Re: [asa] Neo-Darwinism and God's action

Sorry, Randy, but playing down your knowledge in this case is disingenuous. My appeal is to greater generalism, not to specialism (e.g. esoterics)! I am shocked by how ASA seems to shun philosophy, even as a legitimate multilogue partner in science and religion discourse.
   
  Here is a KEY problem for natural scientists who are unreflexive (cf. hermeneutically unmusical): there is no such thing as a random human decision! Human choice defies randomness.
   
  One simply cannot 'build a purposeful outcome' by choosing random processes - it doesn't make any sense! Sure, one can have a goal and let a random act (e.g. like radioactivity or rng's) 'decide' or 'select' (used loosely) for them some part of it. But let's be clear: WITHIN a 'random process' there can be no purpose! The purpose comes from OUTSIDE, i.e. the person choosing to let randomness 'decide' for them.
   
  The human choice to enact a 'random process' thus cannot be divorced from the fact that human beings themselves (ourselves) have a purpose. But natural science doesn't study this and it is argued by some that natural scientists qua unreflexive scientists needn't care (though personally, studying sociology of science, this seems a radical position, since natural scientists live in and are/must be responsible to society too). This is why you need (us) human-social scientists more than you let on.
   
  I'd be quite pleased for you to put a number on 'often' (as in 'often use random processes') also. Just looking back at my actions today, I can't think of a single thing I did which I used a 'random process' to build a 'purposeful outcome'! (Though one could say I flipped on the t.v. and found BBC discussing Rowan Williams' recent speech on Shariah law quite by 'accident' or 'chance' - some would say there was Providence involved.) Do you use 'random processes' often Randy to build a purposeful outcome?
   
  I agree with you that God could...
   
   
  Gregory
   
  

Randy Isaac <randyisaac@comcast.net> wrote:
          From Gregory Arago:
   
    For example, though I have not read Randy's letter in CT, the following quote of the text by Gage is highly questionable: "human creative activity may involve random actions." Could you please explain what you mean by this Randy? Yes, of course humans flip coins and cast lots, place bets, roll dice, etc. But they (we) CHOOSE to do so; i.e. they (we) cannot 'act' without intentionally choosing (creatively) to do so. Are you suggesting that 'human choice' is random?? This obviously relates to 'intelligence' in ways beyond what I'm able here to articulate.!
   
  No, Greg, nothing that esoteric. I'm too simple minded and too much of a practical engineer for that. All I'm trying to suggest is that human beings often use random processes (radioactivity, for example, or random number generators) in building a purposeful outcome. How much more could God use a random process to carry out his will?
   
  Randy

       
---------------------------------
Be smarter than spam. See how smart SpamGuard is at giving junk email the boot with the All-new Yahoo! Mail

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Sun Feb 17 16:06:21 2008