From: Michael Roberts (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Sat May 10 2003 - 17:50:03 EDT
Nice to find someone on the same lines as me.
Definitely up to scratch
----- Original Message -----
From: "Keith Miller" <email@example.com>
Sent: Thursday, May 01, 2003 10:20 PM
Subject: Re: "Design up to Scratch?"
> > We all agree with design, yet we differ strongly between
> > "pre-planning by a Mind" (PPM) and " inferring occasional
> > interventions" (OFCI). (Pardon the hateful acronyms here.) Currently,
> > have people who have alot of faith in the creative ability of evolution
> > the RFE of the universe, and thus argue for PPM. Others see great
> > with the FE of the universe and suggest that God "must"/ "may have"
> > (depending on the strength of their feeling towards biblical
> > evolution theory, Reverend Moon, etc.) employed OFCI in addition to/
> > of PPM (I don't see an either/ or here). How could we distinguish
> > the two in a more rigorous fashion? To me, a great way would be to
> > quantitate the probability and causative effectiveness of various laws
> > creaturely capacities, to determine whether or not OFCI is required.
> > the appropriate calculations, somewhere along the line a probablistic
> > analysis will reveal the necessity of mindful creative activiy of some
> > either PPM or OFCI.
> One of the major problems here is that we simply cannot calculate the
> probabilities involved, or to give meaning to such probabilities once
> calculated. To do so requires an exhaustive understanding of all relevant
> physical laws and their operation in biological systems. It also assumes
> that we know all the critical processes active not only in the operation
> existing biological systems but also relevant to their assembly over time.
> Also, the questions concerning how biological systems are assembled is
> historical one. Biological systems during the course of there history
> specific directions among the available possibilities open to them. We
> little understanding of the range and variety of those non-actualized
> possibilities. All this lack of current knowledge make the calculation of
> such probabilities meaningless as a method of eliminating the likelihood
> specific possible pathways in the history of life.
> Finally, from a creation theology perspective, I believe that all events
> sustained and upheld by God's providence. Many individuals have suggested
> that God may act in nature in such a way as to actualize specific courses
> events in nature without intervening in the continuity of
> This theological perspective makes it impossible to distinguish divine
> "intervention" from God's providential action by the use of probability.
> In other words, I see the efforts to calculate such probabilities as
> and distraction from the central issue of a proper creation theology.
> > This analysis, if done properly could also distinguish
> > between the effectiveness of natural laws operating alone, or the
> > of inquiring into a mask of God for event X. In either case, having
> > calculations supporting the view will only help the case. Making an
> > argument without quantitative support is simply saying "per my personal
> > judgement, this is the way phenomena X happened." This expresses
> > the argument such as "although it is next to impossible to build a
> > that has biological function, God did not help the process because I
> > evolution as capable," or vice versa. Either way without calculations
> > rigourous analysis, it all boils down to how good you feel about the
> > functionality and utility of evolutionary processes (in the absence of
> > knowledge), and people obviously have different feelings. This is my
> > motivation for "forcing" everything into Dembski's filter.
> But natural processes never "operate alone." That is one of the
> misconceptions generated by the ID argumentation because it implictly
> assumes that something like independent natural law or process exists.
> a Christian perspective, everything exists and is held in being by God. I
> don't want ID concluding that this event or process was a result of
> processes alone" because their probability calculations have showed that
> falls below their probability cut off. By doing this they immediate place
> 99% of all creaturely action into the category of autonomous processes
> independent of God. But the Bible is clear that it is the everyday stuff
> our experience that is under God's continuous and providential care. God
> brings the rain and storm, causes the sun to rise and the wind to blow.
> is God that feeds the lion cubs in their den and knit me together in my
> mother's womb. The argument of ID proponents have the effect of rendering
> all this mere impersonal nature devoid of God's presence and action.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sun May 11 2003 - 02:16:10 EDT