As to the recent question thrown out by Terry (2/19/96), I am afraid it is
well above my head. I have however read some general works on evolution as
well as part of the talk.origins FAQ. I am also currently subscribed to
APOLOGIA-L, have followed the discussion on presuppositional apologetics
with interest and have read the articles on the web page "Reformed
Apologetics".
I would like to submit an idea to the discussion.
Evolution is defined as "a change in the gene pool of a population over
time" (Talk.origins FAQ). To develop a unified theory science must
eventually explain the relation
0dtswegCVMP|msl ==> E (change in the gene pool of a population over time)
where
d = 3 and possibly 9 space dimensions
t = time
s = strong nuclear force
w = weak nuclear force
e = electromagnetic force
g = force of gravity
C = all other constants such as Plancks and the speed of light
V = all other variables
M = mind
P = power (the ability to manipulate objects)
m = laws of mathematics
s = laws of science
l = laws of logic
r = relation between m,s, & l and d,t,s,w,e,g,C,V,M,P
To be consistent, theories about the origin of the universe ought to start
with 0. Theories Sten Odenwald describes in his article "Beyond the Big
Bang" ,
(http://www2.ari.net/home/odenwald/anthol/beyondbb.html, Kalmbach
Publishing, 1987, reprint) begin to do this. This is because a GUT
beginning with observed values or constants will not be complete (if I
interpret Stephen Hawkings, _A Brief History of Time_ correctly.)
However, a consistent, naturalistic theory, also ought to assume no
scientific laws and, no mathematical principles at work. This is not the
case in Big Bang theories. These theories require a plethora of
mathematics and interactions of the four forces (strong, weak,
electromagnetic and gravity) to calculate initial states.
Further, to be consistent, such a theory ought to assume no relation
between intangible laws and tangible objects.
Therefore, a complete naturalistic theory ought to begin 0 and end with an
explanation of the origin of the universe, the origin of life and the
origin of laws governing these two.
To give an example, when I walk into our machine shed in the morning, I see
not only building blocks of material: bits of wood, steel etc, lying
around, in their place of course :), but I also see tools (or laws, things
we use to manipulate objects): a power drill, a hammer, a wrench. I
assume that someone put those building blocks there and I assume someone
put those tools there. And they did.
Here is a second illustration. Are you familiar with Lego(TM)? I am sure
you are. I used to play with the stuff all the time. Now my nephew does.
Imagine in your mind's eye a bunch of Lego. Take a piece of lego and write
the first variable on it, say d for all the dimensions and throw it in a
pile, then write t for time and s for strong nuclear force and so on.
As you write each block, "reduce" that variable to that block, so that
instead of an intangible you are dealing with a solid object (I believe
this is valid as one can expand dimensions from one to n dimensions in
n-dimensional algebra, so one can reduce dimensions from n to n-1
dimensions and also allow physical laws, laws of science and of math to be
represented by solid objects. We deal with laws all the time as real and
they, I believe, are part of the same reality).
Continue by writing s for the laws of science, m for mathematical laws, and
r for the relations between the intangible laws and the tangible variables.
Also, include factors that are necessary for the origin of life (from J.P.
Moreland, Scaling the Secular City, Baker, 1987, p. 54) p for the mass of a
proton, q for the balance of matter to antimatter and so on up to w for the
properties of H20. As you write each variable on the piece of Lego and
"reduce" it and through it on the ever increasing pile, imagine that you
are taking that out of the system, so it no longer exists "out there" but
exists right in front of you.
Continue doing so, until you have exhausted all the known variables and all
the known laws. When you are done, you should have "reduced" all variables
and all constants necessary for the existence of the universe and life.
Thought you were done? Uh unh. You have two more variables to throw in
the pile. Your mind and your power (to manipulate objects). Realize that
as you throw these variables in the pile (that are necessary to produce E,
evolution) you "remove" them from the real world and allow them to be
represented by a Lego block. Throw your power in the pile first, and we
will, in this little game, allow you grace to throw in your mind in as well
(where is the towel? :-) ). Take a good look at that mind, as you look at
it on the lego block, you may not see it for a while :). Now throw it on
the pile. What happens?
