"Howard J. Van Till" wrote:
> Bert Massie writes:
> > Look, let me take the position that information came into the universe
> > from God. Now, the information was not in the form of a text book. It
> > was in the form of an entity such as a cell with DNA.
> > But, this is more than just information it has to be a cell that is
> > alive etc and it is a physical entity.
> OK, it appears that you have taken a position that places your picture of
> God's creative action in a category that includes supernatural intervention
> -- God's action breaks the continuity of the creaturely system of cause and
> effect. The cell you propose appears solely as a consequence of a divine act
> in which God either (1) coerces atoms into a new arrangement that they were
> unable to actualize by the use of their own formational capabilities, or (2)
> brings the first cell into being ex nihilo.
I only believe ex nihilo once.
> > Now, many years later, actually
> > maybee 3.8B years, we are sitting here trying to determine how this
> > information became more complex, and how the organisms became more
> > complex and ecologically placed. That is, each organism must have an
> > ecology of eat and be eaten.
> > Looking backwards, let posit two Models, labeled A and B.
> > Model A
> > The initial conditions were set just right so that the laws of nature
> > plus these initial conditions would lead to us.
> > OR
> > Model B
> > The initial conditions were set appropriately but along the way God
> > introduced additional organims and information which lead to us.
> > Now Howard, the question is, how can be tell the difference between
> > Model A and Model B?
> Three comments:
> 1. I'm not sure what you mean by "initial conditions." Perhaps you could
> give an example or two so that I know what kinds of parameters God "set."
The location of every particle, wavefunction spatial temporal variables, etc.,
energy field, etc., so that when the universe expanded, out came a certain set
of items which inlcude amoung others the earth, etc.
Incidently, my person bias is that this is not what happened.
> 2. Since your concept of God's creative action already includes supernatural
> intervention, as noted above, there would be no theological basis for
> preferring A over B. Furthermore, if "setting initial conditions" involves
> additional acts of supernatural intervention (a form of _coercive_ divine
> action, in Griffin's vocabulary), then A and B are theologically equivalent.
> Both would include irruptive intervention.
> 3. Given the uncertainty regarding what you mean by "initial conditions" and
> given no further information about the sort of "additional organisms and
> information" that you envision God introducing "along the way," we have no
> basis for knowing how to "tell the difference between model A and Model B."
> Empirical evidence favoring my proposal that the Creation has a robust
> formational economy might favor Model A, but your proposal for the
> supernatural insertion of a first cell makes a robust formational economy
> What's the point you're driving toward?
> Howard Van Till
The point is that can we tell the difference from our physical observations.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sat Aug 04 2001 - 15:12:59 EDT