As www newhumanist org uk volume117issue2 1 June 2002 is no longer available, it is reproduced here.
Creationism Expounded by Editorial Staff Jun 01, 02 | 1:14 pm
Professor Andy C McIntosh & Dr Stuart Burgess, two scientists, explain here the scientific views of creation from a creationist perspective. Rationalists should be aware of the counter-evolutionary arguments put forward seriously by some scientists in order to understand a view with which they probably disagree.
To produce a machine which works, not only must there be the material necessary to make such a machine, there has to be a blueprint or set of instructions to build and run it. The information that is responsible for building living organisms is located inside the DNA molecule that is present in the nucleus of each cell. According to evolution, the immense information that exists in the world has arisen by genetic mistakes. However, according to information theory, information cannot spontaneously arise by random processes. In addition, observations fully support the argument that information cannot spontaneously appear in the DNA. The reason why creatures can undergo small changes in order to adapt to a new environment is that this involves a shuffling of genes that already exist within the DNA. Gene variation does not involve the creation of new information.
On top of this, in making a machine blueprint, there has to be prior agreement that a language is to be used such that both speaker and listener are communicating. The language rules must be unchanging for careful communication to work. (Gitt, Werner, Information: the third fundamental quantity, Siemens Review, Vol 56, Part 6, pp.36-41, 1989) If we start in English, and midstream change to French, chaos will emerge. The very existence of a sophisticated coded language using the position of 4 different nucleotides (Guanine, Thymine, Cytosine and Adenine), operating between the nucleus and other components of the cell, shows that there is indeed a Mind which has put such a coding language system together. Information is not defined by the material world, but uses it. Information does not come about by accident.
Irreducible bio-engineering: flight
Flight is one of the clearest examples of irreducible mechanisms on a macro scale. An aeroplane has an irreducible number of parts necessary for flight. An aeroplane requires a set of wings for lift, wing flaps and rear rudder for control and engines for propulsion. Engineers spent over one hundred years of intense research designing the first aeroplane because a flying machine could not be evolved from any land machine. Exactly the same principle applies to birds. A bird needs wings for lift, tail feathers for control and lightweight bones. A bird cannot have evolved from any land creature because all the mechanisms needed for flight are very different from anything required for land. The fossil evidence of extinct birds completely supports the argument that birds did not evolve. Other flying creatures such as bats and butterflies appear fully developed in the fossil record, and no evolutionist connects these creatures together. Consequently the evolutionist must regard flight as having developed by accident at least three times independently.
There are many other examples of irreducible mechanisms in nature which show that random chance operating with the well founded principle of natural selection, far from creating new structures only modifies existing ones. (Behe, M. Darwin’s Black Box – The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution, Free Press, Simon and Schuster, New York, 1996) Biologists generally accept that gene variation can only produce limited changes to an organism. For example, whilst a bird (like Darwin’s finches) can adapt to different environments by gene variation and natural selection, it cannot develop any new devices other than those already programmed for in the DNA (and possibly not prominent in one particular generation). Modern neo-Darwinian evolution suggests new types of mechanisms and new organisms evolving by genetic mistakes alone. However there is no empirical evidence for such new mechanisms such that new types of organisms evolve by gene mutations. Mutations are only a subset of what existed previously, so, as one would expect, the world is losing creature kinds not gaining them. Particle to people evolution in our view does not fit the evidence.
Andy C McIntosh is Professor of Thermodynamics and Combustion Theory, University of Leeds and Dr. Stuart Burgess is Reader in Engineering Design, University of Bristol
COMMENTS To comment on this piece, use the comment box below
RESPONSE TO “CREATIONISM EXPOUNDED BY PROFESSOR A C McINTOSH AND DR S C BURGESS
PART 1
The author’s perceptions of the Theory of Evolution differ considerably from a mainstream scientific view and we have endeavored to list what we see as the major differences. There are 15.
1) McIntosh and Burgess: “To produce a machine which works, not only must there be the material necessary to make such a machine, there has to be a blueprint or set of instructions to build and run it. The information that is responsible for building living organisms is located inside the DNA molecule that is present in the nucleus of each cell.”
Response: This invites the reader to draw a parallel between a "Blueprint" and the information in DNA. This is a central fallacy and Dr. Burgess makes it clear in his book "Hallmarks of Design" that he really believes this to be the case. Biologists will recognise in this, shades of the Homunculus concept that their discipline dispensed with in the 18th century in favour of the idea that heritable information is analogous to a "recipe" and not to a "design statement" of the resulting organism. It has long since been confirmed that the embryo contains GENERATIVE RATHER THAN DISCRIPTIVE information and a great deal is now known about the process of development. From this it is clear that the "blueprint" analogy is very misleading and should not be used. Ironically, If you COULD show that ANY organism has a descriptive statement of design intent in its genome in a form analogous to a "blueprint" , then you would have a very powerful argument against the Theory of Evolution which would not be able to account for it.
