<p>I also have some problems with this view of God's action at the quantum level. Either God decides the results of <u>all</u> measurements (which returns to the cosmic dictator model) or God only decides some, in which case we have to ask what decides the others.</p><p>But at least in the present state of QM there does seem to be a measurement problem. Yes, the Schroedinger eqn describes a deterministic time evolution of psi (it's 1st order in t so one needs to know only the initial wave fn), but the problem is precisely that with a measurement psi seems to change ("collapse") in a way that the Schroedinger eqn <u>doesn't</u> predict.</p><p>BTW, Pollard's 1st name was William.</p><p>Shalom,</p><p>George</p><p>> > > I must say I have a problem with this idea of God intervening "at the quantum level" - perhaps subtly biassing the dice throws in ways we can't detect.Despite the fact that from the observer's point of view it looks like the collapse
of the wave function is probabilistic, nonetheless the underlying Schrodinger equation for the wave function IS completely deterministic (it's just a second order PDE) and it could therefore be argued that the time-evolution of the wave-function of the universe is not subject to being tweaked. > IainOn 7/11/07, Michael Roberts <michael.andrea.r@ukonline.co.uk />wrote: > Ted wrote > > A number of modern TEs take the view instead, that God directsevolution> via controlling certain events at the quantum level, where God cannot be> "seen" doing it but where God nevertheless may exert providential guidance > > through direct divine action. I am sometimes attracted to this view> myself;> certainly Bob Russell, John Polkinghorne, and Owen Gingerich are. As I> argued many years ago, however, this is a "gaps" view of a certain > > kind--it> is not subject to the traditional "god of the gaps" objection (and tha
t's> a> huge subject that ought to be studied more systematically), since if QM is> truly indeterminate (and that's not universally accepted) then the "gaps" > > are genuinely ontological, not merely epistemological, and they won't ever> be "filled in"--but it is a gaps view nonetheless. There are real,> genuine,> *permanent* "gaps" in what we can do with our scientific explanations, and > > God does to some extent reside in those gaps. Thus, I would say, quite a> few modern TEs have "gaps" in their view of nature and divine action. Ken> Miller, incidentally, endorses precisely this picture of things, and Mike > > Behe says explicitly (in his contribution to "Debating Design," ed Ruse> and> Dembski) that he's fine theologically with Miller's view on this point;> indeed, Behe goes on to claim (perhaps less convincingly) that Miller's > > view> is actually tantamoun
t to ID, b/c there still is design in nature.> Polkinghorne notes that selection is not the whole story in evolution, and> that in itself is consistent with Behe's view. > Michael asks;I first came across this view of divine action at the quantum level in 1971when I read G D Y arnold's The spiritual crisis of the Scientific age (Allenand unwin 1959) (written just about the time when the budding Arthur > Peacocke went to see him at Hawarden) He gives no references for hisargument on Quantum action by God p63-7 though I believe Arthur Pollard -another Anglican clerical physicist came out with same argument in Chance > and Providence Scribner 1958 uk Faber 1959 so GDY couldn't have used it. Itis not mentioned in two books from the 50s by the Anglicans, Smethurst orMascall, which GDY had and used. (My copies were his). > Thus I find it fascinating that others have adopted a similar view , but Ithink I better write it up and give GDY and Pollard the priority.GDY
wrote his first Sand R book in 1952 for 17 yr olds (sixth-formers to us) > and C A Coulson wrote a letter picking up a few errors on his chemistry,which is in his copy..GDY was born in 1909, went to Merton Oxford to read physics and got a D Philon ionisation of He, then to Nottingham as a lecturer and was ordained in > 1942. In 1946 he was one of the first civilians to have penicillin used onhim, which was interesting as his wife's brother in law had worked withFlorey just before he began on penicillin in 1937. He went into full time > ministry in 1950. During the 50s and 60s he was involved in Sand or withpeople like Peacocke and John Habgood. Also in 1946 he became godfather tohis sister in law's son, who wrote this e-mailI don't think selection is all there is to evolution, but I cannot see a > theological reason why it cant be.Michael>To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the mess
age. > -- -----------After the game, the King and the pawn go back in the same box.- Italian Proverb----------- > </p>
To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Thu Jul 12 14:21:40 2007
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Thu Jul 12 2007 - 14:21:40 EDT