I have a simple question regarding your last paragraph:
>My hypothesis is that the creaturely system to which God has given being
> (which includes atoms, molecules, cells, organisms and every physical,
> chemical and biological thing they are capable of doing) has the
> capabilities to actualize -- without divine intervention -- every type of
> life form that has ever appeared on the face of the earth. Of course,
atoms,
> molecules and cells are themselves systems actualized from even simpler
> components.
Is the creation apart from God in the sense that if God ceased to be, then
the creation would still go on as you suppose? If not, isn't that divine
intervention?
Moorad
----- Original Message -----
From: "Howard J. Van Till" <hvantill@novagate.com>
To: <pruest@mysunrise.ch>
Cc: <asa@calvin.edu>
Sent: Wednesday, November 14, 2001 1:31 PM
Subject: Re: Response to: What does the creation lack?
> >From: Peter Ruest <pruest@pop.mysunrise.ch>
>
> > Are you implying that life and all biological funtionalities emerged
> > exclusively by chance (scientifically speaking)?
>
> Peter, suppose that you observed a perfectly honest gambling casino -- all
> games used a form of randomness honestly, no cheating, and no "hidden
> choices" being exercised by the dealers.
>
> After considerable study you note a pattern: at the end of each day, the
> management goes to the bank with a substantial profit. Question: would you
> say that this outcome occured "exclusively by chance"?
>
> I have a feeling that my answer to your question would be similar to your
> answer to my question.
>
> > On the
> > scientific side, there is no evidence that random processes are
> > sufficient in biology, but there are many indications that they are not
> > (of course, there never is sufficient data to prove this statement, but
> > neither is there for the opposite view).
>
> That's an important point to keep in mind. Wouldn't that preclude the
claim
> that "transastronomical improbability" definitively prohibits certain key
> events (required for evolution) unaided by the divine exercise of "hidden
> options"? And, of course, there lingers the question about the
relationship
> of the actual probabilities (given all possible pathways, and given all
> possible functional systems) and the probabilities that you calculated
> (considering only certain pathways and particular functional systems).
>
> > On the theological side, I
> > don't see any reason to believe God wanted to "keep his hands off" the
> > creation after an initial act, and there is plenty of biblical evidence
> > that he is constantly (or at least very often) active in the affairs of
> > humanity and in non-human creation.
>
> The reality of divine action is not being denied. The question that I have
> been asking is, What kind of action? Traditional supernaturalism offers
one
> answer, one that includes "irruptive intervention" or "coercive" action
that
> supersedes creaturely action. But opening that door strikes me as an
> invitation to a host of difficult problems in the territory of theodicy.
> Your proposal appears to me to fall somewhere in the conceptual space
> between coercive intervention and process theology's divine persuasion.
>
> > You say that physics (including chemistry) given at creation "includes
> > all manner of _potential_ structures & configurations (including
> > potential organisms)". This is obviously true, for else we could not
> > exist. But what do you mean by "formational capabilities for actualizing
> > these potentialities"? Does this just mean that a good (or even
> > universal) computer language is adequate for producing all programs
> > desired?
>
> No, a computer language does not have the capabilities for doing anything.
> It cannot produce a program, for instance.
>
> Atoms, molecules and cells, on the other hand, do have capabilities to
act,
> including the capabilities to form novel structures. Atoms of H, C and O,
> for example, have the capabilities to interact and form the molecules of
> formic acid, acetic acid, ethyl alcohol and glycolaldehyde observed in
> molecular clouds in the spiral arms of our Galaxy.
>
> The active capabilities of material systems contrasts radically with the
> inability of language elements to do anything except at the hands of an
> external agent.
>
> > Then you still need the programmer doing it. If the programmer
> > had the entire program with all details in his mind, before ever sitting
> > down at the keyboard, this just implies that this information was _not_
> > yet in the computer as it was made. It's not very meaningful to talk of
> > the programmer "compensating" for something "lacking" in the computer
> > construction, when the initial intention was to build a universal
> > computer.
>
> I don't see the relevance of the computer language & computer metaphor.
(See
> last comment)
>
> > What does your expression mean in the biological realm, in
> > scientific (not theological/philosophical) language?
>
> By "expression" I presume you mean: But what do you mean by "formational
> capabilities for actualizing these potentialities"?
>
> My hypothesis is that the creaturely system to which God has given being
> (which includes atoms, molecules, cells, organisms and every physical,
> chemical and biological thing they are capable of doing) has the
> capabilities to actualize -- without divine intervention -- every type of
> life form that has ever appeared on the face of the earth. Of course,
atoms,
> molecules and cells are themselves systems actualized from even simpler
> components.
>
> Howard Van Till
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed Nov 14 2001 - 14:25:39 EST