Evolution through the Back Door

Various | 6/15/2003 | Alamo-Girl

[Mamzelle]

re: Those who are threatened by the concept of evolution are insecure in their religious faith.

This one could keep me busy all day...

Those who are threatened by the concept of divine origin are insecure in their professional vanities...

Those who threaten believers with the appellation of "superstition" are insecure in their expectation of university grant committees...

[Rudder]

My point is that Evolution vs religious faith is a false dichotomy and that there is really no threat to religion posed by science.

[Rudder]

As a human endeavor, science is fraught with human error. And while there may be some scientists who strive to attack religion, most don't and many are religious. For an official policy against religion, science is devoid.

[Phaedrus]

The head if not the heart of all of Science must belong to physics. The discovery of the intricate yet precise and all-encompassing mathematical structures underlying physical reality make it supreme among the sciences. Chemistry and be seen as emanating out of or at least dependent upon physics, and out of chemistry comes biology. To the extent there is any uncertainty within physics that uncertainty must be multiplied at each step removed from that hard science. There remains fundamental uncertainty in physics and the physicists are, generally, humble enough to acknowledge this because their conclusions remain subject to experimental verification.

Not so with the Evolutionists. They indulge is a high level of purported certainty not only without experimental verification but in spite of its lack. When physicists speculate, they so label it. Not so the Evolutionists. Darwinism with be respected as science just as soon as it begins behaving according to its rules. Until then, it will remain a field rife with rank speculation offered to the world as fact and dominated by those with ulterior agendas such as Gould and Dawkins. I've come to believe that the Darwinists are bright enough to know all this and that they are therefore not motivated by the search for scientific truth.

I'm now reading Modern Physics and Ancient Faith by Stephen M. Barr, professor of physics at the Bartol Research Institute, University of Delaware (Thanks, bb). Barr just decimates atheism in a very convincing way. This book should be required reading for all those who endeavor to understand reality.

Thanks for the fine post, A-G.

[Phaedrus]

... They indulge in ...

[unspun]

Maybe I could get Evelyn Wood to read it to me?

[Alamo-Girl]

Thank you so much for your post! Indeed, the Yockey phrase was used in context with the subject at hand, the primaeval soup. But he didn't limit it in that fashion on the message board, here's what he said:

There is a more thorough discussion in Information Theory and Molecular Biology. Dialectical materialists are atheists. Their belief in a primeval soup without evidence puts them in bed with theologians. In science the "Absence of evidence IS evidence of absence." One does not believe unless and until one has overwhelming evidence. You will note of course that this is a twist from the usual declaration of faith by SETI disciples. Forgive me if I think this incongruous situation is very funny.

BTW, I understand he is working on a second edition of the book. The release date is February 2004.

[Alamo-Girl]

You are quite welcome! I'm looking forward to future discussions also.

[Alamo-Girl]

Thank you for your post! Indeed, the title seems to be distracting. Do you have a suggestion for a new title?

[Alamo-Girl]

Thank you so much for sharing your theory!

For Lurkers who want to know what a quark is, etc. - here's a very easy-to-digest summary from Fermilab:

The Standard Model

[Nebullis]

In science the "Absence of evidence IS evidence of absence."

There are occasions when this may be true, but it is far more often false. It is akin to stating that there is nothing further to be discovered in all areas of science. Prior to the discovery of distant planets, for example, there were no scientific grounds to claim evidence of absence of such planets.

[Nebullis]

BTW, I understand he is working on a second edition of the book. The release date is February 2004.

Let's hope he brushed up on his biology!

[Alamo-Girl]

Thank you so very much for your post, Phaedrus!!!

I strongly agree with your high regard for Physics and for the ethics that dominates the work of physicists and mathematicians.

And I do see an "end justifies the means" tenet among all the historical sciences - obviously evolution, but also archeology, anthropology, Egyptology, etc. The absence of evidence in the historical record leads to speculation, "just so" stories to fill the gaps. This would not be so troubling were it not for the peer review process and the politics of the academia.

In the end, the layperson such as I am, must remember that all of these theories emanating from the historical sciences may be the result of a committee, a group-think.

And of course, any democracy of this sort would be influenced by the very things Popper mentioned in his essay excerpted at post 47.

