From: richard@biblewheel.com
Date: Thu Jul 31 2003 - 17:02:58 EDT
Re post http://www.calvin.edu/archive/asa/200307/0641.html
Howard wrote:
> I had said:
>
> >>In regard to the sort of phenomena that ID advocates hold up for special
> >>attention, the most that one could actually say on the basis of the
natural
> >>sciences is, "Yes, there are numerous phenomena that are not (yet)
> >>understood in such a complete and detailed way as to satisfy ID's demand
for
> >>'causally specific' explanations."
>
> Richard replied:
>
> > I respectfully (and adamantly) disagree. It seems to be possible that
> > knowledge of our universe may assymptitically approach certainty that
> > abiogenesis is impossible through natural physical processes. In other
> > words, it is conceivable that rock-solid hard-minded scientists could
> > conclude on the basis of observations + theory that abiogenesis did not
> > happen. This would not be based on an inability of science to explain a
> > known phenomenon. Rather, it would be based on the full panoply of
> > scientific understanding grounded in observation and theory. Am I wrong
to
> > assert this as a logical possibility? If so, why?
>
> Yes, I believe that you are mistaken. You are in effect asserting that it
is
> possible to compute P(A|N) -- the probability (P) that abiogenesis (A)
> occurred by the joint effect of all known and unknown natural processes
(N)
> -- with such high accuracy and confidence that natural abiogenesis could
be
> categorically ruled out.
>
> But that is necessarily impossible because the only probability that you
can
> compute is P(A|n) -- the probability that Abiogenesis occurred by the
joint
> effect of all known (n) natural processes -- with further limitations
> arising out of the finite human imagination regarding what those known
> processes could accomplish in all possible circumstances. Ignorance of the
> unknown and the limits of human imagination must be candidly acknowledged.
>
I understand the idea of P(A|N) and P(A|n), but I don't understand your
application of them. Have any such calculations ever been actually
implemented to settle any scientific questions? If so, then please do me a
great serivice and list three of four of the primary examples. If not, then
why are you applying them to this question? It seems rather like an
epistemological argument meant to convince us of what we should or should
not believe. This seems more like philosophy than science.
But the real problem I have with your approach is that you are in effect
asserting that it is impossible in principle to determine if God ever
intruded upon His own creation by directly confering form, as suggested in
the text "And God formed (yatzar) man from the dust of the ground." (As an
aside - George, you said this doesn't imply direct form confering action.
Could you elaborate please? Does not yatzar carry the implication of
directly confering form?) This then leads to the question I keep asking but
no one answers (at least not to my satisfaction - hope I'm not being dense
here!):
Suppose we live in an ID Universe. Would not ID Science then be *necessary*
to correctly understand our universe?
As stated in a previous post, probabilistic calculations are not the only
approach to the question. They ignore the vast interconnected network of
knowledge by which real people make real decisisons about the nature of
Reality. For example, if God were to rearrange the stars to say I AM THAT I
AM, EXODUS 3:14, we still wouldn't have "proof" in your sense of P(W|n)
where W now stands for the Words in the Stars, since the probability of a
unique event is always infinitesimal. But how many would doubt?
For an example of an appropriate use of statistics to settle a scientific
question, I would suggest my calculations of the probability that the 66
Book Christian Canon would exhibit both radial and bilateral symmetry when
displayed in the form of the Wheel. No one has ever even suggested an error
in the calculations, which can be performed with absolute precision because
they are nothing but a simple application of combinatorics on a known finite
set. The result is one chance in 688,324. Here is the link:
http://www.BibleWheel.com/Wheel/probabilities.asp
Back to the question at hand, the real question is how we become convinced
of the truth of a proposition. Statistical analysis rarely plays a central
role in my estimation. It is like logic, which is great for proving a point
after the fact - that is, after we have already discovered what we want to
prove! Logic is a great beast of burden but a lousy guide.
Finally, you said:
> For these and other reasons, I look for the signature of the Creator not
in
> what the Creation is unable to do, but in the far more abundant and
readily
> available manifestations of what the Creation can do.
I think you are missing half the picture. But that's ok. You have candidly
stated that these are your suppositions, and I certainly respect your right
to choose them. We simply differ on our opinions in this area.
Thanks for the thoughtful dialog. I think we've pretty much clarified our
positions (though I'm certainly up for a few more rounds if there are points
you want to respond to).
In service of Christ,
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 : Thu Jul 31 2003 - 17:00:03 EDT