送交者: 2002年11月12日18:16:31 於 [彩虹之約]http://www.bbsland.com Note:I am pretty busy these few days. Here I only choose to respond to certain parts. I will respond more if I have time in the future.

>與智能設計論(IDT) 相對應的是進化論(EVOT)。由於智能設計論的矛頭直指進 >化論及其自然主義世界觀，有跡象顯示，進化論者及其自然主義者已預感到一場 >風暴即將來臨。而且，戰前的序幕已經慢慢拉開。 Unfortunately mainstream science treat it as scientific/pseudoscientific debate. ID never publish on peer review biology journal, too bad for a theory which goal is to replace evolution. >美國主流科學界的一些期刊介入這場熱身戰，也不在提倡學術自由。一是由 >於形勢所迫不得己，。二在擬制智能設計運動的蔓延，以期儘早摧毀智能 >設計論。 This is not the whole truth, the reason they pay some attention to ID is because IDers insists on including ID teaching in highschool curricula. If ID is really scientific theory. Then one will expect it to convince expert in biology field. But ID propagandalist instead choose to put pressure on highschool board. If they succeed,US curricula will be a laughing stock among Europe country because it teaches half baked science(if not pseudoscience) to highschool kids.

Why IDers don't want to gain recognition from the mainstream science first?I don't know.I suspect that the reason for this is becoz they know that ID isn't worthy of scientific consideration.

>儘管如此，智能設計論者淨賺的結果是：進化論者再也不能忽略智能設計論這樣 >一個對進化論構成威脅和挑戰的科學理論。而兩者的爭論已經逐漸進入到實質 >的科學層面，並已慢慢地擺上了桌面。這正是智能設計論者要達到的階段目標。 In the public eyes, yes. But not among scientific community. one can verify this by looking at conference and journal.

>1。智能設計理論嚴格以一個科學理論被提出，以現代科學的現代理論為基礎，不>引用任何宗教教義和哲學思想。 To date I have yet to see any scientific proofs in favor with ID.

>2。智能設計論的目標是以科學為出發點，力圖從科學上推翻進化論，進而向進化>論的哲學基礎 - 自然主義世界觀進軍。 This is irrelavent to scientific discussion.

>3。智能設計運動基本分為三大部分：一是在科學上用科學證據對進化論提出強有>力的反駁，並以科學為基礎在哲學上對自然主義提出批評；二是提出並完善智能>設計理論，以期對生命、物種的起源發展進行信息論意義上的解釋；三是提出強>有力的科學證據來支持智能設計理論。 This is funny. FIrst ID doesn't seek to destroy evolution as a whole. Behe admit in his "darwin Black Box" that he finds idea of "common descent" quite convincing. And he believes that evolution has occur at a larger scale. Evolution only fails at molecular level.

The objection to second point is, well,IDers have yet to come up with a good scientific theory. I think Demski admit it himself.

IMHO,third point is just wishful thinking.

>這裡，Rennie使出了所有進化論着的慣用伎倆，那就是生命系統是個開放系統，>那麼其自動(火)商減就是必然的。看來，Rennie是不知道怎樣用熱力學來分析開>放系統。他不知道哪些是開放系統(火)商減的必要條件，哪些是充份條件。沒有充>份條件，而言(火)商減就是一句空話。

>實際上，創造論者或智能設計論者正是從開放系統(火)商減的充份必要條件兩方面>着手批駁進化論的，初剛提到《生命起源的奧秘》外還有其它論文也提供了這樣>的分析。而進化論只用必要條件來搪塞。 Qouting from authority?OK.Then show me the calculation that evolution really violates 2lot. Show me that under evolution the inequalites entropy final - entropy initial>=integration of(change of energy/temperature) doesn't hold good.

Also, I find that the book "The Mystery of Life's Origin:" is out of print at amazon. So please post up relevent portion?

Ask you a questions, if evolution really violates 2lot,then why most mainstream scientists don't know it?

-------------------------------------------------

cont

送交者: niupitan 2002年11月14日02:52:36 於 [彩虹之約]http://www.bbsland.com >如果說1984年《生命起源的奧秘》一書只是從生命起源的角度對進化論提出批評的話，那麼 >一年後有一位資深遺傳學家所著的書則是從許多方面論證達爾文主義進化論的謬誤。這本書 >的名字是《進化論 - 一個處在危機中理論》 Evolution: A Theory in Crisis >(BURNETT BOOKS，1985) 在 英國 出版 ， 一年後在美國出版(ADLER & ADLER， >1986)。 書的作者是Australian 的生物學家Michael Denton。在該書中作者非常清 >晰地顯示了為什麼達爾文進化理論有嚴重缺陷。從同源說，化石證據，生命起源到遺產分類 >學等各個方面對達而文進化論進行了猛烈抨擊。特別是作者利用了最近分子生物學家包括作 >者自己在內的大量新發現深深地震撼了達爾文進化論的根基。

>Denton的書發表後在生物學界產生了很大影響，也得到了來自進化論陣營的不少批評。後來 >，大概是1995年 Denton 作為a Senior Research Fellow at the University of Otago >in New Zealand 接受了ANR(ACCESS RESEARCH NETWORK)的採訪，在被問到“(進化論者)對>你書的主要批評是什麼？”，Denton答道：“大多批評都是含糊不清以及是哲學意義上的。有很多評論我讀的很仔細，我沒有發現多少特別的批評。大多的批評都是諸如‘這傢伙是個神創論>者’ 或者‘他不相信達爾文主義，在主流生物學之外’ 等等。(Most of the objections >have been vague and philosophical. In the many reviews that I've read very >carefully I don't find many specific objections. Most of the objections are >that this guy is a creationist or he doesn't believe in Darwinism, he's >outside the mainstream of biology, and so forth.)

