A Case Against Accident and Self-Organization

by Dean L. Overman

Book Overview

In this illuminating book, Dean L. Overman uses logical principles and mathematical calculations to answer intriguing questions that have long perplexed biologists and astrophysicists.

• Format: Paperback
• Language: English
• ISBN: 0742511677
• ISBN13: 9780742511675
• Release Date: April 2001
• Publisher: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers
• Length: 272 Pages
• Weight: 0.70 lbs.
• Dimensions: 0.6" x 5.4" x 8.5"

Customer Reviews

One of the most airtight arguments against an evolutionary origin of life ever written.

If this treatment of the subject of origins doesn't convince skeptics that holding onto the belief that life arose from non-life is an operation of faith rather than science, then nothing will. Over and over, Overman (no pun intended) demonstrates, in exhaustive detail, the fact that there is absolutely no principle in the laws of physics, chemistry, or astronomy that speaks to the origin of INFORMATION necessary for life to exist. And not just a little information; MILLIONS of specific, different, instructions necessary for the simplest form of life to exist. The belief (which is exactly how to describe the view: a belief) that information arose from non-information defies all logical limits, even based upon the most conservative estimates, and is simply not scientific. Now, I am not saying that "faith" is a foolish position. In fact, to believe in the possibility of something existing that is merely beyond our ability to measure is a reasonable position. It simply and humbly admits that our knowledge and ability to measure is, and always will be, finite. Therefore, we must always admit that some non-material, non-energy, non-dimension things may exist that we simply lack the ability to detect. Such a faith is simply a logical conclusion in the face of our finiteness in the universe. To the contrary, a faith in the mathematically impossible, as defined and limited to a known set of parameters (the laws of nature and the irreducible complexity of the genetic code), is beyond all reasonable definitions of faith and just plain fool hearty. It reminds me of Jim Carrey's memorable line in the movie Dumb and Dumber when the female lead tells him that he only has a one in a million chance of getting a date with her, to which he exclaims, "So your saying I have a chance!" The only difference is that the probability of the simplest DNA or RNA molecule forming by accident in the best case scenario conceivable, is one in a million, million, million, million, million, million chance. Now, if Intelligent Design proponents are made out to be as dumb as Jim Carrey's character with a one in a million chance, then I wonder who's dumber?

Order is not information

Overman has written the obvious truth in the matter of self organization and accident as it relates to any origin of life scenario. What he clearly spells out in his book cannot honestly be disputed even though he humbly suggests that he is only presenting a "case" that should be evaluated by reasonable persons. Of course this subject is often NOT evaluated by reasonable persons but by fanatics and people with preconceived mind sets on one side or the other.Reading some of the reviews here I find the usual practice of building straw men and setting fire to them. Overman is not a fanatic with an agenda but he does have an ability that many scientists have long lost in the continuing debate of theism v. atheism. Logic and facts are supposed to be the realm of science but when words are twisted and redefined one can only assume that the truth is not the final goal but rather the promotion of an ideology. The facts however speak for themselves and twisting them does not change reality. The essence of the book is that biological laws do not spring "accidently" or even on purpose from the laws of physics and chemistry. Self organization of a biological system is impossible. Of course theists have long believed in miracles so I supposed that atheists are entitled to believe in them as well. The point is that miracles are supposed to be "unscientific" yet now materialistic science believes in them and they peddle their wares as if they were the latest thing produced form rational minds.The key word is "information". Information theory has nothing to do with the laws of physics except in the sense that the words printed in a book relate to those laws. Yes, DNA and RNA obey chemical laws quite obediently and so does the chalk that the teacher uses to write her lesson on the blackboard. In fact the whole universe and everything in it obeys those laws. But, DNA as it is used in an organism in real life is not organized according to the laws of physics. As an example, if we took some square blocks that were identical except that each one had a different letter of the alphabet printed on it we could soon see that we could arrange them in any order we chose and still not violate any laws of physics. Whether they were arranged to spell "building blocks" or "dingbats" the laws are not violated.DNA is arranged the same way. It contains useful INFORMATION. The laws of physics have nothing to do with that arrangement. DNA can be ordered in any arrangement just like the blocks, and still obey chemical laws. The information comes from somewhere but not from the laws of physics. It cannot arrange itself accidently into any meaningful order because the information must be interpreted, translated and actually used in a practical way in order for life to come forth. Time is the worst enemy of the materialist fanatic. He does not have infinite time for his monkeys to type endlessly on their trillions of typewriters. He is limited by the age of the universe and by constrai