When I tried this exercise mentally, my mind went blank for a moment, and
then I could visualise the pile of multicoloured lego blocks again. If
"my" mind was in the pile, what mind was I thinking with? Could it be a
mind that is like God's? (Gen 1:27?). Nah. :) However when I looked at
that pile again and at the other people with me in this experiment, in my
mind's eye, I had to ask, where did those lego blocks come from? Well, we
put them there. Hmmm. Where is my mind? In the pile. Is anything going
to happen to that pile of Lego? Absolutely nothing. Every single variable
and law known and unknown is in that pile. Looks like we are going to be
here for a long time...
I think when one includes the requirement to explain both the building
blocks and the tools used to manipulate those building blocks in the same
theory, it becomes obvious that this is impossible.
The above exercise is similar to the confrontation between Elijah and the
950 prophets of Baal and of Asherah at Mount Carmel (I Kings 18:16-46).
The prophets of Baal had no power to perform an extraordinary feat, yet
Yahweh was powerful enough to destroy the bull with three times water
poured over it. It is imperative as Christians, to not only point out the
futility of the thinking of the naturalist, but also to warn him of the
wrath of God as experienced by the 950 prophets of Baal and of Ashore that
day.
I believe it is important when dealing with the naturalist not to give him
ground to fight on (the building blocks) and a sword to fight with (the
tools), but rather to state that these come from God. If he is to use
them, then he should either (a) explain their existence from nothing, out
of nothing; or (b) be warned to be careful to give glory and thanks to God
for these things or suffer the consequences of a wrathful God (Ro 1:21-32 &
1 Kings 18: 16-46). It appears to be wrong and inconsistent to allow for
the existence of "givens" such as the the four forces, the laws of
mathematics and science and the relation between the two.
In this article I have attempted to show that to develop a unified theory
science must eventually explain the relation:
0dtswegCVMP|msl ==> E (change in the gene pool of a population over time)
One way to do that could be to represent all the known and unknown
variables and laws, including the mind, as objects, throw those objects in
the pile and then contemplate how the both U, the universe and life could
exist realizing that one has thrown ones own mind "into the pile" and thus,
theoretically does not have it to contemplate with. By doing this, and
perhaps by other means, the Christian can gently (2 Tim 2:25) reveal the
futility (Ro 3:21) of the thinking of the consistent naturalist.
Yours in Christ,
Clarence Bos
Postscript - Other means of demonstrating the futility of the thinking of
the consistent naturalist could be to pose necessary problems, such as:
Explain how it is possible to get from 0 to 1, without using your mind.
Find an instance to the antonym of "Whatever requires intelligence to
describe, requires intelligence to design".
Wait for something to come out of nothing, with no person and no other
forces--including quantum forces--interacting, that includes it's own
time dimension.
The hypothesis and conclusion of the Christian is that God has created
all things, including natural, scientific and mathematical laws.
Develop a hypothesis that explains the origin of the universe and the
origin of life including the origin of natural, scientific and
mathematical laws without appealing to God.
How is it that any theory explaining the relation
M,P=f(0) where 0 ==> E as defined above
where M = mind
P = power (the ability to manipulate objects)
is unsolvable, since a function cannot predict the values of two
variables, but only one? (This may be simplistic, but intuitively,
based on the above discussion, it may have some merit.)
Perhaps crudely: Go out and find a pair of work boots, the kind with the
straps on the back. Put the boots on. Let the boots, your body and the
ground represent all the building blocks of evolution, and your ability to
exert pressure represent all the tools of scientific theory necessary to
explain
0 ==> E. Bend down, place your left index finger in the left strap on the
back of your boot, and your right index finger in the right strap of the
boot and pull. Let your distance from the ground represent the explanatory
power of a naturalistic theory necessary to to explain 0 ==> E. :/