July 2, 1984

Dear John Clayton,

     I really don't know what to do concerning the length of my letters. When I make my letters explicit enough to sufficiently cover the points that necessarily need to be discussed concerning a certain proposition (in this case, the argument from design for the existence of God) you simply pass over what I say and ignore most, if not all, of it and say it's too long for the discussion. When I shorten what we have discussed, as in TS, you misconstrue what I say and furthermore accuse me of using rhetoric without substance. Short or long, concentrated or explicit, you are dissatisfied. I really don't know what you want. So I must, for the time being at least, bumble along in my own way. (Also, I have not written any books that I can refer you to.)

     When I refer to various letters we have written I as using a notation that I think makes it such easier for us to look back at specific locations in specific letters. Rather than using dates, I use numerical order. But, to make this more explicit, here is the key:

J1:	your January 20 letter		T1:	my February 2 letter
J2:	your February 10 letter		T2:	my February 25 letter
J3:	your March 2 letter		T3:	my March 13 letter
J4:	your March 23 letter		T4:	my April 6 letter
J5:	your April 18 letter		T5:	my May 10 letter
J6:	your May 16 letter		T6:	my May 25 letter
J7:	your May 30 letter		T7:	my July 2 letter (this one)

     Also, when I list numbers after the letter identification, e.g., T4:17-23, I as referring to paragraphs in that letter. I should also repeat that, in T4, the long quote I took from Niles Eldredge and my introduction to it I as counting all as one-paragraph. Furthermore, T3 and T4 have been outlined in T5, T5 is a short summary, and T6 is basically self-outlined, at least in the parts that are directly related to my discussion of the design argument. But here are the outlines for T6 and T7:

letter T6		letter T7
pars. 1-3:	personal comments	1-2:	letter format
4:	false premises	3:	intellectual honesty
5:	argument from authority	4:	creationistic arguments
6:	personal comments	5:	obviousness and common sense
7:	response to flow chart	6:	consequences of hypotheses
8:	"de-separation" of arguments	7-8:	invalidity of improbability criterion
9:	structure of criticisms in letter	9:	clarification of randomness
10:	questions of methods	10:	argument from authority
11-21:	criticisms of design argument	11:	referral to references
22-23:	summary of criticisms	12:	protein formation
24:	personal remarks	13:	your personal remarks returned to you
		14:	remarks on "scientific" creationists
		15:	personal comments

     About your most recent letter: I think the attitude of intellectual honesty (and this requires an empirical skepticism) is good in and of itself. Knowledge should never be shunned and should always be searched for. It is what we do with our knowledge that requires our discretion. You say: "Having been an atheist and knowing the frustration that comes from an atheist's lifestyle I as concerned about where your attitude and your logical sequences will take you" (J7:12). Almost all of the atheists and agnostics I've ever personally known live happy and responsible lives. The only frustrations are really a sense of loss at the prospect of dying and the fact that our search for knowledge will never be complete, will never be satisfied. The depression I mentioned in my previous letter was due to my loss of a perspective of life and living in order to take up a new and completely different perspective (because of my new knowledge). My intellectual choice of agnosticism was chosen despite the consequences. Intellectual honesty required it. Knowledge is what it is regardless of our feelings about it. I'm sure you've read the story that, in 1860, when the wife of the Bishop of Worcester heard the idea that humans were descended from apes, she exclaimed, "My dear, descended from the apes! Let us hope it is not true, but if it is, let us pray that it will not become generally known." I reject this attitude. My feelings and my reasoning do not always coincide. When they clash, I choose the path of reason (as outlined in "In Terms Of Finding Out"). You mention that there are heavy stakes involved in this discussion. I would say that the heaviest stake is that of intellectual honesty. To so obviously reject this in order to improve your lifestyle is something I may understand and sympathize with but something that I cannot personally accept. Douglas Futuyma discusses this idea in Science on Trial (pp. 162-163, 217-2208, although he is discussing evolution in particular, this principle of intellectual honesty is valid in general):

     Reality does not yield to wishful thinking. There are certainly many people who believe in unicorns, or in the predictions of astrology, or in the transmigration of souls, because these beliefs satisfy their emotional needs. Such needs, however powerful, do not make unicorns or astrological influences or metempsychosis any more real. Nor do our wishes make unpleasant realities go away; death and disease remain grimly real.

