On Tue, 20 Jun 1995 18:36:34 +0930 you wrote:
MP>My question is: is there any way for us to determine which of these
>two "fundamentals" models is correct (God sustained vs unintelligent
>laws)? That is, does the "God sustained" model have any consequences
>for the universe (which we could observe) which would not occur in the
>"unintelligent laws" model (or vice versa)? Or are these two models
>indistinguishable from an observational point of view?
>
SJ>I know this is Reformed Orthodoxy, but I don't believe it is true.
>I believe that all men already know there is a Creator-God by virtue
>of: a) innate knowledge of God as God's image-bearer; and b) the
>witness of the order, beauty and grandeur of creation (General
>Revelation). Special Revelation confirms this (Ps 19:1; Rom 1:16ff)
>and of couse expands on it in great detail.
SJ>My own testimony is that I was brought up in a non-Christian home
>with no knowledge of the Bible or Christianity. I became an atheist
>in my early teenage years, and in my late teens I looked up at the
>Milky Way one night and had an overwhelming feeling that there must
>be a God. I did not become a Christian until 2 years later.
SJ>My point is that we cannot believe that there is such a thing as
>"Special Revelation", let alone that it is "reliable" unless we
>already believe in a Creator-God. I agree that later we fine-tune this
>"model" by the learning from "Special Revelation".
>
MP>I do not deny your feeling, after looking at the milky way, that
>"there must be a God". I have had similar experiences. You and I
>may believe that this is a valid reason for accepting that there
>is a God, but the atheist will suggest that, though this is a
>real experience we've had, it is only that - an experience which
>made us feel, incorrectly, that there must be a God. We may choose
>to accept God on this basis, but we can give little justification
>for it - it is a subjective choice.
Agreed. But what the atheist (and I) cannot prove is, was it *only*
a "subjective choice"? I believe, based on the outcome and other
subtle factors leading up to my conversion, which I saw in retrospect,
that God was working in an through that numinous experience, to bring
me to Christ.
MP>What I would like to know is: is this (and special revelation and
>miracles) the only means to distinguish the "God sustained" model
>from the "unintelligent laws" model?
I cannot remember what you mean by "God sustained" model. At first I
thought you meant simply God's providential maintenance of the cosmos.
There is a clear distinction between this and an"unintelligent laws"
model, in the surprise that scientists like Hoyle and Davies have
experienced in the degree of fine-tunedness of the cosmos. I remember
from your introduction to the Reflector you referred favourably to
Hugh Ross' books, so I am sure you are aware of that.
But from your further comments below I gather you are not just
referring to maintenance but origins. I will therefore answer in the
vein that I think you are asking what is the way to distinguish
between a "God directed" (= creationist) model versus "unintelligent
laws" (= evolutionist) model. I realise that Theistic Evolutionists
might disagree with that, but I understand the basic TE model is that
God works solely through natural laws, so that it is indistinguishable
from naturalist evolution.
I think there is (or was) a means to distinguish the "God sustained"
(ie. creation) model from the "unintelligent laws" (ie. evolution)
model?. When Darwin's theory first came out, it was expected that the
fossil record would reveal a "finely graduated organic chain" ("Origin
of Species", p292). On the other hand, creation has always expected
basically a discontinuous record featuring sudden appearance of fully
formed organisms. For 120 years Darwinists persisted with their
continuous model until in the 1970's Gould revealed the "trade secret
of paleontology" (Gould, "The Panda's Thumb", p150) that the fossil
record was profoundly discontinuous. Since that days some Darwinists
have been proposing a discontinuous (Punctuated Equilibria) model, but
as Dawkins points out, this is to "deny the very heart of the
evolution theory" ("The Blind Watchmaker", p318).
In Darwin's day, as in ours, the central difference between the "God
sustained" model and the "unintelligent laws" model is the degree of
saltation, and this is clear from the two extremes on the saltation -
gradualism continuum . A creation model could accommodate a billions
of years origin but a naturalistic model could not accommodate a 6 x
24 hours origin. So as the evidence points more to a jerky, sudden
appearance/fully formed origin, the more it confirms a creation model
and disconfirms an evolution model. That this is clear is from
Darwin's resolute insistence that there be no saltus in his theory,
despite Huxley's warning that he had saddled himself with unnecessary
difficulties denying saltation. Dentom says:
"Although the absence of intermediates was acknowledged as an enormous
difficulty, Darwin never weakened in his insistence that evolution
must
be a gradual process. For Darwin the term evolution, which literally
means 'a rolling out', always implied a very slow gradual process of
cumulative change (a view which has been subscribed to by the great
majority of biologists ever since). There were two main reasons why
Darwin rejected the saltational solution to the challenge of the great
gaps in nature. Firstly, he considered it axiomatic that all natural
processes always must conform to the principle of continuity. In his
book Darwin on Man, Howard Gruber remarks:
`Natura non facit saltum - nature makes no jumps - was a guiding motto
for generations of evolutionists and proto-evolutionists. But Darwin
encountered it in a sharp and interesting form, posed as an
alternative
of terrible import: nature makes no jumps, but God does. Therefore,
if
we want to know whether something that interests us is of natural
origin
or supernatural, we must ask: did it arise gradually out of that
which
came before, or suddenly without any evident natural cause?'
