Re: Van Till's Grand Canyon

From: Don Winterstein (dfwinterstein@msn.com)
Date: Mon Sep 22 2003 - 06:18:19 EDT

  • Next message: Glenn Morton: "Hitler was a Creationist- Reply to Richard Kouchoo"

    Richard wrote in part:

    "I am convinced that the RFEP holds up to the level of "molecular ensembles"
    ..., and I believe it is an important principle up to that
    level. But suggesting that we jump over the gap to include the origin and
    evolution of life seems like a huge leap of faith unwarranted by the
    scientific evidence at hand."

    The value of Howard's perspective is that it effectively sucks initiative and bragging rights away from naturalists and confers them on believers. This value should not be underestimated. The naturalists don't own RFEP because you don't have to be an ontological naturalist to be a scientist. The naturalists are going to claim that it all happened without God regardless of what Christians say, so it's important to take the wind out of their sails. Howard's RFEP scenario may not be correct (and I don't fully accept it), but it's logically unassailable, it's consistent with a reasonable interpretation of the data and, most important, it attacks ontological naturalism in its own backyard.

    As Islamic fundamentalist extremists have hijacked Islam, naturalists have hijacked science. Howard has pried loose their grip. That is, even if there were no gaps in scientific explanations, it's Christians, not naturalists, who could claim victory.

    [Have I won the prize yet for density of incompatible metaphors?]

    Problems in accounting for the origin and evolution of life are there equally for Howard's version and for the naturalist's, because the difference between Howard's version and the naturalist's is in the frame of reference, not the minutiae. At this point neither Richard nor I nor anyone else can say anything more than that the gaps appear to be huge; but history informs us we cannot presume the gaps will never shrink. It would be nice to include the origin of the living cell as an example of ID and incorporate it into our theology, but we cannot do this with complete confidence and so we may as well just forget it, period. Let faith have its foundation where it belongs, in God's Spirit through God's Word.

    Don

      ----- Original Message -----
      From: richard@biblewheel.com
      To: asa@calvin.edu
      Sent: Sunday, September 21, 2003 2:02 PM
      Subject: Van Till's Grand Canyon

      Howard Van Till's RFEP (Robust Formational Economy Principle) posits that
      creation is so wonderfully gifted by God as to be able to actualize any and
      all forms we see with out any form inmposing intervention by God after t =
      0. Here is a good link to one of Howard's outlines of this principle:

      http://www.bethel.edu/college/dept/biology/supportfiles/VanTillOverheads.pdf

      In this outline, Howard presents the following examples of the formational
      capabilities of matter:

      * quarks-> nucleons-> nuclei -> different nuclei
      * nuclei + electrons -> atoms
      * atoms -> molecules -> different molecules
      * atoms & molecules -> galaxies, stars & planets
      * molecular ensembles -> cells
      * cells -> more complex organisms
      * organisms -> different organisms
      * organisms -> ecosystems, etc.

      At first glance, everything looks quite continuous. But a closer inspection
      reveals a huge gap, namely:

      * molecular ensembles -> cells

      Cells are excedingly complex structures that read and write DNA, and use it
      to replicate. They are information based and would not be predicted from
      mere energetical considerations that characterizes everything previous in
      the list. It seems like the step from mere "molecular ensembles" to "cells"
      is rather like going from a bouncing ball to the space shuttle. The
      discontinuity is simply too large to ignore. If we can't narrow this gap, I
      don't see how we could suggest that anyone hold to the principle that denies
      such gaps exist.

      I am convinced that the RFEP holds up to the level of "molecular ensembles"
      in the list above, and I believe it is an important principle up to that
      level. But suggesting that we jump over the gap to include the origin and
      evolution of life seems like a huge leap of faith unwarranted by the
      scientific evidence at hand.

      Any insights from list memebers would be greatly appreciated.

      Richard Amiel McGough
      Discover the sevenfold symmetric perfection of the Holy Bible at
      http://www.BibleWheel.com



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Mon Sep 22 2003 - 06:15:45 EDT