Hi Jim,

Great question...

From some of the other philosophical povs this is the position they take. That is, god is not necessarily capricious but disinterested and uninvolved. From the Historic Christian (HC - a phrase I've swiped from Francis Schaffer) pov this would not be so. I suppose that the underlying questions or reasons that folks would want to think along lines like this would turn on the notion of the "fairness" of God. This position (the one you mention) suggests a rationale for the suffering in this world. God made everything and kind of just walked away, to perhaps return at some unspecified point in time to see what happened.

From the HC pov there is pain and suffering in this world as a direct result of man's rejection of God. Man's greed really is the culprit imo. One country want the land in another. One man want's the business of another enough to hurt them. One woman wants another wonman's husband. SOmeone wants to feed their drug habit at the expanse of the property of others. I could go on all day with this but the eseential notion is that man can not blame God for what man has done.

From the HC pov this couldn't be so as God in omniscient or all-knowing. That is, He can learn nothing. In this case He would know exactly what would happen. In this case you could certainly make the argument that He would know what would happen to your amoeba and so forth. However, that would then not remove the notion that He was God nor would it change our relationship to Him from what I can see. It would reinforce the notion of the perfection of His knowledge and the imperfection of ours. If that was the position you took it would still not IMO give you enough 'ammo' to prove evolution as the problems inherent internally to the concept of evolution would stillexist. There still is no evidence of a ca-og (cat-dog <g>) - ie. no inter species evidence. It doesn't explain any of the geological problems that exist or any of the issues of how life can spontaneously spring from non-life nor how that new life was able to spring up in two compatible 'somethings' whre they could mate or how a single 'something' knew how to transmit knowledge about itself and create a whole new copy, etc...

I think you asked an excellent philosophical question Jim. I don't know how much it has to do with the mechanics of the notion of evolution though.

Best,

DD


>Hi Doug,
>
>This is getting way way beyond me, but I thought I'd ask. . .
>
>What if the BIG GUY IN THE SKY said to himself 'I've made the heavens, I've made the earth, I've made the water, I've made the land, I've made the air, I've made the fire. Now I think I'll make me an amoeba, sit back, and watch what happens'?
>
>Regards,
>
>Jim N
>
>>David,
>>
>>I disagree. Name one. The troble here is that we presume that man is able to understand everything that can or could be known. That's a presumption of omniscience and I dare say that man is not omniscient. <g> Not to mention extremely arrogant.
>>
>>In addition to the energy it also requires intelligence. For example, all the experiments are, well, experiments and that includes the person who sets it up - ie. intelligence. Random events? Nahh, they don't happen. Statistically impossible and improbable. Besides, in addition to some random event you'd need the ability to propigate (ie. replicate) which requires a level of complexity that simply doesn't ever happen, not to mention the knowledge and will to propigate. You might get a few amino acids by striking it with a lightning bolt but there's a huge next step to that amino acid having the internals that are required to survive and propigate.
>>
>>I'm comfortable that we might disagree but I would, in turn, suggest that you read one of many many books that totally refute books such as "The Blind Watchmaker". Perhaps we should just both be comfortable that each of us thinks that the other has had our sight made ..er.. opaque at best <g> by our positions...
>>
>><g>
>>
>>I don't want to get into a shouting match. I'll be happy to provide you with as many scientific references as you'd like but only if you wish.
>>
>>Best,
>>
>>DD
>>
>>
>>
>>>PMJI but complex systems can be created by simpler systems without any guidance. It's happening all the time. Typically it just requires some energy input, eg the sun shining on the earth, power going into a computer.
>>>You really need to read the classic "The Blind Watchmaker" by Richard Dawkins, although it's not a book I imagine you will enjoy.
>>>
>>>
>>>>Michael,
>>>>
>>>>That's why atheism seems so dumb to me. And extremely arrogant as well. Imagine... The finite declaring that the infinite does not exist.. The small declaring that there is no large. <g> It also argues agains evolution since it would then argue that a less complex mechanism is capable of creating a more complex mechanism. The interesting thng is that less complex mechanisms are able to create more complex mechanisms (just look at any machine shop to see this) but they cannot so do without an outside intelligence directing things. Evolutionists want the less-->more results but without one of the necessary ingredients - directed intelligence.
>>>>
>>>>Agnosticism I can understand, and I think many confuse the two, but really....
>>>>
>>>>I have heard that one human brain contains more "electrical" connections than all the computers in the world, and I tend to believe that is a true statement. Even then we don't use but a portion of what is available.
>>>>
>>>>Best,
>>>>
>>>>DD
>>>>
>>>>>I agree with you.
>>>>>
>>>>>Complexity/computational theory strongly suggests that a system cannot compute anything beyond it's own inherent complexity. Put in terms of people, it is impossible to understand anything that is intrinsically more complex than our own brain. There will always be things that we do not, & cannot, understand. Maybe, if we are lucky & evolution moves us in the right direction, our brains may become more complex allowing us a greater insight to the universe & the interactions of all within it. That is, if those who believe they understand everything now don't destroy us first.

Best,


DD

A man is no fool who gives up that which he cannot keep for that which he cannot lose.
Everything I don't understand must be easy!
The difficulty of any task is measured by the capacity of the agent performing the work.