[Alamo-Girl]

Thank you for your posts!

I’m fairly confident that Hubert P. Yockey has no desire to shutdown scientific exploration into the unknown. I believe he was referring to the confirmation of science theory. There must be overwhelming evidence for such a theory to be “believed” – and I would extend that with the Popper arguments, that the greater the risk-taking in the experiments, the greater the opportunity to falsify, the greater the confidence in positive evidence.

Let's hope he brushed up on his biology!

Where have you found his biology lacking?

[betty boop]

A-G, this is marvelous! It'll take me some time to digest it all. But certainly, coming to evolution through the "back door" of physics and math looks like a project whose time has come! It'll certainly be fun to try!!! Thank you so much for this extraordinary post.

[Nebullis]

I’m fairly confident that Hubert P. Yockey has no desire to shutdown scientific exploration into the unknown.

I think you are right about this. That's why his absolute statement needs to be kept in context.

Where have you found his biology lacking?

He isn't a biologist and it's clear from his web writings. I haven't read his book, but a Nature review is critical of his molecular biology. He may be a fine radiation physicist and information theorist.

[Alamo-Girl]

Thank you so very much for the kudos and encouragements! I eagerly await your comments - especially since the subject touches on a lot of philosophy!

[Phaedrus]

This would not be so troubling were it not for the peer review process and the politics of the academia.

Well said, A-G.

[Alamo-Girl]

Thank you for your post!

I have read some of the criticisms of Yockey's book on the message boards. The ones that I read sounded like "sour grapes" - but if you have a link to the Nature article, I'd like to read it.

For a person you find lacking in biology, he certainly is well-published in the Journal of Theoretical Biology. He is also oft-quoted in the physics of tissue damage of radiation.

From the message board FAQs:

Following is Hubert Yockey's reference list:

* Yockey, Hubert P. Information Theory and Molecular Biology, Cambridge UK: Cambridge University Press (1992)
* When is random random? Nature 344 (1990) p823, Hubert P. Yockey
* Yockey, Hubert P. (1981). Self-organization origin of life scenarios and information theory. Journal of Theoretical Biology, 91, 13-31.
* Yockey, Hubert P. (1979). Do overlapping genes violate molecular biology and the theory of evolution? Journal of Theoretical Biology, 80, 21-26.
* Yockey, Hubert P. (1978). Can the Central Dogma be derived from information theory? Journal of Theoretical Biology, 74, 149-152.
* Yockey, Hubert P. (1977a). A prescription which predicts functionally equivalent residues at given sites in protein sequences. 67, 337-343.
* Yockey, Hubert P. (1977b). On the information content of cytochrome c. Journal of Theoretical Biology, 67, 345-376.
* Yockey, Hubert P. (1977c). A calculation of the probability of spontaneous biogenesis by information theory. Journal of Theoretical Biology, 67, 377-398.
* Yockey, Hubert P (1974). An application of information theory to the Central Dogma and the sequence hypothesis. Journal of Theoretical Biology,.46, 369-406.
* Yockey, Hubert P. (1960) The Use of Information Theory in Aging and Radiation Damage In The Biology of Aging American Institute of Biological Sciences Symposium No. 6 (160) pp338-347.
* Yockey, Hubert P., Platzman, Robert P. & Quastler, Henry, eds. (1958a). Symposium on Information Theory in Biology, New York, London: Pergamon Press.
* Yockey, Hubert P. (1958b). A study of aging, thermal killing and radiation damage by information theory. In Symposium on Information Theory in Biology. eds. Hubert P. Yockey, Robert Platzman & Henry Quastler, pp297-316. New York,London: Pergamon Press.
* Yockey, Hubert P. (1956). An application of information theory to the physics of tissue damage. Radiation.Research, 5, 146-155.
* Information in bits and bytes; Reply to Lifson's Review of "Information Theory and Molecular" Biology BioEssays v17 p85-88 (1995)
* Comments on "Let there be life; Thermodynamic Reflections on Biogenesis and Evolution by Avshalom C. Elitzur Journal of Theoretical Biology in press (1995).

[Alamo-Girl]

Thank you! Hugs!!!