RE: [asa] Critical review of Dawkins' Book by the "Liberal Media"

From: Alexanian, Moorad <alexanian@uncw.edu>
Date: Wed Dec 27 2006 - 11:14:23 EST

A cyclical universe, or anything cyclical for that matter, is in a delicate state of equilibrium, which undergoes reversible changes. However, all our experiences indicate that all that exists is in a state of irreversibility. Accordingly, a cyclical universe requires much more fine-tuning that our present universe does. Therefore, everything evolving in time is the only rational thing to have. Of course, this is not to say that Darwin's view of one family tree for all living things is correct.

 

Moorad

________________________________

From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu on behalf of Gregory Arago
Sent: Wed 12/27/2006 7:48 AM
To: Jim Armstrong; asa@calvin.edu
Subject: Re: [asa] Critical review of Dawkins' Book by the "Liberal Media"

It seems possible to agree with Moorad that "the notion of a designer is not as fundamental as that of a Creator." Following that, I'm curious if Jim thinks that 'cyclical things' could/should count as 'evolutionary'? Getting back to a thread of several months ago (see link below), I wonder what kind of "rationality will be required to make evolution go away." Perhaps in certain fields it needn't go away, while in others such a situation is long overdue?
 
Can the argument be made that 'cyclical things' are not examples of evolution, i.e. things that don't evolve?
http://www.calvin.edu/archive/asa/200604/0083.html <http://www.calvin.edu/archive/asa/200604/0083.html>

Arago

Jim Armstrong <jarmstro@qwest.net> wrote:

        This strikes me as another of those anthropocentric perspectives. Cyclical things can happen at all kinds of scales with something so grand in extent as the universe. There can be beginnings and ends of eras (to just borrow a term for convenience) that are very long in duration from our perspective, and as such indistinguishable with respect to "steady state" (which would have to be conceded to be quite dynamic) or (long-term cyclic) behavior. There is nothing to prevent oscillatory behaviors of a zillion sorts within these very long duration states of galaxies, solar systems, geo(type) systems, biosystems, etc. Local temporal "perturbations" of all sorts (including cyclicities that are come and go) are free to occur.
        
        Between human-scale Creation/End-of-the-World event bookends within a broadly steady-state universe, there's no reason that evolution would be precluded. Steady-state just does not describe the universe at all scales. So some other rationality will be required to make evolution go away.
        
        JimA
        
        Janice Matchett wrote:
        

                At 04:47 PM 12/26/2006, Alexanian, Moorad wrote:
                
                

                        "...However, the notion of a designer is not as fundamental as that of a Creator. I have always said and will continue to emphasize that there is no way a human can do away with the notion of a Creator. Note that an eternal universe would not include the notion of evolution except by considering a cyclical universe. Otherwise, the universe must have a beginning and thus be created."

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Wed Dec 27 11:15:24 2006

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Wed Dec 27 2006 - 11:15:24 EST