then, it was not you who sent me here, but God. He made me father to Pharaoh, lord of his entire household and ruler of all Egypt. ⁹Now hurry back to my father and say to him, 'This is what your son Joseph says: God has made me lord of all Egypt. Come down to me; don't delay.

Re: according to ID theory is the Designer involved only in the formation of these microscopic structures, or the entire biological world? #2

AN

----- Original Message -----
From: AN
To: Stephen E. Jones
Sent: Sunday, January 07, 2007 9:32 PM
Subject: request

[Left: Benjamin B. Warfield]

Continued from part #1

>Such a question I guess must have been asked before, and I apologize for my ignorance.
>
>I would very much appreciate your commet .
>
>Thanks very much for your considerarion
>
>Yours
>
>AN
>
>Prof. of biology and philosophy

I hope this has helped.

It is important to realise that one could remain a "Darwinian Evoulutionist" and accept ID, if by "Darwinian Evoulutionist" is not meant the denial of design (as in Darwinism). As I pointed out in a recent post, "Re: Did Darwin believe in Intelligent Design?," in Darwin's day the foremost proponent of Darwin's theory in the USA was Darwin's friend and confidant, Harvard botanist Asa Gray, an evangelical Christian!

As I quoted in that post, there were at least two ways to reconcile the science (not the philosophy i.e. Darwinism) of Darwinian evolution with design.

The first was to step back one level to the "fitness of the environment" (see below), i.e. initial conditions, constants and laws of the Universe that Darwinian evolution itself depends on, could be designed, as pointed out by conservative Christian theologians like R.L. Dabney and B.B. Warfield, who wrote the definitive conservative evangelical Christian work on the Inspiration and Authority of Bible and who described himself as a "Darwinian of the purest water":

"If Hodge's and Patton's endorsement of evolution was ultimately tentative, B.B. Warfield was decidedly more partisan. By his own admission a `Darwinian of the purest water' [Warfield, B.B., "Personal Reflections of Princeton Undergraduate Life," The Princeton Alumni Weekly, 6 April 1916, pp. 650-53] .... It goes without saying that Warfield's endorsement of Darwin was not unqualified, however. He held that any scientific theory that in principle subverted providence or occasional supernatural interference must ultimately prove unacceptable. But within those limits, Warfield, in pointed contrast to both of the Hodges, said he would `raise no question as to the compatibility of the Darwinian form of the hypothesis of evolution with Christianity.' [Warfield, B.B., `Charles Darwin's Religious Life: A Sketch in Spiritual Biography,' in Studies in Theology, Oxford University Press: New York, 1932, p.548] The context of this particular ratification of Darwin's theory is itself important, for it shows Warfield's capacity to distinguish central issues from peripheral issues. He made the statement in an article entitled `Charles Darwin's Religious Life,' in which he reviewed the three-volume Life and Letters of Charles Darwin. As the subtitle `A Sketch in Spiritual Biography' suggests, Warfield focused on what has come to be known as Darwin's `affective decline'-that is, his increasing distaste for art, music, literature, and religion. Warfield certainly lamented the spiritually disruptive effects of the theory of evolution on its chief advocate, and he expressed his annoyance at Darwin's absolutist claims for his natural selection mechanism. But this must not be allowed to conceal the fact that Warfield remained enthusiastic about the theory as a natural law operating under the control of Providence an interpretation supported in various ways, he noted, by such scientists as Carpenter, Dallinger, and Gray. Warfield held that Darwin's aesthetic atrophy and spiritual disaffection could be traced on the one hand to an inability to conceive of God as immanent in the universe (which resulted in a misapprehension of the doctrine of Providence) and on the other hand to an unsophisticated understanding of teleology. It was Warfield's concern, therefore, to articulate a theological defense of divine design and providential government of the world in evolutionary terms." (Livingstone, D.N., "Darwin's Forgotten Defenders: The Encounter between Evangelical Theology and Evolutionary Thought," Eerdmans: Grand Rapids MI, 1987, pp.115-117)

The second way to reconcile Darwinian evolution with design, was to propose that the variations (i.e. mutations) could be directed (either naturally and/or supernaturally), as Asa Gray did. These two ways are not mutually exclusive.

As I also quoted in that previous post, Darwin rejected the second way of reconciliation of his theory with design, but on personal philosophical (not on scientific) grounds. However, on the first way, Darwin himself claimed that, "Everything in nature is the result of fixed laws," which therefore included the content of his own theory! Indeed, Darwin did not reject that second way to reconcile his theory with design, and even admitted in his autobiography that when "reflecting" on "this immense and wonderful universe" he felt "compelled to look to a First Cause having an intelligent mind in some degree analogous to that of man" and at those times he "deserve[d] to be called a Theist"!:

"Another source of conviction in the existence of God, connected with the reason and not with the feelings, impresses me as having much more weight. This follows from the extreme difficulty or rather impossibility of conceiving this immense and wonderful universe, including man with his capacity of looking far back wards and far into futurity, as the result of blind chance or necessity. When thus reflecting I feel compelled to look to a First Cause having an intelligent mind in some degree analogous to that of man ; and I deserve to be called a Theist." (Darwin, C.R., in Barlow, N., ed., "The Autobiography of Charles Darwin, 1809-1882: With Original Omissions Restored," [1958], W.W. Norton & Co: New York NY, 1969, reprint, pp.92-93).

As even Richard Dawkins himself admitted, the `blind watchmaker' depends on "the blind forces of physics ... deployed in a very special way:

"All appearances to the contrary, the only watchmaker in nature is the blind forces of physics, albeit deployed in a very special way." (Dawkins R., "The Blind Watchmaker: Why the Evidence of Evolution Reveals a Universe Without Design," W.W Norton & Co: New York NY, 1986, p.5. My emphasis).

