| | Volume 1, Number 2
April 1985
A publication for the members of SOR
Notes from Peter Gordon
Recent work from England. In the 21 Feb 1985 number of New
Scientist, p. 44, under the heading, "Another case for creation-
ism," our readers will find a short but interesting review by
P. T. Saunders, of the new book, Adam and Evolution, by Michael
Pitman (Hutchinson, 268 pp.). Saunders, who is a mathematical
biologist and evolutionist at Queen Elizabeth College in London,
was impressed by a number of Pitman's arguments. He writes, for
instance, that "Darwin worried about the origin of the eye;
Pitman adds the problem of the origin of cytochrome c. And he
(Pitman) shows how very flimsy indeed is the neo-Darwinist
explanation of macroevolution."
But Saunders is unimpressed, and is rather dismissive, of
Pitman's "chief aim," the proposal of creation as an alterna-
tive. Saunders argues (now, where have we heard this before) that
a refutation of Neo-Darwinism is not the same thing as a
refutation of evolution itself, that robust entity (you know,
IT'S A FACT, etc., case dismissed). Well, anyway, I agree, at
least insofar as there are other theories of "the mechanism,"
including Saunder's own theory, awaiting their turn with the
evidence.
Is it entirely unreasonable for creationists to ask, however,
that THE FACT be held lightly, lightly enough, in fact, to allow
creation a place with the other theories? Perhaps Saunders will
(maybe soon?) be open to this possibility. (I'm not so sure about
Michael Ruse, who writes in Darwinism Defended, p. 58, "Evolution
is a fact, fact, FACT! I do not want to appear dogmatic or to
overstate the case here!" OK, Mike. Catch your breath.)
Recent work from Austria. Alfred Locker, a scientist with
the Institute for Theoretical Physics, at the Technical Univer-
sity of Vienna, has written a long and interesting paper, "Evolu-
tion and 'evolution'-theory in systems-and meta-theoretical
respect," Acta Biotheoretica, vol. 32: 227-264, 1983. Here are
some excerpts for the abstract:
In a critical survey, based on systems-theoretical and
meta-theoretical considerations, principal objections
against usual "evolution"-theory are raised, abounding the
result, that this widely accepted theory is scientifically
questionable...Because of the inevitability to definitely
discard (evolutionary theory) in its usual form, the problem
of an alternative to it emerges. It is suggested that this
alternative cannot be found within the context of "Galilean
science," but rather needs to be trans-scientific (i.e.,
meta-theoretical), taking the inherent complementarity of any
approach towards nature into account.
There is just one problem with this paper; it's auf Deutsch. (The
abstract is in English.) I am currently translating the paper,
and hope to complete the translation later this spring, but
anyone able to plow through some fairly heavy academic German is
encouraged to take a look at the paper. Those same readers with
some German are also encouraged to take a look at a book edited
by Alfred Locker, Evolution-kritisch gesehen (Evolution in a
Critical Light), Salzburg, Universitats-verlag Anton Puster,
1983, 179 pp. Eight essays and a epilogue provide a critical
discussion of evolution, in which (according to the review in
Acta Biotheoretica, vol. 33: p. 141 1984) "Evolution is viewed
from different angles, including philosophy, biochemistry,
paleontology, and genetics. The standpoint of the authors varies
from complete rejection of the evolutionary theory, to a synthet-
ic view in which Lamarckism and neo-Darwinism are regarded as
complementary."
Recent work from Italy. Any reader who has wandered onto
the pages of Rivista di Biologia in the past four years will have
encountered articles such as the following: "Life as a non-
historical reality," by Giuseppe Sermonti (vol. 73, no. 4,
pp. 551-569, 1980). Sermonti is a geneticist and Professor at the
Institute of Histology and Embryology, University of Perugia. He
writes that his view "opposes the evolutionary view according to
which life as a general phenomenon is a progressive process," and
that his "eventual conclusion" is "that a stationary (steady-
state) view accounts better for the observed facts than an
evolutionary (historical) view. The problem of origins is outside
the domain of our understanding from the scientific point of
view." (p. 560). A year later, the same journal carried the notes
of a debate between Sermonti and a zoologist, P. Omodeo, held on
February 2, 1981. Sermonti's remarks included the following:
According to evolutionism, life starts from a condition of
extreme simplicity, the minimal elementary life, and through
a mutation process a large Variability arises. Natural
selection, working on this variability, determines Complexity
and the Variability of living beings is the result of the
huge amount of information, potentially contained in
life...How can complexity have appeared at the beginning?
this is a great question which I cannot answer. Again I wish
to quote from Jacob: "The really creative part in
biochemistry must have occurred very early..." This is not
far from stating that life began with complexity. (Rivista di
Biologia, vol. 74, p. 396, 1981)
I do not have space here to cover all the articles of great
interest which have appeared recently in Rivista di Biologia,
but to my American eyes the freedom of discussion in this journal
is astonishing. There will be more to follow on Sermonti and his
collaborators. Meanwhile, (to paraphrase Shakespeare), get thee
to a library...
- Peter Gordon
***************************************
This file originates from:
Origins Talk RBBS * (314) 821-1078
Missouri Association for Creation, Inc.
405 North Sappington Road
Glendale, MO 63122-4729
(314) 821-1234
Also call: Students for Origins Research CREVO BBS
(719) 528-1363../
|