On Wed, 17 Jan 1996 09:46:14 -0500 you wrote:
BH>...I remember feeling considerable frustration at the views
>expressed by several of the scientists in the group..the design
>efforts I have been involved in required considerable planning and
>coordination...saying that design was something that resulted
>naturally from the action of natural processed was an insult to all
>the effort engineers put into designing things that, admittedly, are
>quite different from the kinds of designed entities we find in
>nature.
Indeed how can there be "designed entities...in nature" unless there
is a a Designer. What they really mean is *order*, not design:
"For order is of two kinds. The man who paints a picture, orders
paint upon canvas, but when a pile of sand is placed on a tray and
shaken vigorously, the sand orders itself to form a layer, equally
thick all over the tray. By the first kind of order we mean design
and the implication that it implies an orderer in no less and no more
than the implication that design implies a designer. The second kind
of order, however, arises from the working out of the ordinary laws
of nature and, in the light of physical science, we know that,
although it may sometimes appear to the eye as if new order has
arisen in the process (as when a crystal grows) yet, taken as a
whole, order always tends to be lost." (Clark R.E.D. "The Universe:
Plan or Accident?", Paternoster: London Third Edition, 1961, p163)
BH>But the efforts of humans to bring about a successful design are
>rather small and insignificant compared to the designs God does, and
>I suspect that our efforts appear rather puny, confused and
>convoluted to Him. So the "design requires a great deal of effort"
>argument argument is human-centered and questionable, so far as being
>a justification for my frustration was concerned.
The issue is not "effort" but *intelligence*. Your argument is
strongerif you substitute the latter into your sentence:
"...saying that design was something that resulted naturally from the
action of natural processed was an insult to all the *intelligence*
engineers put into designing things..."
BH>...design is really a battle against randomness. It's a battle to
>enforce structure against entropy. Whether humans or God do the
>design, attention has to be given to ensuring that the designed
>object can function in the face of factors which tend to degrade its
>operation: infections, disease, parasites and predators in the case
>of living things; rust, wear, shock, vibration, stray emf, etc. in
>the case of things humans design.
Agreed. But where does this human mind that can "design" come from in
a universe dominated by entropy? Indeed, where did the design in the
universe come from in the first place? And why is our minds can
recognise the design in the universe? Is this not a strong argument
for the existence of an Intelligent Designer?
BH>To say that designed objects can emerge naturally without some
>intelligent entity providing for dealing with disturbances, seems
>naive to this engineer's mind.
And to this non-engineer's mind. Apart from some minor examples, e.g.
sorting of pebbles on sea-shore (which is really order, not design),
uniform experience is that the natural temdency of matter is towards
anti-design. An coin amid those pebbles would be seen to be
designed.
BH>I hasten to add that I believe God's designs are intended to be so
>elegant that there will be no indications of "tinkering" anywhere.
>So my view does not imply that there are any points in nature that we
>could study to "catch God in the act" unless He chooses to be
>"caught".
IMHO here is confusion between the design and its *implementation*.
Design is something *external* to the object. GM's design of its
cars is not in the cars. It is in the minds and drawing boards in GM's
offices.
One can "catch" the implementor of a design "in the act" (just
visit the assembly line), and one can even catch "tinkering" with
the design by visiting a service department to see a recall
modification being made.
But one can never catch GM's designers "in the act" of "tinkering"
because they never actually touch the cars after they are in
production.
BH>As Howard Van Till does, I tend to believe that the design is in
>the properties of entities in nature.
Totally disagree. Design is *never* in the "entities in nature".
Design is *always* in the mind of the Designer. The "properties of
entities in nature" may have been designed, but the design is never
*in* them. If anything, they are *in* the design.
Design is always inferred back to an external designer. It is not
something in the object itself. For example, if we started receiving
from deep space a series of radio pulses repeating as follows:
||| | |||| | ||||| ||||||||| ||| | |||| | ||||| |||||||||
||| | |||| | ||||| ||||||||| ||| | |||| | ||||| |||||||||
ie. 314159 314159 314159 314159.... , the numbers in the ratio of
the circumference of a circle to its radius (PI), we would instantly
infer a source designer behind the signals. The signals would have no
intrinsic design in themselves. Physically they would just be energy
pulses. It is is the *order* they are in, not the order in them, that
would indicate their source was intelligent, not natural
BH>In addition (perhaps Howard would agree, perhaps not) I suspect
>that complex systems theory says some things about how God may be
>continuously involved in nature, guiding its course, without His
>oversight being visible to the normal five senses. Complex systems
>exhibit sensitive dependence on initial conditions and disturbances.
>By knowing exactly where and when to perturb nature, an intelligent
>designer/overseer could maintain control over the direction of nature
>by means of infinitesimal perturbations.
Thanks for this. Agreed. I may have said this before, but I once
read a science fiction story about time-travellers whose job was to go
back in the past and change the present. To avoid disturbing anything
else, they had to make the *minimum* change necessary to achieve the
end. I can't remember any details, but one could see that a very
small change in the past, by someone with detailed knowledge of what
transpired, without that change, could be undetectable, yet produce
the desired result in the future.
BH>This is the God who told Paul, "My strength is perfected in
>weakness." Perhaps He was talking about more than Paul's immediate
>infirmity. Handle with care. Ego attached :-).
