Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Michael Heller, this year’s Templeton Prize winner, on ID

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

Michael (Michal) Heller is a Polish cosmologist and Catholic priest and recipient of this year’s Templeton Prize.  Here he is over at FT bashing ID.

 Adherents of the so-called intelligent design ideology commit a grave theological error. They claim that scientific theories that ascribe a great role to chance and random events in the evolutionary processes should be replaced, or supplemented, by theories acknowledging the thread of intelligent design in the universe. Such views are theologically erroneous. They implicitly revive the old Manichean error postulating the existence of two forces acting against each other: God and an inert matter; in this case, chance and intelligent design. There is no opposition here. Within the all-comprising Mind of God, what we call chance and random events is well composed into the symphony of creation.

Comments
Further discussion at: ID and Catholic TheologyDLH
April 2, 2008
April
04
Apr
2
02
2008
10:01 AM
10
10
01
AM
PDT
NCSE waxes eloquent over Heller's (mis)understanding of ID in Newest Templeton Prize winner rejects "intelligent design"DLH
March 21, 2008
March
03
Mar
21
21
2008
10:59 AM
10
10
59
AM
PDT
rockyr: In reaction to what you wrote in #47(the new order): Yes, I think Heller is very deficient in his understanding of ID. Apparently he'll be coming out with a book co-authored by Fr. Coyne, who is very anti-ID. As to ID, no, it does not distinguish in any way between good and bad principles. I think Heller is simply trying to say that if God chooses to work using probabilistic entities to bring about life, we shouldn't be upset by that. But that is a theological, and not a scientific, argument. So if in Heller's mind ID is no more than cooked-over YEC, then you can understand what he says. But, of course, ID is not.PaV
March 20, 2008
March
03
Mar
20
20
2008
04:28 PM
4
04
28
PM
PDT
DLH: #47 Originally, Manicheanism saw two "principles" at work; but, of course, then there's the whole idea of agency that arises when you consider how these principles play themselves out. I can't go further than this in an informed way. Maybe someone else has the right answer. As to "chaos" being low probability, I'd have to go back and look at some of what he's written again to refresh my memory. I may have stated things a bit wrongly. But I think Heller is saying that you shouldn't have these two things, laws and probabilistic phenomena (like chaos), in opposition. I guess he would say that God is the author of both, and uses both. He's deep into "theistic evolution" I suppose.PaV
March 19, 2008
March
03
Mar
19
19
2008
07:00 PM
7
07
00
PM
PDT
PaV at 46 Thanks for those comments. Question: Was Manicheanism originally two "principles" or two "intelligent agents"? Or is it Heller who has interpreted them as two "principles" based on "cosmos" vs "chaos"? A related question: Is "chaos" really that low a probability compared to "cosmos"? I thought that the consequence of natural laws were stochastic processes. i.e., the reason the probability of the Origin of Life from natural processes is so small. From that perspective, any "intelligent designer" coming up with designs that are stochastically highly improbable would appear to be categorized as "evil."DLH
March 19, 2008
March
03
Mar
19
19
2008
02:47 PM
2
02
47
PM
PDT
PaV, Thanks for the clarification. That's roughly how I also read Heller's accusation. But I need to know more about Heller's philosophy of chance, and about his understanding of the probability calculus, and what he means by his interpretation of physics and biology and the role chance plays in physical and biological processes. God is the author of nature and of physical and biological principles, and it a Catholic and a Christian dogma that everything God created is good. So no matter how or what probabilistic principles are used to accomplish His creation, they must be good! In all my reading about ID, and correct me if I am wrong, I have never read or heard such a goofy proposition – that ID somehow distinguishes between good and evil probabilistic principles and makes them key principles or some "theology" of the ID teaching! Not being familiar with Heller's works, I want to give him the benefit of the doubt, and I am assuming he is not just shooting his mouth off, although, considering the history of Manicheanism, I do sense some prejudice in his comparison. Considering the teaching of Mani, and the history of Manicheanism, Heller's bizarre comparison raises a number of issues. Mainly, what was he trying to say or imply by even using such a comparison? From the very beginning the teaching of Mani was severely persecuted — Mani died or was killed because the Zoroastrians hated his teachings; Diocleatian ordered that the sect leaders be burned together with their "abominable