From: Josh Bembenek (jbembe@hotmail.com)
Date: Mon May 12 2003 - 14:15:57 EDT
Keith:
"One of the major problems here is that we simply cannot calculate the
probabilities involved, or to give meaning to such probabilities once
calculated. To do so requires an exhaustive understanding of all relevant
physical laws and their operation in biological systems. It also assumes
that we know all the critical processes active not only in the operation of
existing biological systems but also relevant to their assembly over time."
Josh: Yet at the same time, Van Till has written explicitly that we should
wait patiently for science to uncover the unknown physical laws that will
enable us to understand more completely how evolutionary processes created
biological systems without God's constant "tinkering" (i.e. non-embodied
form-conferring interventive action.) Here we have a double-speak, on one
hand our efforts to view (excuse the sloppy label) Theistic Evolution as a
true and reliable theory partly involve future discovery of relevant
physical laws/ processes that science will uncover. On the other hand, we
can dismiss arguments about the ability of natural systems operating alone
as inept for creating biological complexity because we cannot perform
calculations and we don't know all the relevant factors involved, nor might
we be able to. Thus we are perfectly fit snuggly into our ignorance. Our
ignorance thus equally protects our inability to rigourously explain the
ability of laws to produce biological systems while simultaneously
preventing anyone from trying to argue that they are insufficient.
Beautifully convenient, the ignorance trump card has become. In the end, no
matter how much we understand of the universe, there will be an unknown and
perhaps infinite degree of ignorance that we can appeal to for support of
our particular theory, even more wonderfully convenient!!
All of us would love to have a clear and perfect understanding of the
processes involved during the origin of the universe and biological systems.
One may simply sit back and wait until science advances and discovers all
the relevant laws which God only sustains. Or one may decide to apply
probablistic cutoffs for the ability of different factors to accomplish
different goals, and ARTICULATE needed laws/factors to achieve the goal of
biological complexity. Consider the following: when applying a filter to
biological complexity correctly (yes currently there is no rigourous way to
do this, but I wouldn't bet on it not being done ever) we discover that
RM&NS are quite unable to create biological complexity. However, when we
add co-option of function to the equation, our problems become solved, or
much improved. Here we outline inadequacies of originally known processes
and proceed to focus our attention on discovery of novel processes that will
supply the needed creative capacity for our suspected "Gap". If we simply
accept that RM&NS are quite adequate to perform all creative functions in
biology (as Dawkins would in The Blind Watchmaker), we aren't going to be
looking very hard for novel principles in nature. In other words, to
articulate the system of relevant "exhaustive understanding of all relevant
physical laws and their operation in biological systems" we should be much
more articulate and quantitative about what currently known factors can
accomplish, and then set out for discovery of novel factors. Arguing based
upon our personal evaluations and judgements does nothing to settle the
argument, they are simply tactics to win over a crowd in a debate. The hand
of God directly being identified as a causitive force may never be
uncovered, but it will remain a viable and interesting option to consider
God's divine action in various origin processes as long as the relevant
natural processes are uncovered. And as George and I have previously
discussed, building an entire theological argument solely on natural
revelation does not produce the most effective evangelical strategy, it is
none-the-less a useful component. Ultimately all we may be left with is
something along the lines of fine-tuning as suggestive of God's presence and
providence. I do not however, feel that all references to natural systems
provide superfluous support for the existence of God.
Keith: "Also, the questions concerning how biological systems are assembled
is an historical one. Biological systems during the course of there history
took specific directions among the available possibilities open to them. We
have little understanding of the range and variety of those non-actualized
possibilities. All this lack of current knowledge make the calculation of
such probabilities meaningless as a method of eliminating the likelihood of
specific possible pathways in the history of life."
