Origins TheologyForum for the discussion of Creation Science (Young/Old) vs Theistic Evolution. Discussion of Atheistic Evolution should be taken to the Discussion and Debate forums.
The news article struck me as very confused. It mixes quite a number of currents of thought and treats them as if they were all part of a single coming anti-Darwinian wave. They're not. For example, epigenetics is interesting, but has nothing obvious to do with self-organization (despite being linked to it in the article), and is unlikely to have a role in long-term evolutionary developments, ostensibly the subject under discussion. Self-organization is also interesting, although so far mostly in a "wouldn't it be nice if someone could think of something that this idea could actually explain" sort of way, but is not in any real conflict with the role of natural selection, as far as I know.
Yes, a narrow, pan-adaptionist population-genetics version of evolution is not going to be enough to explain life -- but that's already conventional wisdom within evolutionary biology. Some of the people involved in this meeting are knowledgeable and are pushing some boundaries in useful ways, but not in ways that will change the basic structure of evolutionary theory. Some of them (Fodor is the obvious candidate) seem mostly to be emitting hot air about things that are better understood by real biologists. And some of the people mentioned in the article are pretty much out in crackpot territory.
I have a general rule: whenever anyone tells me that he or she is introducing a great new idea that is going to induce a "paradigm shift" in the field, whatever field it might be this week . . . I ignore them until they go away. First do some science (or engineering, or what have you) with your great new idea, and then I'll pay attention.
As much as I would just like to wreck evolutionary theory, that is a tall order. Some would offer this type of article for that proposition. As you suggest, it is not all that useful for firm and definitive changes for a couple of reasons: 1. they don't have the theological grounding to do the job; 2. they have an abiding love of the evolutionary worldview; 3. people just aren't very good at this kind of thing.
What the article does seem to do is emphasize the nagging problems that aren't getting resolved.
It points out a boundary between science and theology that doesn't work well. Scientists presume to tell us they don't address theological issues and then trash creationism on scientific grounds. Well, in this particular case, we have science complaining that its own methods are not apt to describe processes better addressed in theology.
You may wish to keep theology out of experimental methodology for the most part. Fine. You don't need demonology issue with controls in your experimentation.
But, here you have a boundary where science has to make a decision about how far it can go while excluded such matters. Now science admits that its paradigm is limited and they try to address it with woolly thinking.
How about this: either back off of the theology or give the theologians a place at the table, be they YEC or otherwise. Science has presumed to extend its sanitized experimental model to thinking about ultimate matters. Thus, you have the conflict this article represents.
One of the funny things about your comment is that we should stay out of the business of qualified biologists. Well, this article says or at least implies that a great deal of these issues were not your business in the first place. The philosophers are now as qualified on ultimate issues.
It has always appeared that cosmology and evolutionary biology were clubby citadels where admission to the truth business was as much about fashion and power as, well, truth, and sometimes more the former. Wild speculation is acceptable, if it is orthodox. Otherwise, your career is over. Your comments about us leaving these problems as your province confirms this.
Conventional biology drew the boundary as clearly overlapping into the ultimate issues and origins territory. This was the upshot of the intelligent design debate. ID was just as woolly and probably somewhat less than the subject to article. It is pretty much no different, except for the paranoid and frantic attempts to push the boundary into theological territory and defend that line to the death, even in the land of woolly headed musings of adolescents and teenage students.
Is that what you really want? Altenberg suggests not.
Admittedly, the details of the processes are better understood by qualified biologists. But, as you tacitly admit and as the Altenberg group seems to advocate, more detail is not a better big picture.
__________________
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. (as it is written, "I have made you a father of many nations") To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. in the presence of Him whom he believed--God, who gives life to the dead and calls those things which do not exist as though they did;
Last edited by busterdog; 8th March 2008 at 05:42 PM.
It points out a boundary between science and theology that doesn't work well. Scientists presume to tell us they don't address theological issues and then trash creationism on scientific grounds. Well, in this particular case, we have science complaining that its own methods are not apt to describe processes better addressed in theology.
Perhaps we read different articles, because I see nothing in this article that suggests theology would be a better discipline than science for addressing any of the issues that it (badly) discusses.
You may wish to keep theology out of experimental methodology for the most part. Fine. You don't need demonology issue with controls in your experimentation.
But, here you have a boundary where science has to make a decision about how far it can go while excluded such matters. Now science admits that its paradigm is limited and they try to address it with woolly thinking.
What boundary? What does, say, epigenetics have to do with theology?
How about this: either back off of the theology or give the theologians a place at the table, be they YEC or otherwise. Science has presumed to extend its sanitized experimental model to thinking about ultimate matters. Thus, you have the conflict this article represents.