I have recently been reading Yale biophysics professor Harold J. Morowitz' "Cosmic Joy and Local Pain" (1987), where he quotes two other leading scientists (Harvard's Lawrence J. Henderson and Princeton's Freeman Dyson) who, like him, accepted Darwinian evolution but also accepted design, and then concludes, "Like Dyson and Henderson ... I find it hard not to see design in a universe that works so well. Each new scientific discovery seems to reinforce that vision of design. As I like to say to my friends, the universe works much better than we have any right to expect" (my emphasis):

"In the early 1900s, Lawrence J. Henderson revived the argument from design within his perceptive work The Fitness of the Environment. He did not actually talk about design; rather, he noted:

There is, however, one scientific conclusion which I wish to put forward as a positive and, I trust, fruitful outcome of the present investigation. The properties of matter and the course of cosmic evolution are now seen to be intimately related to the structure of the living being and to its activities; they become, therefore, far more important in biology than has been previously suspected. For the whole evolutionary process, both cosmic and organic, is one, and the biologist may now rightly regard the universe in its very essence as biocentric. [Henderson, L.J., "The Fitness of the Environment: An Inquiry into the Biological Significance of the Properties of Matter," [1913], Beacon Press: Boston MA, Reprinted, 1958, p.312]

... design was back in the arena and periodically appeared in the writings of aging scientists, who, freed from the idylls of the marketplace, could state their philosophical views without fear of peer pressure.In 1979 Freeman Dyson attacked head-on a reexamination of design in light of the science of our time. His brief essay on theology occurs within a book appropriately titled Disturbing the Universe. Dyson is a prominent physicist and astrophysicist, and I think it came as a surprise to the scientific community when his book contained a chapter entitled `The Argument from Design.' He [wrote] ...

It is true that we emerged in the universe by chance, but the idea of chance is itself only a cover for our ignorance. I do not feel like an alien in this universe. The more I examine the universe and study the details of its architecture, the more evidence I find that the universe in some sense must have known that we were coming. [Dyson, F.J., "Disturbing the Universe," Harper & Row: New York NY, 1979, p.240]

Dyson points to the role of mind in the domain of physics. He notes that there is just the right balance between the attractiveness of nuclear forces and the repulsion of the like charges of nucleons. If the repulsive forces were larger, nuclei could not exist. If the attractive forces were greater, all the protons of the universe would have been tied up in diprotons and all the hydrogen reactions that fuel the nuclear chemistry of the universe could not have taken place. The actual fusion reactions of hydrogen in the sun depend on what physicists call the weak interaction. It controls the rate of fusion: much stronger and the stars would burn up too fast, much slower and they would be too cold. Dyson goes on to point out that organic chemistry (and by extension biochemistry) depends on a delicate balance between electrical and quantum mechanical forces that come about because of the exclusion principle. The thrust of Dyson's approach is very much in the mode of Henderson's, except that he adds mind, the immanent mind quality of the universe, as a further feature of design. In the preceding chapters we, too, have looked at the workings of the biological and geological universes and have been impressed with how well the microscopic and macroscopic aspects come together. Like Dyson and Henderson ... I find it hard not to see design in a universe that works so well. Each new scientific discovery seems to reinforce that vision of design. As I like to say to my friends, the universe works much better than we have any right to expect." (Morowitz, H.J., "Cosmic Joy and Local Pain: Musings of a Mystic Scientist," Charles Scribner's Sons: New York NY, 1987, pp.295-298)

I personally, like Prof. Behe, accept Universal Common Ancestry, and as I mentioned in another previous post, "Since 2003, with minor variations, I have stated on my testimony page ... I would have no problem even if Darwinian evolution was proved to be 100% true":

"I would have no problem even if Darwinian evolution was proved to be 100% true, because the God of the Bible is fully in control of all events, even those that seem random to man (Prov. 16:33; 1Kings 22:34). Jesus said that not even one sparrow will die unless God wills it (Mat. 10:29-30), which means that God is fully in control of natural selection. But if the Biblical God really exists there is no good reason to assume in advance that Darwinian (or any form of) naturalistic evolution is true!".

Therefore, as with Christian geneticist David L. Wilcox, for me "neither an adequate nor an inadequate `neo-Darwinism' (as mechanism) holds any terrors. But that is not what the data looks like", i.e. what the data looks like to me and Prof. Wilcox is that an Intelligent Designer (who I assume is the Judeo-Christian God), has supernaturally intervened in life's history, including its origin, and like Wilcox "I feel no metaphysical necessity to exclude the evident finger of God"!:

"I have no metaphysical necessity driving me to propose the miraculous action of the evident finger of God as a scientific hypothesis. In my world view, all natural forces and events are fully contingent on the free choice of the sovereign God. Thus, neither an adequate nor an inadequate `neo-Darwinism' (as mechanism) holds any terrors. But that is not what the data looks like. And I feel no metaphysical necessity to exclude the evident finger of God." (Wilcox, D.L., "Tamed Tornadoes," in Buell, J. & Hearn, V., eds., "Darwinism: Science or Philosophy?," Foundation for Thought and Ethics: Richardson TX, 1994, p.215. Emphasis original).

Stephen E. Jones, BSc (Biol).

---

Genesis 42:6-8; 43:32-33. ⁶Now Joseph was the governor of the land, the one who sold grain to all its people. So when Joseph's brothers arrived, they bowed down to him with their faces to the ground. ⁷As soon as Joseph saw his brothers, he recognized them, but he pretended to be a stranger and spoke harshly to them. "Where do you come from?" he asked. "From the land of Canaan," they replied, "to buy food." ⁸Although Joseph recognized his brothers, they did not recognize him. ³²They served him by himself, the brothers by themselves, and the Egyptians who ate with him by themselves, because Egyptians could not eat with Hebrews, for that is detestable to Egyptians. ³³The men had been seated before him in the order of their ages, from the firstborn to the youngest; and they looked at each other in astonishment.

