THE EVOLUTION DEBATE: TWO UNPUBLISHD LETTERS
Author: Eamon Henry. Date: 17 July 2008

Preface:The two letters of mine given below were not published by the Irish Catholic weekly newspaper. As preface, I quote a comment on the more recent one by my son Manus aged 45, a member of staff of the Department of Engineering Research at Oxford University: “The whole Science/Religion debate is one I have followed over many years. On the one hand, pretty bizarre religious/educational practices do occur in the US, but on the other hand there are serious attempts to debate the issues, whereas the establishment in Europe blocks any serious, populist critiques of science’s over-stretched claims. I wish you luck with your letter, but I’m not holding my breath.”The two letters follow, in chronological order.

Rooney on Dawkins (28 January 2007)
Dear Editor,
The letter from Professor John Rooney in your issue of 25 January 2007 raises several points on which I strongly disagree with his views as stated. Given that his expertise is in Physical Chemistry and mine relates to Mathematical Economics, we each can hold similar or different convictions on matters outside our areas of competence, namely aspects of Philosophy and Theology. My approach below is to comment briefly on each paragraph of Dr. Rooney’s letter, which implies that readers need to have his letter to hand, as well as mine.
I would wish the name “Science” to be qualified by descriptive adjectives, such as “Physical”, “Geological”, etc., in the context of the letter’s first paragraph. I agree that proximate causes (Occam’s Razor most narrow view) might neither prove nor disprove the existence of deeper causes. These are what the “Meta” (meaning “After”) part of the word “Metaphysics” signifies. As soon as we know our Physics well, we can move on to a deeper level of human thought about causes, whether primal or final.
His second paragraph rules out “Intelligent Design” views, thus directly contradicting the “Five Ways” (meant to be taken together) of St. Thomas Aquinas, which point towards a reasonable “First Cause”. Pages 57-70 of Peter Kreeft’s 1990 book Summa of the Summa give the actual discussion of St. Thomas in English translation, with copious notes by the author. “Whether it can be demonstrated that God exists” is the descriptive heading of this part of the Summa Theologica. St. Thomas finds the answer “Yes” to this question of Cosmology.
My comment on his third paragraph is covered by my last paragraph above. In the next paragraph we find “Evolution” presented as a fact, with Homo Sapiens emerging from it. Many educated people have regarded “Evolution” as a totally unproven theory – a wishful-thinking view without a shred of supporting evidence – right from its beginning about 1860. A. N. Field’s book The Evolution Hoax Exposed (TAN Books 1971 issue) gives numerous grounds for rejecting this theory. Christian views on the problem of evil have a long history, through St. Augustine to C. S. Lewis. A brief summary is that God can draw greater good out of the evil due to the exercise of Free Will by some of his creatures, which is why God gave them rational Free Will, and not merely irrational instincts.
Regarding “Orthodox doctrine”, which for Christians ought to mean “God’s Truth” on the sin of Adam and Eve and its consequences, clear statements appear in the Catechism of the Catholic Church (VERITAS 1994, paragraphs 355-400). I offer no apologies on this score.
The final two paragraphs comprise an imaginative but tentative view of what it all might (or might not) amount to. A “transcendental” possibility would seem to offer a new approach, not covered at this point in time by Philosophy, Theology, or the Physical Sciences. However, an “ice and water” mix of Pantheism and Dualism might come within an asses’ roar of what Dr. Rooney seems to be dreaming about. We must allow both concepts as wide a range of metaphysical meanings as possible. Thus, perhaps, everybody might feel happy!Yours truly, Eamon Henry

Communications Science Analysis of “Intelligent Design” (6 July 2008)
Dear Editor,
In your issue of 3 July 2008, you published an article by Professor William Reville, of title “Intelligent Design”. In its summary section, various claims for “Evolution” producing “Design” are made. Two such claims are as follows: 1.The argument for intelligent design of living organisms fails to stand up against the theory of evolution by natural selection, just as Paley’s argument failed 150 years ago.2. Science shows us that the design we find in the biological world was produced naturally and unconsciously over deep time by the natural forces of natural selection.
A few definitions of terms are needed, to help us to be clearer on what we think we are talking about, as follows. I use the most relevant definition, as given in the Oxford Encyclopedic English Dictionary (1991 edition):Evolution: a process by which species develop from earlier forms, not by special creation, as an explanation of their origins;Design: a preliminary plan or sketch for the making or production of a building, machine, etc.;Intellect or Intelligence: the faculty of reasoning, knowing and thinking, as distinct from feeling;Life: the condition which distinguishes active animals and plants form inorganic matter, including the capacity for growth, functional activity and continuous change, preceding death;Cybernetics: the science of communications and automatic control systems in both machines and living things.
The two claims stated in the first paragraph above are totally rejected in a book by A. E. Wilder-Smith, of title “The Creation of Life: a Cybernetic Approach to Evolution”, first published in 1970 by Harold Shaw Publishers, Wheaton, Illinois. The author’s academic qualifications as such are quite impressive: D.Sc., Ph.D., Dr.es Sc., F.R.I.C. His varied career as a researcher and recognized expert in Organic Chemistry and Pharmacology is summarized at the back of his book, and need not be detailed here. What all this amounts to is that we may take his findings seriously.
Technical detail must necessarily be limited in a letter like this. The book’s Chapter 12: Quantitative Considerations and Prospects (pages 239-255) presents the core of his argument. The following is a summary of a few of his findings. The Darwinians (like Professor Reville) insist that information stored on genes (or DNA spirals) arose originally by spontaneous random processes. Such an assumption, per information theory, is mathematically unsound. The Second Law of Thermodynamics states that entropy (i.e. disorder) increases with time in any closed system. In other word, codes and order will decrease with time, if left to themselves. Genes are chemical structures of a highly ordered non-random nature.
The vast amount of information which all living creatures bring into the closed system of the universe has been pre-coded upon the genes of their first parents. Evolution, said to begin without any such pre-programming, runs counter to the findings of every thermodynamicist and communications engineer. Information theory requires a programmer to account for the increasing complexity of the whole program of evolution. The evolution theory as it stands provides for no information source to account for this increasing complexity.
I trust that these few thoughts will help the quest for truth.Yours sincerely, Eamon Henry