Re: [asa] PvM's View of What Science IS

Pim wrote: "That's not much different from science's inability to state
when a
particular atom is going to 'decay' and yet it can very well describe
a collection of atoms. Other examples are emergence properties,
chaotic behavior which are all instance in which science may have a
hard time explaining the exact behavior, partially because it may not
know all the relevant variables and partially because the solutions
diverge quickly from close initial conditions."

One is, perhaps, an analogy of the other. But otherwise, I think the
argument above is a "nothing buttery."
 
"That we may not be able to predict every action of any particular
person may be more an indication of our ignorance. Does free will need
anything more than this? Is there any evidence that free will exists
which is more than this? How would one go about addressing this issue?
Is free will indeed, as some suggest, outside the purview of science
as it is a theological concept?"

David Griffin addresses these question in the two books I referenced. As
does John Polkinghorne.

"Perhaps a definition of ID could be helpful."

Maybe. But I do not tie my position (that free will exists and is a
non-natural (supernatural) attribute of humans to the ID camp.
 
I had written:
> Such, when they deal with statistical probabilities, probably qualify.
But I
> maintain that when they address an individual person, they cannot, even
in
> principle, predict how that person will decide on something.
>
 
Pim responded: "While one may want to believe that this is indeed the
case, what
evidence do we have. After all scientific investigation can predict
particular behaviors. Of course you can call this not an example of
free will but then the definition of free will become as tautological
as the concept of information in Intelligent Design."

Again, tying my claim to ID is not relevant. Here is my question to you.
Do you hold that you have free will or are you a mere "meat machine?" I
assume the former, of course. Is then, your exercise of free will caused
(inexorably) by "particles hitting particles?" I assume your answer is
"no." But the logical result of those two answers is that somewhere along
the line in making a decision you necessarily interfere with the causal
dance of the material universe. Two particles which "ought" to hit don't,
and so the path of the material universe changes. Non-naturally.

Burgy
www.burgy.50megs.com/one.htm
My review of ONE WORLD, by Polkinghorne

"Any one thing in the creation is sufficient to demonstrate a Providence
to a humble and grateful mind." --Epictetus

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Wed Sep 19 13:18:51 2007