"In the book of Genesis (43:33) we read of a lord of Egypt who entertained eleven men who were brothers. The men, so the story goes, `marvelled one with another' when they found themselves seated at table in the exact order of their ages. Let us seek to face the question: why was it that they marvelled? For answer we can only say that such an event seemed to contradict one of the basic ideas entailed in `common sense.' The men had never heard of the laws of probability, of entropy, or of the second law of thermodynamics, but they rightly suspected that the long arm of coincidence would hardly have arranged them in just that way. Somehow, they guessed that intelligence was at work, though to all appearances this could hardly have been the case. In the end, so it would seem, they decided to trust to appearances instead of intuition. Nevertheless, they soon learned that their intuition had not deceived them. The idea, in short, is simply this. Order does not arise of its own accord; it does not come out of nothing, and we must not explain it away by chance. On the other hand order is easily lost spontaneously." (Clark, R.E.D., "Darwin: Before & After: An Examination and Assessment," [1948], Paternoster: London, Reprint, 1966, pp.148-149)

Re: according to ID theory is the Designer involved only in the formation of these microscopic structures, or the entire biological world? #1

AN

Thanks for your message. As is my usual practice when I receive a private message on Intelligent Design (ID), I am replying via my blog CED, minus your personal details.

[Above: "Darwin's Black Box" (Tenth Anniversary Edition, 2006), Amazon.com]

----- Original Message -----
From: AN
To: Stephen E. Jones
Sent: Sunday, January 07, 2007 9:32 PM
Subject: request

>Dear Prof. Jones,

Thank you, but I am just plain Mr. Jones, BSc. (Biology).

>I read some of your articles, and am slightly familiar with Behe's book.

I presume this means you have not actually read Prof. Michael Behe's book, "Darwin's Black Box"? If that is the case, and since you claim (see part #2) to be a "Prof. of biology and philosophy," may I suggest that by your own standards of academia, if you are serious about wanting to understand ID, you should read the ID primary sources for yourself, and not rely on secondary sources, including me.

Indeed, "Behe's book" would be as good a place as any to start, especially the latest 2006 "Tenth-Anniversary Edition with an all-new afterword in which Behe explains that the complexity discovered by microbiologists has dramatically increased since the book was first published -- and that the evolutionists have had no success in explaining it."

>I admit of being a "Darwinian Evoulutionist", but regard myself as having an open mind, and ready to change it, in light of convincing evidence.

The problem is what to a "Darwinian Evolutionist" would be "convincing evidence"? In the more than a decade (1994-2005) I debated Darwinian Evolutionists on the Internet, they would say "there is no evidence for design" (or words to that effect), and I would then ask them, "what evidence for design would you accept"? For every one of them, it turned out that either: 1) for some there was no evidence for design that they would accept; or 2) for others they would only accept evidence for design if the Designer appeared to them! The bottom line is that not one "Darwinian Evolutionist" I have ever encountered was prepared to state in advance what evidence for design in nature they would accept. So their claim that "there is no evidence for design" was really, "I would never accept any evidence for design"!

If I was still debating, I would ask you the same question, but I am not, so I will leave it up to you to ask yourself, "what `convincing evidence' for design would you accept for design in nature"? If you truly have "an open mind" your answer would include some items of evidence, which you could then go to the ID literature and see if it provides that evidence, and if it did then you would accept ID. However, if the answer to the question is "none," then you would not have "an open mind" on design and therefore it would be meaningless you asking me, or anyone, for "convincing evidence" for ID.

Note that if you accepted ID, you could still be a "Darwinian Evoulutionist", in some sense. For example, former leading atheist Professor Antony Flew, author of a book, "Darwinian Evolution" (1991) has, "based on scientific evidence" (specifically mentioning "American `intelligent design' theorists, who see evidence for a guiding force in the construction of the universe"), that there is a God who created the Universe and first life, yet "He accepts Darwinian evolution but doubts it can explain the ultimate origins of life":

"A British philosophy professor who has been a leading champion of atheism for more than a half-century has changed his mind. He now believes in God -- more or less -- based on scientific evidence, and says so on a video released Thursday. At age 81, after decades of insisting belief is a mistake, Antony Flew has concluded that some sort of intelligence or first cause must have created the universe. A super-intelligence is the only good explanation for the origin of life and the complexity of nature, Flew said in a telephone interview from England. Flew said he's best labeled a deist like Thomas Jefferson, whose God was not actively involved in people's lives. ...,' he said. `It could be a person in the sense of a being that has intelligence and a purpose, I suppose.' ... Over the years, Flew proclaimed the lack of evidence for God while teaching at Oxford, Aberdeen, Keele, and Reading universities in Britain, in visits to numerous U.S. and Canadian campuses and in books, articles, lectures and debates. There was no one moment of change but a gradual conclusion over recent months for Flew, a spry man who still does not believe in an afterlife. Yet biologists' investigation of DNA `has shown, by the almost unbelievable complexity of the arrangements which are needed to produce (life), that intelligence must have been involved,' Flew says in the new video, `Has Science Discovered God?' .... The first hint of Flew's turn was a letter to the August-September issue of Britain's Philosophy Now magazine. `It has become inordinately difficult even to begin to think about constructing a naturalistic theory of the evolution of that first reproducing organism,' he wrote. ... if his belief upsets people, well `that's too bad,' Flew said. `My whole life has been guided by the principle of Plato's Socrates: Follow the evidence, wherever it leads.' ... Flew told The Associated Press his current ideas have some similarity with American `intelligent design' theorists, who see evidence for a guiding force in the construction of the universe. He accepts Darwinian evolution but doubts it can explain the ultimate origins of life." (Ostling, R.N., "Atheist Philosopher, 81, Now Believes in God," Livescience/Associated Press, 10 December 2004)

>Now, as far as I know ID is mainly based on the existence of enormous complexity in the microscopic and sub-microscopic realm.

