William Hamilton wrote:
>
> On Monday, December 29, 2003, at 08:03 PM, someone wrote:
>
> >> Random has several senses. It can mean "described
> >> by the laws of probability", e.g., random mutations,
> >> quantum uncertainty, flipping a coin, or casting
> >> lots. It can mean "humanly unpredictable", like the
> >> long-term course of evolution or history or weather.
> >> It can mean "purposeless" or "unplanned", like
> >> random violence or the unaimed shot of an archer.
> >> All of these lists of examples include something
> >> that the Bible specifically credits God with the
> >> ability to control (lots, history, weather, and
> >> Ahab's killer). They also include things that we
> >> see happening all the time. Depending on the
> >> Arminian versus Calvinistic views of your audience,
> >> such everyday randomness is accepted as either
> >> things that God can change or work around or as
> >> things fully under His determination. Either way,
> >> randomness in evolution or any other scientific
> >> process does not exclude God.
> >>
> >> Ultimate purposelessness would eliminate God from
> >> the picture. However, purposelessness (and purpose)
> >> are not scientifically determinable, so the claim
> >> that scientific evidence of randomness rules out God
> >> is a logical error.
>
> I believe that for a lot of YEC's "random" means "uncaused". By
> definition that ought to be abhorrent to
> all Christians. Most of the time when we use random we simply mean
> that we do not have the capability to
> predict, or that the web of interrelated causes is so complex we can't
> penetrate it. (And as I mentioned earlier, in quantum
> mechanics I think the problem is one of representation)
The oft-encountered idea that QM gets rid of cause & effect needs some care.
When an electron scatters off a proton there is a cause of the deflection, the EM
interaction between the 2, both in classical & quantum physics. What you can't do in QM
is explain why the electron scatters at one angle rather than another in terms of the
initial conditions of the problem. It's not that there is no cause & effect but that
cause & effect aren't related by Laplacian determinism.
& maybe part of the theological problem is the assumption that God is in control
from the beginning rather than the end. Perhaps divine sovereignty is eschatological.
A casino doesn't control individual throws of dice but the House always ends up ahead in
the end.
Shalom,
George
George L. Murphy
gmurphy@raex.com
http://web.raex.com/~gmurphy/
Received on Mon Dec 29 22:43:50 2003
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Mon Dec 29 2003 - 22:43:50 EST