On Fri, 19 Nov 1999 20:48:34 +0000, mortongr@flash.net wrote:
[...]
>>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.
>SJ>Since when is a pair of dice, a "non-linear physical system"?
GM>Since the laws of physics which apply to friction are nonlinear. Have you
>never heard of friction? Friction depends upon the speed of the object,
>the coefficients of friction which vary across any surface thus depending
>upon the exact location where the dice land, the friciton of the dice with
>the air which is determined by air temperature. Believe me it is nonlinear.
Unfortunately I have learned the hard way not to "believe" Glenns'
assertions.
If Glenn has any *evidence* that: 1) a thrown pair of dice is a "non-linear
physical system"; and 2) that the non-linear component of air-friction on a
pair of dice in normal circumstances is of sufficient magnitude to render
such thrown dice unpredictable, I would request Glenn post it, with
references.
>>GM>In that case Stephen, why won't you allow God to rig the chance mutations
>>>to produce the evolution from microbe to man?
>SJ>I do believe that God can supernaturally cause mutations to happen but
>>then they are not "chance" mutations.
GM>They are if God makes them so!
If "God makes them so" then they are not "chance" in the sense of 2) "the
lack of any cause".
>SJ>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.
GM>So your statement earlier that you thought it was possible for evolution to
>occur was wrong?
No. I said "I do not *believe* it was evolution" (my change of emphasis). I
accept I could be wrong.
>>GM>You obviously don't know what a random number generator is. It is not
>>>uncaused, it is unpredictable as to the output.
>SJ>Well then there is no problem for theism in such a random number
>>generator, since its output is unpredictable to humans but not uncaused.
GM>Can God create a random number generator which is also unpredictable? If he
>can't, then he isn't as powerful as us, if he can then he can use one to
>drive evolution!
I said "unpredictable to humans" not unpredictable to God.
If Glenn is claiming that God can create a "random number generator which is...
unpredictable" to Him, then Glenn is no longer talking about the historic
Christian God, whose omnipotence has always been regarded by Christian
theologians as limited by God's inability to do something contradictory
to his nature or logic:
"(a) Omnipotence does not imply power to do that which is not an object
of power; as, for example, that which is self-contradictory or contradictory
to the nature of God. Self-contradictory things: "facere factum infectum "-
the making of a past event to have not occurred (hence the uselessness of
praying: "May it be that much good was done"); drawing a shorter than a
straight line between two given points; putting two separate mountains
together without a valley between them. Things contradictory to the nature
of God: for God to lie, to sin, to die. To do such things would not imply
power, but impotence. God has all the power that is consistent with infinite
perfection-all power to do what is worthy of himself. So no greater thing
can be said by man than this: "I dare do all that may become a man; Who
dares do more is none." Even God cannot make wrong to be right, nor
hatred of himself to be blessed....Sunday-school scholar: "Say, teacher, can
God make a rock so big that he can't lift it?" (Strong A.H., "Systematic
Theology", [1907], Judson Press: Valley Forge PA, 1967, reprint, p287)
>SJ>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".
GM>It is unpredictable. If God can create a random number generator then he
>can't predict the outcome. If He can't predict the outcome then he can't
>predict all things. Yet he could drive evolution based upon that and He
>could impose a set of rules on the answers and provide predictability.
See above. Glenn *is* claiming God "can't predict all things"
Thus Glenn is no longer talking about the historic Christian concept of God
who is Omniscient:
"As Spirit He has consciousness, perfect knowledge of Himself (Matt.
11:27 and 1 Cor. 2:10), and in and through Himself. He also has perfect
knowledge of everything that is to be or happen in time, no matter how
hidden or small it may be. (Isa. 46:10; Jer. 11:20; Matt. 10:30 and Heb.
4:14) (Bavinck H., "Our Reasonable Faith: A Survey of Christian
Doctrine", 1984, p140)
>>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.
GM>So You agree that God can manufacture (cause) something whose outcome He
>can't predict--is that your position? If so, we aren't so far apart.
Is Glenn here answering himself? One would hope that Glenn and himself
"aren't so far apart"! :-)
But if Glenn is maintaining that "God can manufacture (cause) something
whose outcome He can't predict", then it most definitely is *not* my
"position"! I would regard that as the equivalent of God making a rock so
big that he can't lift it-a logical and theological impossibility!
Steve
--------------------------------------------------------------------
"From the standpoint of population genetics, positive Darwinian selection
represents a process whereby advantageous mutants spread through the
species. Considering their great importance in evolution, it is perhaps
surprising that well-established cases are so scarce; for example, industrial
melanisms in moths and increases of DDT resistance in insects are
constantly being cited. On the other hand, examples showing that negative
selection is at work to eliminate variants produced by mutation abound."
(Kimura M., "Population Genetics and Molecular Evolution," The Johns
Hopkins Medical Journal, Vol. 138, No. 6, June 1976, p260)
Stephen E. Jones | sejones@iinet.net.au | http://www.iinet.net.au/~sejones
--------------------------------------------------------------------