Re: Dawkins' video

David J. Tyler (
Fri, 12 Jun 1998 10:41:43 GMT

On Thu, 11 Jun 1998, Glenn R. Morton wrote:

> I am going to add one more item to my comments on the video. The
> anti-evolutionists have been quiet about this. and I would like to ask them
> if the facts are as presented, is this a proper way for Christians to behave?

Constraints on time have prevented me getting involved in this
exchange - much though I desire to do so. To ensure that Glenn gets
at least one response, I'm making the effort now.

"Is this a proper way for Christians to behave?" My answer is "yes".
The theme of this video is that information is a fundamental problem
for darwinists. For too long, the real questions have not been asked
or discussed in Darwinian circles. Richard Dawkins has a certain
"standardised" approach to addressing the issues - and it is really
very difficult to tie him down to address a specific issue which
allows us to test the theory he propounds. I have the impression
that this is the problem with the recorded interviews: he was giving
his standard pitch and not addressing the questions that were
concerning the interviewer. The opportunity came - Dawkins was "off
guard" - and it showed. From what we have been told, there is no
misleading presentation of the issues, and I would encourage people
to view the video and recognise that something important is being
communicated here. Our commitment to truth should not get hung up on
the fact that originally, the question was asked, not by the featured
interviewer, but by another person. The much more fundamental issue
is: why was the question such an embarrassment to Dawkins?

> I would also like to suggest that anytime we, as those interested in
> apologetices, ignore or distort clear observational data, we are doing the
> very same thing as was done in the video. ...

This is where I was wanting to contribute to the discussion. I would
suggest that those who have offered an answer to the question posed
in the video have failed to address the issue properly - and this
applies to Glenn as well. We have mechanisms to increase the amount
of DNA - but no example of new genetic information observed to
arise by a natural process. Darwinism infers (but fails to
demonstrate) that the new DNA can be converted to information via
further mutations and the action of natural selection. I like to
think that Dawkins understood what the question was asking for - and
would suggest that those on this list who have provided an "answer"
have not yet understood the question.

Glenn asks for honesty - and we all share his concern. But let us
put our own house in order! A question that asks for observational
data cannot be answered adequately with unvalidated theory!
In the words of Glenn: "I would also like to suggest that anytime we,
as those interested in apologetics, ignore or distort clear
observational data, we are doing the very same thing as [some
think] was done in the video". On this issue, observational data is
not on the side of neo-darwinism, or of broader versions of
evolutionary theory.

Best wishes,
David J. Tyler.