Correct. ID's primary focus is on the origin of life and the "enormous complexity in the microscopic and sub-microscopic realm" (i.e. biochemistry, molecular biology and cell biology), because that is the area where "Darwinian Evoulutionist" explanations have the most problems, bearing in mind that Darwinian `blind watchmaker' evolution claims to be the area of science which decisively defeated the argument from design (it didn't actually - see below).

A good example is Behe himself. As a Roman Catholic (the official position of which has long been Theistic Evolution), Behe was "taught ... in parochial school ... that the evidence for Darwinian evolution by natural selection was ultra strong" but as a scientist who "worked as a postdoctoral researcher investigating aspects of DNA structure", when he and another Roman Catholic scientist in the same lab asked one day, "what would you need to get the first cell?" they both realised, based on the scientific evidence, that "the notion ...that undirected physical laws started life" was "preposterous because of the many complicated preconditions necessary just to get things underway":

"One slow afternoon in the late 1970s I was hanging out in my lab at the National Institutes of Health near Washington, D.C., where I worked as a postdoctoral researcher investigating aspects of DNA structure. A fellow postdoc, Joanne Nickol, and I were chewing the fat about the big questions: God, life, the universe-that sort of thing. She and I were both Roman Catholics (Joanne's brother was a priest) and so had the same general attitude toward many topics. That included an easy acceptance of the idea of evolution, that life unfolded over a long time under the governance of secondary causes, natural laws. Unlike some Protestant friends of mine who seemed obsessed by it, we Catholics were always cool about evolution, because we knew that God could make life any way he wanted to, including indirectly. Who were we to tell him differently? The critical point was that God was the Creator of life, no matter how he went about it. The course of Joanne's and my conversation in the lab hit a little snag. Because we were taught biology well in parochial school, we both knew that the evidence for Darwinian evolution by natural selection was ultra strong. But when the topic turned to the origin of life she asked, `Well, what would you need to get the first cell?' `You'd need a membrane for sure,' said I. `And metabolism.' `Can't do without a genetic code,' said she, `and proteins.' At that point we stopped, looked at each other and, in unison, hollered `Naaaahh!' Then we laughed and went back to work. From a distance of years I notice three things about my conversation with Joanne (who died about a decade ago). The first is that the notion, widely accepted among scientists, that undirected physical laws started life, struck both of us-both well-trained young scientists who would be happy to accept it-as preposterous because of the many complicated preconditions necessary just to get things underway. Second, we apparently hadn't given it much thought before then. And third, we both just shrugged it off and went back to work. I suppose we were thinking that even if we didn't know how life started by natural processes, surely somebody must know. Or that somebody would figure it out before long. Or eventually. Or that it wasn't important. Or something." (Behe, M.J., "From Muttering to Mayhem: How Phillip Johnson Got Me Moving," in Dembski, W.A., ed., "Darwin's Nemesis: Phillip Johnson and the Intelligent Design Movement," InterVarsity Press: Downers Grove IL, 2000, pp.40-41. Emphasis original).

>However it is not clear to me whether according to ID theory, the Designer is involved only in the formation of these structures , or whether the entire biological world (including of course ourselfes) is the result of his (hers, it, or whatever) activity.

First, ID's focus is not on "the Designer" but the design. As you yourself indicated, the design could be "the result of his (hers, it, or whatever) activity". That is, ID does not seek to identify the Designer, regarding that as the domain of "philosophy and theology":

"The scientific community contains many excellent scientists who think that there is something beyond nature, and many excellent scientists who do not. How then will science `officially' treat the question of the identity of the designer? Will biochemistry textbooks have to be written with explicit statements that `God did it'? No. The question of the identity of the designer will simply be ignored by science. The history of science is replete with examples of basic-but-difficult questions being put on the back burner. For example, Newton declined to explain what caused gravity, Darwin offered no explanation for the origin of vision or life, Maxwell refused to specify a medium for light waves once the ether was debunked, and cosmologists in general have ignored the question of what caused the Big Bang. Although the fact of design is easily seen in the biochemistry of the cell, identifying the designer by scientific methods might be extremely difficult. In the same way, Newton could easily observe gravity, but specifying its cause lay centuries in the future. When a question is too difficult for science to deal with immediately, it is happily forgotten while other, more accessible questions are investigated. If philosophy and theology want to take a crack at the question in the meantime, we scientists should wish them well, but reserve the right to jump back into the conversation when science has something more to add." (Behe, M.J., "Darwin's Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution," [1996], Free Press: New York NY, Tenth Anniversary Edition, 2006, p.251).

