On Fri, 19 Jul 1996 11:51:48 -0400 (EDT), lhaarsma@OPAL.TUFTS.EDU wrote:
[...]
LH>The use of the term "chance" in any scientific theory is not,
>strictly, a statement about *causation* (or lack of causation);
>rather, it is a statement about our lack of *knowledge* about
>causation. Events which appear random from our (human) perspective
>need not be uncaused from a divine, transcendent perspective. On the
>contrary, theistic philosophy has always maintained that God can and
>does determine the outcome of "chance" events. (Proverbs 16:33, "The
>lot is cast into the lap, but its every decision is from the Lord."
>NIV)
I agree with the whole FAQ (I think <g>) I would add some points re
chance and providence.
1. If chance really existed then the God of the Bible could not not
exist:
"As long as chance rules," Arthur Koestler has rwritten, "God is an
anachronism." Koestler's dictum is a sound conclusion . . . to a
point. It is true that if chance rules, God cannot. We can go
further than Koestler. It is not necessary for chance to rule in
order to supplant God. Indeed chance requires little authority at
all if it is to depose God; all it needs to do the job is to exist.
The mere existence of hance is enough to rip God from his cosmic
throne. chance does not need to rule; it does not need to be
sovereign. If it exists as a mere impotent, humble servant, it
leaves God not only out of date, but out of a job. If chance exists
in its frailest possible form, God is finished. Nay, he could not be
finished because that would assume he once was. To finish something
implies that it at best was once active or existing. If chance
exists in any size, shape, or form, God cannot exist. The two are
mutually exclusive. If chance existed, it would destroy God's
sovereignty. If God is not sovereign, he is not God. If he is not
God, he simply is not. If chance is, God is not. If God is, chance
is not. The two cannot coexist by reason of the impossibility of the
contrary." (Sproul R.C., "Not a Chance", Baker: Grand Rapids MI,
1994, p3)
2. In addition to Proverbs 16:33, illustrating God's perfect control
over apparently random events, there is the account in 1 Kings 22
(and 2 Chronicles 18) where the prophet Micaiah predicts that the
wicked king of Israel, Ahab will be killed in battle attacking Ramoth
Gilead (1Ki 22:17, 20-23, 28). Ahab decides to enter the battle in
disguise (1Ki 22:30) just in case. But 1Ki 22:34 records "But
someone drew his bow at random" (NIV, NEB; "at a venture" KJV, RSV;
"without specific aim" Berkeley) "and hit the king of Israel between
the sections of his armor" and Ahab died (1Ki 22:35).
3. Even if the Darwinist hypothesis is granted arguendo that
evolution is caused by indivual random events (eg. random mutations,
cometary impacts, etc), it does not follow that the biosphere
as a whole is the result of chance, as philosopher Peter van Inwagen
points out:
"I don't quite see how it is that the hypothesis that all such events
are due to chance is the only conceivable hypothesis. But let us
suppose that this hypothesis is at any rate true- Does it follow that
the general features of the biosphere are products of chance? It
does not. To suppose that they are would be to commit the so-called
fallacy of composition. It would be as if one reasoned that because
a cow is entirely composed of quarks and electrons and quarks and
electrons are nonliving and invisible, a cow must therefore be
nonliving and invisible" (van Inwagen P., "Doubts About Darwinism",
in Buell J. & Hearn V., eds., "Darwinism: Science or Philosophy?",
Foundation for Thought and Ethics: Richardson TX, 1994, p188)
4. Spanner gives an example where at one level something can appear
random, but at a higher level it is designed:
"In a previous chapter we discussed the biblical attitude to chance,
and we saw that the Bible recognizes and indeed uses the category,
but sees in it no obstacle to its teaching on the sovereign
providence of God. God does not play dice; he directs them. Yet
their fall may with entire legitimacy be regarded by the human
observer as random, the result of chance. Lest this seem an
impossible position to maintain let me justify it by a simple
illustration. The final digits in a column of numbers from the
telephone directory constitute a sequence which would probably stand
up to any statistical test for randomness which we cared to apply.