2) McIntosh and Burgess: “According to evolution, the immense information that exists in the world has arisen by genetic mistakes”
Response: Darwin proposed his Theory of evolution by Natural Selection. He had no knowledge of genes or of their mutations and it is quite clear that he saw Natural Selection as a key mechanism that led to evolution. The theory of evolution has been modified since Darwin but natural selection is still proposed as the key mechanism. Natural selection operates on "Variation" that is the result of a variety of factors only one of which is genetic mutation.
Posted by: Simon D Jenkins on Nov 12, 03 | 6:49 pm
PART 2
3) McIntosh and Burgess: “However, according to information theory, information cannot spontaneously arise by random processes”
Response: The bi-weekly lottery draw is a random process that results in a set of numbers. Now, explain to the guy standing next to you in the pub with the winning ticket that it is not possible for him to receive any information generated spontaneously by a random process.
4) McIntosh and Burgess: “In addition, observations fully support the argument that information cannot spontaneously appear in the DNA.”
Response: Quite what "observations" these are isn’t stated? Take a close look at the mirror next time you see yourself in it. Unless you have an identical twin, the face you see is unique. Your unique features are a consequence of the information in your DNA. This information is unique to you. Consequently some of this information did not exist before you were conceived. So how did it get into your DNA?
5) McIntosh and Burgess: “The reason why creatures can undergo small changes in order to adapt to a new environment is that this involves a shuffling of genes that already exist within the DNA”
Response: If creatures are adapted to their environment then their DNA is "Historically Informed" about that environment. This historical information is generated by the action of Natural Selection. Consequently what you say here contradicts item (3) and (4). You are also saying that you accept Natural Selection provided it only selects variants due to recombination and somehow excludes the possibility of genetic mutation. It could only do this if genetic mutations were always fatal and this is not the case. Many mutations are neutral or near neutral and some are beneficial. There is no mechanism in nature that can constrain Natural Selection in this way and discriminate against neutral or beneficial mutations.
6) McIntosh and Burgess: “Gene variation does not involve the creation of new information”
Response: Presumably, given the context of the previous sentence, by "Gene Variation" you mean "Gene recombination". If so then this is like saying that we can’t write any more books unless we invent new words and is therefore clearly wrong. As explained in 4) above, the DNA of your adapted creatures is "Historically Informed" about the new environment by information generated by natural selection.
Posted by: Simon D Jenkins on Nov 12, 03 | 6:50 pm
PART 3
7) McIntosh and Burgess: “On top of this, in making a machine blueprint, there has to be prior agreement that a language is to be used such that both speaker and listener are communicating.”
Response: See (1)
8) McIntosh and Burgess: “The language rules must be unchanging for careful communication to work. (Gitt, Werner, Information: the third fundamental quantity, Siemens Review, Vol 56, Part 6, pp.36-41, 1989) If we start in English, and midstream change to French, chaos will emerge.”
Response: Where do the authors suppose English and French languages came from? Could it not be that they evolved from a common ancestor? Many English words are incorporated into non-English languages, methods of communication can vary from auditory through visual to tactile, it’s the interpretation that is important.
9) McIntosh and Burgess: “The very existence of a sophisticated coded language using the position of 4 different nucleotides (Guanine, Thymine, Cytosine and Adenine), operating between the nucleus and other components of the cell, shows that there is indeed a Mind which has put such a coding language system together.”
Response: Quite how this shows that the genetic code could not have evolved remains is not stated. As yet, Science has not identified any reason why the Genetic Code could not have evolved and mechanisms that construct DNA have been identified. Consequently this is an "Argument from faith" rather than a consequence of molecular biology.
10) McIntosh and Burgess: “Information is not defined by the material world, but uses it. Information does not come about by accident.”
Response: See (3) and (4) and here is an example. The water level in a lake is "Historically informed". It is a function of the time integral of Inflow-Outflow. The time history of the water level in a lake constitutes information that is often very useful. To say nothing of the "Historically informed" DNA in those creatures you say can adapt to a new environment under the action of Natural Selection.
