In a message dated 2/8/01 6:04:07 PM Mountain Standard Time, gmurphy@raex.com
writes (responding to my description of the objections of the organization
"Common Sense Science" to modern physics:
> Actually most of the fringe opposition to relativity and quantum
> theory boils down to the "common sense" objection. An example germane to
> this list is Thomas G. Barnes' _Physics of the Future_, which was published
> in 1983 by ICR. It is more sophisticated than many such attempts - Barnes
> actually knows something of classical mechanics & electrodynamics. But he
> didn't know much about relativity & QM and the overall work is pretty
> inept.
>
And sure enough, if you look under the Website of "Common Sense Science", you
find that Dr. Thomas G. Barnes is listed as one of their principals.
It might actually be interesting for us to discuss their other main
objection, which is quantum indeterminacy. They (and even R.C. Sproul if
their quotes of him are in context) seem to feel that this violates God's
sovereignty and is incompatible with Christianity. The idea of effects
without causes seems to really bother them. There is a line like "If Chance
is, God is not."
Of course one can come up with ways to eliminate this conflict:
1) Physical theories with hidden variables so that the indeterminacy is only
apparent and not real.
2) Theologies in which God determines the indeterminacies though they look
random to us.
3) Theologies in which God chooses to restrain his sovereignty and allows
true chance to be a part of his creation.
Anybody care to add more possibilities or elaborate on any of those 3?
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Dr. Allan H. Harvey, Boulder, Colorado | SteamDoc@aol.com
"Any opinions expressed here are mine, and should not be
attributed to my employer, my wife, or my cats"
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Feb 09 2001 - 00:24:50 EST