Original Message Follows:
=========================
evolution-digest Sunday, October 5 1997 Volume 01 : Number 692
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Sun, 28 Sep 1997 03:14:13 -0700
From: paul.carline@virgin.net
Subject: Re: RC Sproul and the shoemaker's last
Wesley R. Elsberry wrote:
>
> Paul Carline writes:
>
> [...]
>
> PC>The remarks about theology being possibly a more reliable
> PC>source than a physics based on a limited and very speculative
> PC>range of hypotheses are my own. I hope I didn't suggest
> PC>anywhere that they were part of the thesis being put forward in
> PC>the paper I quoted.
>
> It's a simple case of the conclusion following so closely upon the
> quotations that it seemed that the quotations must have been seen as
> providing a basis or support for them. The juxtaposition of the two
> paragraphs that begin, "The simple point that is being made..."
> and "The converse of this..." contributes to that impression.
>
> Is there some reason to believe that the physics that exists is
> based upon a "limited and very speculative range of hypotheses"?
>
> PC>However, I repeat that the paper both points to the limitations
> PC>of a quantum-mechanical understanding of nature and to the
> PC>probability that there is a deeper, more fundamental level of
> PC>reality beyond the quantum-mechanical - which I would suggest
> PC>is not going to be discovered by continuing the conventional
> PC>search for fundamental particles.
>
> The paper does point out limitations of QM description.
> However, the way I read it the "deeper level" refers to the
> basis of their QM/biological duality, not some region
> inaccessible to science.
>
> PC>The paper refers to the proposition that there is a creative
> PC>process with the character of life at the heart of
> PC>reality.
>
> The paper refers to it, but finds in evolutionary and cognitive
> biology the means by which to describe such a life or creative
> process.
>
> PC>Living systems cannot be described adequately by
> PC>physics. Neither physics nor a materialistic biology can
> PC>comprehend life and the creation, maintenance and
> PC>transformation of form, which obey laws which are
> PC>non-physical. This is the level of reality to which theology
> PC>points: to the nature of life as a quality of the divine.
>
> My point is that the paper does not suggest that a
> non-materialistic stance is necessitated. The means by which
> the authors seek to establish their deeper level of description
> involves QM, natural selection, and neurobiology. A conclusion
> that theology is necessary to a description of the underlying
> reality is a repudiation of the content of the paper, not a
> consistent result obtained from analysis of it.
>
> Wesley
Dear Wesley,
I'm grateful for your helpful comments. I'll try to be more careful in
future to keep my own conclusions separate from the quotes from other
authors.
A general reflection on this might well be about the danger of anyone
trying to 'prove' their case by reference to 'authority' of any kind, be
it scientific or Biblical. We have all arrived at certain positions as a
result of education, upbringing, life experience etc. In this sense we
all have our own 'agendas' and typically look for further confirmation of
these in any new information we meet. Hopefully we can still remain at
least somewhat open-minded to other people's agendas and occasionally
agree to step outside of our more or less fixed position to try to view
things from another perspective.
Just to recap on what I took - perhaps mistakenly, given my remarks above
(i.e. that I too readily seized on what appeared to be a confirmation of
my own position) - from the paper I quoted:
1. A quantum-mechanical interpretation of the fundamental nature of
'reality' is inherently limited and inadequate, at least when it attempts
to describe biological processes.
2. A more adequate, more 'holistic' description can only be reached by
adding the more qualitative approach of the biological sciences to the
more quantitative approach of QM.
3. The authors posit that in order to reconcile the contradictions and
limitations in the two different approaches ( an apparent dualism similar
to the wave:particle dualism), a 'deeper' level of reality has to be
imagined (which is more than a mere conflation of the QM and biological
approaches).
4. This deeper level of reality has a qualitative rather than a
quantitative character: "reality involves a fundamental life process, or
creative process".
It is certainly possible that I read too much into this paper. What it
appeared to me to be saying is that a life process (rather than a
mechanistic process) is at the heart of reality. I like this suggestion
because of my conviction that life can never be explained in terms of
energy i.e. that in evolutionary terms, life could never have emerged
from energy or inorganic matter in the way that standard evolutionary
science assumes (without any supporting evidence).
If this hypothesis is accepted, the story of evolution has to be stood on
its head i.e. Life/Spirit came first and matter is a kind of condensation
or precipitation from the original life essence. This is of course what
the Bible and other religious traditions maintain. If one can open one's
mind to this possibility and envision the creation of the universe and
all its denizens as the work of the gods (I use the plural form here
because that is what Genesis uses, where it is said that in the beginning
the gods (the Elohim - a plural noun in Hebrew) created the world), then
it is not difficult to overcome the problem of the 'missing links' - the
almost total absence of the fossil intermediates which must have existed
in countless millions (the theory of punctuated equilibrium
notwithstanding). The characteristic of life noted by the authors of the
paper - its variability and unpredictability - allows one to conceive of
creative spirits working as artists with 'the stuff of life' to create
all the myriad forms seen in the fossil record. Once the forms had
materialised, they were then set free to evolve under the kinds of laws
Darwin discovered. This is exactly what the fossil record suggests:
organisms appear fully formed and viable, undergo transformation within
fairly strict limits, and then either die out mysteriously or survive for
vast periods unchanged like the sharks.