I don't do theology. I let anyone have a place at the table who proposes explanations that are testable by objective evidence. If YECs can start doing that, they're welcome. Until they do, they're not welcome. And I still have no idea what ultimate matters you think are in question here.
One of the funny things about your comment is that we should stay out of the business of qualified biologists. Well, this article says or at least implies that a great deal of these issues were not your business in the first place. The philosophers are now as qualified on ultimate issues.
How does it do that? The article cites two functions of philosophers: 1) challenge scientists on the adequacy of their current models, and 2) effectively attack creationists. Presumably you're not crazy about (2), but for (1), what suggests to you that the challenge would concern ultimate matters? In any case, the article would have been more persuasive on this point if it had offered a instance of philosophers being useful to science, rather than simply quoting a philosopher's assertion.
It has always appeared that cosmology and evolutionary biology were clubby citadels where admission to the truth business was as much about fashion and power as, well, truth, and sometimes more the former. Wild speculation is acceptable, if it is orthodox. Otherwise, your career is over. Your comments about us leaving these problems as your province confirms this.
I find your conclusion pretty funny, given my personal experience. I have zero base in fashionable or powerful evolutionary biology clubs; my PhD is in experimental physics, I got started studying evolution by getting a job as a software engineer and helping out another computer guy, I work at a lab devoted to biomedical research rather than to evolution, and I simply stumbled into studying natural selection. The big shots in evolution aren't all that fond of us: we're known to the Chicago pop gen/evo folks as "The Death Star".
What I find is that while your philosophers are off arguing that natural selection is dead, those of us actually dissecting real genetics find that selection, along with genetic drift, mutation and all of the other components of standard evolutionary theory, provide the tools we need to do the job. Have theorists over-theorized or concocted simplistic, speculative stories? Probably so, although I don't read enough theory to have much opinion on the subject. I don't see why I should care much about that, especially since no one is offering anything that will provide better tools.
Conventional biology drew the boundary as clearly overlapping into the ultimate issues and origins territory. This was the upshot of the intelligent design debate. ID was just as woolly and probably somewhat less than the subject to article. It is pretty much no different, except for the paranoid and frantic attempts to push the boundary into theological territory and defend that line to the death, even in the land of woolly headed musings of adolescents and teenage students.
Is that what you really want?
Since I don't understand the preceding paragraph, I can't answer your question.
Now you are being evil. Indulging in the worst kind of badness.
I am trying to find a handle on this notion that we are getting into. Now, it started as a brutish and sadistic impulse to inflame my evolutionist friends. I had been so good of late. (Hopefully they realize I am messing with them in good fun.)
That's what I like about you. bd.
But, how exactly do you "retreat" from, or, excuse me, revise the notion of "natural selection." Being random is like being pregnant. You are either pregnant or not.
Well, as I read the background material, it does not seem to be randomness that is the problem, but unexplained non-randomness. Stuff that is clearly not random, but for which either natural selection is not an appropriate explanation, or for which our understanding of natural selection is inadequate.
As someone noted, the self-organization of a snowflake is not random, but it's not natural selection either. It is not even evolution.
Then there is the whole question of what is it that is selected: gene, trait, organism, species, all of them? And what is doing the selecting? The environment, the phylogenic history, both? neither? something else entirely?
Rather, the reaction was that ID was anathema to any reasonable form of scholarship or educational setting. In short, "we can't discuss it" was the answer. Does that suggest a bias? Sure it does.
I think it has been quite clear that the question of design in nature and its possible intelligent origin is definitely an idea worth discussing in the proper venue: as a question of philosophy. The answer was never "We can't discuss it." It was "We can't discuss it as part of a high-school science curriculum." Why? Because it is not science.
Remember, even the philosophy of science is not science. That is why it is dealt with in philosophy classes, not in science classes.
What this notion of nonrandom selection process should do is put a good deal of mystery back on the table for discussion.
Actually, I think that, as far as anti-evolutionary creationism is concerned the papers coming out of the conference will be a rich source of mined quotes, mindlessly repeated out of context to misrepresent a fascinating discussion about how evolution happens as a controversy about whether evolution happens.
But, I get to have my say that where there is doubt, God just might be the best answer there is. Just might, is what I say with my little poindexter mortar board on.
Question remains: what is the nature of the answer if God is the answer? How does "God" differ scientifically from "we don't know?"
When I worship, I know better.
Amen.
We have no idea how God moderates the flight or fall of sparrows, so some notion of randomness has a place in our discourse, ie, it says something about our cluelessness.
And outside of quantum mechanics, it may be that "cluelessness" is all that randomness is. That and a level of complexity which we do not have the resources to disentangle sufficiently to make reliable predictions.
But, Darwin depends upon randomness for the integrity of his theory.
