At 12:24 AM 5/12/00 +0100, Richard wrote:
Hi Richard,
Terribly sorry about my delay. I thought I would just skip ahead
to the end of your post since we've already discussed the earlier
stuff and your last question is probably the crux of the matter
anyway. First let me try to answer your question about Howard
Van Till. The only articles I could find on-line are:
http://www.origins.org/ftissues/ft9306/johnson.html
http://www.arn.org/docs/odesign/od191/basilaug191.htm
If Howard's listening, he might be able to give a more complete list.
You can also look through the archives for this list and the
ASA list.
[...]
>BH:==
> >
> >Thus, I view evolution and chance as part of God's gift to us, the gift
> >of freedom. It is a gift which, I believe, cost God a great deal. Some
> >people talk about the seeming wastefulness of this process, I view
> >this as part of the tremendous price God was willing to pay for us.
> >How he must love us to pay such a price.
> >
> >A couple of disclaimers. (1) This is speculation (2) when I say chance
> >I'm talking from man's point of view. How does what we call chance
> >appear to God? I have no idea :).
RW:==
>Well, that's really the question that I was heading towards. If God didn't
>intervene in evolution (over and above enforcing the laws of physics), then
>it seems he left the evolution of species up to chance, with no specific
>plan for how they would come out--it's just by chance that human beings
>turned out the way we did. It seems hard to reconcile that with the idea
>that God made Man according to his own image, or according to any particular
>image.
>
>A while ago, Terry drew a distinction between events which are really
>random, and those which just appear random to us. Unfortunately, he didn't
>elaborate. Perhaps you're saying something similar.
>
Yes, you stated the problem very nicely. I have proposed that chance and
evolution
may be seen as a mechanism God used to set us free, genuinely free. But then
the natural counter is the one you give.
I think I'll take the academics way out, i.e. I'll present several options
without
endorsing any :).
One option is clearly the one you mention above. Genuine randomness doesn't
exist. I guess I'm not too inclined towards this because (a) I don't like "in
principle" type arguments and (b) I'm uncomfortable with the implications of
this view wrt freedom.
Before I go on I would like to point out that difficulties such as these do
not rest
solely with theists. For example, consider the case of a DoubleD (Darwinian
Determinist). Given what you say above about evolution, how can a Darwinian
possibly be a determinist? Yet we know some of the most prominent Darwinians
are determinists. Thus, it seems to me that the question you asked Terry
several
weeks ago should also be asked of DoubleD's. Does chance play a significant
role
in evolution or not? Further, I kind of expect that the answer you get may be
very much like that above.
Well, that's fine by me, but what I would like to "complain" about is that
some of
these DoubleD's turn around and give the chance argument that you outline
above.
If evolution just appears to be random [translation: to have a component where
chance plays a significant role], then the implications of your question
vanish.
OK, here are a few possible answers to your question:
(1) Like design, chance is only apparent. (discussed above)
(2) God transcends time.
I suppose this might be a way of interpreting (1). In any event, it is hard to
visualize since we are creatures constrained by time. One view here might
be that God created the entire universe (space and time) all at "once".
(3) The image of God has to do with soul and spirit, rather than body.
In this view, the physical body of man is not pre-ordained. Evolution proceeds
until God finds a suitable result. He then breaths his spirit into the species
he so chooses.
One possible objection (apart from the theological ones many are thinking right
now :) is whether a "suitable result" will ever arise. The possibilities of
this happening
belong to the nonlinear dynamics section below. Let me just mention in passing
that some Darwinists consider the evolution of highly intelligent beings
(not necessarily
us) as something "almost inevitable". Not an argument from authority, just
an indication
that the idea is not particularly novel.
(4) Nonlinear dynamics.
(a) parameter sensitivity
First imagine plotting some function versus time, which we'll call a
trajectory. Now
imagine that this trajectory splits into two or more branches. Each branch then
splits again, and so on. What determines which branch is followed? Some would
say chance, but usually we say something like "local second order effects".
Regardless, it would seem that trajectories in nonlinear systems are very
sensitive
to small parameter changes.
Now we suppose that God can foresee all possible trajectories of the
system. For
the most part he allows freedom in the evolution of the system. Whenever
necessary,
minor changes can be made to keep things going in the right general direction.
In view of attractors discussed below it is quite possible that little or
no "tweaking"
is actually required.
(b) attractors (generic forms)
Although nonlinear systems are sensitive, they are also in many ways
surprisingly
robust. The robustness is due to the existence of attractors of various
sorts in the phase
space. As the name suggests, attractors attract trajectories in their
vicinity. The attractors
are a function of the phase space itself, i.e. they are not determined by
initial conditions.
There is still a parameter sensitivity here in that minor changes to a
parameter can actually
cause one or more attractors to appear out of nowhere, one example of a
so-called bifurcation.
If one were to view evolution as a trajectory through a nonlinear
morphological phase space
(a view held by a number of developmental and structural biologists), the
attractors would
be generic forms (a generic form might be a group of homologous
structures). This is what
I was referring to above by raising the possibility that some general
results may be almost
inevitable.
This view of evolution is remarkably different from Darwinism. But its the
view that changes,
random mutation and selection are still there. The role of chance might be
in determining
which attractor is approached. Bifurcations may also arise by chance,
bringing new
attractors (generic forms) into existence. But the attractors are not
created by chance,
they're part of the structure of the system. Chance would merely make a
form accessible.
A particular generic form will have many specific possibilities which
natural selection can
sift through. Thus, natural selection does not create any new forms, it
merely stabilizes
an existing form.
From the theological point of view we can now argue that the morphological
phase space
was designed. Evolution is seen as a trajectory (Rene Thom refers to it as
a wave front)
moving through this phase space.
Brian Harper
Associate Professor
Mechanical Engineering
The Ohio State University
"One never knows, do one?"
-- Fats Waller
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed May 24 2000 - 18:38:44 EDT