Re: responses to "scientifically humble" YEC

Lawrence Johnston (johnston@uidaho.edu)
Tue, 27 Jul 1999 09:13:38 -0700

Date sent: Tue, 27 Jul 1999 09:13:23 -0400
From: "Howard J. Van Till"
<110661.1365@compuserve.com>
Subject: Re: responses to "scientifically humble" YEC
To: ASA Listserve <asa@calvin.edu>
Dear Howard: Greetings from a fellow physicist.
One or two things thing at a time. I think we all agree with you that
God can do anything. Your points, it seems to me, are what God
*chooses* to do, or how He tends to voluntarily restrict His Economy
or Integrity, or His activity.

> Once again there seems to be a bit of confusion regarding the possibility
> of divine action within a Creation gifted with "functional integrity" or,
> equivalently, with a "robust formational economy." Do I say that God CANNOT
> act in such a world?
> ....(snip) that God is able and/or willing to act in the world only
>within gaps in either the formational economy or the operational
>economy of the Creation?

You seem to frequently react to ID people with the rhetorical
reference to "gaps", with the reminiscences of bad predictions made,
and the dishonor to God when these assuredly proclaimed
predictions, made in God's name, were later found to be instances of
normal natural science.
But you are overdoing that theme, and using it to clobber
anyone who thinks that there are evidences that material structures
exist (particularly biological) whose information content belies their
probabilistic production by random naturalistic processes. It seems
that your "Functional Integrity" in practice means what we would call
"natural process", with the implied support of Theistic Evolution. I
would guess that all Christians would gladly attribute "natural
process" laws to God's creation and sustenance.
Continuing on "gaps", in the spirit of the normal functioning
of the scientific enterprise, we should use our usual modesty in
reporting cases of "Irreducible Complexity", and be cheerful to grant
their explanation by Selection, when someone later makes a good
case for it.
But also in the spirit of open and collegial inquiry, we should
not be fearful or overmodest of reporting, a la Behe, when we find
exciting structures that speak of intelligence. The Dawkinses of this
world admonish us to brace ourselves and rely on our firm
commitment to Naturalism, even when we see overwhelming evidence
of fantastic design, and meaning to life.

Respectfully, Larry

=============================================
Lawrence H. Johnston 917 E. 8th st.
professor of physics, emeritus Moscow, Id 83843
University of Idaho (208) 882-2765
_http://www.uidaho.edu/~johnston/_ ==================