Hi Walt,
Sender: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu
Precedence: bulk
You know, I was considering the same thing, but then I was thinking about
it, it actually is unpredictable. We can't predict the environmental changes
that will occur to drive evolution, it only reacts to it. Could we have
predicted the asteroid impacts at Shiva and the Chicxulub sites at the time
the C/T time? Are solar flares predictable? In the scientific sense, chance
seems reasonable.
Stephen J. Krogh, P.G.
The PanTerra Group
http://panterragroup.home.mindspring.com
==========================================
-----Original Message-----
From: Walter Hicks [mailto:wallyshoes@mindspring.com]
Sent: Wednesday, June 05, 2002 7:47 PM
To: Stephen J. Krogh
Cc: asa@calvin.edu
Subject: Re: My Daughter is a YEC
Good point and I am aware of this. However, what remains -- with the words
"unpredictable" and "chance" --- basically gives it the same meaning to
most people. We would define "unpredictable" and "chance" to leave wiggle
room for God. However, the common usage of those words would not. We on this
list can redefine words to satisfy ourselves -- but that does get them into
the dictionaries that most people use.
Moreover, I feel that the definition below may eventually be shown to be
scientifically invalid. We have no proof whatsoever that these processes are
governed by "chance". Only in quantum mechanics does chance enter in at a
fundamental level and that may be because it is an incomplete thoery. Other
(non-QM) events may be complicated but that does not make them random. Are
stars an example of how the chance motion of hydrogen atoms get themselves
together by historical contingencies and changing environments --- or is
because of overruling physical laws?
Walt
Stephen J. Krogh wrote:
> -----Original Message-----
> From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu
[mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu]On
> Behalf Of Walter Hicks
> Sent: Tuesday, June 04, 2002 3:43 PM
> To: Shuan Rose
> Cc: Dawsonzhu@aol.com; asa@calvin.edu
> Subject: Re: My Daughter is a YEC
>
Also the use
> of the word
> "random" in secular teaching of evolution has a definite meaning
> to most people
> -- and it does not correspond to the theology used on this list.
> But you will
> not get that word removed for teaching of evolution so long as
> the "theory of
> evolution" is taught in public schools. Also, you cannot in a
> public school
> redefine "random" to mean possibly under the control of God.
>
>
> Walt
Not to be too picky, but just a little FYI:
In 1995, the National Association of Biology Teachers (NABT) passed a
resolution that tells us what is implied by the slogan "evolution is a
fact:" "The diversity of life on earth is the outcome of evolution: an
unsupervised, impersonal, unpredictable, and natural process of temporal
descent with genetic modification that is affected by natural selection,
chance, historical contingencies, and changing environments."
However, in 1997, the NABT deleted the two words: unsupervised and
impersonal from their definition of evolution. This removal of the
challenge
to the supernatural should remove much of the opposition to evolution,
as it
no longer is tied to philosophical conclusions.
Stephen J. Krogh, P.G.
The PanTerra Group
http://panterragroup.home.mindspring.com
--
===================================
Walt Hicks <wallyshoes@mindspring.com>
In any consistent theory, there must
exist true but not provable statements.
(Godel's Theorem)
You can only find the truth with logic
If you have already found the truth
without it. (G.K. Chesterton)
===================================
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed Jun 05 2002 - 22:10:08 EDT