Second, in its most basic, as Behe testified in the Dover Case, "Intelligent design is a scientific theory that proposes that some aspects of life are best explained as the result of design" (my emphasis):

"Q.[Mr Muise] Sir, what is intelligent design? A.[Prof. Behe] Intelligent design is a scientific theory that proposes that some aspects of life are best explained as the result of design, and that the strong appearance of design in life is real and not just apparent. Q. Now Dr. Miller defined intelligent design as follows: Quote, Intelligent design is the proposition that some aspects of living things are too complex to have been evolved and, therefore, must have been produced by an outside creative force acting outside the laws of nature, end quote. Is that an accurate definition? A. No, it's a mischaracterization. Q. Why is that? A. For two reasons. One is, understandable, that Professor Miller is viewing intelligent design from the perspective of his own views and sees it simply as an attack on Darwinian theory. And it is not that. It is a positive explanation. And the second mischaracterization is that, intelligent design is a scientific theory. Creationism is a religious, theological idea. And that intelligent design is -- relies rather on empirical and physical and observable evidence plus logical inferences for its entire argument. Q. Is intelligent design based on any religious beliefs or convictions? A. No, it isn't. Q. What is it based on? A. It is based entirely on observable, empirical, physical evidence from nature plus logical inferences." (Behe, M.J., "Tammy Kitzmiller, et al. v. Dover Area School District, et al.," Transcript, October 17, 2005, morning session).

By "design" is meant the result of "intelligent" as opposed to unintelligent (or "undirected natural") cause:

"What then is Intelligent Design? Intelligent Design begins with the observation that intelligent causes can do things which undirected natural causes cannot. Undirected natural causes can place scrabble pieces on a board, but cannot arrange the pieces as meaningful words or sentences. To obtain a meaningful arrangement requires an intelligent cause. This intuition, that there is a fundamental distinction between undirected natural causes on the one hand and intelligent causes on the other, has underlain the design arguments of past centuries. ... What has emerged is a new program for scientific research known as Intelligent Design. Within biology, Intelligent Design is a theory of biological origins and development. Its fundamental claim is that intelligent causes are necessary to explain the complex, information-rich structures of biology, and that these causes are empirically detectable. To say intelligent causes are empirically detectable is to say there exist well-defined methods that, on the basis of observational features of the world, are capable of reliably distinguishing intelligent causes from undirected natural causes. Many special sciences have already developed such methods for drawing this distinction-notably forensic science, cryptography, archeology, and the search for extraterrestrial intelligence (as in the movie Contact)." (Dembski W.A., "The Intelligent Design Movement," Reprinted from Cosmic Pursuit, Spring 1998. Access Research Network, November 15, 1998).

Therefore ID need not (and in fact does not) claim that "the entire biological world" is the result of "intelligent" as opposed to "undirected natural causes". Clearly there are "undirected natural causes" in "the ... biological world", in the sense of unintelligent processes that operate automatically. Not even the strictest Christian creationist would deny that, because in the New Testament Jesus Himself said:

Mark 4:28 "All by itself the soil produces grain--first the stalk, then the head, then the full kernel in the head."

where in the Greek original the word rendered "all by itself" is automatos which my Parsons Bible Dictionary program says means "self-moved", automatic", "spontaneous," of own accord, of self."

Which is not to say that the products of "undirected natural causes" are not designed in a different, broader sense than what ID means by "design". ID theorist William Dembski used the analogy of "an oil painting ... painted on a canvas" in which "the canvas is designed" and the "configuration of paint on the canvas is designed" but in different senses or levels of "design." By analogy this then corresponds to, "The universe is a canvas on which is depicted natural history," and "One can ask whether that canvas itself is designed" or "On the other hand, one can ask whether features of natural history depicted on that canvas are designed":

"In its treatment of design, this book focuses not so much on whether the universe as a whole is designed but on whether we are able to detect design within an already given universe. The universe provides a well-defined causal backdrop (physicists these days think of it as a field characterized by field equations). Although one can ask whether that causal backdrop is itself designed, one can as well ask whether events and objects occurring within that backdrop are designed. At issue here are two types of design: (1) the design of the universe as a whole and (2) instances of design within the universe. An analogy illustrates the difference. Consider an oil painting. An oil painting is typically painted on a canvas. One can therefore ask whether the canvas is designed. Alternatively one can ask whether some configuration of paint on the canvas is designed. The design of the canvas corresponds to the design of the universe as a whole. The design of some configuration of paint corresponds to an instance of design within the universe. Though not perfect, this analogy is useful. The universe is a canvas on which is depicted natural history. One can ask whether that canvas itself is designed. On the other hand, one can ask whether features of natural history depicted on that canvas are designed. In biology, for instance, one can ask whether Michael Behe's irreducibly complex biochemical machines are designed. Although design remains an important issue in cosmology, the focus of the intelligent design movement is on biology. That's where the action is. It was Darwin's expulsion of design from biology that made possible the triumph of naturalism in Western culture. So, too, it will be intelligent design's reinstatement of design within biology that will be the undoing of naturalism in Western culture." (Dembski, W.A., "Intelligent Design: The Bridge Between Science and Theology," InterVarsity Press: Downers Grove IL, 1999, pp.13-14)

Continued in part #2

Stephen E. Jones, BSc (Biol).

---

Genesis 41:53-57. ⁵³The seven years of abundance in Egypt came to an end, ⁵⁴and the seven years of famine began, just as Joseph had said. There was famine in all the other lands, but in the whole land of Egypt there was food. ⁵⁵When all Egypt began to feel the famine, the people cried to Pharaoh for food. Then Pharaoh told all the Egyptians, "Go to Joseph and do what he tells you." ⁵⁶When the famine had spread over the whole country, Joseph opened the storehouses and sold grain to the Egyptians, for the famine was severe throughout Egypt. ⁵⁷And all the countries came to Egypt to buy grain from Joseph, because the famine was severe in all the world.

`if your theory is ... against the second law of thermodynamics ... there is nothing for it but to collapse in deepest humiliation' (Eddington)

Here are not one but four quotes of the day from an older (1933) book by the late British astrophysicist Sir Arthur Eddington (1882 -1944)

[Above: Eddington, Arthur Stanley, David Darling]

who was famous for (amongst other things) in being asked the question, "`Professor Eddington, you must be one of the three persons [including Einstein] in the world who understand general relativity'" `modestly' (but possibly truthfully) replying, "On the contrary, I am trying to think who the third person is!'" (Eisenstaedt, J., "The Curious History of Relativity," Princeton UP, 2006)!