How so? Darwin's principal focus is on natural selection, which is not random. He doesn't touch on why individuals in a species vary. Variation might or might not be a random process as far as his theory goes. It does not really matter. What matters is that given variation and given an ecological fit, natural selection happens and species change.
Perhaps, as many are wont to do, you attribute to Darwin factors not added to his theory until after his death.
Mutations are the random element in evolution. (And possibly only so in our cluelessness.) Maybe other factors are too. But then maybe there are also other factors in addition to natural selection that are not random, as well.
The notion that there is a cogent boundary between a random process and an intelligent process is a major, major assumption. It assumes one can be half pregnant.
I am not sure I follow this. Are you assuming that an intelligently designed process cannot include random elements?
The notion that Darwinism is likely survive at all is largely based on a irrational fondness and bias.
I think Darwinism will survive in any future model of evolution in much the same way as Newton's principles survive in a relativistic and quantum model of the universe. It won't be the whole picture of evolution, but it will still be useful and applicable within its terms of reference.
One issue we are left with is time. Young v. old earth is not an issue resolved here.
Well, it has long been resolved in science.
But, the very idea that a nonrandom process can be traced out and understood, what does that mean?
My best guess is that it means one can make useful predictions about the outcome of the process.
That would be a pragmatic answer.
Perhaps you are looking for a more epistemological answer.
I am interested to know what the notion of understanding of such things is supposed to imply? A continuing march away from creationism? Or more doubt about whether God is still the best explanation as the more exquisite and detailed aspects of nonrandom processes become increasing abstruse?
Certainly, a continuing march away from anti-evolutionary creationism.
"God as an explanation" is the phrase that intrigues me. How is God a scientific explanation of anything at all---even for a creationist?
And I ask that as a believer who is completely convinced of the reality of the Creator and that the world we inhabit is a creation.
I do not see how that belief leads to a scientific explanation of anything. Or as I asked earlier, scientifically, what is the difference between "God" and "we don't know"?
What really struck me about the story was hearing him to this conclusion, and just hanging there with the question, "And there is a God, so then ...... what?" The guy has this epiphany about God and it has all the relevance of realizing that there two new kinds of marshmallows in your Lucky Charms cereal.
Exactly. One needs a great deal more than the logical necessity of God for God to be an answer to anything.
So God exists? So then? Does it mean I need to change my brand of socks? Or join a monastery? Why? What is the connection between the existence of God and any prescription for how to live humanly in the world?
A necessary God does not immediately imply the ethical God revealed in the Bible with claims on your life.
Same thing here. If you open the door to inherent nonrandom processes, what the bloody Jehosaphat is on the other side of that door?
I have no idea, but I am bursting with curiosity.
Do you even dare to start excluding possibilities to simply fit your experience? How does that make any sense?
The only thing that makes sense is what fits our experience. That is the point, to discover how to make sense of our experience.
The remarkable part about this piece is the lack of content. Why exactly do pigs not have wings? Is there content in that explanation.
Of course, there is content. You really don't know why pigs have no wings? What in the explanation needs unpacking for you?
It is rock solid content for the proposition that a sparrow falls from the sky randomly and not because of any kind of god.
Oh, sure. Randomness=atheism.
Why? What is so unfathomable about God creating a world in which stochastic processes operate?
[From the same article.] Does that really mean anything? It means randomness is in question I suppose.
Not really. Just that there may be more than one non-random process (natural selection) that factors into natural phenomena, including evolution.
It means there are unknown but nonradom powers and forces in nature. What does that mean?
Let's see what the reports say when they are published next year.
What say you Gluadys? I now have understanding. I shall turn your beans into peas!!
I'd turn you into a dog for a while, if you weren't one already.
__________________ The high, the low, all of creation God gives to humankind to use. If this privilege is misused, God's Justice permits creation to punish humanity~~ Hildegard of Bingen cited in, Earth Prayers from around the World
A couple more comments about the utility of natural selection as an explanatory principle. I'm not a deep thinker about evolution, but I see two major problems with using natural selection as the explanation for changes to life, especially large-scale changes.
The first is our lack of evidence for what happened at most points in the past and why. We know enough that natural selection (acting on variation introduced by mutation) can change species morphologically and physiologically very quickly (on geological time scales), so it provides a plausible mechanism for past changes. Since it seems to be a sufficient mechanism, and there are no other obvious scientific alternatives on offer, we choose it as the most likely explanation. But we have information about what actually happened in most cases -- what was selected for, or exactly why, and little or no direct evidence to study. In many cases we probably never will.
Thus we will probably never know the particular causal chain for most historical evolutionary changes, and so it is quite fair to call natural selection a pretty paltry explanation. I have no disagreement with that position. What I am skeptical about is the notion that there is some other principle that will provide better explanations for those same historical events. If someone offers one that works, great, but until then I won't be holding my breath.