Denton seems to unaware of the facts that there are a great hosts of critics which directly deal with the point in his book. Search Talk Origins and google and see for yourself.

Those critics isn't emtpy talk. It points out that Denton misrepresents facts, his poor understanding of fossil evidence and such. Denton also can't see the great hosts of transitional fossil evidence and claim that they don't exist etc. Also some of it's qoutes are outdated, some are from encyclopedia instead of from peer review journal--you call it as a book of latest discovery?

Another point to note, Denton is not a creationist. This is clear from his book.

>從這可以看出進化論者的另一個特點就是：如果有人批評進化論，他們都把你定性為神創論 >者，而不管你的論點是否正確，是否有科學道理。 I think the converse is true. If one critizes evolution, some christians will immediately hail him as their hero, even though the book isn't well accepted among scientific community and even though it has been debunked many times.

>至此，JOHNSON書的出版將初期的ID運動推向了一個高峰，這個運動初期方向是從科學的 >角度批判進化論，並對進化論的自然主義科學基礎進行剖析。同時我們也看到學者們對達爾 >文主義進化論的批評是非常嚴肅的學術批評，而不象John Rennie在今年7月份的科學美國 >人雜誌上將批判進化論的論點說成“胡說八道”。這從一個側面反映了當代進化論者的心態。

>後來ID運動則朝着幾個分叉的方向交互發展。

>JOHNSON《審判達爾文》一書的出版將ID前期運動的批判達爾文進化論推向了一個高 >峰，隨後ID運動的發展朝者兩個不同的方向交互進行：一個方向是繼續批判進化論及其自 >然主義哲學；二是提出對進化論的替代理論-ID論，並在哲學上論證智能設計的合理性。 The fact that Johnson is the movement's godfather is really unfortunate. " Darwin On trial" misqoutes a lot of scientists. For example:Johnson misqoutes Collin Patterson. He claims that Patterson claims that "Darwin's theory of natural selection is under fire and scientists are no longer sure of its general validity". This is taking words out of context.Read the below website: http://www.talkdesign.org/faqs/johnson.html.

>人們已經知道細菌是多麼微小了，有些細菌具有一個極其微小的游動裝置，被稱為細菌鞭毛。而 >這種細菌鞭毛卻具有驚人的複雜性。當我把BEHE書中細菌鞭毛的插圖給一個朋友看時，我問>他：你想這圖是什麼？他看了一眼說：是航空發動機(因為我掩蓋了一些文字)。當然，沒有看到>圖的人是不知道它有多複雜，我只告訴大家它的一些部件：定子(包含C環和中介軸)，轉子(包>含S環和M環)，杆(驅動杆)，內膜，周質空間，汰聚糖層，外膜，軸套(包含L環和P環)，鈎狀萬>向節，絲狀體(漿)。或許有人讀了這些名字自然會想起航空發動機。

>BEHE教授用這些複雜生化系統來挑戰達而文進化論，不光是由於其複雜，更是由於其是“不可>降低之複雜性”(Irreducible Complexity)。一個“不可降低之複雜”系統一般由若幹部分組>成，而且各部分服務一個功能，只有各部分同時作用才可發揮該系統的功能，缺一不可。為了形>像地說明這些“不可降低之複雜”系統，BEHE教授舉了一個很簡單的例子：老鼠夾子。

>最簡單的老鼠夾子包含的部件有：(1) 作底托的木製底板；(2) 起關鍵作用的金屬捕殺環；>(3) 固定底版和金屬捕殺環的彈簧；(4) 稍加力就可作用的捕殺器；及(5) 暫時支撐捕鼠器並可>鈎住捕環的金屬棒。

>在這個最簡單的老鼠夾子中，上面五個部分缺一不可。如果沒有底板，其它部件就沒有固定的地>方；沒有金屬環，老鼠會在夾子上跳舞也沒事；沒有彈簧，老鼠會把夾子當玩具玩；沒有捕殺器>和鈎住它的金屬棒，以鬆手捕殺環就會退回原位，你什麼也幹不成。當然，你如果說我拿着不起>作用的老鼠夾子去打老鼠，行吧？那當然，你可以滿屋子跑去追老鼠。 Mousetrap is not a good analogy. For biologist s don't propose bacteria/living things evolve that way.IC component in Behe version is that if one part is removed then the whole things fail. Behe's logic is that since multiple parts have to occur simultaneously, then those parts cannot evolve gradually. This is not true since those parts need not to have the same function throughout its evolution. Take mousetrap for example,a metal hammer needs not to function as what it functions in mousetrap. It can serves other purposes first and only later it evolves into the function of slamming the mice. This is how evolution works, where one parts of the system gets modify to do task X, and later other parts of the system forms gets modify so that it might enchance task X.

TBC...