=========================================================================
In this context I feel that I can respond to some recent criticisms of
computer based evolutionary studies. The main thing that these teach us is
that there is such a thing as unanticipated emergent properties.
Properties and behaviors THAT WERE NOT PROGRAMMED INTO these systems arise
spontaneously without the tweaking of the programmer. Now I will readily
admit that the computer environment itself and the rules by which it works
is a designed environment, but I believe that about creation as well--God
made the world and the rules by which it works--and, of course, he tweaks
via providence far beyond what any programmer does. So if we see novelties
arise in these computer environments it should be of no surprise to see
novelties arise in a God-created nature.
=========================================================================
Terry, can you explain what in your mind qualifies as "tweaking via
providence", and how this is to be distinguished from "intervention"
in the strong PC sense of the word? It seems here that you are walking
a very fine line between the Creator governing his creation in the usual
TE view (which results in law-like regularities in the behavior of creation)
and the PC view of a Creator who infused new information or matter at strategic
points in the unfolding of His creation. If you are suggesting that God
"tweaks" the behavior of creation in ways that are beyond our investigation
(shrouded in quantum uncertainty a la Heisenberg, for example), then I don't
see how that differs in principle from the PC view.
I believe it was Leibniz who objected so greatly to Newton's view that God
needed to correct for supposed perturbations in planetary orbits in order to
ensure stability for the solar system. Howard van Till argues forcefully
that PC-type models should be rejected for the same reason today...because such
models imply defects in the original creation, which seem unworthy of an
omnipotent Creator. But it seems to me that the same objection should be
raised against a model involving a Creator who "tweaks" his creation. This
is the source of my confusion. Can you help by explaining what you had in
mind?
Thanks in advance,
Stan Zygmunt
Dept. of Physics and Astronomy
Valparaiso University