(Denton M., "Evolution: A Theory in Crisis",1985, Burnett Books, p58)
MP>For example, if it could be demonstrated that "unintelligent laws"
>can not produce creatures such as ourselves, and we do in fact
>exist, then we have objective proof of the existence of the
>intelligent. Or if it could be shown that lightning can only
>be explained in terms of an intelligent "lightning director" - that
>no naturalistic explaination has been, or ever could be found, then
>we could demonstrate objectively that this "lightning director"
>must exist.
Philosophically it is impossible to prove a negative. One could prove
the positive by just one example of humans or lightning being produced
by unintelligent laws. But to prove the negative, one would have to
know everything about all laws in the universe.
But practically, it may be possible to claim that "unintelligent laws"
cannot produce life. For example, after the Miller-Urey experiment in
1953, which synthesised amino acids from biochemicals, scientists
expected they would be be able to simulate the abiotic origin of life.
However, if after 40 years of the most intense effort, by the
brightest minds, with the most brilliantly designed technology, and
contriving the most favourable conditions, science is unable to
demonstrate that "unintelligent laws" can produce life. If after 40+
years of, with the drying up of research funds, the retirement of the
original origin of life researchers (eg. Sidney Fox), and the lack of
new researchers entering the field, it will, in a practical sense, be
demonstrated that "unintelligent laws" can not produce a single living
molecule, let alone creatures such as ourselves.
MP>If we believe that God is the creator and sustainer of the
>universe, do we also believe that if we knew enough about the
>workings of this universe, we would have objective evidence that God
>exists? Or do we believe that our understanding of God's sustainance
>is all revelation, rather than being necessary for our model of
>nature?
An interesting question. It is a proposition of scripture (Ps 19:1;
Rom 1:16ff), that we already have objective evidence that God exists!
However, I presume you mean such a high degree of objective evidence
that even unbelievers would be forced to admit that God exists. It
could be argued that this is happening, with the evidence for a
moment of creation (Big Bang) and the incredible degree of
fine-tunedness of the universe, starting to convince some atheists
(eg. Hoyle and Davies). Of course knowing everything about the
universe would never prove the degree of detail about the Creator that
Special Revelation reveals, any more that analysing every atom of Mona
Lisa would tell you everything about its creator Leonardo.
SJ>I think we can. IMHO all men know that the universe is displays
>God's wisdom and power (Rom 1:16ff), but they supress this knowledge
>and create an idol universe that is "self-existent one which obeys
>unintelligent laws".
I see I had already answered it! <g>
SJ>But could we demonstrate objectively to these "knowledge
>supressors" that this knowledge is correct, provided (a big proviso)
>they were open minded and didn't refuse to see the validity of our
>arguments? Or is it a matter of accepting this knowedge on a
>non-objective basis?
See above. It may be always possible to deny evidence for the
existence of God. Judas saw every miracle of Jesus and His sinless
life, yet still denied He was the Messiah. An example might be YEC use
of the appearance of age argument to deny evidence of an old-earth.
What is to stop a died-in-the wool atheist to develop an appearance of
design argument? In effect that is what Dawkins does with his
"apparent design" argument in The Blind Watchmaker.
>LH>The universe is full of "contingent" entities -- that is, things
>which depend for their existence upon the existence of other things.
>But everyone's philosophy requires that there be at least one
>self-existing, non-contingent entity.
>
MP>I don't think I agree with this. Why does the universe have to be
>contingent?
Loren does not say this. He says that the parts of the universe that
we know of are contingent, ie. not self-existent. But in the final
analysis, there must be a non-contingent reality, either an eternal
self-existent Creator, or eternal self-existent matter/energy.
Actually there is a third alternative proposed by Betrand Russell -
that "the universe could be the product of an infinite series of
finite causes", but Sproul says "that such a notion is rationally
inconceivable" (Sproul R.C., "Not a Chance", 1994, p173)
Of course one argument that the universe cannot be eternal is that
according to the second law of thermodynamics, its entropy is
inexorably increasing to the point of "heat death". If the universe
was eternal, it would have already reach that point. The only
alternative would be an alternative Big Bang - Big Crunch oscillation,
but apparently each oscillation (even if it could happen) would,
because of the second law, not rebound as far as the last oscillation.
So again, in an infinitely old universe, the last oscillation and heat
death would already have occurred.
So it has been demonstrated objectively that the universe is not
eternal. Since: 1. something cannot be its own cause; and 2.
something cannot arise out of nothing; the only rational alternative
seems to be that: 3. the universe was caused by something (or
someone) that itself was self-existent.
God bless.
Stephen