     In this light, how should we interpret such creationists' objections to teaching evolution as that it is harmful to the child because it "contradicts his innate consciousness of reality and thus tends to create mental and emotional conflicts within him"; it "tends to remove all moral and ethical restraints"; "it may tend to rob life of meaning and purpose"; it "leads to a conviction that night makes right" (Henry Morris, Scientific Creationism, p. 15)? In other words, don't tell people about evolution because it's unpleasant, like death. Deny the reality of evolution and you can save the child from emotional conflicts and immorality.

     Even if these accusations were true, they would be irrelevant to the question of whether or not evolution is a fact. Science is science only if it limits itself to determining the nature of reality. The hallmark of science is not the question "Do I wish to believe this?" but the question "What is the evidence?" It is this demand for evidence, this habit of cultivated skepticism, that is most characteristic of the scientific way of thought. It is not limited to science, but it isn't universal, either. Many people still cling to traditional beliefs in the face of contrary evidence, out of wishful thinking, the desire for security and simplicity. But rationalism, as the philosopher of science Karl Popper has said, "has...always claimed the right of reason and of empirical science to criticize, and to reject, any tradition, any authority, as being based on sheer unreason, or prejudice, or accident" (Conjectures and Refutations, P. 6)....

     [M]aterialism as a foundation for scientific explanation does not require that we adopt materialism as a philosophy of life. Science does not speak to our emotions, nor offer us moral codes. I may apply the canons of materialistic science to all of physics, chemistry, and biology, but I can still be moved to tears by the heartrending beauty of Wotan's farewell in Die Walkure, to a love of humanity by Sarastro's great aria in Die Zauberflote, to compassion by the spectacle of Lear and Cardelia, to justice and morality by the teachings of Christ and the Buddha. The materialism of our society — the cold calculation of material gain, the cynical indifference to suffering humanity in the name of patriotism, the despoliation of the environment in the name of progress — is a social philosophy barn of the politics and economics of self-interest, not of science. Materialism as a social attitude and materialism as a method of analysis in science are two different things. Instead of confusing them, as the fundamentalists do, it is right and proper to oppose the one and affirm the other.

     Fundamentalists object to teaching evolution on the grounds that it contradicts the student's innate consciousness of reality and so creates mental and emotional conflict; that it leads to an amoral philosophy of "might sakes right"; and that it discriminates against people who believe in creation, I have argued that none of these claims has any real foundation. But even if they had, would that justify teaching nonscience as science? Education is not designed to reinforce whatever innate consciousness of reality a student say have. Many of our supposedly innate beliefs — which in act are generally merely learned from parents and peers — are wrong, and it is the job of education to correct them. Learning that the earth revolves around the sun, and that the universe is millions of light years in diameter, can be emotionally most disquieting, but it is important to face these facts, however such they may contradict our sense of reality. Learning that evolution has occurred has not deprived anyone I know of a sense of purpose, but the meaning of life is in any case a subject for personal reflection, not science. Evolution can lead to amorality only if we are taught to slavishly follow nature as a model for our behavior; but science should teach no such lesson....

     The child who learns that living things are created and directed by unknown and unknowable forces that can alter natural laws at will cannot apply the rules of scientific logic and procedure in any other field, from physics to psychology. He or she can only learn that the human quest for knowledge is doomed to failure by the willful whim of an inscrutable agent who acknowledges no natural law. Creationist theories rest not on evidence that can withstand the skeptical mind, but on wishful thinking and the Bible, the voice of authority which is the only source of creationist belief. To treat creationist as if it were respectable science is then to encourage credulity, gullibility, submission to authoritarian dogma, and the primacy of desire over evidence in shaping our view of reality.

     Scientific creationism is an intolerable assault on education not merely because it is the antithesis of reason, but because it is opposed to the very foundation of true education: intellectual honesty. Surely education should teach the courage to weigh evidence and draw conclusions dispassionately, and to recognize their consequences, however hard or distasteful. Scientific creationism teaches, instead, the standards of the Madison Avenue marketplace: how to further your aims by guile, seductive catch phrases, selective quotation of evidence. Like the purveyors of cigarettes, laetrile, nuclear superiority, and instant spiritual enlightenment, scientific creationism teaches by its tactics more than by its words: truth is not the object of brave and honest search. Truth is whatever you can convince people it is.

