Re: "Design up to Scratch?" (The Wit and Wisdom of Michael Roberts)

From: George Murphy (gmurphy@raex.com)
Date: Mon Apr 28 2003 - 12:31:54 EDT

  • Next message: RFaussette@aol.com: "Re: No death before the fall theology"

    Josh Bembenek wrote:
    >
    > George-
    >
    > Yes C12 is designed, yes physical processes may indeed be capable of
    > producing it. No this doesn't mean that information in biological systems,
    > by analogy, are also derived by physical processes instead of intelligent
    > causation. My hesitation comes when folks answer questions about derivation
    > of biological systems with examples from fundemental physics. There is no
    > reason to suppose that we can extrapolate. Again, chromosomes are being
    > ignored and we're discussing fundamental particles of the universe.

    Josh -
            Thanks for giving a clear answer. However, you seem to backtrack when you
    contrast this with biological info being brought about by "intelligent causation." If
    God did "design" C-12 & accomplish it through secondary causes (nuclear & EM
    interactions) then I would think that this would have to be called "intelligent
    causation." (I just carried out the design of staining my deck by means of
    unintelligent tools - brush, &c & would call this "intelligent causation.") Or are you
    limiting "intelligent causation" to the _unmediated_ action of an intelligent agent? If
    so, why?
            Of course you're right that God's carrying out the design of C-12 through
    natural processes doesn't prove that biological information came about in the same way.
    But the former is just one of a vast multitude of natural phenomena that have been
    explained in terms of natural processes, so I would contend that the track record of
    science does give very good reason to extrapolate & expect that it will eventuially be
    able to explain the development of biological info. That may require radically new
    physics - just as some puzzling phenomena 100 years ago required quantum theory for
    their explanation.
            Theologically, there is no reason to think that "life" requires God's unmediated
    action any more than do atoms, rocks &c: In Genesis 1, it is precisely living things
    which are spoken of as being brought about by God from the materials of of the world. &
    I would contend that there is good theological reason to expect that scientific
    succcesses can be extrapolated - though naturally this depends on what one considers
    "good theology."

                                                            Shalom,
                                                            George

    George L. Murphy
    gmurphy@raex.com
    http://web.raex.com/~gmurphy/

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Mon Apr 28 2003 - 12:32:01 EDT