Reader from Georgia

I thoroughly enjoyed reading this book (Certainly, I received more pleasure than an evolutionist). The book was meant, IMO, to examine the possibility of life arising purely by chance, as opposed to one guided by an intelligent hand.Dean Overman has an excellent grasp on the issues, and is able to command the proper usage of scientific terms. Equally, his grasp on mathematics in explaining the issues is firm.Overman has examined many of the scenarios which have been offered up as explanations by naturalistic minds, in their endeavor to exclude any possibility of a supernatural Creator.If you are looking for a book that validates the mathematical possibility of life arising purely by chance, then you will need to look elsewhere. It is not brutal in its assessment, but rather thorough.Virtually anyone can understand the material offered in this book, even the more 'difficult' math. Overman does a decent job in keeping the material at the level of understanding of the general public.

McGintry may review too many books without reading them

McGintry may have glanced through this book and then written his review. The book clearly states that self-organization can produce ordered patterns in systems with an energy flow. But equally clearly, and repeatedly, the book persuasively demonstrates that ordered patterns are irrelevant to the origin of life. No plausible theory has ever been developed whereby self-organizing systems could produce INFORMATION. The origin of information, not the origin of complex patterns, is the central problem in origin of life scenarios. McGintry is clearly unfamiliar with Shannon's theory of information which contains universal laws which demonstrate that living matter could not have come from the laws of physics and chemistry. See Yockey's book by Cambridge University Press. All McGintry had to do was read even a portion of the conclusions to understand the difference between ordered patterns and biologically relevant information. For example from page 185 of Overman's book: "To construct a plausible theory for the origin of life, scientists need to discover a theory which explains the generation of complexity, not the generation of order. In terms of the formation of life, information content, such as found in the genetic code, is the stumbling block." As Overman plainly demonstrates, Sim's ordered patterns in the evolution of a fish are irrelevant to the origin of life. The problem, as constantly argued in the book, is the impossiblity of generating INFORMATION (instructions in DNA) from the laws of physics and chemistry. McGintry should also read the book to see that Dawkins book is dealt with in two separate places. If McGintry has "seen" self-organization work to create life (which means create information), he should put himself up for the Nobel Prize; because no one has any plausible ideas concerning the source of biologically relevant information.

A Minor Typographical Error Not Detracting From The Case

The December 7 review of a USA reader refers to a typographical error of a single digit in a very minor calculation in a short paragraph in the logic section of the book. The typo does not affect the many calculations and arguments contained in the sections concerning molecular biology and particle astrophysics. If the reader had referred to the citation at the end of the paragraph, the reader would have realized that the number 5 should have been typed instead of the number 7 (similar to a typing of "e" instead of "a" in "emphasis"). The probability calculation is correct when one uses the number 5. The probability of throwing the number 5 in one throw of a die is 1/6, the probability of obtaining the number 5 twice in succession is 1/36, and the probability of obtaining the number 5 ten times in succession is 1/60,466,176. The point is that the chances of a favorable outcome decrease rapidly when successive favorable outcomes are required. The genetic code requires a sequencing with many successive favorable outcomes and that point is made in the paragraphs immediately following the paragraph with the single digit typo. The book contains many arguments which I have not seen in any other books, including the evidence concerning ALH84001,the rock allegedly from Mars, the argument which answers Hawking's question ("What place, then, for a creator?"), and the analysis of new self-organization theories. The book, as noted in the title, presents a "case" which requires the gathering and analysis of evidence from many sources and disciplines. As Pannenberg notes, the origin of life, which in turn requires the origin of a universe in which life could exist, must be accounted for as a coherent whole. This requirement is well emphasized when one reads the summary and conclusion section of the book.