From: richard@biblewheel.com
Date: Tue Jul 22 2003 - 21:06:06 EDT
I had written:
>I see no reason why the IDers couldn't assert
> that C-12 was formed through natural processes established when God
> fine-tuned the universe.
To which George replied:
> Of course they could. But then they'll be asked
>why life couldn't have been formed through natural processes.
This seems to be the crux of the issue. It is why I thought the questions
should be separated. In my previous post, I said that the difference between
the evolution of elements and evolution of life is that life looks like a
machine designed for specific purposes, whereas elements can be understood
as the result of the time evolution of well-known physical laws. What I
meant was that given nothing but natural law, we would expect and could even
predict the production of the elements. The case is entirely different with
Life, as evidenced, e.g., by our complete failure to understand biogenesis.
Perhaps a better way to understand this intuition is in terms of
Information. The evolution of elements through natural processes follows
natural laws that do not result in an increase of information (entropy is
strictly constant under unitary time evolution). The evolution of Life, on
the other hand, involves huge increases in the amounts of information stored
in the DNA. The natural question then is "where did this information come
from?" (Of coure, this might be understood as the transfer of entropy from
the living subsystem to the larger system though respiration, eating, etc,
but that's a separate issure I don't want to enter now.) But in any case,
this difference puts the question of the evolution of life on an entirely
different plane than that of the evolution of elements. The two questions
seem to me to be completely distinct, unless one assumes RFEP from the
outset.
Thus, I think the IDers can be consistent when asserting Fine-tuning for the
creation of the universe with life-supporting chemistry and ID for the
creation of Life.
Concerning the illogic of IDers, George wrote:
>You are assuming that ID proponents are completely logical. Remember that
see
>themselves as involved not simply in a scientific debate but in a culture
war, and the
>ways one says & doesn't say things are important in that context. In a
similar setting,
>plenty of politicians are willing to offer people a chicken in every pot,
wide roads &c
>but dodge the question "Do you plan to raise taxes to pay for those
things." It may not
>be logically consistent but it can be rhetorically effective.
Yes indeed, but it seems the gander shares equally in this sloppy sauce!
Good chatting George,
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 - 21:04:51 EDT