scriptures"; nasty sects in history, like the Gnostics, Bogumils and Cathars, which were persecuted by Byzantine emperors & patriarch and the Western emperors and popes alike, were Manichean in their nature, etc. That is why it is hard to ponder such a comparison, especially when prominent Catholics like cardinal Dulles and Schönborn actually praise Intelligent Design scientists for doing good work. Even when compared to the rational argument of St. Augustine, who was a Manichean before he converted, and who became a staunch anti-Manichean, Heller's criticism is rather harsh and "unintelligent", since Augustine at least tried to argue with the "enemy" in civilized terms. So if Heller has a beef with some key ID principles, I would prefer to hear them raised in a civilized way, not in an under-handed attack. That is why I am surprised that Heller, rather than trying to argue with us "intelligently", would stoop down to such a prejudiced and perhaps even hateful tactic.rockyr
March 19, 2008
March
03
Mar
19
19
2008
02:15 PM
2
02
15
PM
PDT
rockyr: "I will also need to find out more about Heller’s comparison of ID to Manicheanism, since such a comparison is so bizarre, as to defy reason." From what I've read of Heller (thanks to DLH), his version of Manicheanism is the distinction between "highly probabalistic" physical outcomes and "low probabilistic" physical outcomes, God being the 'author' of the first (hence the 'good' principle), and the second being the enemy of God (hence the 'bad' principle) against which he must 'work'. Since intelligent design says that biology reflects such low probability events, using God (the Designer) as the solution to this problem is then like dividing up the world into the cosmos and the chaos, the 'good' and the 'bad'. (Manicheanism taugbht that there were two principles at work: a good and a bad one. In this way it could explain 'evil'.)PaV
March 19, 2008
March
03
Mar
19
19
2008
01:04 PM
1
01
04
PM
PDT
Welcome your comments on: Final Causes by Paul Janet (Author), William Affleck (Translator) (2007) Kessinger Publishing, LLC, ISBN-10: 0548031088
“IF the principle of final causes were a first principle, and a priori, like the principle of causality, we would apply it everywhere and in all circumstances…”
The Table of Contents Includes * The Industry of Man and the Industry of Nature * The Doctrine of Evolution * The Supreme End of Nature Extract Looks pertinentDLH
March 19, 2008
March
03
Mar
19
19
2008
11:03 AM
11
11
03
AM
PDT
D.A.Newton at 42 That's helpful for using the terms towards ID. Do you know of any literature on discovering or identifying the existence of: 1) "Efficient causes" from configuration of Material causes, or 2) "Formal causes" from material configuration or efficient causes, or 3) "Final causes" from Material configuration, Efficient causes, or Formal causes? OR conversely, any examples where one was identified, without knowing the identity of one or more causes higher in the chain? e.g. identifying that an arson, theft, or murder has occurred without yet locating the murder weapon, or identifying the hit man, or fingering the mob boss. Compare accusations against ID because of not identifying the designer. e.g., in court cases etc. Any good textbook or standard references?DLH
March 19, 2008
March
03
Mar
19
19
2008
10:36 AM
10
10
36
AM
PDT
DLH @ 41 – Formal vs. Final Causes. The standard example in the literature is the building of a house. The four causes - material, efficient, formal, and final – are set out as follows: Material: The bricks, mortar, planking, concrete, screws, nails and other stuff used in the building process. Efficient: The activity of the construction boss and workmen who erect the building. Formal: The blueprints designed by the architect who specified the structure and dimensions of the dwelling and the method of erection if necessary. Final: The desire of the new owners, who commissioned the work, for a new dwelling. This should give someone a solid sense of the difference between formal and final causes. Please note that a single agent may effect more than one of them: e.g. the commissioning owner may have definite architectual requirements.D.A.Newton
March 19, 2008
March
03
Mar
19
19
2008
09:38 AM
9
09
38
AM
PDT
