From: Peter Ruest (pruest@pop.mysunrise.ch)
Date: Wed Apr 16 2003 - 00:46:59 EDT
Don Winterstein wrote:
> Re: fine tuning Howard wrote in part: =20
>
> >...My point is that ID advocates...split this into two parts:=20
>
> >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. =20
>
> 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. =20
>
> 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.) =20
Don,
I am not going to defend the ID program (I have described my
reservations both on this list and directly to Bill Dembski), and much
less "creation research". But I fully support your statement that there
is a fundamental complexity difference between the physical world and
the biological world. All the physical parameters needing fine-tuning go
back to the big bang, as Howard states, and clearly didn't need any
tinkering later.
But these won't automatically produce a biosphere. For the origin of
life and of biological structures, countless special coincidences of
random variables were required, in addition. Just one example: a
transastronomically huge number of different mutations of any gene are
possible, but never happen for each one that does occur by chance, and a
huge number of mutations occur and are lost due to natural selection for
each one that gets fixed in a population and thereby contributes to
evolution. The system is fully equipped to produce all these countless
mutations, and many of them lead somewhere offside. But how are the few
productive ones found? And that is needed many times. Without doubt, the
physical conditions were fully fine-tuned and entirely sufficient for
the process of evolution to work, such that, in principle, the "full
range of life forms could develop (evolve)" - provided that the right
mutational paths were chosen! This is not a question of physics and
chemistry, but of information. Many believe (blindly) that the fully
random procedure works nicely for producing a biosphere in a reasonable
time. I don't - although I am convinced that all species descended from
a common ancestral gene pool some 3 gigayears ago.
I believe something more was needed. I wouldn't call it God's tinkering
or fine-tuning or "form-conferring intervention", but God's occasional
selection of particular elementary events leading to the mutations
needed. These would be hidden options, as they could never be traced by
science, due to the undecidability of quantum outcomes. There is no
"tuning", as all physical parameters and circumstances are unchanged,
down to the quantum level, yet there are multiple possibilities of
accessible probabilities. Although each of these possible events has a
reasonable probability, productive concatenations of many will soon
decrease the compound probability to undetectable levels. This is the
fundamental difference between physics and biology: physical parameters
need fine-tuning, but biological outcomes need selection - or feeding in
of semantic information. And very often, _natural_ selection won't do -
although I cannot prove it, just as the contrary belief cannot be
proven.
I have argued this view both on this list and in the Perspectives on
Science and Christian Faith: P. Rüst, "Creative providence in biology",
PSCF 53/3 (Sept. 2001), 179-183;
http://www.asa3.org/ASA/PSCF/2001/PSCF9-01Ruest.pdf; and P. Rüst, "God's
Sovereignty in Creation - a reply to Howard Van Till", PSCF 54/3 (Sept.
2002), 216-217. Unfortunately, I wasn't able to convince Howard that the
biological problems were different from the physical ones.
> 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. =20
>
> 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? =20
In the Bible, we are told that God created humankind (Gen.1:27), and
that he creates every human individual (Isa.43:7). Humanity evolved from
animals, and each individual is the product of a natural conception and
development. So what did and does God do in creating? Nothing beyond
what he did in the big bang? Or does he guide random events by selecting
particular quantum outcomes, both in mutation genetics, in neuron growth
etc., as well as some unknown types of events in the development of
souls and spirits of individual humans?
Evolutionary theorists believe that a replay of the biosphere's history
under identical conditions would produce something completely different,
probably without intelligent life. So, had God anything to do with the
kind of outcome? And if so, what did he do? Nothing? - just wondering
what was going to happen?! Or did he preprogram what was going to happen
and store these data in the big bang? (I don't know how such a thing
would even be logically feasible). Or did he, from time to time during
the origin and further evolution of the biosphere, select particular
mutations from the many possible ones? If we view the biosphere as a
machine, this sounds like incompetent tinkering, but if we view it as a
harp, its builder is playing it brilliantly (or should he just wait and
see whether some storm gusts would do some miserable "playing"?). God is
in some way responsible for the specific constitution of everyone
(Ps.139:13-18). Natural laws, inheritance, and random contingencies all
play a role in building a human individual, and in some way, this is
God's "natural" or providential work. But is that all? Does he leave the
particularities of an individual's personality to chance? That doesn't
sound like David's or other biblical testimonies. And it doesn't sound
like God's doing any creating.
What is my motivation in claiming such things? I am simply trying to
make sense of what we know from science and from the Bible. My faith is
not dependent on the outcome of such inquiries. Science is telling me
that life, from bacteria to humans, has an extremely sophisticated
complexity beyond anything in the merely physical universe. And my
understanding of biblical texts tells me that God is not just sitting
and watching, much less wondering about the outcome, but that he is
unceasingly active and very much concerned with each individual creature
- in particular the ones he has given individually specific
personalities.
As for apologetics and evangelism, we know that it is the Holy Spirit
who convinces and converts hearts. But why shouldn't we try to prepare
the intellectual soil by removing stumbling blocks, being a scientist to
scientists? (Debbie Mann said something similar).
> 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? =20
>
> Don
However many stumbling blocks we can remove, experience shows that the
love of the believers, a convincing witness of life, is probably the
most powerful tool in evangelism. But maybe the Lord also occasionally
wants to use those gifts appropriate for doing science he has given us.
Peter
-- Dr. Peter Ruest, CH-3148 Lanzenhaeusern, Switzerland <pruest@dplanet.ch> - Biochemistry - Creation and evolution "..the work which God created to evolve it" (Genesis 2:3)
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Wed Apr 16 2003 - 00:46:35 EDT