From: richard@biblewheel.com
Date: Mon Sep 22 2003 - 12:04:11 EDT
Howard had written:
====Quote HVT=====================
By the way, when Richard quoted my examples of the universe's formational
capabilities he seems to have "forgotten" a significant portion of the
slide. here's the full page:
*******************************************************
EXAMPLES OF THESE FORMATIONAL CAPABILITIES:
* quarks<> nucleons<> nuclei <> different nuclei
* nuclei + electrons <> atoms
* atoms <> molecules <> different molecules
* atoms & molecules <> galaxies, stars & planets
* molecular ensembles <> cells
* cells <> more complex organisms
* organisms <> different organisms
* organisms <> ecosystems, etc.
Note: since our current knowledge is incomplete, we must sprinkle a number
of ?'s throughout the list.
*******************************************************
The qualification at the bottom is something that I think is essential. We
should not claim to know more than we do, and we should label
presuppositions "presuppositions," not something that we "know" with
certainty, or something that "must be true." Anyone who has read my essay in
the December, 2002, issue of Perspectives on Science and Christian Faith
(the Journal of the ASA, the sponsor of this list) would be aware of my
consistent reminders of this qualification.
====End Quote HVT===================
I wonder what meaning is intended when a person writes "forgotten" in
quotes. It seems Howard is suggesting that I had some less than exemplary
rhetorical motive for not including the note at the bottom of his list. In
truth, it simply didn't occur to me, and in hindsight I can see why. The
"question marks" Howard says should be "sprinkled throughout the list"
presumably should be sprinkled on both sides of the Grand Canyon divinding
Physics and Biology. Howard seems to deny that there is any special
distinction to be made between physical and biotic evolution. This means
that his "question marks" are not relevant to my point which focuses on the
fundamental distinction between Physics and Biology, namely, that physical
evolution can be fully understood in terms of energetical considerations,
whereas biotic evolution involves contingency and information.
For example, it seems to me that there is no mystery (in principle) in the
formation of molecules from atoms. Chemical evolution follows strict
equations, and even when we can't (or don't care to) solve the exact
equations, we can calculate the end product through energetical
considerations. Nothing looks specifically designed. No rare, strange events
need to be postulated. Our understanding is satisfied. And here's the
clincher: The end result is essentially independent of its history.
Contingency is irrelevent. All paths lead to maximal entropy so it doesn't
matter where you start, we can predict where you will end up. This is an
essential aspect of energetically driven Physics.
The situation with Biology is completely different. We have machine-like
structures that read, write, and use information to organize, maintain, and
reproduce themselves. The resulting structures are completely dependent on
the contingencies of their history. While the *functioning* of the physical
structures involved in biotic systems can all be explained energetically,
their origin and evolution can not be so explained. The structures can not
be predicted by energetical considerations alone. The processes involved in
their origin are not common today. They appear to be rare, strange, even
exotic, events. It seems that biotic structures can not *in principle* be
understood by appealing only to the laws of Physics.
Does this seem to be a proper distinction to make between these two sets of
phenomena?
My intuition is based on the gulf dividing between "molecular ensembles" and
"cells" - does anyone know of anything that would narrow this gap? This is
very serious issue. I would like to know how big the gap really is.
Does anyone know if Howard's Dec 2002 article available on line? I checked
the PSCF archive and they don't have it posted yet.
Richard Amiel McGough
Discover the sevenfold symmetric perfection of the Holy Bible at
http://www.BibleWheel.com
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Mon Sep 22 2003 - 12:02:46 EDT