>Let me follow here with two goals in mind (1) an illustaration of the
difference
>between random and stochastic and (2) to counter Steve Jone's claim in
>another thread that real selection is accomplished only by an intelligent
>agent. This second I'll approach by modifying slightly Steve's (Clark) Lottery
>example since it will be objected to on account of the intelligent agent
>selecting the outcomes.
Brian's point regarding stochastic vs random processes is a useful one. In
my field of biology, stochastic processes are considered to be the
antithesis of deterministic processes. Do you, Brian, make that distinction
here? Related to this question is Brian's second point that some will
object to my lottery example of random vs nonrandom since the lack of
randomness was caused by an intelligent agent. I don't think that this is
really a criticism of my point regarding the nonrandomness of evolution.
Evolution driven by natural selection could very well be considered to be
deterministic and involve an intelligent agent. This is the point of
ECs--that the origin of life can be understood in mechanistic terms, and
that this reflects a certain aspect of God's creative and sustaining
capabilities.
This thread of thought is actually connected to our earlier discussion of
Bacon's influence on the philosophy of science. Jim Bell posted a few
quotes from Bacon, which taken out of context, have Bacon sounding like Phil
Johnson. However, Jim relied on a short and very superficial chapter on
Bacon in Will Durant's book. The problem with making introductory surveys
the primary source of information, in a discussion of this sort, is that one
gets an extremely narrow picture of the topic. For instance, in his book,
Durant never mentioned the Baconian Compromise. I made several aborted
starts at a longer, point-by-point response on this topic, but the day job
has kept me hopping. Therefore, this represents an abbreviated response.
Jim didn't mention (even though Durant did) that Bacon was often accused by
his peers of not being a Christian. This criticism arose because of Bacon's
strong belief that the glory of God is revealed in the mechanisms of natural
processes (note that this contrasts to Newton's claim that God's glory was
better revealed by those things which could not be explained
mechanistically--the original God of the gaps argument). Bacon's position
is known as the Baconian Compromise, or his doctrine of two books.
Bacon believed that God presented us with "....two books or volumes to
study, if we will be secured from error; first the scriptures, revealing the
will of God, and then the creatures expressing his power; whereof the latter
is a key unto the former: not only opening our understanding to conceive the
true sense of the scriptures, by the general notions of reason and rules of
speech; but chiefly opening our belief, in drawing us into a due meditation
of the omnipotency of God, which is chiefly signed and engraven upon his works."
Bacon had little patience with the prevailing method of interpretation of
his time in which Renaissance philosophers failed to distinguish between the
visible workings of the universe and the legible words of scripture. Both
were viewed as constituting "one vast single text." Bacon was impatient
with this method because he believed that it impeded discovery about the
physical world. He believed that students of nature should be free from
harassment by interpreters of biblical texts, and that the book of God's
works is "a key" to the book of God's word. Students of nature should
instruct interpreters of the Bible. To reverse this relationship and to
make things of nature conform to words in scripture, Bacon believed would be
to "unwisely mingle or confound these learning together."
In short, Bacon was a strong proponent of a type of naturalism that
supported a theistic meta-viewpoint. This, in my opinion, is precisely the
way that ECs view the mechanistic world.
Below, I list some references that give a more complete understanding of
Bacon's philosophy of science:
1. Michel Foucault, The Order of Things: An Archaeology of the Human
Sciences (1970, Tavistock Publication, London)
2. Paolo Rossi, Francis Bacon: From Magic to Science (Univ Chicago Press, 1968)
3. Lisa Jardine, Francis Bacon: Discovery and the Art of Discourse
(Cambridge Univ. Press, 1974).
In an earlier post, I also pointed out the similarities of the way that
Creationists define science and the defunct Baconian philosophy of science.
Not surprisingly, Jim didn't like me pointing out this connection and
demanded that I produce "quotes." I previously listed a definition of
science often used by the ICR, and referred to Randy Landrum's own
definition of science--both of which clearly favored a naive inductivism.
For more detail information on this topic, I recommend Del Ratszch's recent
book, The Battle Over Origins, and the definitive history of Creationism in
the US written by my colleague, Ron Numbers, The Creationists (Alfred Knopf,
1992).
Enjoy!
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 Center
CSC K4-432
600 Highland Ave.
Madison, WI 53792
____________________________________________________________