DLH, thanks for the references. I will try to get prof. Heller's books. It seems a lot of his works are only in Polish. He has also a new book coming in 2008 with fr. Coyne. In order to express an opinion, and not only hunches or guesses, I will need more time to read and digest what they are saying. In fact, it seems they have defined or re-defined everything from scratch, or from the Big-Bang singularity, including the mathematical definitions? : "One must go a little bit deeper into a mathematical definition of the initial singularity(a geometric counterpart of the Big Bang) and the conditions of its existence, for only then can one correctly decipher its physical content and its philosophical (or theological) significance." http://www.templetonprize.org/pdfs/93-113.pdf I will also need to find out more about Heller's comparison of ID to Manicheanism, since such a comparison is so bizarre, as to defy reason. For now, with some perhaps important reservations, I will tend to go with the opinion of Avery Cardinal Dulles, which is quite reasonable, see his article in Oct 2007: Notwithstanding these advantages, Darwinism has not entirely triumphed, even in the scientific field. An important school of scientists supports a theory known as Intelligent Design. ... At this point we get into a technical dispute among microbiologists that I will not attempt to adjudicate. In favor of Behe and his school, we may say that the possibility of sudden major changes effected by a higher intelligence should not be antecedently ruled out. But we may take it as a sound principle that God does not intervene in the created order without necessity. If the production of organs such as the bacterial flagellum can be explained by the gradual accumulation of minor random variations, the Darwinist explanation should be preferred. As a matter of policy, it is imprudent to build one’s case for faith on what science has not yet explained, because tomorrow it may be able to explain what it cannot explain today. History teaches us that the “God of the gaps” often proves to be an illusion." http://www.firstthings.com/article.php3?id_article=6038 and his reply to letters to his article: http://www.firstthings.com/article.php3?id_article=6113 Although I disagree with cardinal's acceptance of Darwinism as a sound scientific explanation. It would be interesting to know cardinal Dulles' opinion on Heller.rockyr
March 19, 2008
March
03
Mar
19
19
2008
09:20 AM
9
09
20
AM
PDT
D.A.Newton @ 40 Encourage you to expand on Formal vs Final causes. That is the controversy - accusing ID of not being compatible with Heller's perception of the Final Cause rather than addressing the appearance of design and whether that can be detected.DLH
March 19, 2008
March
03
Mar
19
19
2008
05:55 AM
5
05
55
AM
PDT
Just curious. Where did this stuff about Intelligent Design being concerned with final causes come from? If anything, ID is about formal causes. That's the reason that inquiries into "who is the designer" are irrelevant, if not forbidden. Can't Dr. Heller, Ed Oakes and the rest of the Catholic cast get this straight? Its really obvious! I'm sure St. Thomas would agree, even if these guys don't.D.A.Newton
March 18, 2008
March
03
Mar
18
18
2008
11:55 PM
11
11
55
PM
PDT
Further on: Michael Heller Templeton Bios REFLECTIONS ON KEY BOOKS AND PUBLICATIONS EXCERPTS FROM "CREATIVE TENSION" BY MICHAEL HELLER (TEMPLETON FOUNDATION PRESS, 2003) Cosmological Singularity and the Creation of the Universe Generalizations: From Quantum Mechanics to God Chaos, Probability, and the Comprehensibility of the World DLH
March 18, 2008
March
03
Mar
18
18
2008
10:21 AM
10
10
21
AM
PDT
Jeopardy answer: A six letter word that begins with the letter "p" that when the "p" is capitalized (P) it changes both the pronunciation and the meaning of the word. {DLH Is this on topic or should we delete it?}Joseph
March 18, 2008
March
03
Mar
18
18
2008
09:33 AM
9
09
33
AM
PDT
DLH 35, I'd agree that Heller's position means there's no way to truly detect intelligent causation on those levels (biological, cosmological, 'behind nature' in general.) Or at least, by operating from the view that 'all things are from God' in such an ultimate sense, there's nothing to distinguish design from. Instead the question is part of theology and philosophy, and nature is approached with the outlook acquired there. At the same time, I (and admittedly, I'm an ID neophyte) don't see why Heller's own view couldn't be formulated within the context of Intelligent Design theory. Sure, under that view, discussions of whether something is or is not IC fall by the wayside. At the same time, it provides a theistic philosophical frame to perform scientific investigation within. The question of 'did God do X?' shifts to 'How did God do X?' It defangs naturalism, which no longer is a competing view with the theistic outlook. It's absorbed by it. At the very least, I think he'd be more friendly towards the ID outlook if he knew just what it does and could entail. But hey, maybe I'm being naive.nullasalus
March 18, 2008
March
03
Mar
18
18
2008
09:28 AM
9
09
28
AM
PDT
nullasalus re 34 As you said, Heller formulates God out of time and that consequently everything is in the Mind of God. A convenient way to incorporate evolution and try to avoid controversy. Conversely, I understand Heller's position to be indistinguishable from the materialist's. It gives no way to detect evidence of intelligent causation.DLH
March 18, 2008
March
03
Mar
18
18
2008
06:56 AM
6
06
56
AM
PDT
