From: Howard J. Van Till (hvantill@chartermi.net)
Date: Tue Jul 22 2003 - 11:58:44 EDT
>From: <richard@biblewheel.com>
> 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.
I don't object to this, but in my judgment the distinction you call for is
based not on the need, or lack of need, for supernatural intervention, but
rather on our ability to give detailed descriptions or predictions regarding
the two processes. Biology deals with far more complicated and less
predictable systems than does physics.
Howard Van Till
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Tue Jul 22 2003 - 12:00:20 EDT