>From: Woodward Norm Civ WRALC/TIEDM <Norm.Woodward@robins.af.mil>
> "Howard J. Van Till" wrote:
>>
>> >From: Peter Ruest <pruest@pop.mysunrise.ch>
>>
>> > Are you implying that life and all biological funtionalities emerged
>> > exclusively by chance (scientifically speaking)?
>>
HVT: >> 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.NORM: > I am not sure what answer is being assumed, but I would say that the exact > take each day would be established "by chance," in the scenario described. > However, the games are designed so that "on average" the house should make a > certain percentage of all transaction, either by "owning" a portion of a > wheel, or instructing when the dealer is to "hold", etc. But the exact > yield depends on the luck, or lack thereof, of the patrons.
The casino metaphor could be used to illustrate a number of points.
1. Randomness (what Peter called "chance") and purpose are NOT mutually exclusive. In the casino story, the human management purposefully employed the authentic randomness of the various games to compute pay-out rates in a way that ensured a handsome profit for the house. The details of each play need not be predetermined. No storehouse of information about the particular outcomes of each game is necessary. Yet the general character of the "grand outcome" -- house profit -- is practically certain. The certainty of the grand outcome was resident in the whole system of games, potentialities, probabilities, pay-out rates, etc.
If, at the end of one day, you were to ask, What was the probability of this particular set of outcomes for each game played today, or even the exact amount of house profit for the day (to the penny), one might well encounter a wall of "transastronomical improbability." Nonetheless, the casino management takes its usual trip to the bank.
2. If human agents are able to employ authentic randomness purposefully, should we not be prepared to expect God to be able to do the same? Why not be prepared to consider it highly likely that the creaturely system to which God gave being has a bias (analogous to favorably calculated pay-out rates) built into the probabilities for the formation of viable life forms?
3. Presuming that all such probability values were thoughtfully conceptualized and purposefully given to the Creation by the Creator, why should we expect these probability values to be far too small to be successful?
[Skip a bit...]
> Abiogenesis seems to me as having a less > chance of occurring than the miraculous jumbo jet in the hurricane, not > necessarily because of the complexity, which is certainly a factor, but the > time factor.
Re "...seems to me..." Why? Why have such low expectations of the formational capabilities of the Creation to which God has given being? I just don't understand this negative bias! Was the Creator unable to conceptualize a successful system? Was the Creator unwilling to give such a wealth of capabilities to the Creation?
Is there some overwhelming desire (especially in evangelical Christianity) to reserve a place for divine controlling POWER to be exercised (by intervention, or by decision)? Why not place the emphasis instead on God's CREATIVITY (to conceive of a creaturely system of resources, potentialities, and capabilities that works) and GENEROSITY (to give such fullness of being to the Creation)? Is it possible that our theology is dominated/distorted by the POWER theme?
I don't pretend to have all of the answers, but I think these questions need to be faced.
Howard Van Till
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Nov 23 2001 - 09:39:32 EST