Re 31: I think Heller's argument is that if we treat low-probability incidents as "acts of God" and high-probability incidents as "not acts of God", then MWI shows up as an atheistic force (because it's making so many events suddenly high-probability). His philosophical preference involves, it seems, sidestepping questions of probability altogether. There is no 'chance' in Heller's worldview. Everything is the work of design. If I read him right.nullasalus
March 17, 2008
March
03
Mar
17
17
2008
09:23 PM
9
09
23
PM
PDT
nullasalus 32 Read the book. His comments may also reflect his perspective on God vs time vs the casual focus of ID.DLH
March 17, 2008
March
03
Mar
17
17
2008
09:23 PM
9
09
23
PM
PDT
I think the entire issue with Heller illustrates the need for ID principles to be better communicated not just to non-professionals, but professionals as well. Either Heller has a misinformed view of Intelligent Design, or he's purposefully portraying it as something that it is not. I'd guess the former is the reality in this case, though naturally I don't know the man.nullasalus
March 17, 2008
March
03
Mar
17
17
2008
09:20 PM
9
09
20
PM
PDT
StephenB at 29 See link. In the paragraph Heller is discussing J. Leslie, Universes, Routledge, 1990. I am not clear what Heller's view is. On page 142 Heller proceeds:
Instead of immersing ourselves in risky disputes, I believe we should once more ask Einstein's question: Why is the world so comprehensible? . . .
DLH
March 17, 2008
March
03
Mar
17
17
2008
09:11 PM
9
09
11
PM
PDT
Emkay:
Berthault reports that in a flow of water laden with particles, objects and bodies of various sizes, the larger objects always get laid down first, then the smaller, and the process repeats continually.
Ok, so why are the creatures in the oldest of strata the smallest? Assuming that the strata are the product of a great flood, why would we not find lions and tigers and bears intermixed with the dinosaurs of the same size. Many dinosaurs were much smaller than the lions, tigers and bears, you know. There is only one way that there could have been a great flood, and the scientific community could be so wrong -- a mass conspiracy. Yet many of the researchers exploring the rock record are seeking money -- oil, gold, minerals. They could hardly benefit from the required mass conspiracy. I don't think that humans would abandon wealth for any conspiracy.bFast
March 17, 2008
March
03
Mar
17
17
2008
08:38 PM
8
08
38
PM
PDT
DLH: Am I reading you right at @25. Does Heller seriously entertain the notion of multiple universes as an objection to intelligent design?StephenB
March 17, 2008
March
03
Mar
17
17
2008
08:28 PM
8
08
28
PM
PDT
bFast: "Your link doesn’t discuss phila. It only discusses strata — sedimentation. Why, pray tell, are there a bunch of very small, very different organisms in the strata that are dated early cambrian. Why, prey tell, are the strata dated older than the early cambrian (the lower strata) almost devoid of multicellular animal life. Why, pray tell, are there other starata all over the place that have all manner of strange creatures in them. Why is it that if a perticular level shows a bunch of very large bugs, all of the bugs nearby are also very large. If the strata contain very small bugs, then the neighboring bugs are very small." The link does not discuss phila, It discusses the process by which phila ended up as fossils. It demystifies the "Cambrian explosion" by giving scientific, repeatable and demonstrable evidence how the fossil record abd geologic column were laid down. In the linked artcle at http://www.icr.org/articles/view/473// Berthault reports that in a flow of water laden with particles, objects and bodies of various sizes, the larger objects always get laid down first, then the smaller, and the process repeats continually. This is how in any (even small and localized) flood event, deep strata of sediments can be laid down in a a few hours. An observer seeing this a few weeks later might quite reasonably conclude that the layers of sediment were created many centuries before. Directly to answer your question, very large bugs end up close together in sedimentary strata because, as Berthault found out, the large bugs are deposited first out of the silt, then the smaller, then the large in a secondary new stratum, then the smaller, on and on as long as the flood waters are flowing/retreating. I was shocked to discover that God is a better scientist than six billion Einsteins.Emkay
March 17, 2008
March
03
Mar
17
17
2008
07:05 PM
7
07
05
PM
PDT
emkay, bfast, gerry et al. Lets get this thread back on discussing Heller. We can open another thread if you want to discuss the Cambrian explosion etc.DLH
March 17, 2008
March
03
Mar
17
17
2008
06:51 PM
6
06
51
PM
PDT