     You continue to accuse me of clouding up our discussion by referring back to creationistic arguments. This is nothing but derogatory rhetoric, as I'm sure you are well aware of. Indeed, if your accusation is true, then the person clouding up our discussion is you. You are the one using the arguments. I am simply showing their weaknesses. You are the one who says (The Source, 1983, p. 43):

     Suppose we ask what the mathematical adds are of a protein, the building block of DNA, forming by chance? Several prominent biologists working with at least one mathematician have calculated these probabilities. They tell us the odds are once chance in 10 raised to the 160th power (sorry, I don't yet know how to print superscripts an the printer I'm using — Todd)....Applying chemical kinetics, this would require 10 raised to the 243rd power years for one occurrence. While it would certainly be possible for a protein to form by chance, however slim that chance, it wouldn't be at all possible for 1200 proteins to form simultaneously by chance and have all of them fall into a DNA helix. Remembering that DNA is only one part of a cell, one has to be impressed with the impossibility of life coming into being totally by chance. To have a cell, one would have to add the formation of RNA, the synthesis of nucleotides in the cell, the organization of ATP, ADP as energy sources and a variety of other components still not fully understood.

     And you also say two paragraphs later, referring to a quote from Hoyle:

     These calculations in no way allow even the spontaneous generation of a protein, much less the synthesis of something like a DNA molecule containing hundreds of component molecules each having the similar odds of formation. In order for the amino acids to become organized through chemical reaction to proteins, on to RNA, DNA, genes, chromosomes and culminating to the cell, there had to be design. It is mathematically impossible for chance to explain this synthesis. The odds are beyond any rational acceptance as a possibility.

     This is virtually identical to statements made by creationists, and they make them for much the same reason that you are making them. When I criticize this argument and I mention creationists in connection with it, this does not obviate the fact that it is also the same argument that you are using. I am dealing with things that you are attempting to present to me. And, as I'm also sure you are aware of, on this point, creationists make the same presentation. You also know that creationists bandy the design argument around quite frequently (Creation/Evolution XIII, for example, deals with this creationistic topic). So when I discuss certain things that creationists say and present material other people have written about creationistic ideas, I am criticizing and presenting others' criticisms of only those creationistic ideas that you yourself espouse and use in your own discussion. Whether you have come up with these ideas independently or borrowed them directly or indirectly from creationists is irrelevant to our discussion — it is the ideas themselves that we should be concerned with, not their origin. So, please, stop accosting me with this charge of continually digressing to creationistic arguments unless they truly have nothing whatsoever to do with the arguments you are making, As I have pointed out repeatedly, T3 through T6 all deal with what you have brought up concerning arguments for the existence of God. I have done little more in these letters than discuss what you discuss in the first four chapters of The Source, I have done very little wandering in these letters — I have wandered only to discuss your wanderings.

     You have tried to tell me that "from any common sense standpoint, the design argument stands up" and that "the consequences of God creating the universe are obvious" (J7:4). This is incorrect, as well as being "rhetoric without substance." As I have repeatedly stated, what is obvious is the order and complexity that different kinds of systems display, not their design. In T3:13 I said: "Whether order exists or not is not in dispute. The question is: Has the order been brought about by design or by unthinking physical processes?...order does not imply design. There exist designed ordered systems and there exist undesigned (natural) ordered systems." Are you denying that naturally ordered systems exist? To do so would be the "absurd position" you speak of. Furthermore, common sense dictates that we should try to find and explore the processes that brought about the order and complexity in those systems that we do not yet know anything about or do not know very much about (e.g., the origin of living systems). Common sense does not point to design; indeed, it points to exhaustive and extensive research, in the field or in the lab, in an attempt to discover what we can about the complicated natural systems and processes under investigation. Just because our many imitations of these natural systems are designed, this does not force us to conclude that the originals came about in the same way, And to say that, because we are unable to explain the complexity of a certain kind of system (at the present time), this system must be designed is simply an argument from ignorance. All you have done with the mathematics is shown that the systems under consideration are indeed very complex. You have not by any means shown that these complexities did not and could not arise strictly according to natural laws.

