From: Debbie Mann (deborahjmann@insightbb.com)
Date: Sun Apr 13 2003 - 09:52:52 EDT
Re: fine tuningBut Faith is the Heart of Christianity. I agree that
bull-headed Christians have thrown enormous obstacles into the paths of
Scientists who might otherwise have believed. I can't count the number of
people I have met who were just too angry or disgusted with ignorance having
been thrust upon them to believe. Establishing the fact that our faith IS
strong enough to accept all comers without our blood pressure rising is one
of the best witnesses I can think of in this arena. At one time I rejected
many scientific concepts because they were against what I was taught - and
then, Enlightenment! I KNOW there is God. There is nothing anyone or
anything can do to change the fact that I know. Science is not going to
challenge the existence of my house or of me for that matter. Robert Shapiro
challenges the fact that I exist. Do I cease to exist? No! Do I learn from
his arguments? Undoubtably. If we as Scientistific Christians can make the
question of Christ an attractive one, perhaps other scientist will open
their minds and hearts to the possibility. But, then, conversion has to be
by faith. Even when there has been seemingly incontravertable proof, history
has taught that only God himself convinces.
-----Original Message-----
From: Don Winterstein [mailto:dfwinterstein@msn.com]
Sent: Sunday, April 13, 2003 4:09 AM
To: Howard J. Van Till; Debbie Mann; Asa
Subject: Re: fine tuning
Howard wrote in part:
>………My point is that ID advocates………split this into two parts:
>1) the universe IS cosmologically fine-tuned in such a way that the full
range of PHYSICAL STRUCTURES (atoms, molecules, galaxies, stars, planets,
etc) could develop (evolve) in the course of time (about 14 billion years)
and provide a suitable PHYSICAL ENVIRONMENT for carbon-based life forms to
function. This is counted as evidence that the universe was "intelligently
designed." The ID argument here is FOR the idea that the universe was
cosmologically fine-tuned for the evolution of a suitable physical
environment for life.
>2) the universe IS NOT biologically fine-tuned in such a way that the
full range of life forms could develop (evolve) in the course of time (about
14 billion years) without additional occasional episodes of non-natural,
form-conferring action called "intelligent design." The ID argument here is
AGAINST the idea that the universe was biologically fine-tuned for the
evolution of life, even if it was cosmologically fine tuned for the
evolution of a suitable physical environment for life to function.
>I see this approach both as an inconsistent use of the term "intelligent
design" and an inconsistent rhetorical strategy.
Instructive insight. I hadn't thought of it that way.
I'd prefer to keep my distance from both ID and "creation research" as
science. As sources of details that one might be able to admire through
faith, however, I'd like to stay remotely aware of ID results.
Might the ID proponents be able to justify their perspective (relative to
your comments above) by saying that the physical world is vastly simpler
than the biological zoo, so that we can justifiably glorify God for the
cosmic fine tuning while at the same time we search for signs of his special
intervention in the not-so-finely-tuned bio world? That is, maybe the bio
world is just too complex and messy to fine-tune in advance. (Maybe the
physical world also needed intervention despite the degree of fine tuning we
see.)
Fine tuning of the physical world is well established, and many of the
results were relatively easy to come by. Bio history still has gaping
holes. I'm not confident people are ever going to have good naturalistic
models for such things as the origin of life or human consciousness.
Scientists as scientists can never say God did it, but people of faith who
believe God does more than sit around and watch can say God did it without
fear of contradiction, at least for the time being.
Why should believers even want to say God intervened? Is this the same as
the evil desire for a sign? In this case I think the motivation to say that
God intervened is to counter those who say God is irrelevant. God is not
irrelevant to believers, but believers need a way to defend their faith
against unbelievers. Defenses based on gaps by themselves will not convince
anyone, but as long as there are clearly identifiable gaps of any sort,
unbelievers cannot be sure they are right. This is assuredly a weak
defense, but what are the alternatives?
If we can't come up with a convincing witness to the activity of God in
the world, the best alternative would be a powerful witness to the work of
God in our lives. But this would all be spiritual and of necessity
personal. Who would believe?
Don
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sun Apr 13 2003 - 09:49:05 EDT