bFast says, "...the assemblage of lifeforms does not fit a flood theory in any way whatsoever." That's a pretty categorical statement. Are you quite sure? Consider the following from Dr. Morris, et al: 1. All the mountains of the world have been under water at some time or times in the past, as indicated by sedimentary rocks and marine fossils near their summits. Even most volcanic mountains with their pillow lavas seem largely to have been formed when under water. 2. Most of the earth's crust consists of sedimentary rocks (sandstones, shales, limestones, etc). These were originally formed in almost all cases under water, usually by deposition after transportation by water from various sources. 3. The assigned "ages" of the sedimentary beds (which comprise the bulk of the "geologic column") have been deduced from their assemblages of fossils. Fossils, however, normally require very rapid burial and compaction to be preserved at all. Thus every sedimentary formation appears to have been formed rapidly—even catastrophically. 4. Since there is known to be a global continuity of sedimentary formations in the geologic column (that is, there is no worldwide "unconformity," or time gap, between successive "ages"), and since each unit was formed rapidly, the entire geologic column seems to be the product of continuous rapid deposition of sediments, comprising in effect the geological record of a time when "the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished." 5. It is also significant that the types of rocks, the vast extent of specific sedimentary rock formations, the minerals and metals, coal and oil found in rocks, the various types of structures (i.e., faults, folds, thrusts, etc.), sedimentary rocks grossly deformed while still soft from recent deposition, and numerous other features seem to occur indiscriminately throughout the various "ages" supposedly represented in the column. To all outward appearances, therefore, they were all formed in essentially the same brief time period. 6. The fossil sequences in the sedimentary rocks do not constitute a legitimate exception to this rule, for there is a flagrant circular reasoning process involved in using them to identify their supposed geologic age. That is, the fossils have been dated by the rocks where they are found, which in turn had been dated by their imbedded fossils with the sequences based on their relative assumed stages of evolution, which had ultimately been based on the ancient philosophy of the "great chain of being." Instead of representing the evolution of life over many ages, the fossils really speak of the destruction of life (remember that fossils are dead things, catastrophically buried for preservation) in one age, with their actual local "sequences" having been determined by the ecological communities in which they were living at the time of burial. 7. The fact that there are traditions of the great Flood found in hundreds of tribes in all parts of the world (all similar in one way or another to that in the Genesis record) is firm evidence that those tribes all originated from the one family preserved through the cataclysm. One can understand why atheistic and pantheistic evolutionists have to interpret Earth history in terms of great ages and evolution, rather than Creation and the Flood. They really have no other choice, once they have decided to reject the God of Creation and His record in the Bible. However, it is very difficult to understand why men and women who do believe in God and His word do this. The Bible is explicitly clear on the global Deluge, and sound scientific evidence supports it. But this position does mean that the geological ages could never have happened, and too many establishment-oriented Christians are not yet willing to take such a stand. And that's rather sad in these last critical days.Gerry Rzeppa
March 17, 2008
March
03
Mar
17
17
2008
06:46 PM
6
06
46
PM
PDT
bFast: "Why, pray tell, are there other starata all over the place that have all manner of strange creatures in them. Why is it that if a perticular level shows a bunch of very large bugs, all of the bugs nearby are also very large. If the strata contain very small bugs, then the neighboring bugs are very small." Here's the answer. Consider the evidence. Here's what Berthault found out, and reported: "I started by examining how sedimentary particles are deposited in both dry and wet conditions. Sand particles of differing size produced micro-strata or laminae when poured into a flask. The micro-strata formed from the particles of sand sorting themselves out according to size, with the larger particles at the bottom grading up to the smaller ones at the top. The process repeated itself, producing multiple laminae." Large bugs are deposited in one layer with other large bugs, and the smaller ones on top of the larger one, in a secondary layer. And the process repeats as long as the flood waters are retreating/flowing. "This was fundamental because it showed that micro-strata or laminae formed from particle sorting, irrespective of the speed of sedimentation, and not by one layer forming first and then the next one forming on top of it. My results were published by the French Academy of Science, which encouraged me to