     You have explicitly answered one of my questions: What are the observable consequences of God creating the universe? Thank you. You answer: order, design, and intelligence. I agree, but only with certain qualifications. I would slightly change the answer to simply: designed order. Intelligence is implied by design, and the order must be an order that we somehow know cannot be produced by unthinking physical processes (designed order as opposed to undesigned order). As I guessed in T6:10, you have answered my question with the design argument. But your design argument does not hold up (as I will discuss shortly). (And what about the other two questions of methods I asked in connection with this one? Robert Root-Bernstein discusses how the idea of God, i.e., a creator, does not provide answers to my questions of methods and thereby cannot be considered by the "similar methods" you mention on p. 15 of The Source. His article, from which I have copied pp. 72-75, 88-B9 for you, comes from a newly published critique of "scientific" creationism: Science and Creationism, edited by Ashley Montagu.) What are the observable consequences of the universe being an accident? (Along this line you may wish to read "The Inflationary Universe" by Alan Guth and Paul Steinhardt in Scientific American, May 1984, pp. 116-129, and "The Accidental Universe" by James Trefil in Science Digest, June 1984, pp. 52-55, 100-101.) You answer: randomness and lack of design. I can agree with this if by randomness you simply mean nonpurposiveness (but I don't think this is quite what you mean) and I will further add that these are what our observations and investigations of the natural world do show us. Indeed, just such observations contributed dramatically to the death of vitalism and the discouragement of teleological explanations of natural phenomena.

     Now, why do I say your design argument does not hold up? And what do I mean, more explicitly, when I use the descriptive word "random"? Well, your last letter indicates to me that you are doing exactly what I conjectured you were doing in T6:13: "...it is possible that the criteria you are using to establish design in an ordered system is the idea that the order could not have come about randomly.... To do this, though, you are using... misapplied statistics." You say (J7:4,5):

     [T]he consequences of God creating the universe are obvious, logical, and mathematically plausible, The consequences of assuming the atheist's assertion are illogical, mathematically impossible, and would preclude all of science. May I point out to you that science cannot exist in a universe that is totally chaotic and the product of chance. It can only exist if there is design.

     I still submit to you that everything that you did through nearly four pages of attempting to discredit the design argument did not change the basic fact that is obvious in any level of examination — that you cannot get any kind of order of the complexity of the universe from a totally blind mechanistic chance process.

     So your criterion for showing that something has been designed is the improbability of that system having been formed by natural processes, You answer my first question of methods (I gave three in T6:10) with: design, and you try to correct the first problem listed in T6:22 with: statistical improbability of natural ordering. However, because of the third and fourth (and, indirectly, the second) problems I listed in T6:22, your criterion is invalid (at least for the examples I have discussed so far). Thus, your solution to the first problem collapses and this sets us back to square one: valid criteria for determining design have not been established, Your design argument thus fails, and, by your answer to my question of observable consequences, the God hypothesis is found wanting.

     Now, before you cry "rhetoric without substance," let me be more explicit about my claim that your criterion of statistical improbability is invalid. Purported examples of systems that could not have been ordered strictly by natural processes demonstrate the faults I listed in problems 2, 3, and 4 in T6:22. And since there is one example that is of particular importance in our discussion and that you do appear to place some emphasis on, I want to go a little more into depth concerning research on the origin of life, In J7:11 you say, "...I wish we could get down to specific scientific material...." Okay, let's go to it.

     You continue to use the words chance and randomness in an irresponsible manner, I specifically sailed to you a copy of Philip Kitcher's discussion of this problem (creationists commit the same mistake you do, or vice versa) way back with letter T3. You apparently ignored it. In T5:5 I specifically requested from you an explanation of what you were implying with your idea of chance. You have not yet answered me. I ask you again to please read Kitcher's comments along this line and respond to my request for clarification in some way, When I say chance or randomness I am referring to the idea that, even though the event or process in question is determined by physical laws, it is not occurring due to any intelligent direction or guidance and has no purpose or goal. As Kitcher mentions (Abusing Science, pp. 88-99):

     Creationists standardly make two mistakes. They assimilate apparent randomness to irreducible r6iodoiness, and they overlook the fact that processes that are irreducibly random may be governed by probabilistic laws. Thus Wysong confuses irreducible randomness with sheer chaos. The fact that subatomic phenomena conform to probabilistic rather than deterministic principles does not prevent the possibility of general regularities in the behavior of large ensembles of atoms. Quantum chemistry explains in great detail why the elements regularly combine in just the ways that they do. Thus there is no reason to wonder whether the order found in biochemical reactions proceeds from some mysterious source.

     By contrast, Watson and Morris confound the difference between apparent randomness and irreducible randomness. Contrary to what Morris say think, evolutionary theorists are not committed to the view that DNA was produced by an irreducibly random process. Of course, they do deny that there is any goal-directed process leading to the formation of DNA — as if, like Emerson's worm, the molecules in the primeval soup aspired to higher things, ascending through all the spires of form!

