On Tue, 16 Nov 1999 05:22:14 +0000, mortongr@flash.net wrote:
[...]
>SJ>Second, the drawing of lots, like the throwing of dice, is determined by the
>>laws of physics (unless God intervened). We call it "random" as a
>>placeholder for our ignorance. If we could identify and allow for all the
>>physical forces acting on the lots or dice, and threw it exactly the same
>>each time, ie. the initial conditions, the lots or dice would yield the
>>same result each time (unless God intervened).
GM>Obviously you have never played with dice. How did you have such a
>restrictive childhood? And modern nonlinear dynamics as well as the
>Heisenberg uncertainty principle shows that even if one tries to have the
>same initial conditions in any non-linear physical system, you can't.
Since when is a pair of dice, a "non-linear physical system"?
GM>And
>thus predictability is lost in such a system. The weather is such a
>nonlinear system.
Again Glenn confuses predictability with causality. That limited human
beings may be unable to predict the weather does not mean it is uncaused.
Granted that maybe "a butterfly stirring the air today in Peking can
transform storm systems next month in New York" (Gleick J., "Chaos",
1988, p8), but the storm system is still caused.
>SJ>Third, Glenn does not know in the examples quoted, whether God did in
>>fact intervene to make the lots fall the way He wanted. So he cannot even
>>say that the results were chance in *any* definition of the word!
GM>In that case Stephen, why won't you allow God to rig the chance mutations
>to produce the evolution from microbe to man?
I do believe that God can supernaturally cause mutations to happen but
then they are not "chance" mutations.
Moreover, I believe that other mutations may be loosely called "chance"
mutation but they are not uncaused, and God is fully of control of them
also.
GM>If you really believe that
>this is a possiblity then it would be ridiculous to fight evolution like
>you do.
Indeed it is because I believe that God has supernaturally intervened at
strategic points in the history of life, that I do not believe it *was*
evolution. The correct term for such a supernatural-natural process is
*creation*, ie. Mediate Progressive Creation.
Therefore I "fight evolution", not because I think it is not "a possiblity" but
because I believe it is a brilliant counterfeit of the genuine article, which is
Mediate Creation.
>SJ>In the sense of a *truly* random number generator in which events
>>happened which were uncaused, yes, because this would logically
>>contradict the claim that God was ultimately the cause of all things.
GM>You obviously don't know what a random number generator is. It is not
>uncaused, it is unpredictable as to the output.
Well then there is no problem for theism in such a random number
generator, since its output is unpredictable to humans but not uncaused.
This is not "chance" in Glenn's sense of 2) "the lack of any cause"; or 3)
"chance as a real cause itself"; but rather chance in Sproul and Geisler's
sense of 1) "the intersection of two or more lines of causality".
>SJ>Sproul, Geisler and I would deny that these "random number generators"
>>are truly random in the sense of the results they generate are uncaused.
GM>I like how you always place yourself in the same sentence with the well
>known people you are quoting. Are you all fishing buddies?
No. I am trying to make it clear that I agree with Sproul and Geisler on this.
>SJ>Or using the second of Glenn's definitions, ie. 3), it says "God
>>created...chance as a real cause itself". This would contradicts the
>>Christian doctrine of Providence, which says God is in control of everything.
GM>This is more to the point of my post. Nonlinear dynamics has shown us that
>random chance plus a set of rules equals a certain level of predictability.
>It doesn't contradict providence.
Again Glenn confuses causality with predictability. Of *course* human
inability to predict something does not "contradict providence"!
GM>I randomly roll a die to create
>Sierpinski's gasket. (see computer models on my web page). I don't know
>what number will come out when I roll he die. However, I always know that
>the result of this rolling and the rules produces a perfectly predictable
>outcome--the creation of Sierpinski's gasket.
See above.
>>GM>The Lamb Retherford effect. Virtual particle pairs (positrons and
>>>electrons) are generated throughout space time. As an electron in orbit
>>>travels it collides with positrons which were created in a quantum
>>>mechanical particle pair. The electron and the virtual positron are
>>>destroyed, but the virtual electron now becomes the electron in orbit
>>>around the nucleus. It then strikes another virtual positron and is
>>>destroyed and replaced by another virtual electron. This effect causes
>>>slight energy shifts in the spectra of atoms and the effect has been
>>observed.
>SJ>Glenn has not shown that these events happen without a cause or are
>>themselves ultimate causes.
GM>Now you equivocate. you didn't say 'ultimate cause.' God is the ultimate
>cause.
I don't equivocate. It has been my position all along. It is Glenn who is
equivocating. If "God is the ultimate cause" then they are not "the lack of
any cause", and theism would have no problem.
>SJ>Glenn confused causality with predictability. The fact that we cannot
>>predict the weather does not mean it is uncaused.
GM>You don't understand the theological reason why chance is feared by
>theologians.
Glenn has produced no evidence that "chance is feared by theologians".
And why should they fear chance if "God is the ultimate cause"? Glenn's position
has become incoherent.
GM>It is precisely because of unpredictability.
Again Glenn confuses chance in the sense of causality with chance in the
sense of "unpredictability".
Theologians have no problem with "unpredictability". It is a consequence
of our *human* limitations, not *God's* limitations. No Christian
theological doctrine is affected by our normal human inability to predict the
future.
GM>They are afraid that chance means that God can't have control. Of course
it doesn't mean that at all.
Now Glenn switches from "unpredictability" back to "chance" again! I have
learned from experience that Glenn's arguments are often based on this
type of verbal shell game.
If "chance" means 2) "the lack of any cause"; or 3) "chance as a real cause
itself" then the Christian God does not even exist!
But all the things that Glenn has cited are chance in the sense of: 1) "the
intersection of two or more lines of causality", which Sproul and Geisler
(and I) say is compatible with Christian theism.
[...]
Steve
--------------------------------------------------------------------
"*Nor does any of the above depend upon the theories of Charles Darwin,
with which evolution is popularly associated. The opposite is true. More
recent scientific insights indicate that neo-Darwinism is at best a partial
explanation of how biological evolution occurs. The demise of Darwinian
theory as a *full* explanation in no way alters the firm consensus of science
that the universe has evolved.." (Price B., "The Creation Science
Controversy", Millennium Books: Sydney, 1990, p8. Emphasis in
original.)
Stephen E. Jones | sejones@iinet.net.au | http://www.iinet.net.au/~sejones
--------------------------------------------------------------------