The second drawback to natural selection is how limited it is as an explanation. If you want to know why sharks and killer whales have similar shapes, you'll be better off studying hydrodynamics than population genetics; if you want to know how altruism developed in social insects, you'll be better off studying game theory; and if you want to know why predators and prey develop distinctive characteristics, you'll be better off studying ecology and biophysics. Natural selection doesn't explain any of those things. What it does explain is how, given the constraints and opportunities afforded to a species (by their environment, by their history, by physics and chemistry), those possibilities are realized by changes to that species, and how they come to be reflected in its genes. It doesn't purport to explain everything, but what it does explain it explains well.
One of the reasons I didn't like the cited article was that it lumped these two kinds of criticisms (and their critics) together, when I see them as quite distinct. The first problem, that of ignorance, I see as real but probably not solvable by any other approach either. The second problem I see as a misunderstanding of how natural selection operates as a scientific explanation. Critics who say that much more than natural selection and population genetics are needed to understand the development of life, but I don't see that as novel or at all surprising. Nor do I see such deeper understanding as in any way undercutting the role of selection.
If I'm missing something else in these critics, perhaps someone could point out what it is.
Well, as I read the background material, it does not seem to be randomness that is the problem, but unexplained non-randomness. Stuff that is clearly not random, but for which either natural selection is not an appropriate explanation, or for which our understanding of natural selection is inadequate.
As someone noted, the self-organization of a snowflake is not random, but it's not natural selection either. It is not even evolution.
Begging the question of why life might be analogous to snow flakes.
I think it has been quite clear that the question of design in nature and its possible intelligent origin is definitely an idea worth discussing in the proper venue: as a question of philosophy. The answer was never "We can't discuss it." It was "We can't discuss it as part of a high-school science curriculum." Why? Because it is not science.
I understand that it was in biology books. But, the issue was not which class it could be taught in, but whether it had any validity at all or any place whatsoever in classrooms. Also, as the article implies, much so-called biology is philosophy and not science.
Actually, I think that, as far as anti-evolutionary creationism is concerned the papers coming out of the conference will be a rich source of mined quotes, mindlessly repeated out of context to misrepresent a fascinating discussion about how evolution happens as a controversy about whether evolution happens.
Could be. But not for everyone. I was careful to limit the context and usage. Part of the problem is that the conventional biologists seem to think that criticism of the ragged ends of their science-cum-philosophy is fit only for biologists. But, not so.
Question remains: what is the nature of the answer if God is the answer? How does "God" differ scientifically from "we don't know?"
In many ways, not. There are certainly some known processes that give glory to God. Randomness might be one that doesn't since there may not be any true randomness. I am trying to think of an area where we have ever gotten completely to the bottom of the subject and seen the true origin of anything. At one time random/natural selection seemed to offer a conceptual bottom line. That has been shattered.
And outside of quantum mechanics, it may be that "cluelessness" is all that randomness is. That and a level of complexity which we do not have the resources to disentangle sufficiently to make reliable predictions.
How so? Darwin's principal focus is on natural selection, which is not random. He doesn't touch on why individuals in a species vary. Variation might or might not be a random process as far as his theory goes. It does not really matter. What matters is that given variation and given an ecological fit, natural selection happens and species change.
It would seem that natural selection is a predictable and orderly process that does not require random mutation per se. It can operate on any change in the genetic code. But, the eons of evolution do posit the random change that is sifted by natural selection.
Perhaps, as many are wont to do, you attribute to Darwin factors not added to his theory until after his death.
I look at Darwinism as a movement, not a man.
I am not sure I follow this. Are you assuming that an intelligently designed process cannot include random elements?
Some teach that there really isn't any random activity. Some argue it has never been found in nature. If we assume that some randomness exists, we still don't know if what proportion or where one would stop and the other would take over. If you assume that you have found a nonrandom process in nature, would it be rational to assume that it can be understood. Do you just say that, well six sided snowflakes and that's the end of that. Or, do you wonder whether the cause is beneficent, malevolent, or capable of organizing the molecules in your body based upon love, hate, judgment, pity, etc.? The subject article is vague enough to suggest the boundaries are never going to be clear enough to exclude such things.
I think Darwinism will survive in any future model of evolution in much the same way as Newton's principles survive in a relativistic and quantum model of the universe. It won't be the whole picture of evolution, but it will still be useful and applicable within its terms of reference.
Micoevolution is a fact.
Perhaps you are looking for a more epistemological answer.
Relentlessly.
"God as an explanation" is the phrase that intrigues me. How is God a scientific explanation of anything at all---even for a creationist?
It actually contains more data than randomness, which arguably doesn't exist. Love is an expression of intention, a tendency, a series of data points -- at least when compared to randomness. The latter was in good standing with science for many years. Relatively speaking, religion is an improvement. But, yes, I know, it will never make the cover of Nature.
