From: Josh Bembenek (jbembe@hotmail.com)
Date: Mon Apr 28 2003 - 14:00:48 EDT
George-
G: "Thanks for giving a clear answer. However, you seem to backtrack when
you contrast this with biological info being brought about by "intelligent
causation."
-I think a better clarification of my own view is that just as gravity and
other physical constants are fundamentals for understanding RFEP of the
universe, so information is fundamental to the understanding of the origin
of biological systems. Intelligent causation is a tricky statement. I
personally don't dwell on mechanistically how information was inserted by
God, Peter Ruest has some interesting ideas. But I don't see information
reducing to other natural laws like the cause and effect relationships of
RM&NS.
G: 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.")
-Indeed. However, if we were developing a rigourous argument to detect
design in the universe, we may be unable to distinguish between the
operation of physical laws alone (maximal naturalism) and the causal force
of a Creator (i.e. we know that brushes to not occasionally stain decks by
themselves in an advantageous protect from weather and decay fashion. We
are, however, unclear as to what laws can do for us in biology. It is
possible that laws alone do stain decks, this is the essence of our debate.)
In this scenario, the only basis we have for the knowledge of God is
philosophical/ theological, not physical empirical evidence. I think as we
have discussed, the cards of nature stack in favor of a creator, while not
providing absolute proof (assuming that in our fallen finite human state we
could have absolute proof of anything.)
G: Or are you limiting "intelligent causation" to the _unmediated_ action
of an intelligent agent? If so, why?
-As I said, I dont' dwell on it. However, I don't consider it superfluous
to attempt to detect the evidences of design in various ways, and I see the
arguments of ID as another supportive evidence (in addition to fine tuning,
etc.) Even if all biological structures fail the upper probablistic
boundary of Dembski's filter, it doesn't say that it CAN'T happen. A
professor here at Southwestern once said the likelihood of seeing a
particular car with license plate X at the exact moment that you happen to
be crossing the street is astronomically low, but it happens every day.
Probability isn't preventative no matter how low (except zero of course,)
but it can be strongly suggestive.
G: 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 eventually be able to explain the
development of biological info.
-In my view, this is not the most exceptional display of humility. In my
mind, I imagine that the amount of knowledge that man has, compared to the
amount of possible knowledge available, may be extensively limited. How
many independent fields of knowledge are completely unimagined, much less
known to man? Do we know every factor responsible for carbon atom
formation? We envision that since we know much and have progressed far, we
have actually gone far. But comparing zero knowledge to alot of knowledge
is not like comparing zero to infinity. Even a million is small next to
infinite knowledge. There is a cap on human knowledge, but is there a cap
on knowledge or is it infinite? Since God may be infinite, knowledge may
also be. In this case, our knowledge may have barely touched the surface,
even in the isolated and "simple" case of carbon atom formation. To predict
what we can and cannot know is presumptuous and is a matter of judgement,
not a valid understanding of natural world. While I do not even strongly
disagree with your statement, my hypothesizing about fullness of knowledge
prevents me from being too confident about what we know, can know and will
know. I should be disappointed if we already knew everything about the
formation and behavior of atoms. Similarly I see too much growth for
biological understanding to confidently predict what we will find. Already
within the last ~100 years since the discovery of the "cell" we have changed
our view from a bag of jello to an extremely complex and ordered factory.
Where does it go from here? From the mechanics of a cell to the "emergent
property" of consciousness? We are just beginning.
G: That may require radically new physics - just as some puzzling phenomena
100 years ago required quantum theory for their explanation.
-I have had another professor here make a very similar point about
understanding the evolution and origin of biology. However, we can thank ID
for illuminating problems with evolution that require another more
comprehensive theory and understanding of biological origins. I await such
an answer with great anticipation and eagerness. But to settle for and
defend Darwinism at all costs (not accusing all here, just general attitude
from some like Dawkins as an extreme example) is futile in my imagination.
I am as open to ID as I am to another theory which does not invalidate
Darwinism, yet places it within a framework that can finally satisfy all
observations.
G: 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."
-Yet there is no reason to assume that information can be reduced to other
physical processes/ constants. It may very well be as fundamental to
understanding life as atomic forces are important for understanding rocks
and atoms. Unlike the impression I get from others adhering to evolutionary
dogma, I am open to such possibilities. How God implements and carries out
such information may be beyond the understanding of finite men (what does it
mean that God has breath and breathes into dust? Certaintly breathing into
dust is not a careful mechanistic description of how God designs blood
clotting, flagella, etc.) Hopefully it is not beyond our understanding.
But before concrete answers are available, I will maintain an open mind to
both the cause of natural laws and God's direct action (and no this does not
mean I will eternally move the goal posts.) At this point, in my
evaluation, natural laws are quite unable.
Josh
_________________________________________________________________
Add photos to your e-mail with MSN 8. Get 2 months FREE*.
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/featuredemail
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Mon Apr 28 2003 - 14:01:04 EDT