He probably was. The Gk in 2Cor 12:9 is "astheneia" which my Strong's
on-line Heb-GK dictionary (I'm too afraid to look at my Interlinear!
<g>) says means "feebleness (of body or mind); by impl. malady; mor.
frailty:--disease, infirmity, sickness, weakness.
But IMHO the principle behind the particular circumstances is
expressed in 1Cor 1:25 "For the foolishness of God is wiser than man's
wisdom, and the weakness [Gk. asthenes - "without strength] of God is
stronger than man's strength".
Such a God, not confined by our our wisdom, our power, and our
four-dimensions, would have no trouble whatsover in "maintaining
control over the direction of nature by means of infinitesimal
perturbations".
Consider one thing. John's seven churches in Asia, in a clockwise
postal delievery ring starting at Ephesus were:
3 Pergamum
4 Thyatira
5 Sardis
6 Philadelphia
2 Smyrna
7 Laodicea
1 Ephesus
Yet it is remarkable how those seven churches, in order of postal
delivery, parallel the seven stages of church history given in the
Contents outline of Walker's "A History of the Christian Church":
1. BEGINNING TO GNOSTIC CRISIS = Ephesus Period: Struggle for
Apostolic Authority? "Ephesus...deeds..hard work... perseverance...
cannot tolerate wicked...tested those who claim to be apostles...
persevered...endured hardships...have not grown weary. Yet...You have
forsaken your first love...hate the practices of the Nicolaitans.."
(Rev 2:1-7)
2. GNOSTIC CRISIS-CONSTANTINE = Smyrna Period: Suffering?"
"Smyrna...your afflictions and your poverty...slander of those who say
they are Jews...you are about to suffer...the devil will put some of
you in prison to test you, and you will suffer persecution...Be
faithful, even to the point of death..." ( Rev 2:8-11)
3. IMPERIAL STATE CHURCH = Pergamum Period: Rome - idolatry?"
"Pergamum...you live--where Satan has his throne. Yet you remain
true..You did not renounce your faith...Antipas, my faithful witness,
who was put to death in your city--where Satan lives...people
there...hold to the teaching of Balaam...eating food sacrificed to
idols and..sexual immorality....Likewise...the teaching of the
Nicolaitans." (Rev 2:12-17)
4. MIDDLE AGES-INVESTITURE CONTROVERSY = Thyatira Period: Devotion &
Service?" "Thyatira...love and faith...service and perseverance...
doing more than you did at first....tolerate...Jezebel...misleads my
servants into sexual immorality and the eating of food sacrificed to
idols. " (Rev 2:18-29)
5. LATER MIDDLE AGES = Sardis Period: Moribund?" "Sardis...
reputation of being alive, but...dead...Wake up! Strengthen what
remains and is about to die...not found your deeds
complete...Remember..what you have received and heard; obey it, and
repent...Yet you have a few people in Sardis who have not..." (Rev
3:1-6)
6. REFORMATION = Philadelphia Period: New open door-Kept word?"
"Philadelphia...I have placed before you an open door that no one can
shut...little strength, yet you have kept my word and have not denied
my name...the synagogue of Satan...I will make them come and fall down
at your feet...you have kept my command to endure patiently, I will
also keep you from the hour of trial...Hold on to what you have" (Rev
3:7-13)
7. MODERN = Laodicea Period: Lukewarm?" "Laodicea...neither
cold nor hot...lukewarm...rich...do not need a thing...But...wretched,
pitiful, poor, blind and naked." (Rev 3:14-6)
Now I know many will reject this out of hand and point out some
discrepancy. Hendriksen rejects it out of hand:
The notion that these seven churches describe seven successive
periods of Church history hardly needs refutation. 2 To say nothing
about the almost humorous-if it were not so deplorable-exegesis
which, for example, makes the church at Sardis, which was dead,
refer to the glorious age of the Reformation; it should be clear to
every student of the Bible that there is not one atom of evidence in
all the sacred writings which in any way corroborates this
thoroughly arbitrary method of cutting up the history of the Church
and assigning the resulting pieces to the respective epistles of
Revelation 2 and 3. The epistles describe conditions which occur
not in one particular age of Church history, but again and again."
(Hendriksen W., "More than Conquerors: An Interpretation of the
Book of Revelation" Tyndale Press: London, p60)
Note Hendriksen bases his argument on an assumption that Sardis = the
Reformation, when on Walker's periods it would be Philadelphia.
I myself thought it was absurd, until sat down and studied Revelation
in depth for myself. I was amazed at the degree of concordance (yes,
I know! <g>) between the Walker's seven periods and the seven churches
of Revelation 2-3.
Now just think for a moment, if this interpretation is true. What an
infinite degree of control would it take to ensure the essential
character of seven churches in a postal delivery ring in Asia Minor
can largely parallel the essential features of the seven major periods
of church history? A God who can design and control that, can design
and control anything!
"He who has an ear, let him hear what the Spirit says to the
churches" (Rev 2:7).
God bless.
Stephen
----------------------------------------------------------------
| Stephen Jones ,--_|\ sjones@iinet.net.au |
| 3 Hawker Ave / Oz \ http://www.iinet.net.au/~sjones/ |
| Warwick 6024 ->*_,--\_/ phone +61 9 448 7439. (These are |
| Perth, Australia v my opinions, not my employer's) |
----------------------------------------------------------------