It would seem that what one could call the 'life forces' were much more
vital in the distant past. Stephen Jay Gould comes to the same conclusion
in his study of the extraordinary proliferation of forms seen in the
Burgess shales. We do not see this kind of explosion of form now, which
suggests that the vital forces have diminished. One could say that from
this point of view our Earth is dying slowly. This is surely necessary in
order for the next stage of evolution to take place - the further
evolution of consciousness towards a greater spirituality. In the human
being the place where life processes are greatest - in the metabolism -
is also where there is least consciousness. By contrast, where
consciousness is greatest - in our thinking (including our vision) - the
material substrate (the brain and the eyes) are the least living,
approximating almost to a mineral state.
If the domain of life is really to be studied objectively, it will need a
different kind of science, no less empirically-based, but certainly using
somewhat different methods, such as those employed by Goethe. My appeal
is only for a rationally-based science appropriate to the subject of
interest.
Paul
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 4 Oct 1997 10:34:27 -0500 (CDT)
From: "Wesley R. Elsberry" <welsberr@inia.tamug.tamu.edu>
Subject: RC Sproul and the shoemaker's last
Paul Carline writes:
[a nice explanation of his stance]
[...]
PC>In the human being the place where life processes are greatest
PC>- in the metabolism - is also where there is least
PC>consciousness. By contrast, where consciousness is greatest -
PC>in our thinking (including our vision) - the material substrate
PC>(the brain and the eyes) are the least living, approximating
PC>almost to a mineral state.
While I passed over several arguable statements, this one I feel
requires some comment.
I'm not sure where this information of yours came from, but it is
certainly wrong. By any metabolic standard except motility,
neural tissue is quite lively. The human brain is a metabolically
demanding organ which appropriates and utilizes a disproportionate
share of the body's resources.
I would probably also dispute this from the stance of "approximating
almost to a mineral state", but I am unsure of what you mean by
that statement.
Wesley
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 4 Oct 1997 14:11:34 -0400 (EDT)
From: Walter J Hicks <whicks@ma.ultranet.com>
Subject: Re:
At 09:09 PM 10/3/97 -0400, Danette -n- Murray Root wrote:
>
>
>
>
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 4 Oct 1997 14:11:37 -0400 (EDT)
From: Walter J Hicks <whicks@ma.ultranet.com>
Subject: Re:
At 09:19 PM 10/3/97 -0400, Danette -n- Murray Root wrote:
>Dear Murray,...
>
>
>
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 4 Oct 1997 14:11:41 -0400 (EDT)
From: Walter J Hicks <whicks@ma.ultranet.com>
Subject: Re:
At 09:19 PM 10/3/97 -0400, Danette -n- Murray Root wrote:
>I would like to know...
>
>
>
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 4 Oct 1997 14:11:44 -0400 (EDT)
From: Walter J Hicks <whicks@ma.ultranet.com>
Subject: Re:
At 09:20 PM 10/3/97 -0400, Danette -n- Murray Root wrote:
>Why you choose to...
>
>
>
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 4 Oct 1997 14:11:46 -0400 (EDT)
From: Walter J Hicks <whicks@ma.ultranet.com>
Subject: Re:
At 09:21 PM 10/3/97 -0400, Danette -n- Murray Root wrote:
>Get a new e-mail address...
>
>
>
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 4 Oct 1997 14:11:49 -0400 (EDT)
From: Walter J Hicks <whicks@ma.ultranet.com>
Subject: Re:
At 09:21 PM 10/3/97 -0400, Danette -n- Murray Root wrote:
>And you didn't even tell me about it!?!1
>
>
>
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 4 Oct 1997 14:27:09 -0400 (EDT)
From: Walter J Hicks <whicks@ma.ultranet.com>
Subject: RE:
At 01:17 PM 10/4/97 -0500, John E. Rylander wrote:
>Walter, why in the world are you resending all this garbage to the Evolution
>mailing list??
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Walter J Hicks [SMTP:whicks@ma.ultranet.com]
>Sent: Saturday, October 04, 1997 1:12 pm
>To: Danette -n- Murray Root; evolution@calvin.edu
>Subject: Re:
>
>At 09:19 PM 10/3/97 -0400, Danette -n- Murray Root wrote:
>>Dear Murray,...
Sorry John & evolution list.
I was trying to send the garbage back to it's owner. I did not notice
that it went back to the evolution list as well.
My apologies!
Walt
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 4 Oct 1997 14:42:58 -0400
From: Danette -n- Murray Root <MRoot@mindspring.com>
Subject: RE: Garbage
I would like to apologize to everyone on the list for the mass of garbage
posted to the list recently. My wife did not understand what the list was
and thought I had changed our email address.
Again, I apologize for the interruption.
- -----Original Message-----
From: Walter J Hicks [SMTP:whicks@ma.ultranet.com]
Sent: Saturday, October 04, 1997 2:27 PM
To: John E. Rylander; evolution@calvin.edu
Subject: RE:
At 01:17 PM 10/4/97 -0500, John E. Rylander wrote:
>Walter, why in the world are you resending all this garbage to the
Evolution
>mailing list??
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Walter J Hicks [SMTP:whicks@ma.ultranet.com]
>Sent: Saturday, October 04, 1997 1:12 pm
>To: Danette -n- Murray Root; evolution@calvin.edu
>Subject: Re:
>
>At 09:19 PM 10/3/97 -0400, Danette -n- Murray Root wrote:
>>Dear Murray,...
Sorry John & evolution list.
I was trying to send the garbage back to it's owner. I did not notice
that it went back to the evolution list as well.
My apologies!
Walt
------------------------------
End of evolution-digest V1 #692
*******************************