In the first quote Eddington says that for entropy (~disorder) in the entire universe to decrease "would involve something much worse than a violation of an ordinary law of Nature, namely, an improbable coincidence" and that "the second law of thermodynamics" ["The law that entropy always increases" in the entire universe] holds ... the supreme position among the laws of Nature"(my emphasis):

"The practical measure of the random element which can increase in the universe but can never decrease is called entropy. Measuring by entropy is the same as measuring by the chance explained in the last paragraph, only the unmanageably large numbers are transformed (by a simple formula) into a more convenient scale of reckoning. Entropy continually increases. We can, by isolating parts of the world and postulating rather idealised conditions in our problems, arrest the increase, but we cannot turn it into a decrease. That would involve something much worse than a violation of an ordinary law of Nature, namely, an improbable coincidence. The law that entropy always increases-the second law of thermodynamics-holds, I think, the supreme position among the laws of Nature. If someone points out to you that your pet theory of the universe is in disagreement with Maxwell's equations-then so much the worse for Maxwell's equations. If it is found to be contradicted by observation-well, these experimentalists do bungle things sometimes. But if your theory is found to be against the second law of thermodynamics I can give you no hope; there is nothing for it but to collapse in deepest humiliation." (Eddington, A.S., "The Nature of the Physical World," [1928], The Gifford Lectures 1927, Cambridge University Press: Cambridge UK, 1933, reprint, pp.74-75. Emphasis original).

Having debated the SLoT with evolutionists for over a decade (1994-2005), I do maintain that evolution does "involve ... a violation of an ordinary law of Nature, namely, an improbable coincidence" at the origin of life (for starters)! See `tagline' quote by Christian philosopher and ID theorist Del Ratzsch, that the YEC argument (which as an OEC I nevertheless agree with) that, "Simply throwing raw energy into a system generally does not produce increased order but destroys some of the order already there. So the view is that special conditions-codes, conversion mechanisms and the like-are needed before growths in order can occur even in open systems. That raises the question, How do these codes and conversion mechanisms themselves arise?"

The second quote by Eddington, that "Some things never happen in the physical world ... because they are too improbable" (his emphasis) agrees with Émile Borel's, "single law of chance ... Phenomena with very small probabilities do not occur ... A phenomenon with a probability of 10^-50 will therefore never occur, or at least never be observed" (Borel, É., "Probabilities and Life," Dover: New York , 1962, pp.1,28):

"Primary and Secondary Law. I have called the laws controlling the behaviour of single individuals `primary laws', implying that the second law of thermodynamics, although a recognised law of Nature, is in some sense a secondary law. This distinction can now be placed on a regular footing. Some things never happen in the physical world because they are impossible; others because they are too improbable. The laws which forbid the first are the primary laws; the laws which forbid the second are the secondary laws. It has been the conviction of nearly all physicists that at the root of everything there is a complete scheme of primary law governing the career of every particle or constituent of the world with an iron determinism. This primary scheme is all-sufficing, for, since it fixes the history of every constituent of the world, it fixes the whole world-history. But for all its completeness primary law does not answer every question about Nature which we might reasonably wish to put. Can a universe evolve backwards, i.e. develop in the opposite way to our own system? Primary law, being indifferent to a time-direction, replies, `Yes, it is not impossible'. Secondary law replies, `No, it is too improbable'." (Eddington, Ibid., pp.75-76. Emphasis original).

Which means that materialists' appeal to chance to explain the origin of life, e.g. George Wald's:

"... since the origin of life belongs in the category of at-least-once phenomena, time is on its side. However improbable we regard this event, or any of the steps which it involves, given enough time it will almost certainly happen at least once ... The time with which we have to deal is of the order of two billion years. ... Time is in fact the hero of the plot. Given so much time, the `impossible' becomes possible, the possible probable, and the probable virtually certain. One has only to wait: time itself performs the miracles" (Wald, G., "The Origin of Life," Scientific American, Vol. 191, No. 2, August 1954, pp.47-48)

fails to explain the chance origin of even one small gene of 200 base pairs, because as Fred Hoyle pointed out:

"... with a chance 1/4 of choosing each of the correct base pairs at random, the probability of discovering a segment of 200 specific base pairs is 4^-200, which is equal to 10^-120." (Hoyle, F., "Mathematics of Evolution," [1987], Acorn Enterprises: Memphis TN, 1999, pp.102-103)!

Eddington by his "the difficulty of an infinite past is appalling. It is inconceivable that we are the heirs of an infinite time of preparation; it is not less inconceivable that there was once a moment with no moment preceding it":

"But the nightmare of infinity still arises in regard to time. The world is closed in its space dimensions like a sphere, but it is open at both ends in the time dimension. There is a bending round by which East ultimately becomes West, but no bending by which Before ultimately becomes After. I am not sure that I am logical but I cannot feel the difficulty of an infinite future time very seriously. The difficulty about A.D. ∞ will not happen until we reach A.D. ∞ , and presumably in order to reach A.D. ∞ the difficulty must first have been surmounted. It should also be noted that according to the second law of thermodynamics the whole universe will reach thermodynamical equilibrium at a not infinitely remote date in the future. Time's arrow will then be lost altogether and the whole conception of progress towards a future fades away. But the difficulty of an infinite past is appalling. It is inconceivable that we are the heirs of an infinite time of preparation; it is not less inconceivable that there was once a moment with no moment preceding it." (Eddington, Ibid., p.83).

supports "The Kalām cosmological argument," revived by Christian philosopher-apologist William Lane Craig, which includes a premise that: "1. An actual infinite cannot exist; 2. A beginningless series of events is an actual infinite; 3. Therefore, the universe cannot have existed infinitely in the past, as that would be a beginningless series of events." That is, since matter/energy cannot have always existed from an infinite past, either the Universe popped into existence from absolutely nothing (which is even more inconceivable than an infinite past); or it was brought into being by a First Cause (which by definition is God) who is outside the Universe of matter/energy and time/space.