continue my experiments, but on a much larger scale." These were conducted in the Colorado State University jointly with Pierre Julien, a sedimentologist. Berthault reported and through the sides of the tanks. "Different sized particles of sand were poured into water circulating in the flume. Variations in current velocity caused the particles to be sorted according to size. At 1 m/s superposed laminae formed laterally in the direction of the current. A reduction of velocity to 0.5 m/s caused larger particles to collect on the previous laminae, always migrating in the direction of the current. An increase in velocity back to 1 m/s caused laminae similar to the previous ones to form, mainly due to friction, on top of the stratum of larger particles. "The accumulation of sediment produced a deposit consisting of the downstream part of the lower laminae, part of the sloping stratum of larger particles, and the upstream part of the upper laminae. Each individual deposit formed successively downstream and was therefore younger than the one before it. Variations in current velocity, as found in rivers and oceans, could thus cause deposits to form both vertically and laterally at the same time in the direction of the current." Some facts (among several others) that Berthault highlighted that are germaine to your objection, were that where there is a current: 1. Strata can form laterally and vertically at the same time; 2. Strata can form in the same way as sequences of facies; 3. Strata are not always a measure of chronology. These highlighted experimental facts show clearly: a. Superposed strata do not always result, according to Steno's beliefs, from successive layers of sediment; consequently the principle of superposition does not always apply to strata formed in a current; b. Stratification formed parallel to a slope exceeding an angle of 30°, can invalidate the principle of original horizontally. Inclined strata are not necessarily, therefore, the result of subsidence or uplift. Correspondence between experimental results and geological formations The experiments demonstrated that current deposited strata can form in the same way as sequences of facies. This is consistent with sequence stratigraphy. The experiments show that bedding planes, considered as resulting from interruptions of sedimentation, can result from desiccation of sediments. Moreover, recent submarine observations such as Rubin,6 the flume experiments summarized by Southard,7 and river studies initiated by Hjulström8 and developed by several other scientists, have shown the relationships between contemporaneous hydraulic conditions and sedimentary structures, particularly between critical speed of sedimentation and particular size. Such relationships correspond to those measured in our experiments. These relationships can be used to determine the minimum paleohydraulic conditions (velocity of current, depth of water, discharge and speed of accumulation of sediments) from sedimentary rock structures. References 1 Walther J., 1893-1894, Einleitung in die Geologie als historische Wissenschaft: Jena Verlag von Gustav Fisher, Sud. 1055p. 2 McKee, E.D., Crosby, E.J. & Berryhill, H.L. Jr. 1967, Flood deposits, Bijou Creek, Colorado, 1965, Journal of Sedimentary Petrology, 37, 829-851. 3 Berthault G. 1986, Sedimentology—experiments on lamination of sediments, C.R. Acad. Sc. Paris, 303 II, 17, 1569-1574. 4 Berthault G. 1988, Sedimentation of heterogranular mixture—experimental lamination in still and running water, C.R. Acad. Sc. Paris, 306, II, 717-724. 5 Julien P, Lany, Berthault G., 1993, Experiments on stratification of heterogeneous sand mixtures, Bulletin of the Geological Society, France, 164-5, 649-660. 6 Rubin D.M. and McCulloch D.S. 1980, Single and superposed bedforms: a synthesis of San Francisco Bay and flume observations, Journal of Sedimentary Petrology, 26:207-231. 7 Southard J. and Boguchwal J.A. 1990, Bed configuration in steady unidirectional waterflows, part 2, Synthesis of flume data, Journal of Sedimentary Petrology 60(5) : 658-679. 8 Hjulström F. 1935, The morphological activity of rivers as illustrated by river fyris, Bulletin of the Geological Institute Uppsala, 25, chapter 3. For further study, see the video describing the Berthault and Julien investigation "Experiments in Stratification," 1999, available from ICR, 1-800-628-7640. *Guy Berthault is an independant researcher from France. Next Article GRADUATE SCHOOL Get a Masters in Science Education from ICR through our Distance Education Program. Prev Article Print this Article Email to Friend Bookmark this Page Next Article my.icr.org Donate to ICR Contact ICR Ethical Use Policy Privacy PolicyEmkay
March 17, 2008
March
03
Mar
17
17
2008
06:38 PM
6
06
38
PM
PDT
Michal Heller's recent comments may be better understood from his book: Creative Tension: Essays on Science and Religion (2003) Heller (2003) p 99 explores Boetius' definition of "eternity".
