Howard's comment on the ownwership of the 'anthropic principles' reminds us
that 'design arguments' rooted in Rom. 1:20 have (and can) be used by
atheists and deists as well as theists. Use of such arguments without the
eye of faith is doomed to falure.
Jack Haas
----- Original Message -----
From: Howard J. Van Till <hvantill@novagate.com>
To: George Murphy <gmurphy@raex.com>; Inge Frette <inge.frette@geologica.no>
Cc: <asa@calvin.edu>
Sent: Thursday, April 27, 2000 9:06 AM
Subject: Re: Weinberg ant the anthropic principle
> I see Anthropic Principles as answers to questions of the following sort:
>
> If the present state of the universe (with special focus on its diversity
of
> both inanimate structures and life forms) is the outcome of formational
> processes involving only the formational capabilities of entities within
the
> universe (that is, without occasional episodes of form-imposing
> interventions by any extra-natural agent), then what must be the character
> of the universe?
>
> Using one of my favorite bits of vocabulary, the answer contained within
> most APs is: The Universe must be equipped with a "robust formational
> economy." That is, the menu of the universe's formational capabilities
must
> be sufficiently robust to actualize the full array of inanimate structures
> and life forms in the course of time. [Call this the "Robust Formational
> Economy Principle."]
>
> But this simply invites the question: How does a universe come to possess
a
> robust formational economy? What is the source (or Source) of that
> astoundingly fruitful menu of formational capabilities?
>
> Anthropic Principles give no answer to this question.
>
> Naturalism has little to offer beyond, "Well, that's just how it is. It
> needs no source. Absolute Nothingness just happened to experience a
> fluctuation and this universe--complete with a robust formational economy
> adequate to form atoms, molecules, galaxies, stars, planets, cells,
> organisms and us--just happens to be the result. (See Peter Atkins' _The
> Creation_ for samples of this type of rhetoric)
>
> All persons who see the universe as a Creation, however, can draw from a
far
> richer reservoir of answers regarding the Source of this universe,
including
> all of its formational capabilities.
>
> That's why I am so often struck with an irony in the creation/evolution
> debate. Preachers of Naturalism presume that they have rightful ownership
of
> the Robust Formational Economy Principle. Ironically, Episodic
Creationists
> appear to grant that ownership and propose that the Creation is NOT gifted
> with a robust formational economy, and some of them spend their lives
> looking for empirical evidence that certain formational capabilities are
> MISSING from the Creation.
>
> But if God is the Source of the Creation's formational economy, why not
have
> high expectations that it is robust--gapless--missing no formational
> capabilities needed to effect the Creator's will for the actualization of
> all kinds of inanimate structures and life forms in the course of time?
>
> In other words, Christians have a far greater right to ownership of
> Anthropic principles and the Robust Formational Economy Principle than do
> proponents of Naturalism. It's time to claim that and to stop letting the
> preachers of Naturalism get by with their shallow claims of ownership.
>
> That was one of my theses at the Waco symposium.
>
> Howard Van Till
>
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sat Apr 29 2000 - 07:19:51 EDT