Lawrence Johnston wrote:
> Peter - Thanks x 10^6 for that beautiful analysis of our situation in sequence space. It
> looks to me like this leaves us with two options:
> 1, we adopt Van Til's hypothesis of ultra-smart atoms or 2. Assume that Someone has been
> injecting huge amounts of information into the Universe, from outside. Other options?
Coincidentally, I just received the following press release. (Snail mail is really
slow.) While the argument is a bit dated, I think it's germane to the present topic.
FROM: The Discovered Institute
DATE: 1 April 1899
RE: Proof of supernatural action
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Scientists from The Discovered Institute announced today that the existence of atoms
proves the existence of a God who continually acts in the world by supernatural means.
For nearly a century, chemists and physicists have been gathering a great deal of
evidence that all matter is composed of minute atoms. We now also know that these atoms have
electrical properties, and recent research by Prof. J.J. Thomson and others has shown that
they contain minute electrically charged particles called "electrons." Virtually no
scientists today dispute these results. But it can be shown that the very existence of atoms
contradicts the well-established laws of physics!
A result known as "Earnshaw's theorem" shows that the electrons in an atoms cannot be
in stable equilibrium under the action of the only two forces in nature, electromagnetism and
gravitation. But if the electrons are in motion in the confined space of an atom, their
velocities would have to be changing. And if this were the case, the laws of mechanics and
electromagnetism say that they would have to radiate away all their energy in a fraction of a
second. All atoms would collapse in a blink of an eye!
But atoms exist. The only possible explanation is that God is continually
intervening to keep these atoms in being in a way which the laws of physics cannot explain.
This obviously has tremendous significance for religion and culture. The
naturalistic view of the world which has been promoted by Huxley, Haeckel, and others has
END PRESS RELEASE
The physics here is correct - as of 1899. But you all know (or should) what
happened. Within a year Planck introduced the idea of quanta. In 1913 Bohr applied the
concept to atomic structure
and a few years later full-fledged quantum theory was explaining atomic spectra, chemical
bonding, &c with high precision. It did this by introducing radically new concepts which
differed at the micro level from the physics of Newton & Maxwell which had "proved" that
atoms couldn't exist.
The analogy with current discussions about chemical evolution & related topics is
obvious. It may indeed be that our present theories are unable to explain how such evolution
could have taken place. But to conclude that no scientific theory can explain it (as, e.g.,
Dembski does when he says that this gap is "ontological" and not "methodological") is quite
N.B. I do not
a. Claim that some radically new scientific theory is necessary, &
b. If it is, I don't know what it is!
I am merely pointing this out as a possibility, one for which significant historical
precedents can be cited. & of course this isn't indented to stop theological discussions
about how God acts in the world. But those discussions shouldn't be unduly influenced by the
fact that present day science hasn't been able to explain certain phenomena.
I anticipate various objections to this analogical argument but refrain now from
carrying out a pre-emptive strike against them.
George L. Murphy
"The Science-Theology Dialogue"
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sun Aug 05 2001 - 13:50:19 EDT