In such a perspective, the concepts of chance and necessity also "shift their meanings." . . .God knows the outcomes of laws and chance not by calculating from the initial conditions, but in the same direct way as God knows everything. What for us is a chance, for God is a detail of the picture that is simply present.
Heller (2003) p 124
Our concepts of design or teleology are heavily laden with the all-pervading idea of temporality . . . The shift of meanings of such interconnected concepts as probability, chance, and purpose has obvious consequences as far as philosophical and theological disputes on the "design argument" are concerned.
Heller (2003) p 140
Leslie - on the anthropic principles - the principle competitor of the God hypothesis is the idea of multiple worlds in which all possibilities are realized . . .The God hypothesis relies on the argument from design, which is "based on the fact that our universe looks much as if designed." However, there might be immensely many universes.
Heller (2003) p 142 explores: the ontological gap and epistemological gap, and what he calls the axiological gap. Heller p 145 addresses - Transcending Science Heller (2003) p 149-150 comments on the Origin of Life and the biological code.
The structure of the machine which does that is itself encoded into the DNA. The code cannot be decoded unless the products of the code are involved. This is the modern version of the old omne vivum ex ovo. We do not know when and how this logical loop has been closed.
DLH
March 17, 2008
March
03
Mar
17
17
2008
06:26 PM
6
06
26
PM
PDT
Emkay:
The “Cambrian explosion” accurately fits types and effects of sedimentation and multiple laminations observed in practical studies and experiments conducted by French scientist Guy Berthault.
Your link doesn't discuss phila. It only discusses strata -- sedimentation. Why, pray tell, are there a bunch of very small, very different organisms in the strata that are dated early cambrian. Why, prey tell, are the strata dated older than the early cambrian (the lower strata) almost devoid of multicellular animal life. Why, pray tell, are there other starata all over the place that have all manner of strange creatures in them. Why is it that if a perticular level shows a bunch of very large bugs, all of the bugs nearby are also very large. If the strata contain very small bugs, then the neighboring bugs are very small. If you take a bunch of sand and let it slosh around, you get strata. You surely do. That's how gold panners used to find gold. It turns out that the gold ends up in the bottom stratum. However, the assemblage of lifeforms does not fit a flood theory in any way whatsoever. Get your religious conviction out of your science, look a bit past the guys that only render your doctrine, and you will be shocked to discover that the case for an old earth is strong -- really strong!bFast
March 17, 2008
March
03
Mar
17
17
2008
06:14 PM
6
06
14
PM
PDT
bFast: "For example, during the cambrian explosion, many phila were generated, shortly after that, most of these phila dissappeared. Why? The data looks like experimentation to me." The so-called Cambrian explosion is only proof that a global flood took place about 4500 years ago, in the time of the biblical Noah. Both Darwinists and IDers will continue to be mystified by the "fossil record" as long as they continue to believe - erroneously - that it was laid down gradually over long periods of evolutionary time. The "Cambrian explosion" accurately fits types and effects of sedimentation and multiple laminations observed in practical studies and experiments conducted by French scientist Guy Berthault. See http://www.icr.org/articles/view/473// Berthault has worked with Professor Piérre Julien at the Engineering Research Center in the Civil Engineering Department at Colorado State University, Fort Collins. Their experiments have demonstrated how multiple laminations form spontaneously during sedimentation of heterogranular mixtures of sediments in air, in still water, and in running water. They make a compelling evidence-based case that the "Cambrian explosion" looks decidedly more like a sudden catastrophic worldwide species wipe-out than a gradual covering-over of dead animals over long periods of time.Emkay
March 17, 2008
March
03
Mar
17
17
2008
05:54 PM
5
05
54
PM
PDT
1 2

Leave a Reply