Howard, George,
Both of you have contributed much to this discussion, and I'd like to
thank you for this! There have been detours, misunderstandings, and
frustrations, yet I, for one, have profited from the whole process, and
I hope others have, too.
This time, I don't intend to specifically react to all the points you
brought up in your most recent posts (GM, 25 Nov 2001 16:50:09 -0500,
and HVT, 26 Nov 2001 10:29:35 -0500), but rather try to summarize the
present situation of our discussion, as I see it today. Please correct
any errors this summary might contain. Of course, you or anyone else is
welcome to comment or question this sketch - and I don't suggest this
must be my last contribution to this thread.
*Definitions:*
I define the following 3 areas of problems or processes:
OCL: origin(s) of cellular life;
ONF: origin(s) of novel biological functionalities (not existing
before);
DEE: darwinian evolution of existing biological functionalities
(including modifications, recombinations, transfers);
the following 3 views, perspectives, or "Weltanschauungen":
View A: atheism (e.g. Richard Dawkins);
View B: creation's functional integrity (e.g. Howard Van Till, George
Murphy);
View C: various creational acts and hidden options (e.g. Peter Ruest);
and the following 4 types of divine "miracles":
miracle-1: basic acts of creating new dimensions (few, perhaps 3-4, e.g.
spiritual dimension - God's image - in humans);
miracle-2: hidden selections (an unknown number, suspected to be huge,
e.g. the combination of a series of mutations achieving all amino acid
placements in a protein required by its minimal functionality
recognizable by natural selection), hidden from science;
miracle-3: creation of the constitution of individual souls or spirits
(e.g. the particular genomic/epigenetic/environmental/spiritual...
gifting of a human individual), hidden from science;
miracle-4: those of the biblical "signs" sidestepping "natural" laws
(e.g. restoring the decaying corps of Lazarus to life).
Of course, I don't imply that Howard's and George's views are exactly
the same. The above list of 3 views is not exhaustive (there are various
others I won't discuss here), and the miracle types are quite
speculative. I assume/presuppose that all 3 views listed (and all
others) comprise both physical/scientific and
metaphysical/philosophical/religious/theological components, albeit
perhaps sometimes unconsciously.
*Agreements:*
1. All 3 views agree that:
1.1. OCL, ONF, and DEE did and do in fact occur, i.e. they are "facts";
1.2. all earthly living organisms including humans are related by common
descent;
1.3. the mechanisms of DEE are known and work;
1.4. the mechanisms of OCL and ONF are unknown;
1.5. we don't have enough data to calculate probabilities for specific
reaction or event paths for OCL or mutational paths for ONF.
2. Views A and B agree that:
2.1. the initial creation's functionality (defined at the big bang) was
fully capable of producing OCL and ONF (just like DEE) within the ~4
billion years available;
2.2. the distinction between ONF and DEE is artificial (beyond a gradual
difference in knowledge about mechanisms);
2.3. OCL is distinct from ONF/DEE only insofar as true biological
individuality was not yet (fully) developed before the cellular stage,
but no basically different mechanisms need to be envisaged;
2.4. all biological structural information required for the products of
the OCL and ONF processes emerged spontaneously by means of natural
selection of random variants (like with DEE);
2.5. for none of the OCL or ONF processes any divine miracle was needed
(for view B: beyond the initial creation at the big bang).
3. Views B and C agree that:
3.1. God's work of creation is unconceivably marvellous, creative,
generous, and successful in all of the finely-tuned prebiotic universe,
as well as in OCL, ONF, DEE and all other aspects of biology;
3.2. God is active (as Upholder and Provider) in all events, including
but not restricted to OCL, ONF, DEE (no matter whether or not miracles
are involved);
3.3. there is no way science can trace miracles;
3.4. all divine acts of selection ("hidden options") involve miracles-2,
which introduce some information not yet available in the preexisting
part of the creation as a whole, but they don't violate any natural
laws.
*Disagreements:*
4. View C disagrees with A and B, in that C:
4.1. disputes the assertions above under 2.1 - 2.5;
4.2. envisages miracles-1, -2 and -3 in creation, but no divine
"interventions" sidestepping natural laws (in the few miracles-1, new
laws were decreed);
4.3. does not view miracles-2 as suggesting any "capability gaps" of
created entities - the capabilities of prebiotic and modern biotic
entities are comparatively well-known;
4.4. views "probability hurdles" not as a consequence of built-in
improbabilities of elementary events in quantum mechanics, but as a
consequence of cumulative probabilities in specific sequences of random
events, which individually are not very improbable.
5. View C disagrees with B (A being irrelevant here), in that C:
5.1. disputes the possibility, in principle, that initial fine-tuning of
the creation parameters (at the big bang) could improve the
probabilities of the selections required much later in the huge
dimensional possibility spaces of rich chemical environments for OCL and
of informational sequences in ONF (initial tuning of probabilities of
composite random-walk paths might imply a logical self-contradiction);
5.2. deems it possible that God does not treat all cases in an equal
way, performing miracles-2 in some cases only (e.g. in OCL and ONF), not
in others, without implying inconsistency or arbitrariness;
5.3. deems it possible that God decreed many sets of genuinely random
distributions of elementary or other events, not specifying the
individual outcomes (not hidden variables in quantum mechanics), yet
specified the outcome whenever he saw fit (this would provide a
sufficient reason for all events in both situations);
5.4. holds occasional hidden selections to be fully consistent with
God's decision to normally work in the creation through "natural" means
("cooperation" with secondary causes and genuine randomness), and not in
conflict with his "kenosis" in creation;
5.5. refuses to see any planning or other "defect" in God's creating if
it is connected with later hidden selections whenever that information
is needed - in fact, a predestination, at the time of the big bang, of
all information required for OCL and ONF (or of an algorithm generating
it) and storing this information somewhere in the prebiotic universe for
10 billion years would appear to be a much more complicated, awkward,
and inelegant solution of the problem;
5.6. holds occasional miracles-4 to be fully compatible with Christ's
self-emptying (kenosis), as suggested by many biblical accounts;
5.7. holds that, while Genesis 1-2 is not a science text, it provides us
with much more than just Israel's concept of Yahweh as being the Creator
of the world;
5.8. considers it important to deal in detail with the scientific
problems with OCL and ONF, refraining from an overly confident reliance
on view A proponents (their philosophical prejudice is mistaken, but is
highly likely to unduly bias their judgment in this context);
5.9. deems it possible to arrive at certain extremely rough, but
nevertheless suggestive probability estimates for particular ONF cases,
respecting all caveats of view B.
Peter
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed Nov 28 2001 - 11:18:34 EST