     You say in J7:7:

     You need to read again Hoyle's, Crick's, and Eden's explanations with this perspective and you have not done this in any of our discussion. To discard these arguments by simply saying "there is a substantial lack of relevant information and the application itself has been done in a faulty manner in many cases" is an insult to some of the top scientists in the country and demonstrates to me your prejudice in this particular area.

     Well, I have discussed their statistical arguments in previous letters. Their statistical arguments are wrong because their probabilities are based on guesses, because of that "substantial lack of relevant information," and on false assumptions. In Russell Doolittle's words ("Probability and the Origin of Life," Scientists Confront Creationist, p. 89): "Ask the wrong questions, make the wrong assumptions, and you'll always proceed to the wrong conclusions, no matter how sophisticated your arithmetic." But, of course, you deny this (you also completely ignored Wallace Matson's discussion an pp. 104-110 in The Existence of God that I sent to you). Are you implying that we can calculate probabilities that are accurate and trustworthy while at the same time being quite ignorant of the events and processes involved and furthermore forming the probabilities themselves from false assumptions? Who is taking a "mathematically and logically absurd position"? And I think your pretensions here are very dishonest, You are the one who is insulting the top scientists in the relevant fields of research. You are the one whose actions demonstrate prejudice in this particular area. You have purposely ignored all of the scientific literature written by those scientists who have performed and are now performing very complicated and informative research and experimentation concerning the origin of living systems.

     I could proceed here to discuss in more detail the two points I brought up in criticism of the statistical arguments against life originating naturally, but I thought it would be better for me to just give you the words of those scientists who have expertise in this area and the comments of some scientists in related areas. I have sent two articles: "Probability and the Origin of Life" by Russell Doolittle biochemist) in Scientists Confront Creationism, pp. 85-97; and "Creationism and Evolutionary Protobiogenesis" by Sidney Fox (biochemist) in Science and Creationism, pp. 194-239; and I have sent four excerpts: Of Molecules and Men by Francis Crick (biochemist), pp. 66-71; The Monkey Business by Niles Eldredge (paleontologist), pp. 132-137; Abusing Science by Philip Kitcher (science philosopher), pp. 75-78; Science on Trial by Douglas Futuyma (ecologist and evolutionary biologist), pp. 94-96, 132-136, 184; and "Scientific Creationism Versus Evolution" by Kenneth Miller (biochemist and staunch theist) in Science and Creationism, pp. 56-59.

     Here is the statement in your letter (J7:6) that really astounds me (and causes me to question your attitude in this discussion):

     Your statement that proteins have been produced in the laboratory is totally incorrect. The only thing that has been produced in a totally, unmanipulated, chance environment has been amino acids. Even in that case, the environment was controlled because the amino acids were sucked out of the vicinity of the electrical discharge before they could be destroyed. When you change the environment by producing dehydration or catalytic or enzyme activity as has been done in producing proteins, you are no longer dealing with a contained system. To continue to add intelligence and order-producing mechanism to the process invalidates the chance explanation of the origin of life.

     The statements you make here are wrong for many reasons. Simple proteins have been produced by chance processes (recall my statements on what I mean by chance) in laboratories all over the world. Furthermore, the experiments are set up to approximate various environments on the primitive earth. We are not dealing with "totally unmanipulated, chance environments." We are dealing with environments that are manipulated (determined) by various and changing conditions in certain places on the primitive earth and chemical activities that take place within the constraints of physical laws. These facts and others are discussed in sure detail in the material I have sent to you. (Though not specifically dealing with protein formation but with a step further along in prebiotic evolution, the article "The Origin of Genetic Information" by Manfred Eigen and others in Scientific American, April 1981, p. 88, is most interesting and informative.)

