From: George Murphy (gmurphy@raex.com)
Date: Wed Jul 23 2003 - 10:18:25 EDT
richard@biblewheel.com wrote:
>
> 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.
This is really what the argument for ID comes down to: We presently do not have
a scientific explanation for how life first developed so it must have been done by an
intelligent designer. We do understand how carbon is formed so it isn't called a result
of intelligent design. (& this in spite of the fact that it must have been part of the
design process - unless one wants to say that the Designer used some material that just
happened to be lying around.)
I do not "assume RFEP from the outset." This isn't because I disagree with it
in important ways but because I don't think that this principle, as Howard states it, is
given adequate theological - & in particular, christological - grounding. He & I had a
discussion about this here a few weeks ago. My own approach is sketched in an article
in Perspectives, March 2001, "Chiasmic Cosmology and Creation's Functional Integrity."
> 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!
Not exactly. While there are some (Dawkins &c) who have an anti-religious
agenda, their also also many who object to the ID program who do not share that agenda
(e.g., a number on this list).
This isn't a very adequate response - too many things on my mind right now. In
any case I'll be leaving for the asa meeting tomorrow so will have to let this drop, at
least for the time being.
Shalom,
George
George L. Murphy
gmurphy@raex.com
http://web.raex.com/~gmurphy/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Wed Jul 23 2003 - 10:17:43 EDT