>>brian:======
>>Of course, all of this is very speculative at present. If Goodwin
>>is correct, I personally would find this scenario strongly
>>suggesting design. Is the view of designing a phase space which
>>contains organisms as strange attractors really so different from
>>designing the organisms themselves?
>
bill:==========
>I don't see that it's very different at all. My only caveat would be that
>I wouldn't want to end up with an essentially deist scenario. God may not
>need to intervene in creation. But I believe He does for His good
>pleasure.
>
I think I understand your concerns especially since I tend to share
them :). It might be useful to discuss some terminology, in particular:
what is meant by deism and related to this what does it mean to be
mechanistic. Awhile back I gave a little quote about the mechanistic
world view collapsing to which David (I think) replied that it would
be business as usual. I think deism and a mechanistic world view are
closely tied together. If the universe and life are not mechanistic
then perhaps the deistic view is untenable. I think also that neo-
Darwinism is a mechanistic view, thus the fall of a mechanistic world
view would hardly be business as usual ;-).
More to the point of your comments above, my own caveat is that the
insistence of God intervening in the "Now" seems to tie God's hands,
almost as if he "belongs" to the Universe in the same way that we do.
Isn't it possible (or even most likely) that "now" for God is the
moment of the Big Bang every bit as much as it is Feb 2, 1996?
========================
Brian Harper |
Associate Professor | "It is not certain that all is uncertain,
Applied Mechanics | to the glory of skepticism" -- Pascal
Ohio State University |
========================