"Howard J. Van Till" wrote:
>
> >From: Peter Ruest <pruest@pop.mysunrise.ch>
>
> > My difference to Howard's view is the timing of God's introducing
> > information. He believes it all occurred at the big bang, but I hold
> > this as preposterously unlikely, given what we know of cosmology and
> > biology. From theology, we know about providence, but what is its
> > possible "mechanism" in scientific language?
>
> I have not found the idea of "introducing information" to be a
> particularly fruitful language for talking about this issue.
>
> I prefer to speak of God giving being to a Creation that includes all
> manner of _potential_ structures & configurations (including potential
> organisms) and also with the formational capabilities for actualizing
> these potentialities. The potentialities are there from the beginning
> as part of the _being_ of the Creation. Actualization occurs in time
> as formational capabilities (also there from the beginning) are
> employed. Nothing (including information, however it is defined) needs
> to be added to compensate for something not there.
>
> Howard
Are you implying that life and all biological funtionalities emerged
exclusively by chance (scientifically speaking)? I know that atheist
biologists like Dawkins believe that; of course, wanting to be atheists,
they have no other option. But we theists do have other options. On the
scientific side, there is no evidence that random processes are
sufficient in biology, but there are many indications that they are not
(of course, there never is sufficient data to prove this statement, but
neither is there for the opposite view). On the theological side, I
don't see any reason to believe God wanted to "keep his hands off" the
creation after an initial act, and there is plenty of biblical evidence
that he is constantly (or at least very often) active in the affairs of
humanity and in non-human creation.
On this basis, the only adequate language I have encountered to date to
use in these biological questions is the one of information (and
language), even though finding the best definition of this type of
information is a thorny problem.
You say that physics (including chemistry) given at creation "includes
all manner of _potential_ structures & configurations (including
potential organisms)". This is obviously true, for else we could not
exist. But what do you mean by "formational capabilities for actualizing
these potentialities"? Does this just mean that a good (or even
universal) computer language is adequate for producing all programs
desired? Then you still need the programmer doing it. If the programmer
had the entire program with all details in his mind, before ever sitting
down at the keyboard, this just implies that this information was _not_
yet in the computer as it was made. It's not very meaningful to talk of
the programmer "compensating" for something "lacking" in the computer
construction, when the initial intention was to build a universal
computer. What does your expression mean in the biological realm, in
scientific (not theological/philosophical) language?
Peter
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Nov 12 2001 - 04:51:22 EST