I do not see how that belief leads to a scientific explanation of anything. Or as I asked earlier, scientifically, what is the difference between "God" and "we don't know"?
Love and Mercy, or precious little that can get published.
Exactly. One needs a great deal more than the logical necessity of God for God to be an answer to anything.
So God exists? So then? Does it mean I need to change my brand of socks? Or join a monastery? Why? What is the connection between the existence of God and any prescription for how to live humanly in the world?
Nothing that is merely human is safe, except by grace. So, yes, even your socks are on the table. I haven't yet found a good boundary to exclude Him, but I have plenty of bad ones.
A necessary God does not immediately imply the ethical God revealed in the Bible with claims on your life.
Indeed not. That should imply shock and worry. We may be under the law, which could be a big problem.
The only thing that makes sense is what fits our experience. That is the point, to discover how to make sense of our experience.
In my experience, my experience is pretty limited. We all believe in the miraculous, but assume we have a handle on the fact that it seems (or ought to be) rare. Our experience is not all that great a predictor of anything. You have lots of experience with weather. Try predicting it.
Of course, there is content. You really don't know why pigs have no wings? What in the explanation needs unpacking for you?
Rats have wings (bats). Lizards had them (pteradons). Even fish do. Why not pigs? Apparently it just didn't work out. I am not sure there is a clear answer for why not.
Oh, sure. Randomness=atheism.
What would science be if it was concerned with how and why God would allow sparrows to fall from the sky? The assumption seems to be that this is a nonissue. Not exactly atheism. It could be deism.
Why? What is so unfathomable about God creating a world in which stochastic processes operate?
Well, a bunch of guys are going to this conference to suggest that there may not be any such thing. Add to this that scripture suggests they don't. I kind of like those odds, but that is a personal decision. Lets see you prove that randomness exists. Which of us is going to have the burden of proof?
Not really. Just that there may be more than one non-random process (natural selection) that factors into natural phenomena, including evolution.
Could be, but the article suggests its getting awfully murky.
Let's see what the reports say when they are published next year.
SFS says its already old hat. But, since the bunsen burners keep burning reliably that we should all just not worry about it and wait for further instructions from the biological/evolutionary mothership.
I'd turn you into a dog for a while, if you weren't one already.
Oh thank you master!
__________________
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. (as it is written, "I have made you a father of many nations") To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. in the presence of Him whom he believed--God, who gives life to the dead and calls those things which do not exist as though they did;
Last edited by busterdog; 9th March 2008 at 12:24 AM.
SFS says its already old hat. But, since the bunsen burners keep burning reliably that we should all just not worry about it and wait for further instructions from the biological/evolutionary mothership.
Mostly I say that criticism of Darwinism, like criticism of anything else, should be coherent and well-informed about the subject being criticized.
Begging the question of why life might be analogous to snow flakes.
Not life to snowflakes: self-organization in snowflakes to self-organization in a biological environment.
I understand that it was in biology books.
AFAIK the only book it was published in was Of Pandas and People, ostensibly a biology book for high-school science classes. I understand some public schools made it available as an optional extra, but I think only home-schools or private Christian schools used it as a text.
In many ways, not. There are certainly some known processes that give glory to God. Randomness might be one that doesn't since there may not be any true randomness.
And if there is true randomness in God's creation, is there any reason it would not redound to God's glory?
I just think the whole argument that something about random events stands in opposition to God is groundless. Who are we to say God may not choose to have some things happen at random?
It would seem that natural selection is a predictable and orderly process that does not require random mutation per se. It can operate on any change in the genetic code. But, the eons of evolution do posit the random change that is sifted by natural selection.
It is not so much that anything is posited. Rather mutations are observed to occur randomly.
It is wise to note that even in this context, there are various different ways of being random.
1. The initiating cause is unpredictable. We do not know when a mutation will occur during reproduction, when it will be induced by radiation or by any other mutagenic agent.
2. The type of mutation is unpredictable. We do not know in any given circumstance whether a mutagenic agent or a miscopying of DNA will create a single-nucleotide change, an indel, or a chromosomal rearrangement.
3. The location of the mutation is unpredictable. At what locus on what chromosome will it occur?
4. The timing of the mutation is random, especially in view of actual or potential need.
5. The effect is unpredictable in light of how little we know of how genes express themselves and the many factors that influence how they are expressed.
None of this needs to be posited apart from observation.
I look at Darwinism as a movement, not a man.
However, you had said "Darwin" not "Darwinism". Neither of course is identical to "evolution".
If you assume that you have found a nonrandom process in nature, would it be rational to assume that it can be understood.
I would think so. Something non-random indicates some sort of regular process which can be studied and used as a basis for predicting outcomes.
