No hair on this Chin!

This reductionist argument is invalid. There are many examples to refute this argument. The whole is often qualitatively distinct from the sum of the parts. An atomic bomb is more than the sum of its components - the meaning of an atomic bomb is more than particular physical and chemical combinations. For particular physical and chemical combinations result in the qualitatively distinct nuclear reaction - which is both physical and chemical and more than physical and chemical. Similarly a human being can be composed of matter having chemical and physical properties, and yet be qualitatively greater than the summation of his-or her components. We recognise this by making a distinction between the animate and the inanimate, between the living and the dead.

This does not follow. For the process by which the inanimate becomes the animate is coherently described by the theory of evolution. Since the theory is coherent it indicates a logical possibility, it is therefore not subject to a purely logical disproof. An attempt to discredit the theory must be empirically grounded.

Chin goes on to cite B.F. Skinner saying To man qua man we readily say good riddance' and suggests that this is a logical consequence of a theory of evolution. 'Origin determines destination. So much for the significance of man.'

What a load of crap! Why should origin determine destination? What are consequences for the significance of man? Suppose we agree that Man is dust and to dust he shall return. Does this make life any less significant? Definitely not for the significance of Man is found in the process of living, not in the origin of the species, nor in the eventual extinction of the species.

Chin s next tour de force is the extension of his argument from the biological theory of evolution to the influences of evolutionary theory in Psychology, Philosophy, Sociology and religion. In this step he ignores the origins of the theory of evolution. The idea of evolution arises in response to attempts to understand a world in which change takes place and change becomes meaningful when it is seen in terms of process. This is not an idea of modern times, elements of it are found in [unclear: Heractitus], and the Judeaen prophets. It has been put to many uses both positive and negative by those who see change and seek change.

Chin picks on B.F. Skinner to illustrate the potential misapplication of the idea of evolution, but he does not spell out what he means by 'it may be wise to think of the alternative.'

The alternatives to the idea of process are twofold. Since the idea of process arises in the attempt to understand change it may be denied by either denying the intelligibility (meaningfulness) of change or by denying change itself. Both techniques are used by the ideologists of those who do not want to see or seek change.

The totally meaningless change of the existentialist can be dismissed. For we do give meaning to our lives and existence. The anguish of the existentialist usually smells of the self pitying indulgent and impotent intellectual, rejecting the world in order to wallow in subjectivity.

Such I suspect is not the path advocated by the Chin s of this world. They seek, like Parmenides, to deny change by viewing the One, the unchanging, the eternal. Since it cannot be found in this world they seek it in another, and in the process deny the reality and importance of this world.

In the history of Christianity this is the path of the Gnostic heretics, who in their search of [unclear: rpa] unchanging' knowledge found it a necessity to deny the historicity of salvation.

If Chin is trying to re-enthrone the Christian god, perhaps he should take note that this god has shown a remarkable interest in change, in process. Admittedly priesthoods have arisen seeking to create an other-worldly religion legitimising the status-quo, but remarkable as it may seem this god has raised up a succession of prophets from Amos, to the Taipings to many of the present student activists in Asia.

Take warning the word of the Lord is a two edged sword. If an ideology of the status quo is required perhaps John Chin should turn to Confucious who has a much better record of serving the ruling class than Yahweh.

I challenge John Chin to describe his alternative to evolutionary thought.

POWIE!