RE: [asa] Random and natural vs. intelligence

I'm not sure about the music aspect, but it is clear that what appears to be
random at one level (quantum activities) is quote ordered and structured at
a higher level (molecular bonds, such as in oxygen molecules), which is
random at a yet higher level (specific pattern of an oxygen molecule's
movement in a gaseous environment, i.e. the air), yet at an even higher
level there are relatively well defined and at least somewhat predictable
(yet randomized, possibly defined by chaos theory) patterns of weather as a
whole, when considering temperature, pressure, normal seasonal weather
patterns; and at a higher level, the whole system of the atmosphere seems
"well-designed" in how it self-regulates over the whole planet, preserving
an environment in which carbon-based life can be sustained.
 
So is all the above designed, or is it random? Or is the question itself an
example of logical fallacy of "False Dilemma" -- two choices given when in
fact there are three or more options. And/or, a fallacy of definition. YEC
seems to be okay with "random" processes at the quantum level being an
acceptable part of a "designed" universe, as long as they can impose some
non-scientific acceleration of quantum decay of radioactive materials. And
they don't have a problem with random, secondary processes involved in
weather, as long as it can theologically explained as ultimately under the
sovereign control of God.
 
 
Jon Tandy
 

-----Original Message-----
From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu [mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu] On
Behalf Of Iain Strachan
Sent: Tuesday, November 06, 2007 10:00 AM
To: Alexanian, Moorad
Cc: Randy Isaac; asa@calvin.edu
Subject: Re: [asa] Random and natural vs. intelligence

My understanding was that you apply a white noise signal when you stroke the
bow or blow across the tube, and the instrument picks out the resonant
frequency. White noise = random. If it wasn't a random signal, containing
all frequencies, then the instrument wouldn't be able to resonate at
different notes as you alter, for example, the length of the string.

Iain

On 11/6/07, Alexanian, Moorad <alexanian@uncw.edu> wrote:

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:
<mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu> 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

-- 
-----------
After the game, the King and the pawn go back in the same box.
- Italian Proverb
----------- 
To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.