Re: Response to: What does the creation lack?

From: Howard J. Van Till (hvantill@novagate.com)
Date: Thu Nov 29 2001 - 09:08:44 EST

  • Next message: Adrian Teo: "Crucial Questions Email?"

    Peter,

    As it turns out (no surprise to either of us :) some of your statements
    regarding our disagreements do stimulate a few comments and questions:

    > *Disagreements:*
    >
    > 4. View C [Ruest] disagrees with A [atheism] and B [Murphy/Van Till], in that
    C:

    > 4.3. does not view miracles-2 as suggesting any "capability gaps" of
    > created entities - ...

    Does the need for a miracle-2 (to overcome a low probability) constitute a
    "capability gap"? That depends on whether or not one includes a "reasonable
    probability of success" in the concept of an "adequate formational
    capability." If not, then the need for a miracle-2 is occasioned, not by a
    "capability gap," but by an "improbability hurdle."

    > -- the capabilities of prebiotic and modern biotic
    > entities are comparatively well-known;

    I, on the other hand, suspect that what is now known about formational
    capabilities (and pathways) is small in comparison to what is yet to be
    learned.

    > 5. View C disagrees with B (A being irrelevant here), in that C:

    > 5.1. disputes the possibility, in principle, that initial fine-tuning of
    > the creation parameters (at the big bang) could improve the
    > probabilities of the selections required much later in the huge
    > dimensional possibility spaces of rich chemical environments for OCL and
    > of informational sequences in ONF (initial tuning of probabilities of
    > composite random-walk paths might imply a logical self-contradiction);

    Question: Are "random walk paths" the sole option?

    > 5.5. refuses to see any planning or other "defect" in God's creating if
    > it is connected with later hidden selections whenever that information
    > is needed - in fact, a predestination, at the time of the big bang, of
    > all information required for OCL and ONF (or of an algorithm generating
    > it) and storing this information somewhere in the prebiotic universe for
    > 10 billion years would appear to be a much more complicated, awkward,
    > and inelegant solution of the problem;

    Q: Why is there any need to either "predestine" or "store" some quantity of
    "information"? Given the character of the "stuff" of the Creation, the
    potentialities for every species that has ever been actualized (and probably
    a much larger number that were not) were resident in the system from the
    outset. Potentialities for functional species not now actualized are
    nonetheless now present. Where is THAT "information" stored (if anywhere)?

    > 5.7. holds that, while Genesis 1-2 is not a science text, it provides us
    > with much more than just Israel's concept of Yahweh as being the Creator
    > of the world;

    Q: Is the "much more" to which you here refer scientifically relevant?

    > 5.8. considers it important to deal in detail with the scientific
    > problems with OCL and ONF, ....

    View B agrees. That's why biochemists and biologists on this list were
    encouraged to comment on these matters. That's why there were questions
    regarding (1) the relationship between your probability computations and the
    value of the probability for "any biosphere," and (2) the effect of
    environment (itself the product of a history) on the relevant probability
    values.

    > .... refraining from an overly confident reliance
    > on view A proponents (their philosophical prejudice is mistaken, but is
    > highly likely to unduly bias their judgment in this context);

    What you here refer to as "overly confident reliance on View A proponents"
    is NOT my basis for proposing the robust formational economy principle. As I
    have repeatedly noted, maximal naturalism does NOT own the robust
    formational economy principle. In fact, I think Christianity has a greater
    warrant [rooted in God's creativity and generosity] for holding it than does
    maximal naturalism [which can point to no source/basis for such a remarkable
    state of affairs]. Yielding effective ownership of that principle to
    proponents of View A is, in my judgment, a major (but all too common)
    mistake on the part of conservative evangelical Christians, especially those
    dead set against evolution.

    Respectfully,

    Howard Van Till



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Nov 29 2001 - 09:20:45 EST