Ladies and Gentlemen,
Ok, yes there are other models than my Model A vs Model B. My real point is that
with many of these models that we have a hard time giving a real firm argument
from observations of the physical world to distinguish between them.
Even Dawkins speaks to the improbable outcome which lead to us humans. So,
creationist argue to a design and a Designer and "anti'chance" is one pointed to
as a supportive arguement. Now, God is not proposed as inserting himself into
controlling every event. If this were so, then we would have a problem with the
concept of free will.
Fine, now lets ask the question again, if the sequence of events from the origin
of space-time-mater laws of physics through the origin of life through the
development of animals to us was set up by God, where did he "load the dice" or
"intervene." There are plenty of concepts including my simple minded Model A vs
But, my real point is about our ability to distinguish between them. Perhaps I
am implying a principle of limitation of knowing.
Some would say for example, "Well God gave the universe everything it needed to
get to where we are today (except for devine intervention for miracles)." and
others would say, "Well, we look at the development of life for example and we
see inflection points where the improbability of the event is so high that the
known infomation make it improbable beyond 10^-55 and it could not have happened
without intervention right there. (For example the origin of the first cell.)"
It seems to me we cannot really establish which model of the interevention of
God to select even though we all have our basis including myself
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sat Aug 04 2001 - 15:08:50 EDT