*************************
First, here are some of my ideas.
First, an introductory explanation; few days ago I said,
>> I won't say that some motion *is*
>> MIRM, but I think it *could be* MIRM with a well-designed universe.
As explained in a preceding T/D-1 post (quoting Job 36-42 and Mt 10:29),
I'm less inclined now (than when I wrote the sentence above) to say that
"some motion ... *could be* MIRM." Instead, maybe we should say that "most
motion *is* (due to the way we define "normal") Matter in Normal Motion,
which many theists interpret as being Normal-Appearing Theistic Action.
Now to the main point.
In response to my explanation that:
>> I won't say that some motion *is*
>> MIRM, but I think it *could be* MIRM with a well-designed universe.
>> This
>> is different than a "functional integrity" that makes claims (way beyond
>> its theological or scientific bases of support, I think) that there *was
>> not* or *could not be* any "theistic action" in nature.
Loren said (on Friday),
>I've never heard the phrase "functional integrity" used that way
>before.
Because, if MINM is defined as NATA, there would be *lots* of TA,
according to FI. Is this the cause of my error?
Loren (on Friday):
>"Functional integrity," as I've heard it used, makes the claim
>that creation was designed so that there was no *need* for God to
>miraculously assist creation to achieve the sort of rich complexity we
>see today.
So according to FI the process of natural history (at least the part not
involving human history, as in the Bible) is 100%-MINM, at the "normal" end
of the "MINM/NATA------MATA" continuum? (if this continuum is being used,
which I assume is still being debated)
Loren (on Friday):
>there was no *need* for God to
>miraculously assist creation to achieve the sort of rich complexity we
>see today. (I think it would be fair to also substitute the words
>"miraculously assist" in the previous sentence with "subtly guide many
>different times such that the cumulative effect becomes statistically
>obvious in hindsight.)
So FI does disallow TA of the type where each step of a multi-step
process occurs normal, but the overall process does not? (the cat-rescue,
but not the healing in Acts 3, would fit into this category) Therefore,
with FI, in nature there is no "sequential MINM --> MATA" (of the type used
in the cat-rescue) -- so, for example, this type of MATA did not occur
during the multi-step process of macro-evolution. Is this it?
******************************************************
I sent this first part to Loren, along with a question about something
else he had said, and he responded with the following message, which he
said was OK for me to include in a revised/expanded version of my post.
So here is Loren's explanation, sent to me earlier today:
>It might help if we add another point to the spectrum:
>
>1) Matter in Random Motion (or Matter in "free" Natural Motion)
> (still subject to God's will, plan, sustenance, and concurrence).
>2) Empirically "ordinary" guided natural motion.
>3) Empirically extra-ordinary guided natural motion.
> (Everything happened within the bounds of natural law, but
> statistically the final result was quite remarkable.)
>4) Miraculous action.
>
>
>One issue which has been debated (in this group and elsewhere) is
>whether or not #1 even belongs on the spectrum. Some argue that the
>spectrum should start at #2. One's opinion on that question depends
>mostly on one's theology, but also to some extent on how one
>scientifically views quantum and classical indeterminacy. In general,
>since this is a point of (mild) disagreement amongst Christian
>theologian/scientists, I try to incorporate both views whenever I write
>about "Chance."
>
>Another question sometimes debated is whether all miracles (except for
>the truly transcendent miracles such as the incarnation and the
>resurrection) are just poorly-understood examples of #3. We'll ignore
>that question for now.
>
>
>Many instances of #2 happening in a row might "add up" to a #3 (as in
>the example of kitty surviving 1000 consecutive Schroedinger's Cat
>experiments); however, many instances of #2 need not add up to #3. If
>the underlying natural system is sufficiently robust, #2 can be a
>significant effect without appearing to be #3. For example, an artist
>might write a computer program with genetic algorithms which can use
>random inputs, guided inputs, or both. If the program is written such
>that only a tiny portion of "genome space" produces pretty pictures, and
>if you see it produce a pretty picture in real time, you would have good
>reason to believe the program was guided there (empirically extra-
>ordinary result) by a sequence of #2's. However, if the program is
>written such that, after a while, a large fraction of "genome space"
>produced a wide variety of pretty pictures, you wouldn't know
>empirically whether or not the artist guided each step. The artist
>might have guided the program to a particular outcome, but you couldn't
>know without personally asking.
>
>This is particularly relevant if one thinks the spectrum above ought to
>start at #2.
>
>When I said that Functional Integrity is meant to cover a spectrum, I
>meant the portion of the above spectrum from #1 to #2, but stopping well
>short of #3. As I understand it, Functional Integrity is a theological
>argument that the spectrum from #1 to #2 should be adequate to explain
>biological history. (contra Intelligent Design theory which argues
>that, at a minimum, there must have been some of #3 in biological
>history.)
>
>
>Here is a more subtle point: Functional Integrity is less concerned
>with actual biological history, and more concerned with the character of
>creation. It argues that creation was gifted to accomplish all the
>forms and functions which the Creator envisioned. This is close to, but
>not quite the same as, the question of what actually happened. To use
>the above analogy, Functional Integrity is more concerned with the type
>of program the artist wrote, and less concerned with what happened
>during run time (although it can be hard to distinguish those questions
>when the program is only run once).
Loren
(whose ideas are contained in the second part of this post)
**********************************************************
Thanks for the clarification, Loren.
I respond to this, especially to "only run once", in a follow-up TD#4 post.
Craig