Response to: What does the creation lack?

From: Peter Ruest (pruest@pop.mysunrise.ch)
Date: Thu Nov 08 2001 - 15:41:14 EST

  • Next message: Peter Ruest: "Response to: What does the creation lack?"

    > From: Tim Ikeda <tikeda@sprintmail.com>
    > To: asa@calvin.edu
    > Subject: Re: What does the creation lack?
    > Date: Sun, Oct 28, 2001, 11:09 PM
    >
    > About the "collapsing of wave functions" and "quantum tweaking" notions
    > of extra-natural guidance in biological evolution...
    >
    > How is this any different from moving a rock from point-A to point-B
    > or dropping that rock on a couple slugs as part of an effort at cosmic
    > animal husbandry? If one can tweak wave functions such that one nucleotide
    > base can be substituted, why couldn't one tweak a few more and have
    > all the air surrounding a slug jump one centimeter away until it expires?
    > That's got to beat Maxwell's demon anytime. Star Trek-style transporters
    > would be a snap.
    >
    > Counselor Troi: "Captain! A giant space slug is about to engulf the ensign!"
    > Captain Picard: "LaForge, get a transporter lock on that and set coordinates
    > to beam it into a wall!"
    > LaForge: "Oh no! The quantum molecular overthruster unbalanced the
    > pattern buffers and tunnelled a new set of chromosomes into the
    > slug in an energy-less information transfer event. It's evolving
    > into a telemarketer!
    > Expendable crew member: "Iyeeee!"
    >
    > The mechanism is irrelevant, possibly even in the case of natural,
    > extra-terrestrial designers because we'd probably never know the details.
    > The question isn't about which back door a "designer" would use to futz
    > with a system, but whether a particular system can make the transformation
    > from state-X to state-Y without help from outside the immediate system.
    > If the system can't make the transition to where you want it to go without
    > your tweaking, then I wouldn't say that it had "all requisite formational
    > capabilities" or that such action wouldn't be "violating or overpowering
    > the natural capabilities of any creaturely system." If you change
    > probabilities to determine which slugs will live and serve your ultimate
    > goals by evolving into the perfect, live-animal prop for a particular
    > Star Trek episode (perhaps evolving photogenic beauty was at one time
    > outside the formational capabilities of "pre-intervention" slugs),
    > you're messing with natural capabilities big time.

    The capabilities of a created system are not a black-or-white issue.
    Besides 0 and 1, there is a full range of intermediate probabilities,
    from big ones to transastronomically small ones. And the set of
    probabilities for the success of a created system's actions or
    transitions is given by the Creator.

    Peter
     
    > So what we're talking about here sounds like a classic variant of
    > progressive creationism. Let's just call it that.
    >
    > Regards,
    > Tim Ikeda
    > tikeda@sprintmail.com



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Nov 08 2001 - 15:40:10 EST