On Mon, 08 Apr 1996 17:37:41 -0500 (EST) you wrote:
LH>ABSTRACT: Science cannot prove that some past event wasLoren
On Mon, 08 Apr 1996 17:37:41 -0500 (EST) you wrote:
[continued]
LH>Most would agree that galactic formation, earthquakes, and zygotic
>development fall into the second category.
As above, PC would have no problem with "earthquakes, and zygotic
development" since these are ongoing *operations*, not *origins*.
Even "galactic formation" is not necessarily an issue for PC except
for the fine-tuning that renders the Earth a suitable place for life.
Such fine-tuning has caused even non-theists to consider the
possibility of an Intelligent Designer:
"The discovery of this degree of design in the universe is having a
profound geological impact on astronomers Fred Hoyle concluded in 1982
that "a superintellect has monkeyed with physics, as well as with
chemistry and biology." ("The Universe: Past and Present
Reflection", 1982, p16). Paul Davies moved from promoting atheism in
1983 ("God and the New Physics", 1983, pp. viii, 3-42, 142-43) to
conceding in 1984 that "the laws [of physics]... seem themselves to
be the product of exceedingly ingenious design" ("Superforce", 1984,
p243) to testifying in his 1988 book The Cosmic Blueprint that there
"is for me powerful evidence that there is something going on behind
it all. The impression of design is overwhelming" ("The Cosmic
Blueprint", 1988, p203). In 1988 George Greenstein expressed these
thoughts: "As we survey all the evidence, the thought insistently
arises that some supernatural agency-or, rather, Agency-must be
involved. Is it possible that suddenly, without intending to, we have
stumbled upon scientific proof of the existence of a Supreme Being?
Was it God who stepped in and so providentially crafted the cosmos for
our benefit?" ("Symbiotic Universe, p27)" (Ross H., "Astronomical
Evidences for a Personal, Transcendent God", in Moreland J.P. ed.,
"The Creation Hypothesis", InterVarsity Press: Illinois, 1994, p164)
Again, even if scientists do develop "sound empirical models", and
"future improvements in empirical knowledge, elegant models, and
computing power", will this make them any the wiser as far as the
fine-tunedness of this particular universe. One of your own colleagues
at Tufts University, Alexander Vilenkin, has advocated a combination
of quantum fluctuation and multiple universes, to get over the
problem (for naturalism) of a fine-tuned universe:
"If a particle can pop into existence from nothing, why not a whole
universe? Vilenkin wondered. If space can be thought of as an energy
field with an average value of zero, why not think of pre-creation
nothingness as a sort of space-time field whose average value is zero?
Rather than a virtual particle popping into existence, a whole
universe, along with matter and energy and space and time and
everything else, pops into existence from nothing. Once he started to
think about the universe in this way, he raised the possibility of not
just one universe but many. Proto-universes could be popping into
existence all the time. Of course, most of these universes would
instantly snuff themselves out, just as virtual particles do. They
would amount to nothing but fluctuations, random hiccups in
nothingness. Eventually, though, one of these hiccups would have
enough energy to escape instant annihilation. It would instantly
expand. A universe would thus be born in a big bang. (Freedman
D.H., "The Mediocre Universe", Discover, February 1996, p71)
Of these type of speculations, the clergyman-physicist
Polkinghorne has declared:
"Let us recognize these speculations for what they are. They are not
physics, but, in the strictest sense, metaphysics There is no purely
scientific reason to believe in an ensemble of universes....A possible
explanation of equal intellectual respectability-and to my mind,
greater elegance-would be that this one world is the way it is because
it is the creation of the will of a Creator who purposes that it
should be so." (Polkinghorne J., "One World", SPCK: London, 1986,
pp79-80).
LH>A majority of scientists believe that abiogenesis and
macroevolution fall into the second category, but a noticeable
minority believe they belong in the third. Most agree that the Big
Bang is in the third category.
I am pleased that "Most...scientists...agree that the Big Bang is in
the third category", namely "No known natural mechanisms could account
for this event" ie. "There are empirically sound reasons for ruling
out all known natural mechanisms." Ross points out that the reactions
by scientists to the increasing evidence for a sudden "hot big bang
creation event" has been very favourable for theism:
"Theistic pronouncements abounded. According to science historian
Frederic B. Burnham, the community of scientists was prepared to
consider the idea that God created the universe "a more respectable
hypothesis today than at any time in the last hundred years."6. Ted
Koppel on ABC's "Nightline" began his interview of an astronomer and a
physicist by quoting the first two verses of Genesis. The physicist
immediately added verse three as also germane to the discovery.
Astronomers who do not draw theistic or deistic conclusions are
becoming rare, and even the few dissenters hint that the tide is
against them. Geoffrey Burbidge, of the University of California at
San Diego, complains that his fellow astronomers are rushing off to
join "the First Church of Christ of the Big Bang." 7
6. David Briggs, "Science, Religion, Are Discovering Commonality in
Big Bang Theory," Los Angeles Times, 2 May 1992, pages 86-87
7. Stephen Strauss, "An Innocent's Guide to the Big Bang Theory:
Fingerprint in Space Left by the Universe as a Baby Still Has Doubters
Hurling Stones," The Globe and Mail (Toronto), 25 April 1992, p1
(Ross H., "The Creator and the Cosmos", NavPress:
Colorado Springs CO., 1993, p19-20)
As for "abiogenesis and macroevolution", I am also pleased to note
that among "scientists", "a noticeable minority believe they belong in
the third" category also.
