On Mon, 5 Feb 1996 11:09:38 -0500 you wrote:
>Abstract: A continuing discussion of how God might work through 'random'
>chance to provide undetectable intervention in natural phenomenon. In
>particular, I am trying to clarify my ideas further in response to Stephen
>Jones 1/20/95 post. (Sorry I am so slow in responding--I have been very
>busy.)
[...]
>SJ>Here again is the conundrum. How does God "lets one such event
>happen every 30 gazillion years" and and at the same time "he didn't
>make any exceptions to the rule." If the rule is "only once every 30
>gazillion... years", then choosing to allow it "to occur in the
>first 2 billion years of the earth's history" is (if words mean
>anything), making an exception to the rule.
>[..deleted rest..]
EO>Let me try again. You're getting hung up on probability and
>causation. Let's make our life easier and just talk about rolling a
>single fair die for the moment. We expect the probability of rolling
>a 3 to be 1/6 for a single roll. All this means is that if we roll
>the die many times, on average 1/6 (~17%) of the throws will yield a
>3. If we roll the die five times without obtaining a 3, what is the
>probability of obtaining a 3 on the next roll? 100% or 17%? The
>probability is still only 17%. We cannot predict the outcome of
>individual rolls; the only thing we can say is that ON AVERAGE a 3
>will turn up once in a set of six rolls. Sets of six rolls without a
>3, or a sets of six throws with two 3's are less probable, but
>they're not impossible. Probabilities are not guarantees (as any
>gambler can tell you). :-)
Eddie I am well aware that 1 million to 1 chance can happen in the
first second of spinning a roulette wheel. Those are normal rules of
probability and God need have no direct choice in the matter except
the normal laws. If you say God chose to let it happen is equivalent
to saying it happened by chance. But if you mean something different
from letting it happen by chance, then please distinguish it from
this meaning.
EO>Now, let's say God determines the roll of a fair die. (Pr 16:33)
>divine perspective, every outcome is predetermined. However, He
>predetermines the results in such a way that they appear random (i.e.
>unpredictable) to the human observer. We can't tell exactly when a 3 will
>turn up. That information is hidden from us. But God does determine the
>outcomes in such a way that by averaging the results over many throws, we
>can summarize the results into a simple framework--a "natural law". ("For
>given set of rolls of the die, the average number of 3's obtained is 1/6th
>the total number of rolls.") Natural laws not only allow us to summarize
>past results, but also allow us to make predictions about the future
>behavior of the die when it is rolled. ("The probability is of obtaining a
>3 on the next roll is 1/6" or "if we roll the die thirty times, on AVERAGE
>we would obtain five 3's".) Note that a natural law results from God's
>action in nature in a consistant fashion. We may not be able to predict the
>outcome of the next roll, but the probability of a 3 occuring is the same
>today as it was in Pascal's time.
Eddie. Pr 16:33 is talking about things happening by chance on man's
side but determined by God. I have no problem with this. But God is
not limited to working through apparently random events.
EO>Now let's turn back to TE/PC and my example of the spontaneous
generation of
>a functional protein. If I understand correctly, TE's maintain that God
>could have produced this protein by operating through natural laws alone
>(w/o "transcendental" intervention). Now, for the sake of discussion, I set
>the probability at a fictitious astronomical 1 in 30 gazillion years. This
>means that ON AVERAGE once every 30 gazillion years a functional protein
>will spontaneously assemble. It might happen the very first year. Or it
>might not happen at all in 32 gazillion years. But if you waited for a long
>enough time and recorded all the results that ON AVERAGE once every 30
>gazillion years you would see the spontaneous generation of a functional
>protein. These observations could be formulated into a natural law. (I'm
>assuming we can calculate the probability of spontaneous generation without
>waiting around gazillions of years in the same way that we can predict the
>probability of the results for rolling a fair die one billion times without
>actually performing billions of rolls.) Thus, the spontaneous generation of
>a functional protein in would be possible (although highly unlikely) through
>the operation of natural laws alone.
Agreed. I think we are just going round in circles! :-)
EO>Now, let's say that God determines the "random" connection of amino
acids
>just as he determines the "random" throw of a die. He deliberately
>determines the spontaneous generation of a functional protein to occur
>within the first 2 billion years (maybe I should have used 1 billion) of
>earth's history. This is an extremely improbable occurance. Did He "break
>the law"? No. As long as He causes it to occur ON AVERAGE only once every
>30 gazillion years, He can sprinkle in spontaneous generations any place
>that fits his fancy and still leave the natural law intact. And as long as
>He stays within the bounds of natural law, He is invisible to scientific
>detection. God directs the entire process, but we can never "catch him in
>the act". I guess what I am trying to say is that the infitesimal
>perturbations that Bill Hamilton refers to could be hidden below the
>detection limits of science in the noise of "random" chance. What you call
>an extraordinary improbable coincidence will most likely depend on your
>philosphical orientation. An atheistic Darwinist attributes it to sheer
>luck; a theistic evolutionist attributes it to God's continous guidance
>through natural law; most progressive (and YEC) creationists would attribute
>it to a transcendental intervention. It looks to me that this example
>really begins to blur the TE/PC boundary. I guess it all depends on how you
>define "transcendental" intervention. (see below)
I have no problem with this. I never have. I accept Pr 16:33
unreservedly. But it does not mean that God cannot also intervene
directly and supernaturally and generate a functional protein.
You might be able to reconcile natural law probabilities with one
miracle, but what if a whole series of miracles are needed to bring
about the first self-replicating *system*? There is no such thing as
a self-replicating molecule - there is only self-replicating molecular
*systems*. There are many enzymes required to make the first
self-replicating molecular system. It seems to me you can't keep
claiming that *normal* natural laws of probability are operating at
the same time you are claiming God is determining it. IOW I don't
think you can extend Pr 16:33 to cover miracles. It is meant only to
apply to normal natural laws of probability, applying in the rolling
of normal dice.
[...]
>Eddie Gene Olmstead, Jr. Chemistry Department
^^^^
>Asst. Professor of Chemistry Gordon College
No doubt you have been told many times that you have a good middle
name for a Prof. of Biochemistry! :-)
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) |
----------------------------------------------------------------