From: richard@biblewheel.com
Date: Tue Jul 22 2003 - 11:37:14 EDT
Hello Howard, you wrote:
> >From: <richard@biblewheel.com>
>
> > I think the difference is that Life does not evolve in the same way as
the
> > heavy elements. These are two completely different kinds of "evolution."
In
> > physics we talk about the "time evolution operator"which is simply
> > exp(-iHt) where H is the Hamilonian. This describes how a physical
system
> > changes (evolves) over time. This is radically different than the idea
of
> > Darwinian evolution through mutation and natural selection.
>
> Yes, of course, the particular mechanisms and the levels of predictability
> are different. But the most fundamental metaphysical principle is the
same:
>
> The formational economy of the universe is sufficiently robust as to make
> possible -- without need for occasional episodes of form-conferring
> supernatural intervention (misleadingly re-labeled "acts of intelligent
> design" by the ID leadership) -- the actualization of every kind of
physical
> structure and living organism that has been a part of the universe's
> formational history.
>
> This is the principle that I call the Robust Formational Economy Principle
> -- the RFEP.
>
Yes, I agree that in an ultimate metaphysical sense the evolution of
Elements and Life would be fundamentally equivalent if you proved that both
resulted through natural processes. Actually, they would be equivalent in a
*physical* sense in that I could (in principle) write the Hamiltonian for
the Universe and calculate the expectation value for biogenesis and the
probability of a rat evolving into a human. But this seems a little too far
removed from our present day knowledge to be the *basis* of an argument,
though it certainly is a natural and expected *consequence* of your REFP.
I still think we are confusing things by using the one word "evolution" in
two radically different senses. Thus, for the sake of clarity, I think we
should separate the argument in two:
1) Evolution of Elements though natural laws
2) Evolution of Life
We have plenty of laws to understand the mechanism of #1, but little for the
mechanism of #2. I really think the arguments should be separated.
> > Another reason for the difference is that the heavy elements are not
> > machines and give no immediate appearance of design, whereas life
*appears*
> > prima facie to be designed to accomplish specific puposes (e.g. the
spider
> > catching flies in its web, etc).
>
> 1. Why would the character and capabilities of the various elements be any
> less purposefully employed than the character and capabilities of the
> spider? Given all of the constructive processes in which the elements
> participate, why are they fundamentally any less machine-like than living
> organisms?
>
> 2. You are using the word "design" in a way different from the ID
> leadership. Their most common meaning: to be "intelligently designed" is
> to have been actualized (assembled, formed, constructed, fabricated) in
such
> a way as to require one or more episodes of non-natural, form-conferring
> action by an unidentified, unembodied, choice-making agent.
>
> Howard Van Till
1) I can immediately understand the structure of an atom through nothing but
the laws of Quantum Physics. I am completely unable to understand the
structure of a spider in this way. There is no "law" that says "throw a
bunch of quarks in a box and out comes a spider", whereas I do have laws
that say "throw a bunch of quarks in a box and out comes hydrogen." Is the
difference between these two really that obscure?
2) I understand that ID has taken a common word and specialized it. I'm not
sure how this relates to my use of the word. Please specify.
Good talking Howard,
Richard Amiel McGough
Discover the sevenfold symmetric perfection of the Holy Bible at
http://www.BibleWheel.com
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Tue Jul 22 2003 - 11:34:15 EDT