Re: Evolution and the Limits of Science

Steve Clark (ssclark@facstaff.wisc.edu)
Wed, 21 Feb 1996 23:43:18 -0600

>Hello! I am new to this list, and at the request of the moderator will
>provide some brief information about myself. I have been a Christian since
>the age of nine, have a B.A. Psych., and have served for two years with a
>para-church organization. I am interested in missions, and thus am
>interested in the Christian approach to the topic of evolution as it crops
>up when sharing Christ with those from a naturalistic-humanistic
>perspective. I am currently working on my Dad's pig farm, giving him a
>much needed break and so have more time to think and do reading on various
>subjects I didn't have time to do when I was involved in full-time
>ministry.
>
>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. :/

My goodness, and welcome to the reflector Clarence. Tell us, does your
theology provide a shaping principle or a driving principle for your
science? In other words, does your belief in God affect the way you derive
conclusions from naturalistic observations, or does your belief in God
affect, a priori, which naturalistic observations you will believe?

Steve
__________________________________________________________________________
Steven S. Clark, Ph.D. Phone: (608) 263-9137
Associate Professor FAX: (608) 263-4226
Dept. of Human Oncology and email: ssclark@facstaff.wisc.edu
UW Comprehensive Cancer Ctr
University of Wisconsin
Madison, WI 53792

"Now how does one alter the charge on the niobium ball? 'Well at that
stage', said my friend, 'we spray it with positrons to increase the charge
or with electrons to decrease the charge.' From that day forth I've been
a scientific realist. So far as I'm concerned, if you can spray them then
they are real". Ian Hacking, Representing and Intervening, 1983
__________________________________________________________________________