From: Don Winterstein (dfwinterstein@msn.com)
Date: Sun Apr 20 2003 - 02:32:46 EDT
Re: fine tuning
Vernon,
Whenever I mention doubt, skepticism or unbelief, in the back of my mind are always my atheistic or agnostic friends and former colleagues from work. What would it take to change their minds about God? I believe if they studied your results, they might find them amazing or just curious, but I can't imagine on that basis they'd suddenly conclude that God exists. I can practically guarantee they'd come to a whole lot of other conclusions before that one. These people are really good at explaining away anything that looks like a miracle. To change their minds, a miracle will have to hit their souls, not their intellects.
Also for me as a believer, God has a much bigger impact when he speaks to my soul than when he speaks to my intellect.
I once told a college roommate to turn out the lights and watch. It was winter, and the humidity was really low. I pulled off my cotton T-shirt at high speed, and the sparks from static electricity lit up the shirt and the whole room. My roommate's comment: "Now I know what I'm going to show my bride on my wedding night." I didn't say anything, but I could imagine what this hypothetical bride would say (assuming she was not a nerd): "Honey, if you think this is what I want on my wedding night, we need to have a long talk." So I now say to God, "Dear, if you think your numerical tricks are going to impress me, we need to have a long talk."
Your results pose more questions for me than answers, and I'm sure they would for my unbelieving friends as well.
Don
Don,
You wrote (13 Apr), "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?"
But I believe we already have 'a convincing witness to the activity of God in the world', viz the numero-geometrical and other numerical phenomena attending the 7 Hebrew words of the Bible's first verse, the Greek form of the Creator's name and Rev.13:18. The evidences may be found on my website. I'm sure you would agree that it is hardly right that such empirical data should be consistently ignored by this branch of the scientific community.
Vernon
http://www.otherbiblecode.com
----- Original Message -----
From: Don Winterstein
To: Howard J. Van Till ; Debbie Mann ; Asa
Sent: Sunday, April 13, 2003 10:09 AM
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 20 2003 - 02:31:35 EDT