Re: [asa] observational vs. theoretical differences in scenarios; a direct question

From: Dave Wallace <wmdavid.wallace@gmail.com>
Date: Sun Jun 28 2009 - 18:39:39 EDT

As I usually do I always think in terms of probability.

Option 3 seems most likely >50%
Option 1 seems unlikely but not impossible, very small fraction of 1%
(Note that I don't have a theological problem with this option as you
seem to.)
Option 2 seems possible, a couple of percent
Option 4, I just don't know is also quite reasonable 10s of %

Obviously I can't really quantify the probabilities but the above
represents my best shot at it so place me in category 3.

Dave W

Cameron Wybrow wrote:
> 1. Reptiles became mammals by purely stochastic processes; there was
> no design in the appearance of any mutation, and God did not lift a
> pinky (other than to sustain the laws of nature) during the whole process.
> 2. Reptiles became mammals by a deterministic, front-loaded
> process; there was inbuilt design regarding at least the main thrust
> of the process, but beyond inserting that inbuilt design (at the
> beginning of life, or perhaps even at the beginning of the universe),
> God did not lift a pinky (other than to sustain the laws of nature)
> during the whole process.
> 3. God (or space aliens, if you prefer) steered the alterations of
> the genomes of reptiles until they became mammals, actually causing
> nature to produce *what it otherwise would never have produced*.
> (Note that this answer does not entirely exclude elements of
> stochastic and deterministic processes, but subordinates them to, or
> coordinates them with, a guiding hand, and is not in the slightest
> degree embarrassed to use the word "guidance".)
>

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Sun Jun 28 19:00:50 2009

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Sun Jun 28 2009 - 19:00:58 EDT