Posted by: Simon D Jenkins on Nov 12, 03 | 6:51 pm
PART 4
Irreducible bio-engineering: flight
11) McIntosh and Burgess: “Flight is one of the clearest examples of irreducible mechanisms on a macro scale. An aeroplane has an irreducible number of parts necessary for flight. An aeroplane requires a set of wings for lift, wing flaps and rear rudder for control and engines for propulsion. Engineers spent over one hundred years of intense research designing the first aeroplane because a flying machine could not be evolved from any land machine. Exactly the same principle applies to birds.”
Response: Many devices born of research into automobiles are used in flying machines. It is hardly surprising that a flying machine could not evolve from a land machine – they are designed for different purposes, however flying machines share many components designed for land machines. Exactly the same principle applies to birds. Limbs utilized for walking have evolved into wings, weight bearing limbs and bones have evolved into light-weight limbs and bones.
12) McIntosh and Burgess: “A bird needs wings for lift, tail feathers for control and lightweight bones. A bird cannot have evolved from any land creature because all the mechanisms needed for flight are very different from anything required for land.”
Response: See (11) There are numerous examples in the wild of species showing various levels of “flight”. Flying foxes, flying fish, and even spiders found “drifting” hundreds of meters above the land.
13) McIntosh and Burgess: “The fossil evidence of extinct birds completely supports the argument that birds did not evolve.”
Response: Leading ornithological palaeotologists do not agree. An authoritative and widely cited review titled “The origin and early evolution of birds” by Padian and Chiappe concludes: “Birds evolved from and are phylogenetically recognized as members of the theropod dinosaurs….”
Posted by: Simon D Jenkins on Nov 12, 03 | 6:53 pm
PART 5
14) McIntosh and Burgess: “There are many other examples of irreducible mechanisms in nature which show that random chance operating with the well founded principle of natural selection, far from creating new structures only modifies existing ones. (Behe, M. Darwin’s Black Box – The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution, Free Press, Simon and Schuster, New York, 1996)”
Response: Inside the front cover of this book there is a drawing of the bacterial flagellum. There is a great deal of evidence that this evolved from the Type III secretory system. Consequently, it cannot be shown to be irreducibly complex. Many similar counters are freely available relating to Hemagolbin and the Immune system etc. Similarly it is easy to demonstrate that the argument presented by Dr. Burgess (in his book "Hallmarks of Design") that the Human Knee is irreducibly complex is easy to refute and that the whole premise of this assertion is seriously flawed. It is important to note that structures, organs and systems evolve in relation to other structures, organs and systems and hence to extract one particular structure, organ or system and consider it in isolation is a false premise.
15) McIntosh and Burgess: “Biologists generally accept that gene variation can only produce limited changes to an organism. For example, whilst a bird (like Darwin’s finches) can adapt to different environments by gene variation and natural selection, it cannot develop any new devices other than those already programmed for in the DNA (and possibly not prominent in one particular generation).”
Response: Biologists accept that genetic mutation is a source of phenotypic variation and this can produce small changes to organisms. Biologists also accept that over time these small changes can become large changes.
Posted by: Simon D Jenkins on Nov 12, 03 | 6:53 pm
PART 6
Summary Comment: Geneticist Theodosius Dobzhansky (1900-1975) famously said: "Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution" and he believed in God. http://www.2think.org/dobzhansky.shtml
In this article, the authors demonstrate very clearly that they are unable to make sense of current mainstream biology because of their a-priori rejection of a selective part of it - the theory of evolution. This is to be expected when considering the statement of faith that creationists have to adhere to when writing articles. Their articles must not contradict a literal interpretation of the bible, and the theory of evolution contradicts a literal interpretation of the bible.
S Jenkins and J Wiltshire
Members
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/TheBrightHouse/
Posted by: Simon D Jenkins on Nov 12, 03 | 6:55 pm
I would be very grateful if McIntosh or Burgess would respond to our comments.
We spent some considerable time writing our response and will have to assume that if McIntosh and Burgess do not respond that they cannot respond.
If these professors cannot support their arguments then I feel it is appropriate that their respective universities are made aware of their anti-scientific World-view - given that they hold teaching positions associated with scientific authority.
S Jenkins
Posted by: Simon D Jenkins on Mar 18, 04 | 7:20 pm
We brought this article and our response to it to the attention of the members of www.the-Brights.net/forums and a large group of members interested in these matters expressed approval of our response and all of the 15 points we raised. None of the members agreed with the perspective presented in the original article by Professor McIntosh and Dr. Burgess. Consequently, we are confident that there is a "case to answer" and we call on the Authors to respond to our challenge to their position.
John Wiltshire Facilitator - www.the-brights.net/forum