Your contention is that the existence of the Venus fly trap attests to the
ability of nature to develop something better than a mousetrap, I agree.
However, you ascribe that to evolution. I am not sure that I would do that.
I know that things evolve. Cosmologists taught the geologists a lesson with
the notion of an evolutionary universe. But we do not know to what extent
everything evolves. I am not yet committed into the belief that everything
evolved from simple things but we do not know as yet whether God planned it
that way and left the scene, deism, or the other extreme where He is in the
background, with the physical universe as a marionette, controlling
everything to the last detail. Humans cannot conceive of God and His actions
that easily.
Take care,
Moorad
-----Original Message-----
From: George Andrews <gandrews@as.wm.edu>
Cc: asa@calvin.edu <asa@calvin.edu>
Date: Tuesday, June 15, 1999 8:54 AM
Subject: Re: Reading Behe... Any thoughts?
>Hello Moorad;
>
>You wrote:
>
>> Dear George,
>>
>> To derive the notion of wetness from an intermolecular forces, say
between
>> H2O molecules, is no easy task. What you expect from a theory is much
more
>> than that and it seems to me that no such theory can give us a mousetrap
>> from mere intermolecular forces.
>>
>> Moorad
>
>The emergent property associated with complex systems does answer your
concern.
>The example of "wetness" is good in that the presence of a single H2O
molecule
>on another
>macroscopic entity (or even another molecule) would constitute the latter
being
>"wetted" by physical/chemical
>process (van der Waals, etc..). However, to say a single H2O molecule
posses
>wetness would be problematic; thus
>wetness is an emergent property fully understood by natural process.
>
>Evolution of mousetraps is not a problem for nature as such entities as The
>Venus Fly trap attest to. :-)
>
>George
>