We may suppose that the numbers were allocated by a Telephone
Authority on principles of its own choosing based on a detailed
knowledge of its customers. We have here then a system in which
statistical randomness results directly from deliberate, intelligent,
purposeful activity on the part of a superintending Authority. If it
be asked whether a powerful enough computer given access to the same
customer-information as the Authority could not probably extract the
principles on which the latter worked (and so could overcome the
element of unpredictability in the numbers and their claim to
randomness) the answer is, 'Yes, quite possibly'; but this does
nothing to negate the point made by the analogy. For God has
knowledge inaccessible to men, and his wisdom is inscrutable to men.
The objection just noted, based essentially on the finiteness of the
human Authority, therefore loses its force when directed at
Providence. The biblical position is quite logical. There is
nothing incoherent in the belief that random numbers or chance
events, though properly so called, are nevertheless individually
willed by God... Both the secularist and the 'creationist' commonly
regard randomness (or chance) in this context as the emphatic
negation of purposive divine activity. If natural selection has
operated on random variations then this is supposed to exclude God.
He can have had nothing to do with the marvellous diversification of
living things in the course of earth history. That is their
conclusion. But it is a false one, as I have just attempted to show.
For if a sequence of digits from the telephone directory, confirmed
as random by any available test, can, nevertheless, be the result of
careful, deliberate and intelligent choice by a superintending
Authority, then their argument is seen to be fallacious. Even if
gene mutation, gene recombinations and chromosome changes are truly
random, divine providence is not thereby excluded from the
evolutionary process." (Spanner D.C., "Biblical Creation and the
Theory of Evolution", Paternoster, 1987, pp89-90)
5. Ratzsch points out that it is possible for God to intervene
at the sub-atomic level and yet be consistent with natural laws:
"But probabilistic law opens another interesting possibility. If
there are causal gaps in the ultimate physical processes of the
cosmos, those gaps provide space for intervention that would still be
wholly within the boundaries of natural law. For example, God could
either bring about or prohibit the radioactive decay of a particular
atom at a particular time, but given the way probabilistic laws
function, either of those would be totally within the bounds of all
of the relevant physical laws. Let us take it one step further.
Suppose that whether or not some mutation arises depends on whether
or not some radioactive atom incorporated into some organism's DNA
decays at a specific moment. And suppose that the mutation is
essential to the next step in the evolution of the species in
question. The atom's decaying and not decaying are both consistent
with physical law. Thus, were God deliberately to intervene and
decree the decay of the atom for the very purpose of triggering the
next evolutionary step, that purposeful intervention would be an
instance of divine guiding intervention and also would involve no
violation or suspension of any law of nature. Counterintuitive as it
might initially seem, in the context of fundamentally probabilistic
law an event's being wholly within the boundaries of natural law
while simultaneously being the result of deliberate divine
intervention is perfectly logically consistent." (Ratzsch D.L., "The
Battle of Beginnings: Why Neither Side is Winning the Creation-
Evolution Debate", InterVarsity Press: Downers Grove, Ill., 1996,
p187)
I agree with Wilcox:
"I have no metaphysical necessity driving me to propose the
miraculous action of the evident finger of God as a scientific
hypothesis. In my world view, all natural forces and events are
fully contingent on the free choice of the sovereign God. Thus,
neither an adequate nor an inadequate ''neo-Darwinism (as mechanism)
holds any terrors. But that is not what the data looks like. And I
feel no metaphysical necessity to exclude the evident finger of God"
(Wilcox D.L. "A Blindfolded Watchmaker: The Arrival of the
Fittest", in Buell J. & Hearn V., eds., "Darwinism: Science or
Philosophy?", Foundation for Thought and Ethics: Richardson TX,
1994, p215)
God bless.
Steve
PS: BTW, does anyone know David Wilcox's email address? He is
Professor of Biology at Eastern College, St David's, PA.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
| Stephen E (Steve) Jones ,--_|\ sejones@ibm.net |
| 3 Hawker Avenue / Oz \ Steve.Jones@health.wa.gov.au |
| Warwick 6024 ->*_,--\_/ Phone +61 9 448 7439 (These are |
| Perth, West Australia v my opinions, not my employer's) |
-------------------------------------------------------------------