From: George Murphy (gmurphy@raex.com)
Date: Mon Apr 28 2003 - 17:54:14 EDT
Josh Bembenek wrote:
>
> 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.
Perhaps, but information does have significant connections with energy &
entropy, & has been the subject of a good deal of study by physicists. E.g., it's
involved in a lot of the work today on quantum gravity. (See, e.g., Smolin's _Three
Roads to Quantum Gravity_ which I reviewed in the most recent PSCF.) It may not be
"reducible" to other concepts of physics but it's certainly related to them. So I
wouldn't bet too much on info being /sui generis/.
> 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.)
Not quite. First, of course, _laws_ don't do anything. Various entities &
processes in the world, which are described (approximately) by our laws do. & we know
that there are intelligent agents in the universe who do things like staining decks.
The question is whether particular phenomena (CSI &c) can be explained in terms of
natural processes without invoking intelligent agents.
> 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.
I think you should, because for Christians this is (or should be) the critical
question. Whether or not God created things isn't in debate. Whether or not the
development of those things can be explained in terms of lawful natural processes -
which will be the case if God acts through those processes - is.
> 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.
I would argue that natural processes are not only the "instruments" God uses (as
in traditional models of primary & secondaty causation) but also (in Luther's phrase)
the "masks of God, behind which he wishes to remain concealed and give us all things."
If this the case, our scientific investigation of the world will find only the masks,
not the face of God.
> 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.
I agree that we can't know everything about the universe. As I think I posted
here recently on another thread, it's interesting that Hawking has recently expressed
doubt about the possibility of a TOE because of considerations about information theory
in quantum gravity (see above) & Goedel's theorem. But it's a quite different thing
just to give up on a problem & invoke God as an element of scientific explanation
because we haven't yet solved it.
> 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.
If Behe, Dembski /et al./ limited themselves to pointing out areas where current
theories are incomplete or inadequate, I would have no argument with them. But they go
farther than that in claiming that phenomena cannot be explained by any theory which
does not acknowledge the activity of God (aka the Intelligent Designer).
> 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.
See my comments above on information & laws. As to God breathing into dust, I
don't believe that this is to be read as a scientific account but as a theological
statement about human nature & its relationship with God.
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 - 17:56:05 EDT