Re: Who's Burden of Proof?

I tossed in the issue about quantum mechanics just to bring up a point
about trying to fathom the mind of God based on our own way of
thinking. Although we are made in the image of God, I doubt we were
made the same in functionality and the eerie world of quantum mechanics
is probably a good example of that. The biggest problem I have with
trying to fathom the mind of the intelligent creator is this: such an
approach assumes that we humans understand what intelligence is and how
our own minds work. Because I presume such an assumption to be wrong,
then I would consider any attempts to draw designs on God's mind to be a
big stretch. Petermann's metaphor for design approach is based, in my
humble opinion, on a kind of Newtonian way of thinking (in which people
design a machine with gears, pulleys, and other parts that fit neatly
together). Problem is, what we see of creation suggests these weird
probabilistic properties (quantum physical properties) have been
employed (I think some people have even argued this property might even
be "necessary" for free will to take place.) and so the metaphor of the
design engineer might break down in light of it.
   To wit: seems to me that when we humans approach a design, we are
already limited by the common "clay" that is available. We have to
economize and simplify and make do and use only those laws of nature
that we find available. To the Big Design Dude in the Sky, however,
there are no such limitations. Designs can be as wildly creative as He
wants to make them. So maybe these "crazy" ideas like String Theory
and such might be just His was of blowing our little minds and reminding
us how itsy bitsy our little brains really are. I know if I were God,
that's what I would do.... on a daily basis... But, oops, there I go
again, trying to imagine how God might think.

   Mark

On Friday, November 28, 2003, at 07:20 PM, Walter Hicks wrote:

>
>
> glennmorton@entouch.net wrote:
>
>> ---------- Original Message ----------------------------------
>> From: Mark Dodson <dodsonm@comcast.net>
>> Date: Fri, 28 Nov 2003 12:48:41 -0500
>>
>>>
>>> On Friday, November 28, 2003, at 10:52 AM, Steve Petermann wrote:
>>>
>>>> I know of no good designers who would
>>>> allow chance to be a dominant force affecting or driving their
>>>> designs.
>>>
>>> Hey there,
>>>
>>> what about quantum computing?
>>>
>>> Just thought I'd throw that in there.
>>
>> Or a process called simulated annealing, which is used in geophysics
>> to design models of the subsurface. These things use chance based upon
>> random number generators to mutate the model looking for a better fit
>> to the real data. This type of procedure is quite widespread and
>> shows that designers do use chance.
>
> Sounds like a purely theoretical construct to me. (i.e. "a specious
> fabrication")
>
> Designers do NOT use chance, Glenn --- other than to filter out what
> is wanted from what is not.
>
> You geologists have to live with what exists in the ground. We modern
> engineers have a greater choice in our occupations...
>
> So live with it, Glenn!
>
>
> Walt
>
> .
>
>
>
>
> --
> ===================================
> Walt Hicks <wallyshoes@mindspring.com>
>
> In any consistent theory, there must
> exist true but not provable statements.
> (Godel's Theorem)
>
> You can only find the truth with logic
> If you have already found the truth
> without it. (G.K. Chesterton)
> ===================================
>
>
Received on Sat Nov 29 07:12:13 2003