Gordon Simon wrote on 1 August
> Russ Maatman writes:
>
> "Bill Hamilton sent us on 27 July, responding to Stephen Jones, the old
> poem
>
> > For lack of a nail the shoe was lost;
> > For lack of a shoe the horse was lost;
> > For lack of a horse the rider was lost;
> > For lack of a rider the battle was lost;
> > For lack of a victory the kingdom was lost.
>
> Is this a good example of nonlinearity? Chaos theory (after all, many
> nails could be missing, but because of the lack of *this* nail the
> kingdom was lost, surely an unpredictable result)?
>
> Sort of seriously..."
>
> Serious for whom? While unpredictability is a real problem for our local
> weatherman, I am sure God knows exactly what weather each of us will have
> in our various communities a month from now, indeed a century from now.
Of course God knows the future perfectly. But from what I have learned--and
I surely could be wrong--chaos theory says that for many systems, including
the system that determines the weather, a world full of the best computers
would not be enough to make an accurate long-range prediction.
It's my guess that people have always intuitively felt this to be true,
given a natural system that is sufficiently complex, but that only in
that last few years has the matter been well-analyzed, with the result
that "sufficiently complex" has come to mean "not very complex." This
recent analysis would not, of course, have been possible without the
use of the mathematical concept of nonlinearity.
In fact (and once again I may have missed the point of the argument),
it seems to me that it is precisely this (human) unpredictability that
Glen has been using in his discussion of nonlinearity, chaos theory,
and evolution.
The rest of Gordon's mesage:
> I am not trying to be cute. This issue is obviously important when we are
> trying to assess how God has done this or that. For we frequently find our
> deductive processes hung up by thinking in terms of OUR limitations, not
> God's. Indeed, I believe much of the debate that occurs on the reflector
> traces to this problem.
>
> For instance, purposeful action for me requires that I think about the
> relevant issues in relatively close time proximity to the events for which
> the action is relevant. But with God, purposeful action for an event
> today might have been worked out yesterday, or in the remote past.
> (Indeed, maybe tomorrow! Who's to say? This is not completely fanciful.)
> In each case, we have the same loving God purposefully looking after his
> creation.
>
> In this regard, the only problem is a self-imposed problem: a problem for
> us when we attempt to minutely analyze WHEN God chose to act in a
> particular situation (in order to draw deductions, and/or, perhaps, to
> score debating points).
>
> Sorry, Russ, if I have gotten too far afield from your train of thought.
>
> Gordie
I agree wholeheartedly with you concerning human limitations and the fact
that God is not limited. Thank you for your comments!
Very seriously,
Russ
e-mail: rmaatman@dordt.edu Home address:
Russell Maatman 401 Fifth Ave. SE
Dordt College Sioux Center, Iowa 51250
Sioux Center, Iowa 51250 Home phone: (712) 722-0421