RE: [asa] Random and natural vs. intelligence

There are all sorts of books about the physics of music. I do not think
that the notion of randomness is ever used in such books. All
instruments are designed to produce an appropriate, pleasant sound.
Players who used randomness when using any such instruments would
invariably lead to bad music.

Moorad

________________________________

From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu [mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu] On
Behalf Of Iain Strachan
Sent: Tuesday, November 06, 2007 5:07 AM
To: Randy Isaac
Cc: asa@calvin.edu
Subject: Re: [asa] Random and natural vs intelligence

On 11/6/07, Randy Isaac <randyisaac@comcast.net> wrote:

 <Citing Christianity Today>

        "Theistic Darwinists maintain that God was "intimately involved"
in creation, to use Francis Collins's words. But they also think life
developed via genuinely random mutations and genuinely natural
selection. Yet they never explain what God is doing in this process.
Perhaps there is still room for him to start the whole thing off, but
this abandons theism for deism."

        This is essentially the same argument that Lee Strobel used on
the radio a few weeks ago when he firmly but respectfully rebuked
Francis Collins. Evolution is inherently random and without guidance and
is therefore mutually exclusive with divine guidance, he said.

When one draws a bow across a violin string or blows across the
mouthpiece of a flute, one is applying a genuinely random (white noise)
signal, from which the instrument naturally selects the resonant
frequency and produces a beautiful response. Thus musicians use random
processes to produce music, and yet are intimately involved in it.

Iain

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Tue Nov 6 11:04:00 2007