Re: [asa] Random and design

Sorry for the lapse in responding. I was away for a few days for the ASA council meeting and then the holidays were upon us.
Yes, I wasn't clear enough in my comments. I was trying to make several points and got them a bit confused. Let me try again.
Meanwhile, this thread seems to have gone in a very different direction.

1) I didn't mean to downplay the hermeneutical challenges. They are indeed significant, I just felt others were even greater. But if you consider "Adam's rib" in the broader sense of the definition of human beings and the Fall, I certainly agree that TE has a major challenge. But other perspectives haven't solved it all either.

2) Yes, I believe God guides and directs every phenomenon whether or not it is determined to be "random" scientifically. He works his purposes through every action whether or not we can describe it mathematically or describe the immediate cause. I'm therefore bothered by the attempt to limit God's guidance, or our understanding of it, to the realm of random probabilities. Perhaps I've misunderstood Ken Miller or Bob Russell but they seem to confine God's providential action to the cloak of quantum probabilities. My concern is, what does it really mean to say that God guides nature through random quantum probabilities? Russell admits, in his chapter in "Perspectives on an Evolving Creation," that it is only in an "irreversible interaction" when the wave function collapses to a particular value. And that's where he seems to see God's opportunity to guide nature. Is nature really set up to evolve on the basis of a long series of intricately designed "Schrodinger's cat-like" arrangements whereby a unique quantum event determines a macroscopic state of life or death? I'm not convinced but maybe it is.

3) Back to the original point that started all this. What I was trying to say is that if God's guidance were carried out by influencing such quantum probabilities, it seems that we should, at least in principle, be able to detect a deviation from the predicted distribution function. Then an absence of such deviation would indicate a lack of such guidance. Personally, I think it's not right to see God's guidance only in the quantum probability functions. All natural phenomena are at his command and he carries out his will in any way he chooses.

4) But that leaves us back in a mechanistic type of world where, as far as we can determine, nature proceeds through time on a trajectory that we can, in principle, articulate as a solution to Schrodinger's equation. It's not surprising that many people see this as tantamount to Deism. Many, if not most, people believe God's role is a bit different--at least when it comes to answering their prayers.

Randy

----- Original Message -----
  From: David Opderbeck
  To: Randy Isaac
  Cc: asa@calvin.edu
  Sent: Thursday, November 16, 2006 9:28 AM
  Subject: 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.
Received on Sun Nov 26 20:23:28 2006