送交者: 2002年11月12日18:16:31 于 [彩虹之约]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.

>与智能设计论(IDT) 相对应的是进化论(EVOT)。由于智能设计论的矛头直指进 >化论及其自然主义世界观，有迹象显示，进化论者及其自然主义者已预感到一场 >风暴即将来临。而且，战前的序幕已经慢慢拉开。 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. >美国主流科学界的一些期刊介入这场热身战，也不在提倡学术自由。一是由 >于形势所迫不得己，。二在拟制智能设计运动的蔓延，以期尽早摧毁智能 >设计论。 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.

>尽管如此，智能设计论者净赚的结果是：进化论者再也不能忽略智能设计论这样 >一个对进化论构成威胁和挑战的科学理论。而两者的争论已经逐渐进入到实质 >的科学层面，并已慢慢地摆上了桌面。这正是智能设计论者要达到的阶段目标。 In the public eyes, yes. But not among scientific community. one can verify this by looking at conference and journal.

>1。智能设计理论严格以一个科学理论被提出，以现代科学的现代理论为基础，不>引用任何宗教教义和哲学思想。 To date I have yet to see any scientific proofs in favor with ID.

>2。智能设计论的目标是以科学为出发点，力图从科学上推翻进化论，进而向进化>论的哲学基础 - 自然主义世界观进军。 This is irrelavent to scientific discussion.

>3。智能设计运动基本分为三大部分：一是在科学上用科学证据对进化论提出强有>力的反驳，并以科学为基础在哲学上对自然主义提出批评；二是提出并完善智能>设计理论，以期对生命、物种的起源发展进行信息论意义上的解释；三是提出强>有力的科学证据来支持智能设计理论。 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.

>这里，Rennie使出了所有进化论着的惯用伎俩，那就是生命系统是个开放系统，>那么其自动(火)商减就是必然的。看来，Rennie是不知道怎样用热力学来分析开>放系统。他不知道哪些是开放系统(火)商减的必要条件，哪些是充份条件。没有充>份条件，而言(火)商减就是一句空话。

>实际上，创造论者或智能设计论者正是从开放系统(火)商减的充份必要条件两方面>着手批驳进化论的，初刚提到《生命起源的奥秘》外还有其它论文也提供了这样>的分析。而进化论只用必要条件来搪塞。 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 于 [彩虹之约]http://www.bbsland.com >如果说1984年《生命起源的奥秘》一书只是从生命起源的角度对进化论提出批评的话，那么 >一年后有一位资深遗传学家所著的书则是从许多方面论证达尔文主义进化论的谬误。这本书 >的名字是《进化论 - 一个处在危机中理论》 Evolution: A Theory in Crisis >(BURNETT BOOKS，1985) 在 英国 出版 ， 一年后在美国出版(ADLER & ADLER， >1986)。 书的作者是Australian 的生物学家Michael Denton。在该书中作者非常清 >晰地显示了为什么达尔文进化理论有严重缺陷。从同源说，化石证据，生命起源到遗产分类 >学等各个方面对达而文进化论进行了猛烈抨击。特别是作者利用了最近分子生物学家包括作 >者自己在内的大量新发现深深地震撼了达尔文进化论的根基。

>Denton的书发表后在生物学界产生了很大影响，也得到了来自进化论阵营的不少批评。后来 >，大概是1995年 Denton 作为a Senior Research Fellow at the University of Otago >in New Zealand 接受了ANR(ACCESS RESEARCH NETWORK)的采访，在被问到“(进化论者)对>你书的主要批评是什么？”，Denton答道：“大多批评都是含糊不清以及是哲学意义上的。有很多评论我读的很仔细，我没有发现多少特别的批评。大多的批评都是诸如‘这家伙是个神创论>者’ 或者‘他不相信达尔文主义，在主流生物学之外’ 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.

>从这可以看出进化论者的另一个特点就是：如果有人批评进化论，他们都把你定性为神创论 >者，而不管你的论点是否正确，是否有科学道理。 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书的出版将初期的ID运动推向了一个高峰，这个运动初期方向是从科学的 >角度批判进化论，并对进化论的自然主义科学基础进行剖析。同时我们也看到学者们对达尔 >文主义进化论的批评是非常严肃的学术批评，而不象John Rennie在今年7月份的科学美国 >人杂志上将批判进化论的论点说成“胡说八道”。这从一个侧面反映了当代进化论者的心态。

>后来ID运动则朝着几个分叉的方向交互发展。

>JOHNSON《审判达尔文》一书的出版将ID前期运动的批判达尔文进化论推向了一个高 >峰，随后ID运动的发展朝者两个不同的方向交互进行：一个方向是继续批判进化论及其自 >然主义哲学；二是提出对进化论的替代理论-ID论，并在哲学上论证智能设计的合理性。 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.

>人们已经知道细菌是多么微小了，有些细菌具有一个极其微小的游动装置，被称为细菌鞭毛。而 >这种细菌鞭毛却具有惊人的复杂性。当我把BEHE书中细菌鞭毛的插图给一个朋友看时，我问>他：你想这图是什么？他看了一眼说：是航空发动机(因为我掩盖了一些文字)。当然，没有看到>图的人是不知道它有多复杂，我只告诉大家它的一些部件：定子(包含C环和中介轴)，转子(包>含S环和M环)，杆(驱动杆)，内膜，周质空间，汰聚糖层，外膜，轴套(包含L环和P环)，钩状万>向节，丝状体(浆)。或许有人读了这些名字自然会想起航空发动机。

>BEHE教授用这些复杂生化系统来挑战达而文进化论，不光是由于其复杂，更是由于其是“不可>降低之复杂性”(Irreducible Complexity)。一个“不可降低之复杂”系统一般由若干部分组>成，而且各部分服务一个功能，只有各部分同时作用才可发挥该系统的功能，缺一不可。为了形>像地说明这些“不可降低之复杂”系统，BEHE教授举了一个很简单的例子：老鼠夹子。

>最简单的老鼠夹子包含的部件有：(1) 作底托的木制底板；(2) 起关键作用的金属捕杀环；>(3) 固定底版和金属捕杀环的弹簧；(4) 稍加力就可作用的捕杀器；及(5) 暂时支撑捕鼠器并可>钩住捕环的金属棒。

>在这个最简单的老鼠夹子中，上面五个部分缺一不可。如果没有底板，其它部件就没有固定的地>方；没有金属环，老鼠会在夹子上跳舞也没事；没有弹簧，老鼠会把夹子当玩具玩；没有捕杀器>和钩住它的金属棒，以松手捕杀环就会退回原位，你什么也干不成。当然，你如果说我拿着不起>作用的老鼠夹子去打老鼠，行吧？那当然，你可以满屋子跑去追老鼠。 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...