Re: Re: [asa] Apologetics Conference

Louise, this is an easy one -- the law deals with cases like this all the
time. The family will sue the mining company for negligence. Experts
concerning mining procedures will testify about the standard of care for
handling boulders resting near a grade, and the probability (usually
expressed in general, not mathematical terms) of a boulder coming loose and
rolling down the grade if the boulder is not properly secured or
pulverized. A jury will examine the evidence concerning how the mining
company handled this particular boulder and compare it to the standard of
care.

If the mining company's work fell below the standard of care for securing or
removing the boulder, the jury will assess causation. First, the jury will
ask, but for the breach of the standard of care, would the boulder have come
loose and struck the house? If the answer to that question is "no," the
mining company will be legally at fault. If the answer to that question is
"yes," the jury will then ask, even so, was the mining company's breach of
the standard of care a "substantial factor" in the boulder coming loose and
striking the house. If the answer to that question is "yes," the mining
company will be liable. If the answer is "no," the injury will be deemed
not to have been caused by the agency of the mining company (i.e., it was a
"natural" accident that would have happend without the mining company's
agency).

Every day, in every critical area of society -- law, business, medicine,
government, etc. -- human beings assess questions of agency and causation,
using practical reason, without a requirement of absolute rigorous proof.
If it were otherwise, society would grind to a halt.

On 11/17/06, Freeman, Louise Margaret <lfreeman@mbc.edu> wrote:
>
>
> So, don't make it a rock thrown out of a window. Make it a boulder,
> loosened by strip
> mining, rolling down a mountain and smashing through a house and killing
> a sleeping
> child (this happened in Virginia last year:
> http://www.ohvec.org/links/news/archive/2005/fair_use/01_06.html
> Although in this case the boulder had some help from some careless strip
> miners,
> boulders can and do roll down hills without intelligent intervention
>
> I can see two "extremes" of explanations:
> "Pure" intelligent design, where a genius evil mastermind with extensive
> knowledge of the
> terrain, the laws of physics and the layout of the unfortunate boy's
> house intentionally sets
> the boulder rolling with the express purpose of killing the child.
>
> "Random and unguided" Boulder, loosened by natural and
> non-human-related events
> (soil erosion, etc) rolls down hill and kills child.
>
> I don't see how Dembski's process is especially useful in distinguishing
> those two
> explantions (which clearly are both incorrect) or in leading to what is
> considered the
> correct explanation: intelligent human activity (strip mining) increased
> the liklihood a
> boulder would roll down the mountain: once the boulder was moving, the
> child's death was
> a random and unplanned consequence.
>
> If you try to consider all the probabilities: from the mountain being
> formed where it was,
> that exact size and shape of boulder being deposited there, the child's
> parents meeting,
> conceiving him, moving into the house and placing his bed on that
> particular wall, this can
> only be considered an extremely improbable event. In the grand scheme of
> things , the
> actions of the strip miners in starting the boulder rolling probably
> increases the probabilty
> only very slightly. Yet they mining company is (rightly) blamed for the
> child's death.
>
> So, was this child's death "designed" or "chance"?
>
> __
> Louise M. Freeman, PhD
> Psychology Dept
> Mary Baldwin College
> Staunton, VA 24401
> 540-887-7326
> FAX 540-887-7121
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: "David Opderbeck" <dopderbeck@gmail.com>
> To: "Jim Armstrong" <jarmstro@qwest.net>
> Cc: asa@calvin.edu
> Date: Thu, 16 Nov 2006 17:18:57 -0500
> Subject: Re: [asa] Apologetics Conference
>
> > Sure you would. Check its angle, velocity, etc. It likely would be
> > pretty
> > clear that it was thrown out the window.
>
>
>
> To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
> "unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
>

-- 
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.