Eddington's third quote acknowledges that there is yet "another overwhelming difficulty lying between us and the infinite past" namely that since there is an inexorable "running-down of the universe" then "somewhere between the beginning of time and the present day we must place the winding up of the universe" which "is admittedly the antithesis of chance. ... something which could not occur fortuitously" and is therefore "scientific proof of the intervention of the Creator at a time not infinitely remote from to-day" (my emphasis)!:

"This dilemma of the beginning of time would worry us more were it not shut out by another overwhelming difficulty lying between us and the infinite past. We have been studying the running-down of the universe; if our views are right, somewhere between the beginning of time and the present day we must place the winding up of the universe. Travelling backwards into the past we find a world with more and more organisation. If there is no barrier to stop us earlier we must reach a moment when the energy of the world was wholly organised with none of the random element in it. It is impossible to go back any further under the present system of natural law. I do not think the phrase `wholly organised' begs the question. The organisation we are concerned with is exactly definable, and there is a limit at which it becomes perfect. There is not an infinite series of states of higher and still higher organisation; nor, I think, is the limit one which is ultimately approached more and more slowly. Complete organisation does not tend to be more immune from loss than incomplete organisation. There is no doubt that the scheme of physics as it has stood for the last three-quarters of a century postulates a date at which either the entities of the universe were created in a state of high organisation, or preexisting entities were endowed with that organisation which they have been squandering ever since. Moreover, this organisation is admittedly the antithesis of chance. It is something which could not occur fortuitously. This has long been used as an argument against a too aggressive materialism. It has been quoted as scientific proof of the intervention of the Creator at a time not infinitely remote from to-day. But I am not advocating that we draw any hasty conclusions from it. Scientists and theologians alike must regard as somewhat crude the naive theological doctrine which (suitably, disguised) is at present to be found in every textbook of thermodynamics, namely that some billions of years ago God wound up the material universe and has left it to chance ever since. This should be regarded as the working-hypothesis of thermodynamics rather than its declaration of faith. It is one of those conclusions from which we can see no logical escape-only it suffers from the drawback that it is incredible. As a scientist I simply do not believe that the present order of things started off with a bang; unscientifically I feel equally unwilling to accept the implied discontinuity in the divine nature. But I can make no suggestion to evade the deadlock." (Eddington, Ibid., pp.84-85).

As for the "various theories of rejuvenescence," i.e. "a never-ending cycle of rebirth of matter and worlds" and those who "wish ... for a universe which can continue indefinitely in activity must lead a crusade against the second law of thermodynamics" and Eddington could "see no way in which an attack on the second law of thermodynamics could possibly succeed" (my emphasis):

"Turning again to the other end of time, there is one school of thought which finds very repugnant the idea of a wearing out of the world. This school is attracted by various theories of rejuvenescence. Its mascot is the Phoenix. Stars grow cold and die out. May not two dead stars collide, and be turned by the energy of the shock into fiery vapour from which a new sun-with planets and with life-is born.? This theory very prevalent in the last century is no longer contemplated seriously by astronomers. There is evidence that the present stars at any rate are products of one evolutionary process which swept across primordial matter and caused it to aggregate; they were not formed individually by haphazard collisions having no particular time connection with one another. But the Phoenix complex is still active. Matter, we believe, is gradually destroyed and its energy set free in radiation. Is there no counter-process by which radiation collects in space, evolves into electrons and protons, and begins star-building all over again? This is pure speculation and there is not much to be said on one side or the other as to its truth. But I would mildly criticise the mental outlook which wishes it to be true. However much we eliminate the minor extravagances of Nature, we do not by these theories stop the inexorable running-down of the world by loss of organisation and increase of the random element. Whoever wishes for a universe which can continue indefinitely in activity must lead a crusade against the second law of thermodynamics; the possibility of re-formation of matter from radiation is not crucial and we can await conclusions with some indifference. At present we can see no way in which an attack on the second law of thermodynamics could possibly succeed, and I confess that personally I have no great desire that it should succeed in averting the final running-down of the universe. I am no Phoenix worshipper. This is a topic on which science is silent, and all that one can say is prejudice. But since prejudice in favour of a never-ending cycle of rebirth of matter and worlds is often vocal, I may perhaps give voice to the opposite prejudice. I would feel more content that the universe should accomplish some great scheme of evolution and, having achieved whatever may be achieved, lapse back into chaotic changelessness, than that its purpose should be banalised by continual repetition. I am an Evolutionist, not a Multiplicationist. It seems rather stupid to keep doing the same thing over and over again." (Eddington, Ibid., pp.85-86).

Stephen E. Jones, BSc. (Biol).

