If the world is completely non-mechanistic, then such uniformity is simply
a statement about the consistency of the operator. I don't think
probabilities enter into it.
>I fail to see why it is so bad for God to have created a mechanistic world. A
>mechanistic world is no threat to God's intervention as long as it does not
>rule out all intervention by God. That type of world would allow God to
>intervene when he wanted to.
I believe the world is non-mechanistic primarily because of my interpretation
of the Scripture. It was initially extremely hard for me to embrace such
a notion, but it has been growing on me. For me, the testimony that
not one sparrow falls to the ground apart from the Father, and the very
hairs on my head are numbered suggest a universe where mechanism takes
a back seat.
However, I don't know of any way to empirically decide between a world
which is mechanistic with God's occasional intervention, and one that is
non-mechanistic.
I didn't mean to suggest that one view was *right* and the other *wrong*,
but that mechanism is the *heart* of science, and the real differentiation
between sides in the evolution/creation-design-whatnot controversy.
Science is about mechanism, and scientists seem to understand this.
Science does not deny the existence of God, but it must ignore Him.
The positive programs of anti-evolutionists seek to introduce something
non-mechanistic into the discussion, and this is why they are rejected.
(BTW, Isn't naturalism just a code word for `based on mechanism'?)
>What would be bad to me is if this world was a
>materialistic world, i.e. there is no God. I fear sometimes that the two
>views, mechanistic and materialistic are wrongly intertwined.
Materialism does indeed seem to be intertwined with mechanism, and I
would like to see a distinction made. What the world is made of isn't
really all that important to science. Science may one day accept the
reality of whatever material `spirit' is made of, yet still be science
because it will associate rules and process with the `spiritual'.
I do not think that science will disprove God by setting limits on
the material that exists in the universe. If there were a danger,
it would be that mechanism would so triumph that God would truly
become irrelevant.
--DaveP.S. I have tried to illustrate materialism/mechanism previously bycomparing science fiction to fantasy. Star Trek introduces newmaterial at will (usually some form of particle stream). The newmaterial is inevitably introduced as an attempt at mechanism.
On the otherhand, fantasy does not need to introduce mechanism. Itinstead relies on the intention and whim of `powerful' beings.
Science is in the business of demystifying the universe. The means isto introduce mechanism to explain what is observed. Material isoften brought into existence to provide the mechanism. As was justasked, has anybody really seen an atom? How about a quark? Whatis the nature of matter anyway, just localized energy? Reality isfleeting at the quantum level, but science isn't troubled. Realityfor science consists of mechanism, not material. The faith of scienceis that even where it isn't seen, mechanism exists. It is not a faiththat nothing exists beyond what is seen.