At 02:15 PM 7/14/99 GMT, David wrote:
>On Tue, 13 Jul 1999, Steve Clark wrote:
>
>> It seems to me that the product that is created is more
>> interesting/important than the process of fabrication.
>
>Why is it more interesting and important? The means chosen to
>achieve an end is of great interest in human society! Engineers have
>made a whole discipline out of it.
>
First of all, I'm not prepared to concede the point that natural
means such as evolutionary processes are somehow deficient or
"blunt" in comparison with other unspecified methods. This
seems to me entirely subjective.
Let me illustrate with an interesting quote from Einstein:
"The ancients knew something which we seem to have forgotten.
All means prove but a blunt instrument, if they have not
behind them a living spirit." -- Einstein
I found this quote in a collection and have no idea what the
context was. I sincerely doubt Einstein had in mind anything
related to our present conversation :). This doesn't matter
here since my intent is merely to illustrate an idea. The idea
is that, for many creationists, the means of evolution will
forever seem a blunt instrument because they cannot conceive
of the idea that behind this means there may be a living
Spirit.
Now, can we think of any examples where the manufacturing
process itself might be more elegant and delightful than
the final product. The best example I could think of took
me way back to the summer I spent as a USDA food inspector
in California. At this time in my life my ambition was to
become a designer of food processing equipment :). I can recall
walking through the plants that took raw fruit in on one
end and produced canned fruit at the other. I was absolutely
enthralled by the process. No question that the process of
producing a can of fruit was much more exciting than the
can of fruit itself.
Upon reflection, though, I realized that what impressed me
about the process were the really clever machines designed
to do the most amazing things. I have never seen these machines
manufactured, I have only seen the final design in operation.
This is what was so delightful, and so my example seems to
be turned on its head.
But perhaps there are other, better examples. I'm perfectly
willing to concede the point that there are examples where
the manufacturing process exceeds the final product in
elegance, beauty, importance etc. But if this is the case
I believe it would be an accident. For engineering design,
the purpose of the manufacturing process is to produce some
final result in the most efficient manner. Of course, the
formula defining efficiency may be complicated and vary
from case to case.
This leads me to my final example, an example that I believe
illustrates what many creationists are really thinking of
when they talk about the bluntness of evolution.
Perhaps the greatest example of human design is the great wall
of China instead of the pyramids. OK, its a close call :).
I remember seeing a documentary on the building of the wall
from which I learned many new things. For example, there were
actually three different walls built during different dynasties.
BTW, the documentary showed the methods ("blunt instruments")
used to build the wall. If anything, this knowledge only
accentuated the greatness of the achievement. Also, I had
always just assumed that it must have taken generations to
build the wall and was shocked to learn that the first wall
(almost 4,000 miles long!) was built in, if I remember correctly,
about 10 years. Amazing.
But the thing that I learned about the great wall that will
forever stick in mind, that will always give me pause before
ranting and raving about the beauty of the wall and praising
its designers and builders is this. It is estimated that
roughly 8 million chinese died in building the wall. What a
tragedy!
What to say about this example? First we should note a slight
change in subject since cost is not necessarily the same thing
as bluntness. Nevertheless, I believe many creationists may
actually mean cost when they refer to the bluntness of an
evolutionary process.
Well, there are many things I might say about this. Let me
just mention a couple of key points. (1) My discomfort at
the cost of building the wall has no influence whatsoever
on whether 8 million chinese lost their lives building the
wall, (2) cost is almost always complicated by competing
factors (other costs), (3) who among us would feel themselves
competant enough to write down a cost function from God's
point of view?
>> It is very
>> plausible that a boring, impoverished, even "blunt" process of fabrication
>> could yield an outstanding product that , intuitively,does not seem
>> commensurate with the perceived blunt process by which it was made.
>
>"Very plausible"? I would say no. In my view, it would be
>surprising and unexpected. I used to think that making Palaeolithic
>hand axes was an example of crude craftsmanship, until I went on a
>short course to do it (when I found a very high level of manual skill
>was required).
>
>> What
>> does it matter if a "blunt instrument" resulted in the glorious Creation.
>
>It matters when one's understanding of creation is that it is a
>product of wisdom, wrought by a sovereign God. The tools chosen to
>fabricate must relate in some way to these attributes of God.
>
>> It follows that our limited preconception of how God SHOULD HAVE created
>> the cosmos may lead us astray in recognizing the reality of God's creative
>> majesty.
>
>In my responses to you, I have not made any statements about HOW God
>should have created. My point is that the tools he has used should
>be consistent with his wisdom and his sovereignty.
>
Yes, I agree completely. The problem though is objectively relating
the tool to God's wisdom and sovereignty. Is there some formula
for making this conversion? This was Waddington's point.
>It might be worth pointing out that there are not a few who insist
>that God has created the world with innate self-organising abilities.
>So perhaps ALL of us ought to examine ourselves as to whether we are
>thinking wisely.
>
>> It seems to me that Scripture focuses on that part of God's character that
>> is revealed through the Creation (i.e., WHAT he created) rather than on
>> knowledge of God via HOW he created.
>
>The key word to address IMO is PURPOSE. The eye and the ear have
>purposes: the eye is designed to see and the ear to hear. This is
>the meaning of Proverbs 20:12. Some alleged fabrication processes
>(e.g. Darwinian evolution) contradict this principle.
>
The NIV gives Proverbs 20:12 as:
"Ears that hear and eyes that see--
the Lord has made them both."
It doesn't seem to me that your argument is supported by this
verse.
[...]
Brian Harper
Associate Professor
Applied Mechanics
The Ohio State University
"All kinds of private metaphysics and theology have
grown like weeds in the garden of thermodynamics"
-- E. H. Hiebert