Josh: In this scenario, there are infinitely concievable pathways to obtain
the universe, and we should never try to unravel them. In the end, we
should simply settle for the hand-waving arguments about organism X trying
to fly and getting a little better generation by generation until fully
developed feather-covered wings are derived by natural processes. I should
like to try and obtain more detail than hand-waiving explanations. Despite
your obfuscation of the situation, I do not believe that understanding it is
that untenable, nor that sorting through or finding methods to sort through
possibilities and scenarios for originating biological complexity is a
useless exercise.
Keith: "Finally, from a creation theology perspective, I believe that all
events are sustained and upheld by God's providence. Many individuals have
suggested that God may act in nature in such a way as to actualize specific
courses of events in nature without intervening in the continuity of
cause-and-effect. This theological perspective makes it impossible to
distinguish divine "intervention" from God's providential action by the use
of probability."
Josh: Yes but do you have a direct cause and effect scenario from the
formation of the earths' planet, through abiogenesis, to current biological
complexity (for example lightning bolt at 0.5billion hundred hours after
earth planet formation produced x temperature rise in soup pond y yielding 5
fold increase in alanine which caused the assembly of the first replicator)?
Since there is none, we must either supplement our current laws and
creaturely capacities to derive deeper reliability of our models or begin to
hypothesize that God had something more direct to do with it other than the
"autonomous operation" of "divinely sustained" natural law. Additionally,
even if God did act through cause-effect scenarios, the likeliehood of event
X causing effect Y may be infinitely improbable without God having some part
of the outcome selection process. Within reason, we may be able to make
educated guesses about what natural processes may be insufficient to produce
certain aspects of biological systems, and those that are sufficient.
Insufficiency should interest us all as an outline of where science should
proceed.
Dave, do the last couple of thoughts above adequately address the issues you
were mentioning in your post wrt infinite causal and effect relationships,
etc?
Keith: "But natural processes never "operate alone." That is one of the
misconceptions generated by the ID argumentation because it implictly
assumes that something like independent natural law or process exists. From
a Christian perspective, everything exists and is held in being by God. I
don't want ID concluding that this event or process was a result of "natural
processes alone" because their probability calculations have showed that it
falls below their probability cut off. By doing this they immediate place
99% of all creaturely action into the category of autonomous processes
independent of God. But the Bible is clear that it is the everyday stuff of
our experience that is under God's continuous and providential care. God
brings the rain and storm, causes the sun to rise and the wind to blow. It
is God that feeds the lion cubs in their den and knit me together in my
mother's womb. The argument of ID proponents have the effect of rendering
all this mere impersonal nature devoid of God's presence and action."
Josh: But the idea I get from the theistic evolutionists is not that God
plays the natural laws like some finely tuned instrument, but that he
upholds the action of those laws such that they may accomplish the function
that they serve in creating biological complexity. There is a difference
there. Also, you argue a strawman, since Dembski himself sees Christ at the
center of the universe, upholding it etc. If ID shows the utility of the
action natural laws to produce biological complexity, it will not mean that
they have also proven that God does not sustain nor act through around above
over under those same natural laws. It will only mean that we cannot use
the formulated approach they have generated to formulate such arguments
about God acting providentially in nature, and must rest on our faith in
revelation and biblical truth to discern such matters. If opponents of ID
use the defeat of ID arguments for such a purpose, they will clearly be in
err. This will not be the fault of ID for attempting to articulate aspects
of biological complexity that bear the marks of design. You are almost
saying that design is a non-issue, and thus we should not even attempt to
detect it, because all events, things and properties are the product of
providential action. But this first requires the recognition of God's
action in nature to appreciate it. And as above, I think that a theological
system does not need to completely ignore the complexity/beauty/reality of
the natural world to be useful or effective as an evangelical strategy. In
the end, you would thus be arguing that for ALL events, once the proper
calculations were understood and applied, they would all fail the UPB (be it
that it would only fail for the sustaining action on natural laws, or the
correct harmonious "playing" of these laws by the "masks of God".)
Josh
_________________________________________________________________
The new MSN 8: advanced junk mail protection and 2 months FREE*
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Mon May 12 2003 - 14:16:05 EDT