Bert, you wrote:
> Not looking for an air tight proof, none exists. We argue to Okams razor.
OK, we seem to agree here.
> But, in what I have seen for example in Christianity Today and here on the
> line, I don't have the slightest idea how to test you viewpoints by physical
I asked if you had read anything that I have published in regard to my
favoring the "Robust Formational Economy Principle." The only item you
mention is the CT article, an excerpt of which I posted here recently. Did
you read the entire article, or only the excerpt?
Are you willing to do some homework? If so, you should begin by looking at
1. "The Fully Gifted Creation," published as a chapter in the book, Three
Views on Creation and Evolution, edited by J. P. Moreland and John Mark
Reynolds, (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing House, 1999), pp. 161-247.
2. "Intelligent Design: The Celebration of Gifts Withheld?" published as a
chapter in the book, Darwinism Defeated? The Johnson-Lamoureux Debate on
Biological Origins, by Denis O. Lamoureux, Phillip E. Johnson, et al.
(Vancouver: Regent College Publishing, 1999), pp. 81-90.
3. "Science & Christian Theology as Partners in Theorizing," published as a
chapter in the book, Science & Christianity: Four Views, edited by Richard
Carlson, (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2000), pp. 196-236.]
4. "Basil, Augustine, and the Doctrine of Creation's Functional Integrity,"
Science and Christian Belief, Vol. 8 (1), April, 1996, pp. 21-38.
5. "The Creation: Intelligently Designed or Optimally Equipped?" published
in Theology Today, October, 1998, pp. 344-64.
6. "Is the Creationıs Formational Economy Incomplete? A response to Jay
Wesley Richards," scheduled to appear in the March, 2001, issue of
Philosophia Christi. (as far as I know, not yet published)
> What do I look for with my neat new 8 meter space based telescope that
> would support your views?
Bert, you would do exactly as astronomy has done for a good part of the last
century. Example: You discover empirically that stars come in different
varieties -- main sequence, red giant, white dwarf, etc. You also see
evidence that stars are forming from globules of gas and dust embedded in
large interstellar nebulae. You model the formation and subsequent
development of stars and compute what sort of history stars might have. You
discover that the computational model predicts that stars would first fall
along the main sequence region of the H-R diagram, arranged according to
mass value, consistent with earlier observations. You then discover that the
model predicts that when medium mass stars complete their main sequence
phases they become red giant stars, then shed their outer portion to form a
planetary nebula, finally leaving behind a white dwarf star. You conclude
from evidence of this sort (and _much_ more like it) that this computational
model for stellar formation and development has the attractive feature that
it not only accounts for the diversity of stellar types but also
demonstrates that these diverse types are related to one another as members
of a temporal sequence. The systematic interrelatedness of stellar types
with the formational history of stars has an aesthetic quality that is
highly valued in scientific theory evaluation.
> You "fully gifted formation economy" is not very scientific,
Sorry, Bert, but you are as wrong as wrong can be on this. One of the most
important assumptions employed in formulating the scientifically successful
computational model for stellar evolution noted in the example above is none
other than what I call the "robust formational economy principle."
To state it even more strongly, the assumption that this principle applies
to the formational history of things from atoms to star-filled galaxies has
demonstrated itself to be one of the most fruitful assumptions made in
cosmology, astronomy, geology, and numerous other physical sciences. The
vast majority of persons in the life sciences would, I believe, say the same
for the formational history of life on earth.
The scientific success of the robust formational economy principle is on
public display. I don't know how you missed seeing it, Bert.
Howard Van Till
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Aug 10 2001 - 10:06:56 EDT