Peter,
Our exchanges seem to be getting progressively less fruitful. Perhaps this
should be my last attempt to make the points I've been trying to make.
Observers are free to accept/reject them as they wish.
I used the casino metaphor to illustrate a few very general statements.
(1) Randomness and purpose are NOT mutually exclusive.
(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?
(3) Presuming that all probability values [related to the formation of a
biosphere] 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?
In your most recent reply [11-24-01] you rejected the casino metaphor as
having any value in reference to biological evolution. Before rejecting it,
however, you loaded it up with all manner of specific connections between a
casino operation and evolutionary processes -- connections that are entirely
of your making, having little if anything to do with my original use of the
illustration. Further discussion of it therefore appears fruitless.
In response to a comment by Norm Woodward I had said:
>> 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?
With some visible agitation you replied:
> All these questions are beside the point. No theist doubts the Creator's
> willingness, capability, creativity, generosity, or success. The real
> question is: _how_ did he do it, which is the most probable way he did
> the creating/developing?
OK, fair enough. But what is the probability in question? I presume that
neither one of us would claim to be able to calculate a numerical value of
the probability that God would take one action over some different one,
although we each have an inclination to favor a general strategy. You favor
one that includes, as essential elements, occasional interventions (the
exercising of "hidden options") in which God selects particular outcomes of
multi-possibility events. I favor one in which such "miracles of choice" are
unnecessary because of God's gifting the Creation with a robust formational
economy.
> You keep insisting that after an initial
> creation (presumably at the big bang), he did not do anything more
> except through the secondary agency of the created matter,
I have never suggested that God is inactive, only that God does not act
_coercively_ to bridge capability gaps that were designed into the created
system. In fact, I am attracted to process theology's development of the
concept of God's non-coercive participation in every occasion/process within
the Creation. In this worldview the concept of a "natural" process becomes
enriched with a ubiquitous divine participation so that "natural" is
something much more than material action alone. George accomplishes a
similar enrichment of "natural" with the idea of divine "cooperation."
> but up to now
> you have not given us any indications about how such an ethereal scheme
> would work from simple chemicals to a biosphere.
The specification of that "ethereal scheme," as you chose to characterize
it, would probably earn me at least one Nobel Prize. I'm not expecting to
accomplish that in this life.
> Nor have you justified
> this belief theologically or scientifically. Why do you believe God
> would not actively develop further what he created?
I have never said that God is inactive, only that God's action will be
non-coercive.
> Gen.1 suggests this,
> as well as the fact that God _created_ [bara'] each one of us
> individually at conception (natural processes for body/soul plus
> "intervention" for spiritual person?!), but continued to develop us
> further (through natural processes) and answers our prayers (using
> hidden options?). Why do you insist Genesis 1-2 doesn't give us anything
> except the theological idea that it was God who did the creating?
I believe that Genesis 1-2 provides us with Israel's concept of Yahweh as
being the Creator of the world, but that we have no substantial basis for
expecting anything of direct use in contemporary science from that text. I'm
not offering an extensive explanation for this belief, just stating it for
now. Explanations, or placement of this belief in broader context, can be
found in various of my publications.
> Why do
> you believe (without any supporting data) that all information required
> for the biosphere could emerge by mere random processes and natural
> selection within the system (like Muenchhausen pulling himself out of
> the bog by his own shock of hair)? Please forgive me if this sounds
> aggressive! I am frustrated because I get the impression that you do not
> really want to deal with the biochemical and biological problems, but
> just keep repeating your belief in "creation's functional integrity",
> without explaining what this entails specifically.
What you call, with some derogation, "mere random processes" I would
characterize, with a considerably more positive affirmation, as "the
Creation's God-given capacity to freely explore the potentiality space that
is an essential aspect of it's God-given being." See how one's choice of
words conveys attitude?
On the matter of dealing with the relevant "biochemical and biological
problems" you and I face essentially the same problem here -- how do we make
good judgment calls in the face of insufficient knowledge? We seem to be
arguing about our differing judgment calls.
The probability value that is relevant to our disagreement is this: What is
the probability that this universe -- complete with all of the resources,
potentialities and formational capabilities resident in quarks, nucleons,
atomic nuclei, atoms, molecules, molecular aggregates, etc., in the vast
diversity of environmental circumstances that occur -- has a formational
economy sufficiently robust to make possible, without need for supernatural
intervention (or for divine exercise of hidden options) the formation of
every category of physical structure and life form that has appeared in the
course of time?
Shorter version of the question: What is the probability that this universe
has "the right stuff" to accomplish the "simple chemicals to a biosphere"
development envisioned by contemporary science?
Still shorter version: What's the probability that this Creation is a "right
stuff universe"?
In your PSCF paper you look at the probabilities for forming proteins having
some specified function and conclude: "Therefore, in principle it is
impossible to demonstrate that a belief in spontaneous evolution of today's
biosphere is plausible -- unless it can be shown that very much smaller
"primitive" precursor systems are functional."
A couple of broad questions come to mind. (I would also welcome the
contributions of biochemists and biologists on the list to the evaluation of
this conclusion.)
1. What happens to probability calculations when you expand the scope of
concern from "today's biosphere" to "any biosphere"? Do we have any idea
about the diversity of biospheres that are possible? Specifically, how can
we evaluate the relevance of the probabilities that you calculated to the
larger question re "any biosphere"?
2. What is the role of the environment in the values of relevant
probabilities? In today's environment the formation of all necessary
proteins is not problematic at all. I saw nothing in your computations that
indicated the environmental influence on formational probabilities. Did I
miss something?
Howard Van Till
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Nov 26 2001 - 10:41:29 EST