"Howard J. Van Till" wrote:
> (view 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."
I would include a reasonable probability of success in the concept of an
adequate formational capability. But as soon as you cumulate more than
very few events of a reasonable probability of success you arrive at
unreasonable ones (mutliplying moderately small values). I agree if you
want to call this an improbability hurdle, but it is essential to
distinguish this improbability from the one pertaining to an individual
elementary event.
> > -- 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.
I agree that much is yet to be learned, but based on the previous
history of the field, I suspect that the capability assessments for
forming complex biological systems will decrease, rather than increase,
with more knowledge. In any case, I was referring to simple molecules,
not even to informational polymers like DNA and proteins.
> > 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?
Yes. In ONF, the only influence against randomness would be natural
selection, which is excluded by definition: as soon as natural selection
sets in, we have DEE. In OCL, an analog of natural selection works on
molecules, rather than cells and organisms, but in molecular selection,
there is usually no intrinsic selection of _sets_ of "collaborating"
molecules required for cellular integration. Of course, the case of OCL
is more speculative.
> > 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)?
There are two different questions we have to distinguish: (1) Is
information needed to produce biological functionality required for
_any_ kind of living organism? (2) Is information needed to produce the
specific set of species of organisms actually realized during the
evolution of the biosphere? IMHO, the answers are:
... for (2): not necessarily, at least not for most of the branches.
There is probably a very large number of other possible species of
organisms which were never realized, and probably a very large number of
possible alternative biosphere compositions, even perhaps alternative
possibilities for the evolution of intelligent beings. So, for (2),
perhaps no information had to be stored.
... for (1): yes, definitely. There are legions of functionalities, from
templated replication to God-consciousness, that require many miracles-2
and a few miracles-1. As to the ONF cases, the _full potentialities_ of
the preexisting molecular species leave the outcomes of particular
mutational random walks _fully undetermined_ within the particular set
of possibilities. Before natural selection sets in, the probabilities
for particular outcomes are logically fixed - and reach
transastronomical improbabilities for paths much shorter than probably
required in most cases. These "improbability hurdles" can only be
overcome by the introduction of information (when needed or earlier),
because for selections among genuinely random paths there inherently are
no parameters to be initially fine-tuned. (There are a few parameters,
e.g.those affecting the relative facility of transition vs. transversion
mutations, but such parameters always work both ways, on average
favoring the same small percentage of eventually useful mutations for
all paths.)
> > 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?
No. We don't get science out of the Bible. It's a question of
apologetics, evangelism and other theological domains to formulate
reasonable harmonies between revelation and experience. Finding harmony
should imply neither reading into nor out of the Bible what's not there,
but requires distinguishing data from interpretation. A reasonable
harmony between biblical revelation and scientific experience is of
vital importance for the health of the Christian faith in our culture.
> > 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.
Ok, I am happy that B agrees. Regarding the two questions (from my point
of view - others, please join the discussion!):
(1) If "any biosphere" refers to all possible ones having our
biochemistry, it doesn't change anything. We don't know any alternative
carbon-based biochemistries, and non-carbon-based chemistries (e.g.
silicon- or boron-based) are most probably much too poor in capability
for generating living systems.
(2) The answer is about the same as for (1), as the principles of the
DNA code and the translation into proteins are given. It has been shown
that virtually any alternative genetic code is less promising than the
one we have. It is more difficult to assess the size of the set of
biological amino acids, but it may very well be that it has been
optimized by early evolution, as well. A different set will affect the
values of the improbabilities, but not the fact that very rapidly, they
grow transastronomically large. Furthermore, it is not just the case
that the environment influences life, but life also influences the
environment. They have grown together as a finely tuned total system.
> > .... 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.
I realize that your robust formational economy principle is a
theological concept, not a scientific one, and I agree with your
conviction that we Christians have a greater warrant for holding an
optimistic world view than maximal-naturalists. My critique of the
formational sufficiency of the original creation is based on scientific
considerations, rather than theological or philosophical ones: I don't
see a possibility how it could work on the scientific level, although,
of course, God could do anything he wanted.
> Respectfully,
>
> Howard Van Till
Thank you for continuing the exchange!
Peter Ruest
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Nov 30 2001 - 11:28:56 EST