>Walter Bradley at the Creation Conference argued forcefully against the
>mathematical biology advocated by Kauffman and associates. He quoted one
>of them, John Horgan who quotes John Maynard Smith, one of the pioneers
>of mathemicatical biology, as referring to such simulation science "as
>fact-free science", where the mentioning of observational facts is
>considered to be in rather bad taste. Bradley also suggested, and I quote:
First off John Horgan is NOT "one of them". John Horgan is a senior science
writer for Scientific American. SA has begun to have articles written by
their staff, which gives a journalist the appearance of having the same
authority as an actual scientist. I have been disgusted by this practice by
SA. I do not know whether the misunderstanding of Horgan's position comes
from you or Walter, but using the June 1995 SA article as some sort of
evidence of a crack in the complexity theorists is dubious at best.
>"Self organization in complex systems which consist of large numbers of
>coupled chemical together have been demonstrated primarily in computer
>simulations. Again, the complexity or information that can be produced in
>an actual system depends on logistically arranging the many chemical
>reactions which take place in a very complicated way so that the required
>coupling can occur. While this is not a problem in the computer, it would
>be a "nightmare" in a real system of 1,000,000 chemical reactions.
What does Walter think happens in a living cell?
Foundation,Fall and Flood