From: Howard J. Van Till (hvantill@chartermi.net)
Date: Sat Apr 12 2003 - 09:09:44 EDT
Josh wrote:
> There is no RFEP for the creation of laws, constants, and other basic
> characteristics of nature. They simply are/ were created. Therefore, there
> was no evolution or development of Gravity, it is simply a variable that is
> fixed and indicates either 1. The magnitude and behavior of gravity just
> happened to be that way by chance or 2. Somebody chose a particular
> constant for the purpose of integrating it with all the other constants such
> that life is *possible* at all, not necessarily evolved.
I think we are mostly in agreement here. The RFEP applies to a universe that
already exists and has a particular nature. In fact, the RFEP is a statement
about that nature. One of the things it posits is that no supernatural
form-conferring interventions (breaks in the continuity of natural
formational processes within an extant universe) are needed to actualize the
full array of inanimate and animate forms.
It is quite a different matter to ask how or why the universe has that
particular nature. Here it is very appropriate to posit that God
thoughtfully conceptualized the nature of the universe for the
accomplishment of God's purposes and then gave being to a universe having
that nature. But this involves no irruptive interventions into a stream of
creaturely events/processes already in place.
> Does anyone know,
> based upon fundamental laws alone, how likely galaxies, solar systems and
> planets will be formed? How much form and direction God gave swirling gases
> to form planets doesn't seem to be unequivocally answered: None. So, the
> existence of the correct balance of ingredients does not logically
> necessitate that they mixed themselves in either biology nor astronomy. I
> would say that the fact that the earth has a proper balance to support life,
> and that the universe as a whole has the proper balance to support life,
> indicates that someone tinkered with the variables. That doesn't say in
> either case how much tinkering was necessary to get the variables to
> form-confer our current status in life and astronomy.
I'm not sure what sort of "tinkering" you have in mind here. "Tinkering with
the variables" sounds like "thoughtfully conceptualizing the nature of the
universe -- selecting the values of all cosmic parameters -- for the
accomplishment of God's purposes." I'm comfortable with that.
But in the arena of biology the ID folk propose various sorts of "tinkering
with structures" -- form-conferring actions by an unembodied Designer that
rearrange atoms and molecules within a universe that already exists. That's
the sort of supernatural intervention that the RFEP posits as unnecessary.
ID proposes a mixed approach here. Tinkering (as an intervention) is
evidently unnecessary for the formation of inanimate things like nucleons,
nuclei, atoms, galaxies, stars, and planets, but is necessary for forming
propulsion systems on the bacteria in my intestines. My entry into this
thread was to point out that inconsistency.
Howard Van Till
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Apr 12 2003 - 09:39:08 EDT