From: Josh Bembenek (jbembe@hotmail.com)
Date: Tue Apr 29 2003 - 11:53:05 EDT
G: "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/."
-I'll have to review my recent PSCFs. I'm not really betting on it, but I
won't committ myself to another view until I see it as a plausible
mechanistic description for information derivation.
"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."
-And because I see so much room for understanding even the nature of the
natural processes as they exist in their current form today, reaching for
exact mechanisms for their derivation feels premature in many ways. Also, I
believe Dembski, in response to Van Till's article about degrees of
naturalism, etc. commented that ID is as consistent with a RFEP as it is
with progressive staltutory creationism (correct me if I'm wrong here). The
key issue is not HOW God implements, but whether the features of our
universe indicate that they should have been implemented by anyone at all.
Indeed, if we could calculate all variables for the formation of the
universe, according to a complete RFEP and no intervening actions by God, we
would find that the laws of nature and the phenomena associated with the
fine tuning of natural laws, constants, etc. would not lie within the upper
probability bounds of Dembski's filter. With all other RFEP calculations
properly made, however, we would detect that all of biological structures
and planetary formations, etc. are not within the upper probability
boundary, and thus did not require form-conferring interventions. All of us
here agree that *somewhere* the filter should indicate a design inference.
Exactly where, to me, is a matter of speculation at the current time.
"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."
-Does Peter Ruest indicate a similar point in his comments about God's
action in creation? Can you elaborate on the masks, I am unfamiliar with
Luther's usage here.
" 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."
-I don't believe I am giving up here. The question is, on the front side of
discovery, we should be equally open to finding mysteries of the universe
that cannot be explained in any reasonable way outside the action of God, as
we are to finding natural explanations for all phenomena ever observed. In
biology, both are valid possibilities, and as I said the frontier is just
beginning to be explored. With the era of the genome upon us, things will
advance incredibly over the next 50 years. I predict after a century of
understanding the structure of DNA, we will have exquisite knowledge of the
relationships of the animal phyla in terms of evolution or whatever else it
might be. Even then, the origin of information in biological systems may
not be cleanly resolved.
"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)."
-I believe that Behe clearly states himself as proposing a hypothesis and
acknowledges that once an answer satisfies his question, the issue will be
laid to rest. I feel that in laying out a hypothesis, if all Behe did was
say "evolution doesn't answer this" it wouldn't carry the weight as if he
said "evolution doesn't answer this, therefore I hypothesize that the answer
cannot be found unless we invoke the action of an intelligent designer."
Indeed, if it is found that natural causes can provide the function Behe
asserts is due to the IDer, as we have discussed here, it does not negate
the existence of such an IDer. I believe that the rhetorical strategy of
Johnson, Behe, Wells, et al. would change rapidly in this direction if such
a case was proven.
"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."
-I agree, but for those who see Genesis as literal, they should consider
such possibilities.
Josh
_________________________________________________________________
Tired of spam? Get advanced junk mail protection with MSN 8.
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Tue Apr 29 2003 - 11:53:28 EDT