BH>Hello Eddie. I think you have made some interesting observations, however,
>I suspect most TE's are going to label your scenario as creation.
You're probably right. It's my inherent creationist bent showing through.
:-) However, I think many PC's and YEC's will instinctively label it as
theistic evolution. (See Stephen's reply to my original post). Regardless
of what it is, I don't think I've seen anybody explore the possibility at
all which is why I posted it. I am not well read in this area, though.
Perhaps this is just a rehash of what somebody else has written better
elsewhere? If so, I would like to read what they had to say.
[..deleted discussion of Dawkins...]
BH> In view of
>this, the origin of life purely by chance is no longer considered
>viable. As Bradley says on p. 190 of <The Creation Hypothesis>
>
> Such improbabilities have led essentially all scientists who
> work in the field to reject random, accidental aasembly or
> fortuitous good luck as an explanation for how life began.
>
>I think this is an extremely important point to keep in mind when
>discussing probability calculations. These calculations deal with
>only one scenario for the origin of life, a scenario that hasn't
>been seriously considered for around thirty years or so.
Good point, although I suspect the randomness element in evolution is going
to eventually be reincarnated by non-theistic scientists. (see below) I
think I probably have a different intended audience for these ideas than you
might expect. My goal is to be able to find ways to explain to my
non-scientific creationist friends that evolution is not the evil "bogeyman"
they think it is. :-) The most repugnant element of Darwinian evolution to
most conservative theologians and creationists (both PC & YEC) is its
*randomness*. In most of their minds, evolution is inexorably linked to
random chance, so I am going to tackle that objection head-on. My objective
was to show that God's purposeful intervention could exist in "random"
chance in a way that science could never detect. This doesn't rule out
other modes of intervention--it simply shows how He could have intervened
without us ever being able to see it. Conservative evangelicals have tended
to throw away many viable possibilities just because it looks like evolution
to them.
BH>So, I think many TE's are likely to believe that there are as yet
undiscovered
>law-like organizing principles by which life will arise under "suitable"
>conditions with probability near 1. Creationists on the other hand will
>likely argue that these as yet undiscovered principles will remain
>undiscovered since they are products of a healthy imagination and wishful
>thinking ;-). Yockey, on the other hand says that its undecidable whether
>or not such organizing principles exist :-).
I will cast my vote with Yockey and say that I don't know if such principles
exist or not. However, I would like to make two additional observations
about the "organizational principles" scenario of evolution.
1. This has always sounded like an "Evolution of the Gaps" argument to me.
If you can't explain it by known naturalistic mechanisms, then postulate
that unknown naturalistic mechanisms MUST exist in order to save an
evolutionary explanation of the phenomenon. It's essentially identical to
Newton suggesting that God (an unknown supernatural mechanism) must
periodically adjust the orbits of planets so that Newton could save his
theory of planetary motion. I don't have any problems with evolutionists
proposing these types of explanations. I will only insist that they be
consistent--they should shutup and be considerate when creationists propose
their own "God of the Gaps" scenarios. (Incidentally, I think there are
different "classes" of the "God of the Gaps" argument. Some "God of the
Gaps" arguments are much better than others. Newton proposed a very poor
one and not every "God of the Gaps" argument is as inherently disastrous as
his was.)
2. This newer version of evolution seems to either be admitting intelligent
design up front or shifting the "random" chance argument to a new venue.
Why should the universe contain these law-like organizational principles?
The only sound answers seem to be (i) they exist because they are part of an
intentional design or (ii) because the universe just randomly happened to
form in a way that organizational principles arose. (Is there a third
reasonable answer?) If evolutionists admit design, then our Designer must
be considered a reasonable possibility. If they opt for the latter, they've
just moved their fudge factor to a different arena where it's more difficult
to show an "extraordinary coincidence" occured. Presumably one could show
that a universe with law-like organizational principles is extremely less
probable than other possible universes without such principles. However,
it's very difficult to discuss the probability of other "possible universes"
when our only experience is with the one we live in. :-)
Thanks for your comments!
Eddie
__________________________________________________________
"Looking back, there's a thread of love and grace
Connecting each line and space I've known" -David Meece
==========================================================
Eddie Gene Olmstead, Jr. Chemistry Department
Asst. Professor of Chemistry Gordon College
Email: olmstead@gordonc.edu 255 Grapevine Road
Phone: (508) 927-2300 Ext. 4393 Wenham, MA 01984