Re: [asa] Random and design

Randy,

*Though there may be hermeneutical questions remaining regarding Gen 1&2,
the ones you cite don't seem to create a significant problem for TE as far
as I can tell.*

Interesting. Why not? As I've read lots of these materials from different
perspectives, it seems to me that the "after their kinds" and "Adam's rib"
tests are very big problems for TE in the evangelical community. (I'd
probably agree that there are good answers to "after their kinds," both in
terms of translation of the Hebrew and interpretation, but many evangelicals
wouldn't; Adam's rib seems more difficult to me because of Adam's role in
original sin).

*But wouldn't a system subject to supernatural guidance of any kind show, in
some small way, a physical deviation from randomness? If not, then is there
any significance to the divine guidance?*

I don't think this is necessarily so, if we affirm that *every* system is
subject to supernatural guidance at all times. In effect, given an orthodox
understanding of God's sovereignty, what you're saying is that
*nothing*should appear random to us. But if that's the case, then
you've circled
back to the question of significance: if nothing appears random, there's no
way to judge whether something is or is not random, because there's no
yardstick against which to test for non-randomness. Of course, it may be
that God sometimes acts in ways that make his guidance obvious, as, I would
argue, in the resurrection -- but not always or even often.

Maybe another way to frame this is as an epistemic issue: is something
"random" merely because it *appears* random to us? Do we allow that there
might be causes that are beyond our capability to perceive that, if known,
would demonstrate seemingly random events to in fact be caused? Or, stated
theologically, isn't the operation of providence often a mystery to us?

I'm not sure what you mean by "if a random systems shows no evidence of
being guided naturally." I understand, in a very basic way, the notion of
quantum indeterminacy. I guess I would distinguish between "guided" and
"determined." At the quantum level, things aren't "determined," but they
are "guided" by deep fundamental laws. A wide variety of things can happen
at the quantum level, but not just *anything* can happen.

In this vein, I admit that I don't deeply undersand canonical ensembles, but
there is a function that can be applied to describe such a system, right?
The function includes variables, but not just anything can happen. For
example, the systems in the ensemble share energy from a common reservoir,
there is a function that describes the ways in which that common energy can
be shared among the systems in the ensemble, and there are laws of
thermodynamic equillibrium that provide the parameters for this function.
What we describe as "random" is grounded in deeper physical laws that imply
probability bounds.

On 11/15/06, Randy Isaac <randyisaac@adelphia.net> wrote:
>
>
> Dave,
> Although I usually agree with you, this time I would suggest that, at
least for me, the issues are reversed. Though there may be hermeneutical
questions remaining regarding Gen 1&2, the ones you cite don't seem to
create a significant problem for TE as far as I can tell. Nor does the
mechanism. Whether natural selection is sufficient or whether other
mechanisms play a role doesn't have much impact on TE.
> But I do struggle with the randomness question. I've said that before
and I haven't resolved it yet. I would state it a little differently than
Gage but I do think that is the core problem. We often glibly say that
scientific randomness does not preclude divine guidance. But wouldn't a
system subject to supernatural guidance of any kind show, in some small way,
a physical deviation from randomness? If not, then is there any significance
to the divine guidance?
>
> Let's think of an example. Consider a collection of radioactive atoms.
Physics can tell us quite precisely the probability that any given atom will
undergo a radioactive decay in a given period of time. If under divine
influence an atom decays earlier than it would have without that influence,
then to keep the divine action 'hidden' there would have to be some
compensating atom whose decay is delayed so that the aggregate stays within
the scientific expectations. (ok, so we can't detect individual atoms but
it's the principle!) Such a scenario would indeed be quite indistinguishable
scientifically from the case without divine guidance. But would it really
have resulted in a significant effect on our universe?
>
> Another way of talking about it is to speak of systems as canonical
ensembles. The behavior of the ensemble is well defined but the individual
elements may have random behavior. If the behavior of that system were
subject to divine guidance, the ensemble would need to be invariant (to
avoid scientific detection) but the elements might vary. Yet any element
whose behavior is modified must be countered by another modified element to
keep the ensemble behavior coherent.
>
> In other words, if a random system shows no evidence of being guided
naturally and we insist that it can still be guided divinely, is there
really any meaningful influence? Or are we just making an untestable faith
claim?
>
> Randy
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: David Opderbeck
> To: Pim van Meurs
> Cc: asa@calvin.edu
> Sent: Wednesday, November 15, 2006 11:34 AM
> Subject: Re: [asa] Random and design
>
>
> [snip]
>
> Does this mean I settle the issue in favor of theistic evolution? No.
There are, I think, hermeneutical questions about how to understand the
language in Genesis 1 and 2 concerning God's creation of the animals and of
human beings. Does the phrase "after their kinds" require separate creation
and a fixity of species? Does creation of Adam from the "dust of the earth"
and creation of Eve from Adam's "rib" require a separate, special creation
of human beings? These are reasonable questions. There are also, I
believe, reasonable questions about whether Darwinism completely succeeds
scientifically on its own merits. There is very convincing genetic and
fossil evidence, in my opinion, for gradual organismal change over time and
the relatedness of different species. The mechanisms posited for such
change -- such as natural selection and genetic drift -- however, often seem
like hand waving to me. But I think it's important to be clear about the
issues, and the broad theological issue of God sovereignly directing
creation is not one of them.
>

-- 
David W. Opderbeck
Web:  http://www.davidopderbeck.com
Blog:  http://www.davidopderbeck.com/throughaglass.html
MySpace (Music):  http://www.myspace.com/davidbecke
To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.