     You are the one who is trying to prove that 1=0. You are the one making bad assumptions and basing statistical arguments upon these false assumptions. You are the one who has closed his mind to obvious facts. You are the one who would preclude science with religious arrogance in your attitude of "Science hasn't figured it out yet, therefore it can't, so God must have done it" without continuing to pursue scientific research. You are the one hiding behind a "scientific" facade, not unlike that of "scientific" creationists. And this is what disturbs me most, You not only use many of the arguments that "scientific" creationists use, you also appear to use many of their tactics (at least, this is becoming more and more apparent to me as I continue looking at The Source and your newsletters): With no training or research or experimentation in the relevant areas and with, apparently, very little to no reading of the relevant (including up-to-date) scientific literature, you proceed with a biased approach searching for only those quotations from scientists that may seem to support your arguments (and, yes, a very few actually do). Niles Eldredge says in the Monkey Business, p. 84): "...creationists often go beyond sere quoting out of context and actually impute words and thoughts to scientists that are ahnt in the original version . They cite scientists with approbation if it serves their purpose, and reject the same scientist when it doesn't." You imply that atheists and scientists say certain things when they do not actually say them by putting false assumptions into the subject under discussion (whether you actually found them from some other writer or made them up yourself does not matter) and then show that scientific expectations fall short or are completely wrong under those assumptions thus implying that those scientific ideas should be discarded, Kitcher puts it this way (Abusing Science, p. 75):

     Creationists foist off on evolutionary theory some assumptions that are clearly false, Then they proclaim that the theory makes some false predictions. When we uncover the false assumptions, we see that the allegedly "natural predictions" of evolutionary theory are highly unnatural. Or, to put the point another way, when the problem-solving strategies of the theory are presented correctly, we find that those problem-solving strategies, supplemented with independently confirmed hypotheses, make predictions diametrically opposed to those that Creationists pin on the "evolution model." These objections, and others like them, rest an distortions of the theory under attack. It is not necessary to go very deeply into evolutionary theory to expose the misrepresentations; I have not had to reformulate the theory in some ingenious and precise way. However, the connections alleged by Creationists are likely to sound natural enough to people who have only a superficial acquaintance with evolutionary theory.

     And, directly, in the subject of biogenesis, Fox says: "It is true that some scientists treat the formation of DNA as if it were an act of instant creation, However, the experiments demonstrate that DNA did not arise by chance; it arose as a product of internally self-ordered, stepwise processes" (Science and Creationism, p. 210), and Doolittle says: "The forerunners of today's proteins were not formed from a random collection of amino acids any more than cells were the result of a simple aggregation of atoms. Life on earth developed in stages, each of which was built on the stabilizing, catalytic, or replicative power of the stage before it" (Scientists Confront Creationism, p. 96). You don't perform experimental research to find out whether or not what you are proclaiming is true. You don't even attempt to theorize realistically about the subjects you discuss, And then, with your predecided and ignorant conclusions, you make your proclamations.

     I am indeed very disturbed. The despicable nature of "scientific" creationists is displayed in their tactics. They purposely misstate, mislead, and lie about various ideas, all in order to substantiate "scientific" creationism and defend their simplistic religious views. The ignorance, incompetence, and outright deception that "scientific" creationists demonstrate provokes in me an honest anger and a deep contempt toward them and their dogma. And I have very little patience with any person who claims intellectual honesty and scientific credibility and yet practices any of the tactics that "scientific" creationists use or supports any of the misleading, faulty, and incorrect "evidences" that "scientific" creationists adhere to and promote. I hope this is not to be your continuing practice.

     It is readily apparent that a major reason for the lengthiness of this letter is that I am using a lot of space to respond to your rhetoric, your "wanderings" (T7:3-5110,13-14). I will refrain from this in the future by ignoring your rhetoric and just responding to the substance of your letters. It just so happened that when I put this letter together I was in a certain state of mind where I was getting tired of your personal and rhetorical remarks (e.g., "1=0" and "your attitude precludes science") and I gave in to the temptation to return your remarks to you showing where they were more applicable to you. If you will please discontinue this practice I think it will make it easier an both of us.

In the spirit of 1 Timothy 1.3b-7,
Todd Greene

P.S.: Some time ago you suggested to me that I should take a look at some information on the day of the crucifixion that Wayne Leeper had collected and written, and you said you had encouraged him to send it to me. I am still interested in seeing that information. I accept the subtle significance of and believe the phrase "A truth-seeker always yearns for an honest discussion." If I am making an illegitimate criticism, I want to know about it so I can correct the situation. If Wayne's manuscript is extensive and will require much cost to copy and a high postage to mail, just let me know and I'll take care of it. Also, I'm sorry for the delay in preparing and sending this letter. I got involved with working on a play this past month and all my time outside of the play and my job was basically taken up with eating and sleeping, and I have had little time to spend on this discussion. But the play ended last Sunday, so now I have my extra time back.