Do you just say that, well six sided snowflakes and that's the end of that.
Apparently not. Otherwise, how did they discover its principles of self-organization?
Or, do you wonder whether the cause is beneficent, malevolent, or capable of organizing the molecules in your body based upon love, hate, judgment, pity, etc.? The subject article is vague enough to suggest the boundaries are never going to be clear enough to exclude such things.
I expect molecules are organized on the basis of chemistry. Of course, some say that love is also chemistry.
Micoevolution is a fact.
If you truly understood microevolution, you would understand that macroevolution is also a fact and cannot be otherwise, given microevolution.
Relentlessly.
And, that is why you find scientific answers unsatisfactory. You are looking for a different kind of answer.
It actually contains more data than randomness, which arguably doesn't exist. Love is an expression of intention, a tendency, a series of data points -- at least when compared to randomness. The latter was in good standing with science for many years. Relatively speaking, religion is an improvement. But, yes, I know, it will never make the cover of Nature.
Love and Mercy, or precious little that can get published.
So is love chemistry?
I am not sure whether you want that question answered in the affirmative or negative. Which do you assume would be more desirable? To be able to account for love on a molecular basis? Or for love to continue to transcend the capacities of science? You seem to want both at the same time.
Nothing that is merely human is safe, except by grace. So, yes, even your socks are on the table. I haven't yet found a good boundary to exclude Him, but I have plenty of bad ones.
Well, now you are making a TE argument. Nothing, absolutely nothing, in science excludes God. Once that principle is grasped, we can focus on good science without any fear that we will lose God in our study of the created order.
If we discover deep time, that does not exclude God. If we discover randomness, that does not exclude God. If we discover self-organization, that does not exclude God. If we discover mutations, natural selection, evo-devo, transitional fossils, that does not exclude God. If we discover our common ancestry with the rest of biological life on this planet, that does not exclude God. You have not found a good boundary to exclude God because there is none. No boundary at all.
In my experience, my experience is pretty limited.
Nevertheless, it is what we have, and what we seek to explain. We have no questions about what we do not experience.
Why do we ask about pain? Is it not because we experience pain? Without the experience, would the question arise?
Rats have wings (bats). Lizards had them (pteradons). Even fish do. Why not pigs? Apparently it just didn't work out. I am not sure there is a clear answer for why not.
No, rats and lizards do not have wings; they have relatives who have wings because they followed a different evolutionary trajectory. Fish don't actually have wings. As far as I know, "flying fish" glide on specially shaped fins and do not have the wings that provide powered flight. (I could be wrong on that.)
Pigs don't have wings and can't have wings because long before there were pigs, their ancestors took an evolutionary turn that made wings in their descendants hugely improbable. The extent and direction of changes that would have to be undone before moving toward wings is formidable.
What would science be if it was concerned with how and why God would allow sparrows to fall from the sky?
Pretty much the same as it is now, I think. We are back on the same ground. Scientifically is there a difference between "why do sparrows fall from the sky?" and "why does God allow sparrows to fall from the sky?"
Science studies the phenomena of falling sparrows. It may or may not come to some conclusions about concurring, possibly causative, natural forces. Are you asking it to do more?
The assumption seems to be that this is a nonissue.
Not a non-issue. Philosophically, it is a huge issue: the whole question of the knowledge of God and the suffering of God's creatures.
But why do you want to put that issue on the table of science? What, in the phenomenological purview of science, could possibly deal with it?
Well, a bunch of guys are going to this conference to suggest that there may not be any such thing. Add to this that scripture suggests they don't.
You must have been reading different articles than I was. How did you draw that conclusion? And how does scripture suggest they don't?
Lets see you prove that randomness exists. Which of us is going to have the burden of proof?
Better talk to the physicists on that. They are the ones who say quantum events are genuinely random.
We both know that randomness as inability to predict exists. That needs no arguing.
SFS says its already old hat.
Quite likely in scientific circles, it is. But there are lots of us amateurs who are not there yet. If this conference does prove seminal in moving toward an extended evolutionary theory, it will take time to impact public consciousness. If it doesn't all it will generate is some scientific shop talk.
__________________ The high, the low, all of creation God gives to humankind to use. If this privilege is misused, God's Justice permits creation to punish humanity~~ Hildegard of Bingen cited in, Earth Prayers from around the World
Not life to snowflakes: self-organization in snowflakes to self-organization in a biological environment.
And if there is true randomness in God's creation, is there any reason it would not redound to God's glory?
Philosophically, one can imagine that it would, since it would be delimited by glorious purpose. You could argue for or against, and you could use scripture, but most of this is a flight of imagination anyway.
The problem seems to be for people that they often assume that boundary to suggest a great deal of modesty in God's plan. So, rhetorically, I am inveighing against an assumed bias in favor of too much randomness.
