Hi Howard,
I enjoyed your piece. I have no objection "fully gifted creation", as long as
the "gift" isn't defined as "chance variation and natural selection". I
agree with much of what you write, but I argue on the side of ID, and you
count yourself among its critics. I suppose you feel religious beliefs pose
a threat to science, and I'm convinced the real threat to science is
materialism. Our understanding of evolution will never progress as long as
we view life as a collection of inanimate pieces of matter.
The evolution of the biosphere, cultures and economies should give us a hint
of how organic evolution might have occurred. Those systems are designed by
the "intelligence" of the individual components. They are the cumulative
result of individual choices. The pieces of the system routinely function
according to rules, habit or instinct, with no "intelligence" required.
Stability of the system requires it. Yet each piece has the ability to
occasionally act spontaneously and creatively. (free will)
If the cell was created by symbiosis, symbiosis is a collection of individual
acts. All life gives evidence of some ability to make choices. (Some
admittedly more limited than others. However, bacteria can be observed
pursuing, devouring and escaping from each other.) Evidence is emerging that
DNA makes choices.
Science can not, at the moment, deal with free will and creativity. Some
people would even regard them as supernatural. Whatever mind is, evidence
exists that mind can affect physical matter. (Biofeedback and the placebo
effect, for instance.)
There is room in "free will" for anyone's definition of God. (could be God's
will)
Bertvan
http://members.aol.com/bertvan
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed Sep 27 2000 - 12:53:38 EDT