Re: [asa] Apologetics Conference

I think the important question to answer here is was it
the Will of God that the boulder rolled down the hill or
not?

If the parents of the child are believers, I am sure they
are comforting themselves with the claim that this was
God's will, (or perhaps they are angry with God).

If it is just an unlikely event, made more likely by human
choices (not securing the boulder, the choice of where the
house was built, etc.), but something that otherwise
happened for no apparent reason, and was ultimately a
result of natural causes, then where was God in all of
this?

If God is in all things, then there really is no such
thing as random, and everything thing that happens, even
seemingly random things, is the Will of God.

On Fri, 17 Nov 2006 08:22:22 -0500
  "David Opderbeck" <dopderbeck@gmail.com> wrote:
> 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.
Received on Fri Nov 17 08:34:53 2006