However, theologicall, do we dare draw this line? Altenburg suggests we are bad at drawing that line. Much of the jury is still out, but I thing this is a reasonable extrapolation.
I just think the whole argument that something about random events stands in opposition to God is groundless. Who are we to say God may not choose to have some things happen at random?
However, just think about what you are saying. If a random process is delimited by purpose, can it still be random? Again, there is at least a major problem of defining a real boundary. I suspect that those scientists who just plain reject randomness are right.
It is wise to note that even in this context, there are various different ways of being random.
True, but as suggested above, are we talking about ways that people express what they don't understand, or are we talking about real randomness? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Random
However, you had said "Darwin" not "Darwinism". Neither of course is identical to "evolution".
OK
I would think so. Something non-random indicates some sort of regular process which can be studied and used as a basis for predicting outcomes.
The other thing a non-random process does is that it starts you down what is at least an virtually interminable path. For example, what was before the Big Bang? We can argue about what the future might hold, but it seems the variables are getting bigger, not smaller.
Apparently not. Otherwise, how did they discover its principles of self-organization?
Finally you scientists are getting a grip on Romans 1:19
I expect molecules are organized on the basis of chemistry. Of course, some say that love is also chemistry.
Now your self-organizing concept starts again down that interminable road. Why do we have the physical laws we have, which could possibly have been different if Big Bang had happened a bit differently? Why does frozen water float and what about snowflakes. We never get to that "self" in "self-organizing". All we ever get is a part of the "organizing." Do you see why this phrase betrays such enormous philosophical weakness (a problem special to all human, not just scientists)?
If you truly understood microevolution, you would understand that macroevolution is also a fact and cannot be otherwise, given microevolution.
Then I guess I don't by that estimation.
And, that is why you find scientific answers unsatisfactory. You are looking for a different kind of answer.
Science is theoretically trying to account for cause and effect. As noted two subposts above, the notion of "self-organizing" betrays that the results are spotty.
Once the scientist gets out of the origins business and does not presume to have a conclusion on such matters, all of his Altenburg problems disappear. That should reduce his workload by about one seventh, giving him time to get to Church for some real answers.
So is love chemistry?
{singing} Some say love it is a ..... (Get the hook out)
I am not sure whether you want that question answered in the affirmative or negative. Which do you assume would be more desirable? To be able to account for love on a molecular basis? Or for love to continue to transcend the capacities of science? You seem to want both at the same time.
I think scientists should draw a better boundary that keeps them out of the philosophy business unless they are willing to be explicit and let the rest of us join in. Origins is a philosophy problem.
As an evolutionist, would you think they would be better off by saying, "We seem to be lead to an idea of "self-organizing" by issues in the data, but we know that nothing can create itself, so the principle at work must be God. Lets pray that He shows us how He did it." A bit sentimental and non-scientific, but it does acknowledge the philosophical limit of science at least.
Well, now you are making a TE argument. Nothing, absolutely nothing, in science excludes God. Once that principle is grasped, we can focus on good science without any fear that we will lose God in our study of the created order.
If we discover deep time, that does not exclude God. If we discover randomness, that does not exclude God. If we discover self-organization, that does not exclude God. If we discover mutations, natural selection, evo-devo, transitional fossils, that does not exclude God. If we discover our common ancestry with the rest of biological life on this planet, that does not exclude God. You have not found a good boundary to exclude God because there is none. No boundary at all.
Amen.
I have been called a TE! I guess I should be proud.
Nevertheless, it is what we have, and what we seek to explain. We have no questions about what we do not experience.
Why do we ask about pain? Is it not because we experience pain? Without the experience, would the question arise?
Experience is not such a great guide to origins. Thus, my crack above about Romans 1:19 above. Experience does suggest that this are "uncanny" as Altenburg suggests.
However, experience does a poor job of explaining where this boundary between the non-random and random lies.
Experience says that we should not expect God to heal us. That luck, positive thinking and sensible treatment is the appropriate boundary. The Word says otherwise. God is Jehova-Raffa, the God who heals you.
Again, can there be anything that is randomness or luck if randomness is in anyway delimited by the purposes of God?
Pretty much the same as it is now, I think. We are back on the same ground. Scientifically is there a difference between "why do sparrows fall from the sky?" and "why does God allow sparrows to fall from the sky?"
That is probably true. But, is there a presumptive boundary? The context for that statement suggests that there was, ie, all of our fears for the future:
Luk 12:7 But even the very hairs of your head are all numbered. Fear not therefore: ye are of more value than many sparrows.
Science studies the phenomena of falling sparrows. It may or may not come to some conclusions about concurring, possibly causative, natural forces. Are you asking it to do more?