---

"Perhaps the most prevalent of the misconstruals of creationism involves the Second Law of Thermodynamics. There are several ways of stating the Second Law, but for present purposes the following intuitive characterizations will be adequate. In a system that neither loses nor gains energy from outside of itself (a closed system), although the total amount of energy within the system remains constant, the proportion of that energy which is no longer usable within the system (measured as entropy) tends to increase over time. An equivalent formulation is that in a closed system there is over time a spontaneous tendency toward erosion of a specified type of order within the system. Creationists nearly unanimously claim that this Second Law poses a nasty problem for evolution. Unfortunately, exactly what creationists have in mind here is widely misunderstood. Creationists are at least partly at fault for that confusion. One reason is that as noted earlier ... most popular creationists use the term evolution ambiguously-sometimes to refer to the cosmic evolutionary worldview (or model) and sometimes to refer to the Darwinian biological theory. Although a coherent position can be extracted from some of the major creationists (such as Morris, Gish, Wysong and Kofahl), this ambiguity has rendered some parts of their writings monumentally unclear. One has to read extremely carefully in order to see which evolution is being referred to, and some critics of creationism either have simply not noticed the ambiguity or perhaps have misjudged which meaning specific creationists have had in mind in specific passages. And critics are not the only people who have sometimes been bamboozled. Other creationists who take their cues from those above have also sometimes missed some of the key distinctions and have advanced exactly the original misconstrued arguments that critics have wrongly attributed to major creationists. In a word or two, we have a four-alarm mess here. But let's see if we can clear up at least some of it. First, when claiming that the Second Law flatly precludes evolution, major creationists almost invariably have in mind evolution in the overall cosmic, `evolution model' sense. The clues to that meaning are the almost invariable use (especially in Morris's writings) of phrases like philosophy of evolution or cosmic or universal or on a cosmic scale. The universe as a whole system is taken to be a closed system (classically), and according to the creationist definition of evolution model, that model is unavoidably committed to an internally generated overall increase in cosmic order, since on that view reality is supposed to be self-developed and self-governing. What Morris and others mean to be claiming is that any such view according to which the entire cosmos is itself in a process of increasing overall order is in violation of the Second Law. Critics of creationism almost without exception take this initial creationist claim to be about purely biological evolution on the earth and respond that the Second Law applies only to closed systems, whereas the earth, receiving energy from the sun, is thermodynamically open. But since the system actually in question here is the entire universe, which is the `prime example' of a closed system, the response that the Second Law only applies to closed systems is beside the point creationists mean to be making in this case. That is not to say that the creationist argument is ultimately correct here, but only that if it is defective the problem is not the one initially proposed. When discussion turns to evolution in the more restricted sense-biological evolution on the earth-then obviously it is highly relevant to point out that the earth is not a closed system and that thus the Second Law by itself does not directly preclude evolution. But Morris, Gish, Wysong and others admit that, and have for decades, although not always in a terribly clear manner. How does that admission emerge? Morris, for instance, claims in numerous of his writings that a system being open is not alone enough to cause a reversal of disorder or a decrease in entropy. There are, Morris claims, some additional requirements that must be met before that can happen For instance, the flow of energy coming into the system must be adequate, and there must be some already-existing `code' and `conversion mechanism' by which the incoming energy can be harnessed, turned into some form that is useful and usable in the system, and then properly directed and productively incorporated into the system experiencing increasing order. These additional requirements are not requirements of the Second Law itself but are requirements that Morris thinks we have good empirical grounds for accepting. Simply throwing raw energy into a system generally does not produce increased order but destroys some of the order already there. So the view is that special conditions-codes, conversion mechanisms and the like-are needed before growths in order can occur even in open systems. That raises the question, How do these codes and conversion mechanisms themselves arise? Some creationists may hold that the Second Law itself flatly precludes such codes and mechanisms arsing naturally. Others take the odds against the codes and mechanisms being generated naturally to be massively overwhelming. But Morris says that the natural development of such codes and mechanisms may, for all he knows, be possible, although it is unlikely. So although the Second Law does impose some conditions, and although other empirical experience seems to impose some additional constraints, at least in principle, according to Morris, all of those conditions and constraints can perhaps be met: `It is conceivable, although extremely unlikely, that evolutionists may eventually formulate a plausible code and mechanism to explain how both entropy and evolution could co-exist.' [Morris, H.M., "King of Creation," 1980, p.117] `This objection does not preclude the possibility of evolution.' [Morris, H.M., "The Troubled Waters of Evolution," 1974, p.101] `It may of course be possible to harmonize evolution and entropy.' [Morris, 1974, p.99] `This of course does not preclude temporary increases of order in specific open systems.' [Morris, H.M., "The Biblical Basis for Modern Science," 1984, p.207; Morris, H.M., "Biblical Cosmology and Modern Science," 1970, p.127]. Morris says similar things elsewhere-from at least 1966 on. [Morris, H.M., "Studies in the Bible and Science," 1966, p.146; Morris, 1984, p.207; Morris, 1980, p.114; Morris, H.M., "Does Entropy Contradict Evolution?," Impact, 141, March 1985]. So what, then, is the problem? A major one, according to Morris, concerns the required codes and mechanisms: `No one yet has any evidence that any such things exist at all.' [Morris, H.M., "Creation and the Modern Christian," 1985, pp.155-56]. `Neither of these has yet been discovered.' [Morris, H.M., "The Remarkable Birth of Planet Earth," 1972, p.20]. `So far, evolutionists have no answer.' [Morris, 1974, p.100]. `[The special conditions are] not available to evolution as far as all evidence goes.' [Morris, H.M., "Science and the Bible," 1986, p.60]. Notice the invariable qualifications: `yet,' `so far' and so on. And what that all means, according to Morris, is that `the necessary `law' of evolution, if it exists, still remains to be discovered and evolutionists must in the meantime continue to exercise faith in their model in spite of entropy.' [Morris, 1974, p.101]. Those last five quotes, incidentally, come from four different books written from 1972 to 1986, hardly an obscure brief departure from Morris's usual views-and this same sort of view is found in Gish, Wysong, Pearcey, Bird, and Kofahl and Segraves, from 1976 to the present." (Ratzsch, D.L., "The Battle of Beginnings: Why Neither Side is Winning the Creation-Evolution Debate," InterVarsity Press: Downers Grove IL., 1996, pp.91-93)