RE: Who's Burden of Proof?

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Steve Petermann [mailto:steve@spetermann.org]
> Sent: Saturday, November 29, 2003 11:35 AM
> To: glennmorton@entouch.net; asa@calvin.edu; Mark Dodson
> Subject: Re: Who's Burden of Proof?
>
>
> Glenn wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>
> Those uncertainties are random and that is why quantum computing
> was brought
> up. The world is built upon a big random number generator--quantum
> mechanics.
> <<<<<<<<<<
>
> We may be getting hung up on terminology here. Could you give me your
> definition of "random"? You may be using a technical definitions of random
> so to put a finer point on the issue instead of using the term random, let
> me use the terms "by-chance-alone". Your sentence would then be:
>
> >>>>>>>>
> Those uncertainties are by-chance-alone and that is why quantum computing
> was brought up. The world is built upon a big by-chance-alone number
> generator--quantum mechanics.
> <<<<<<<<
>
>
> If this is also an accurate statement of yours, you'd need to be able to
> defend why you think all these events are by-chance-alone. The real
> question with intelligent design is causation. When it comes to these
> fundamental levels of reality, science may adopt a metaphysical position
> concerning causation but it can't support it scientifically.

Given that you put by chance alone in where I said random, I would suggest
that the question is yours, not mine. I simply don't like words being put
in my mouth. I used the term random, I meant the term random, which means
basically, based upon probability.

The number sequence 1,2,2,2,1,2,1,1,1,2,2,1,1,2,1.. may be a random sequence
generated by a toss of a coin, but if it is the output of 2 dice, then it
isn't random. One must specify what model of randomness one is going to use
to compare the sequence with.
>
>
> >>>>>>>>>
> One could say that it is due to design. See Gordon Simons and my letter in
> the Dec. PSCF. Chance and design are not incompatible, but there
> is a huge
> prejudice against chance among the Christians because they think
> (mistakenly) that God is smaller than chance and they think
> mistakenly, that
> God can't create or use a random number generator which computer
> programmers
> use (in their design of games) all the time.
> <<<<<<<<<
>
>
> There are two issues here. 1) Could God use chance
> (by-chance-alone number
> generator) to design? or 2) Are these apparent random numbers actually by
> chance alone. To the first, since human designers use apparent
> chance, then
> God could as well. The second is a theological issue. With God
> is anything
> really by chance?

A quantum measurement, say the polarization of a photon is by utterly random
when compared with the flip of a coin. It is not determined, if you use a
vertical polarized filter, exactly half the photons will pass the filter and
half will be absorbed as long as the polarization angle is 45 degrees to the
vertical or the filter 45 degress to the polarization. You can't tell which
photon will pass and which won't. That makes it indeterminate and
non-forseeable for individual events. I can forsee that 50% will pass but
can't tell if the next photon will pass or not.

>
> You may be right about the prejudice of Christians about the idea of
> designing with apparent chance. However, if Christians want to embrace
> scientific explanations of evolution, it is the only alternative to a
> strictly supernatural position.

To me, it is utter arrogance to have us humans build and use random number
generators and then we turn around and say that if there is chance in this
world, God can't exist (Sproul).
Received on Sat Nov 29 20:23:38 2003