On Wed, 09 Apr 1997 18:07:53 EDT, David Bowman wrote:
[...]
DB>the principle of least action, a physical system seems to have a
>single-minded "purpose" to search out, find and follow the path (in
>phase space) that minimizes the action between its initial and final
>states. It's as if supposedly inanimate objects were endowed with
>(designed to have) this mysterious ability to figure out ahead of
>time the optimal trajectory (over the set of all conceivable ones)
>and then to actually follow that path. It's as if the very fabric
>of the universe is designed in such a way that this is the "best of
>all possible worlds". Such optimality of dynamical design could be
>used to argue for an intelligent Designer.
I would be surprised if any ID advocates did actually use it, except
in the same general way that *all* laws of physics "used to argue for
an intelligent Designer".
DB>My point was that Feynman's work takes away the mystery and shows
>the optimality to be automatically a natural consequence of a
>mindless quantum dynamics which treats all possible paths equally
>without an overt appeal to such a necessary Designer.
Of course neither Feynman nor you actually know that this is
"mindless". This theist at least believes that all laws of nature
are ultimately grounded in the mind of God.
In any event, the theist would merely ask why is there "optimality"
which is "automatically a natural consequence of a ... quantum
dynamics which treats all possible paths equally"?
DB>In the biological analog the Darwinian mechanism provides a
>natural(istic) explanation for the biological designs, their
>adaptations, quasi-optimalities, and their occasional
>suboptimalities, again without explicit reference to an underlying
>intelligent Designer.
Darwin *claimed* to provide a "natural(istic) explanation
for...biological designs" but even among biologists there are many
who disagree that his explanation is adequate as a general theory.
The problem is: 1. Darwin's mechanisms have not been demonstrated to
work (except in relatively trivial cases); 2. the fossil record does
not support his theory of gradual, cumulative adaptive change (it may
support some form of common ancestry, but that is a different
question); and 3. in most (if not all) important cases there is
evidence of something else working behind the scenes:
"Gradualists and saltationists alike are completely incapable of
giving a convincing explanation of the quasi-simultaneous emergence
of a number of biological systems that distinguish human beings from
the higher primates: bipedalism, with the concomitant modification
of the pelvis, and, without a doubt, the cerebellum, a much more
dexterous hand, with fingerprints conferring an especially fine
tactile sense; the modifications of the pharynx which permits
phonation; the modification of the central nervous system, notably at
the level of the temporal lobes, permitting the specific recognition
of speech. From the point of view of embryogenesis, these anatomical
systems are completely different from one another. Each modification
constitutes a gift, a bequest from a primate family to its
descendants. It is astonishing that these gifts should have
developed simultaneously. Some biologists speak of a predisposition
of the genome. Can anyone actually recover the predisposition,
supposing that it actually existed? Was it present in the first of
the fish? The reality is that we are confronted with total
conceptual bankruptcy." (Schutzenberger M-P, "The Miracles of
Darwinism: Interview with Marcel-Paul Schutzenberger", Origins &
Design, Vol. 17.2, Spring 1996)
DB>In both cases the existence of such a Designer may be suggested to
>the theist by the data, but the atheist doesn't feel (and doesn't
>need to feel) the force of the suggestion.
Disagree. As Romans 1 points out, it is normal and natural even for
atheists "to feel the force of the suggestion", ie. "the existence
of...a Designer". The agnostic Paul Davies admits that there "...is
for me powerful evidence that there is 'something going on' behind it
all. The impression of design is overwhelming" (Davies P., "The
Cosmic Blueprint", 1995, p203).
Or atheist Pagels:
"So powerful is [the scientific-experimental] method that virtually
everything scientists know about the natural world comes from it.
What they find is that the architecture of the universe is indeed
built according to invisible universal rules, what I call the cosmic
code- the building code of the Demiurge. Examples of this universal
building code are the quantum and relativity theory, the laws of
chemical combination and molecular structure, the rules that govern
protein synthesis and how organisms are made, to name but a few.
Scientists in discovering this code are deciphering the Demiurge's
hidden message, the tricks he used in creating the universe. No
human mind could have arranged for any message so flawlessly
coherent, so strangely imaginative, and sometimes downright bizarre.
It must be the work of an Alien Intelligence!" (Pagel H., "The
Dreams of Reason", 1988, pp156-58, in Johnson P.E., "Darwin on
Trial", 1993, pp118-119)
Atheists have to work hard at denying intelligent design!
God bless.
Steve
-------------------------------------------------------------------
| Stephen E (Steve) Jones ,--_|\ sejones@ibm.net |
| 3 Hawker Avenue / Oz \ Steve.Jones@health.wa.gov.au |
| Warwick 6024 ->*_,--\_/ Phone +61 9 448 7439 (These are |
| Perth, West Australia v my opinions, not my employer's) |
-------------------------------------------------------------------