On Mon, 02 Oct 1995 19:40:31 -0500 (EST) you wrote:
LH>ABSTRACT: Both PC and TE allow for God's guidance of evolution in
>ways which are subtle not "absolutely deterministic." I respond to
>Stephen's arguments that the probabilities and coincidences in
>biological history favor PC over TE. Brief return to "creation is
>completed" discussion.
>Stephen wrote:
>SJ>But TE has to be absolutely deterministic if it maintains
>that if the tape was re-run then purely natural forces would produce
>the same result.
LH>I disagree. This is an important point. Both PC and TE allow for
>God's "guidance" of evolution in ways which are not "absolutely
>deterministic." I wrote my formation-of-a-new-species example,
>below, to make this point. I believe, as you do, that God can guide
>events in ways which are undetectable scientificially (in principle
>or in practice), but which are also not "absolutely deterministic."
>In fact, I believe that God does this fairly often, especially in
>events which affect us significantly (e.g. spiritually important
>events).
I find it difficult to understand TE's claim that "God can guide
events" without Him actually influencing and intervening.
LH>I think the hang-up here is your use of the term "purely natural
>forces." That smacks of deism. TE does not say that biological
>history happened by "purely natural foces." Rather, TE says that
>natural mechanisms provide (or eventually will provide) an adequate
>scientific account for biolgoical history. There is an important (if
>sometimes subtle) difference! The TE view -- like the PC view --
>allows for God's guidance of (and even subtle intervention in)
>natural mechanisms.
If there is "subtle intervention in natural mechanisms", then this is
PC (or else I am a TE!). :-)
LH>The difference as I see it: PC argues that the cumulative affect
>of this "guidance" will show itself to be supernatural intervention
>(because of the staggering improbabilities involved) in certain
>events (e.g. abiogenesis, increasing complexity, origin of higher
>taxa). TE argues that the possibility (perhaps even probability) of
>those events is inherent in the natural mechanisms.
There is confusion here. If TE claims that there has been "subtle
intervention in natural mechanisms" then it cannot claim "the
possibility...even probability...of those events is inherent in the
natural mechanisms." Which is it?
>SJ>...Acanthostega. Science believes that it grew a leg from a fin
>through millions of years before it needed it and by a "lucky
>coincidence" the leg was useful for another purpose-walking on land
>(Discover, June 1995, p127).
LH>Minor point: we do not yet know enough about genetics to determine
>the relative (un)likelihood of the eventual development of a "leggy
>fish."
I think we know enough that it is extremely unlikely. As far as we
know it only happened once.
>SJ> Without that "lucky coincidence" we humans would not be here.
>Consider the random events (asteroid collisions?) that are thought
>to have caused the mammal-like reptiles to evolve into mammals (New
>Scientist, vol. 92, 4 March 1982, p583). If TE maintains that these
>seemingly random events were programed into the natural laws of the
>Universe from day 1 to achieve exactly the end they did achieve, then
>they must believe in an extreme determinism.
TE>Again, I disagree. (Some TE's are what you would call "extremely
>deterministic." Many are not.)
If TE's don't believe these "seemingly random events were programed
into the natural laws of the Universe from day 1", then how else did
God "achieve exactly the end they did achieve"? The only alternative
is external guidance or intervention.
>SJ> PC would not reject this as impossible, but would rather
>interpret these so-called random events (if they in fact occurred) as
>the result of special interventions of God.
LH>Here is a parallel question to the biological evolution one: Would
>our solar system and planet turn out the same way if the tape of
>stellar evolution were re-run? (Would the moon be the same size, the
>continents be in the same place, etc?)
SJ>I believe that God directly intervened to shape the Earth-moon
>sub-system. Hugh Ross...claims that the moon was the result of an
>asteroid collision which also blew of the Earth's original poisonous
>atmosphere. This would have required precise control to achieve that
>result. Both the moon and the removal of the early atmosphere were
>essential to life later developing.
LH>Let us suppose that such an unlikely event is _necessary_ for a
>planet to house primitive life. Since there are 10^11 stars in our
>galaxy alone, we are still unable to know, scientifically, whether or
>not God nudged a few asteroids together in just the right time and
>place in this PARTICULAR solar system, or whether it would have
>happened without nudging.
Hugh Ross points out that the fine-tuning necessary for life
eliminates 99.9% of stars as candidates for being the sun of a
life-support planet:
"The limits for these are loose, eliminating only 20% of all
candidates. More confining would be parameters such as the planet's
rotation period and its albedo...which eliminate about 90% of all
candidates from contention. Most confining of all would be parameters
such as the parent star's mass and the planet's distance from its
parent star, which eliminate 99.9% of all candidates." (Ross H., "The
Creator and the Cosmos", NavPress: Colorado, 1993, p133)
The point is that all these improbabilities happened on this same
planet, in the right order, at the right time. IMHO this is the
result of divine intervention.
[continued]
God bless
Stephen
-----------------------------------------------------------------
| Stephen Jones | ,--_|\ | sjones@iinet.net.au |
| 3 Hawker Ave | / Oz \ | sjones@odyssey.apana.org.au |
| Warwick 6024 |->*_,--\_/ | http://www.iinet.net.au/~sjones/ |
| Perth, Australia | v | phone +61 9 448 7439 |
----------------------------------------------------------------