Indeed, regarding "abiogenesis", Bradley and Thaxton have pointed out
that even the limited success of origin of life experiments have owed
that success to the intervention of an intelligent human designer:
"Over the years a slowly emerging line or boundary has appeared which
shows observationally the limits of what can be expected from matter
and energy left to themselves, and what can be accomplished only
through what Michael Polanyi has called "a profoundly informative
intervention." (Polanyi M., "Chemical Engineering News, August 21,
1967, p54). When it is acknowledged that most so-called prebiotic
simulation experiments actually owe their success to the crucial but
illegitimate role of the investigator, a new and fresh phase of the
experimental approach to life's origin can then be entered. Until
then however, the literature of chemical evolution will probably
continue to be dominated by reports of experiments in which the
investigator, like a metabolizing Maxwell Demon, will have performed
work on the system through intelligent, exogenous intervention. Such
work establishes experimental boundary conditions, and imposes
intelligent influence/control over a supposedly "prebiotic" earth. As
long as this informative interference of the investigator is ignored,
the illusion of prebiotic simulation will be fostered. We would
predict that this practice will prove to be a barrier to solving the
mystery of life's origin." (Thaxton C.B., Bradley W.L. & Olsen R.L.,
"The Mystery of Life's Origin: Reassessing Current Theories, Lewis &
Stanley: Dallas TX, 1992, p185).
Of course, once it is granted that an Intelligent Designer has
intervened in the origin of the universe and the origin of life, it
becomes impossible (indeed irrational) to rule out his intervention in
"macroevolution", as Johnson points out:
"Victory in the creation-evolution dispute therefore belongs to the
party with the cultural authority to establish the ground rules that
govern the discourse. If creation is admitted as a serious
possibility, Darwinism cannot win, and if it is excluded a priori
Darwinism cannot lose." (Johnson P.E. "Evolution as Dogma: The
Establishment of Naturalism", Foundation for Thought and Ethics, 1990,
p8)
LH>What do scientists do with events in the third category?
>Individual scientists could reach (at least) five different
>conclusions:
>
>A) A supernatural event occurred.
>B) Super-human technology brought about the event.
>C) An unknown natural mechanism is responsible for the event.
>D) A very unlikely (natural) event occurred.
>E) A very unlikely (natural) event occurred, but there are many
> different causally disconnected universes.
A) is not open to naturalism. B) has no empirically testable
foundation, and moreover it does not explain how the "Super-human
technology" itself arose. C) is equivalent to "we don't know",
which Johnson claims he has been told repeatedly "is not science".
A permanent "we don't know" will open the way for theism, which
claims to know. D) is equivalent to a miracle - according to Borel's
Law, events above a probability of 1:10^50, do not happen. E) The
multiple-universes is just speculation.
LH>Science _qua_ science cannot distinguish between these
>possibilities. Historical, philosophical, and religious arguments
>are the decisive factors in each scientist's conclusion.
Agreed.
LH>Note, however, that science _qua_ science DOES play a vital role in
>deciding whether an event falls into category 2 (extrapolation of known
>mechanisms) or category 3 (no known mechanism). I would also argue that
>philosophical and religious arguments can properly play some role in this
>debate. This is the realm where scientific data, scientific intuitions,
>and philosophical/religious expectations meet in the same arena. For
>example, strongly materialistic scientists will work hard to push all
>events into category 1 or 2. This effort might lead them to uncover new
>natural mechanisms sooner than scientists who don't share their
>materialistic philosophy. Alternatively, scientists with strong religious
>or philosophical reasons for believing that certain events are
>supernatural can marshal scientific arguments to show that those events
>belong in category 3 rather than category 2. This effort might lead them
>to uncover flaws in proposed naturalistic scenarios sooner than scientists
>who don't share their religious beliefs. (*2*)
Why only "*scientists* with strong religious or philosophical reasons
for believing that certain events are supernatural"?
LH>(*1*) It is worth mentioning again that non-deistic theism asserts
>that "category 1" events are just as much dependent upon God's
>activity as "category 3" events.
Agreed. But within "non-deistic theism" there are different emphases
on the relative frequency of the immanent (natural) and transcendent
(supernatural) modes of "God's activity". The theistic evolutionist
would tend to minimise the latter and the fiat and progressive
creationists would tend to maximise the former.
LH>(*2*) Both of these biases could be pushed to the extreme, to the
>detriment of science. One could imagine a scientific community so
>obsessed with finding naturalistic explanations for "category 2-3" events
>that it wastes vast resources on unproductive pursuits which yield no
>secondary benefits.
This was my point to Brian. While no doubt there have been valuable
side-effects in the quest for a spontaneous naturalistic origin of
life from non-living chemicals, it is ultimately a waste of scarce
resources to pursue this line of research if it becomes clear that
after decades of trying, there is no reasonable prospect of success.
LH>One could also imagine a scientific community so
>complacent about supernatural explanations (or for that matter,
>super-human or many-worlds explanations) that it makes virtually no effort
>to find new natural mechanisms for puzzling events. Fortunately, the
>present-day scientific community does not seem to fit either extreme.
This is unlikely. Even if it was eventually concluded that an unknown
Intelligent Designer supernaturally created the universe, life and
life's major groups, there would still be plenty of work for
scientists to find out what happened after those creation events.
Astronomy does not cease just because it may be that science cannot
even in principle get back to the original creation-event of the
universe. Nor would biology if it were eventually accepted that a
Creator could have created life and major taxa.
God bless.
Steve
PS: Sorry if this is a double-up
----------------------------------------------------------------
| Stephen Jones ,--_|\ sjones@iinet.net.au |
| 3 Hawker Ave / Oz \ http://www.iinet.net.au/~sjones/ |
| Warwick 6024 ->*_,--\_/ phone +61 9 448 7439. (These are |
| Perth, Australia v my opinions, not my employer's) |
----------------------------------------------------------------