May 30, 1984

Dear Todd Greene:

     Your letters become longer and longer and quite frankly I am having a great deal of difficulty keeping anything together because you keep jumping from one point to another. I think we need to try and localize these discussions because it is almost impossible to thumb back through fifteen or twenty pages of material that has come with each letter and attempt to sort out the things that are being presented. I do think that, as I stated in my last letter, if one were to pursue the kind of logic that you are pursuing they would eliminate all of engineering and a good percentage of science.

     It is important to realize that your continued referral back to creationist's arguments rather than dealing with the things that I am attempting to present to you continues to cloud up the discussion and I have a great deal of difficulty sorting out your T3s, T4s, and T5s and would suggest that we stick to relatively simple perspectives rather than wandering over all of these different perspectives.

     Let me try to deal with a few of the things you said in your letter in a way I hope you will look at in a more open perspective than has occurred in the last several letters.

     1) The observable consequences of God creating the universe are: order, design and intelligence. This can be mathematically and empirically demonstrated. The observable consequences of the atheist's assumption that the universe is a product of chance is randomness, lack.of intelligence, and lack of design. I have given you numerous references to show you that this is a mathematically and logically absurd position. One can argue, argue philosophically about not liking the idea of design, but it does not change the fact that from any common-sense standpoint, the design argument stands up. I submit to you that the consequences of God creating the universe are obvious, logical, and mathematically plausible. The consequences of assuming the atheist's assertion are illogical, mathematically impossible, and would pN all of science. May I point out to you that science cannot exist in a universe that is totally chaotic and the product of chance. It can only exist if there is design.

     I still submit to you that everything that you did through nearly four pages of attempting to discredit the design argument did not change the basic fact that is obvious in any level of examination--that you cannot get any kind of order of the complexity of the universe from a totally blind mechanistic chance process.

     2) Your statement that proteins have been produced in the laboratory is totally incorrect. The only thing that has been produced in a totally unmanipulated, chance environment has been amino acids. Even in that case, the environment was controlled because the amino acids were sucked out of the vicinity of the electrical discharge before they could be destroyed. When you change the environment by producing dehydration or catalytic or enzyme activity as has been done in producing proteins, you are no longer dealing with with a contained system. To continue to add intelligence and order-producing mechanism to the process invalidates the chance explanation of the origin of life.

     You need to read again Hoyle's, Crick's and Eden's explanations with this perspective and you have not done this in any of our discussion. To discard these arguments by simply saying "there is a substantial lack of relevant information and the application itself has been done in a faulty manner in many cases" is an insult to some of the top scientists in the country and demonstrates to me your prejudice in this particular area.

     I still submit to you that you are evading the obvious and very simple concepts that are involved in the materials that I have given you and I still maintain that you are simply regurgitating the atheist's arguments which I think are copouts because they attempt to deal with philosophical concepts in a way to preclude the common sense ideas that are involved in the positions that I have given to you.

     I urge you to again look at the work of Frederick Hoyle especially and you will see from one of the most eminent scientists in the world the logic defended in a way that I believe is understandable and obvious to any open person. I still maintain that you have closed your mind to any common sense approach and are hiding behind a philosophical smokescreen which could not be applied without eliminating all practical science. It's like proving that one equals zero. If you make the right assumption, you can do it, but you have to make a bad assumption in order to carry the logic through.

     If you are interested in a philosophical debate, I can put you in touch with some people ained in philosophy, which I am not. I do not believe, however, that you can maintain your position from a logical, scientific standpoint without eliminating all of science.

     If you wish to continue this discussion, I wish we could get down to specific scientific material instead of the thousands of words dealing with the philosophical abstractions and quotations from well-known atheists which have appeared in the books and the other quotations that you have referred me to.

     I would like to point out to you that there are some very heavy stakes involved in this discussion. Having been an atheist and knowing the frustration that comes from an atheist's lifestyle I am concerned about where your attitude and your logical sequences will take you. You have some other friends who are concerned about you as well that got us into this discussion to begin with. I think that you need to realize that the level we are working at is the very first level of the discussion. There are hundreds of arguments for the existence of God, and we have only dealt with--at the very most--two. All of the arguments, however, are made on a common sense, practical basis and that is where we need to come from. You are in my


e you will be willing to think about what I am trying to say.

Sincerely in Christian Concern,
John N. Clayton