On Tue, 10 Mar 1998 11:41:19 -0500 (EST), Loren Haarsma wrote:
[...]
>>LH>(Those "primordial seeds," mentioned above, are crucial data for galactic
>>>formation.) There are models, but they're pretty weakly constrained
>>>compared to other processes/events in cosmological history.
>>SJ>Planting "primordial seeds" is an *intervention* by a human
>>intelligent designer. If all cosmological models require the
>>arbitrary intervention of a human intelligent designer then they are
>>support for intervention by a *real* Intelligent Designer.
LH>OK, here's a simplified version of the actual situation:
>
>Three points in time: T1, T2, T3.
What exactly are these "points in time"? This is important for me to
judge what cosmological stages these models refer to, and whether
they correspond to the same stage(s) mentioned in the Astronomy
article.
LH>Three data sets: D1, D2, D3. These data sets represent our knowledge
>of the conditions at T1, T2, and T3.
How much of this "knowledge" is hard empirical facts and how much
is theory?
LH>Two models: M1 and M2.
On Sun, 14 Dec 1997 19:40:37 -0500 (EST), you wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In stellar evolutionary theory, we *can* empirically distinguish
between interventionist and non-interventionist models...We see that a
non-interventionist model fits the data, so we feel safe in concluding that
it is probably true.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Which one of the above models is the "non-interventionist' one?
LH>Model M1 starts with initial conditions D1 at T1 and produces output
>O2 for time T2. O2 is consistent with D2 to within their error bars.
>D2 has smaller error bars than O2, so...
How do they evaluate what is an "error"? Naturalistic assumptions would
make any interventions by an Intelligent Designer look like "errors".
LH>Model M2 starts with initial conditions D2 (instead of the less precise O2)
>at T2 and produces output O3 for time T3. O3 is consistent with D3 to
>within their error bars.
See above re "error bars". Naturalists cannot claim that there was no
intervention while their own non-interventionist models contain errors.
While there is a human inteligent designer's *choice* of initial conditions this
supports an interventionist (*not* a non-interventionist) model.
LH>Does the use of D2 (rather than O2) in model M2 support intervention
>between T1 and T3?
>
>No.
Disagree. To the extent that the input data at critical points is chosen
by a human intelligent designer, rather than generated by the output of
the previous model, it still supports intervention, rather than non-
intervention.
LH>(Doesn't preclude it, either.)
On the contrary, it is the *non-interventionist* models that are at present
precluded. Your chosen example above requires human intervention at critical
points. When cosmological models require *no* human intervention, then (and
only then) can you claim that such models support non-intervention by an
Intelligent Designer.
Steve
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Stephen E (Steve) Jones ,--_|\ sejones@ibm.net
3 Hawker Avenue / Oz \ Steve.Jones@health.wa.gov.au
Warwick 6024 ->*_,--\_/ Phone +61 8 9448 7439
Perth, West Australia v "Test everything." (1Thess 5:21)
--------------------------------------------------------------------