Had science not presumed to have really dealt with things like "self-organizing" I would be less preachy. But, think about exactly how that phrase measures up to really sound philosophy:
2Cr 10:5 Casting down imaginations, and every high thing that exalteth itself against the knowledge of God, and bringing into captivity every thought to the obedience of Christ;
Now, I would believe that the outcome of this work would be different, better and more scientific with the glory going to the Lord. But, that is my bias. Again, this is philosophy. But, they started it!!
__________________
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. (as it is written, "I have made you a father of many nations") To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. in the presence of Him whom he believed--God, who gives life to the dead and calls those things which do not exist as though they did;
One thing to remember about randomness is that there are different distributions. There are discrete and continuous distributions of randomness. These can be uniform, normal, laplacian, gamma, weibull, cauchy, beta, zeta, geometric, binomial, negative binomial, and others.
In common parlance among those that haven't a class in all that, we mean a uniform distribution. That is, like dice. For a single fair die, we expect that a 6 is as likely as a 1 and as a 2 and as a 3 and as a 4 and as a 5.
However, for most science, the distribution of interest is the normal distribution (often called Gaussian). Just like with the uniform distribution, we cannot predict the next value will be. However, unlike the uniform distribution, we can predict the likelihood that the value will fall with in some distance from the mean (average) value. That is, even though I can't predict the next value, I can be 68% certain that it will fall within 1 standard deviation of the mean. I can be 95% certain the value will be with 2 standard deviations of the mean. I can be 99.7% certain the value will be within 3 SDs of the mean.
In this way, we can expect and predict what is "normal" behavior.
Interestingly, the sum of a set of random variables (of the same distribution) approximates the normal distribution. Try it: write down all the possible sums of 2 dice. Roll them a hundred times and plot how often each some came up. Try it with three dice. You can do it with coins (though you'd need more to make it look good).
So to be clear ... randomness does not mean unknowable. It just means knowing within certain parameters.
Now, WRT God, I think this is irrelevant. If God is outside time then every random event is laid bare before him. It is complete. It is finished.
Now, WRT God, I think this is irrelevant. If God is outside time then every random event is laid bare before him. It is complete. It is finished.
Interesting.
My head is compiling while I try to get like your interesting post to the whatever the heck I was posting about.
Oh yeah. Evolution.
The Altenburg group is apparenlty finding evidence of another "force" or organizing principle at work. As yet, it doesn't have the elegance of the various modes of randomness you reference. Nor have we come to an agreement about what the One "outside of time" has required and set in stone during His various intrusions into this time. Just Exodus alone suggests some rather extreme modes.
Being a suspicious kind of guy, if I find one ghost in the machine, I assume its a bloody legion until I am sure otherwise. I recognize the bias. So, the "force" of the "self" (interesting how it is personal) in "self-organizing" seems to me to represent mostly suspicion of a "self", now that we have established that there is "organizing" going on. You don't have to be Maimonides to figure out a scriptural answer once we seen the work of unseen forces.
So, part of the question of randomness goes back to the notion of experience. In drawing this boundary, what is our expectation? Lots in the Altenburg report suggests business as usual. No opening of the seventh seal. No shofar. No second coming. Afterall, who has ever seen a second coming?
That would suggest that various types of pseudo randomness may be in evidence (ie, why a six sided snow flake, not five?) Once there isn't true randomness, you can either freak out about how thoroughly God has or might invade your reality or assume that the identifiable pattern is the same as really understanding what omnipotence can do or is doing to your world.
Again, there is the philosophical question about what guidance has the omnipotent given to us? A literal Word or an apparent order in creation? The same horns of the dilemma for us (corporately).
Altenburg weakens one of these two arguments. Perhaps a tiny bit. The notion that conventional biologists already have a handle on it (ie, the acknowledge the anomalies) seems to suggest the weakness is greater than reported, since the philosophical salve applied is pretty weak, if not snake oil.
Again, we never get to a why things are as they are. Rather, we seem to stay with the notion that Whatever answers the "why" in a time before any of this would more or less leave things as they appear to be now. As we experience them. Is that sensible?
Scripturally, the pattern is a pretty extreme variation in the nature of divine intervention and appearance the "self-organized" I Am (or His (or responses to us, if you prefer as an anti-dispensationalists). As a betting man, I would take the hint from Altenburg and just accept what the Almighty says about a six day creation.
As for the sums of dice rolling approximating randomness, let's not forget why we choose dice-rolling for this test. Because, if we chose sinning or even the history of Israel, we might not like the answers.
__________________
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. (as it is written, "I have made you a father of many nations") To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. in the presence of Him whom he believed--God, who gives life to the dead and calls those things which do not exist as though they did;
Last edited by busterdog; 10th March 2008 at 06:24 PM.
Indulging in the worst kind of badness. 
Linear Mode
