Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site psivax.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!cmcl2!seismo!harvard!talcott!panda!genrad!decvax!ittvax!dcdwest!sdcsvax!sdcrdcf!psivax!friesen
From: friesen@psivax.UUCP (Stanley Friesen)
Newsgroups: net.origins
Subject: Re: The Scientific Case for Creation: (Part 16)
Message-ID: <460@psivax.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 20-May-85 15:39:18 EDT
Article-I.D.: psivax.460
Posted: Mon May 20 15:39:18 1985
Date-Received: Fri, 24-May-85 22:00:18 EDT
References: <356@iham1.UUCP>
Reply-To: friesen@psivax.UUCP (Stanley friesen)
Distribution: net
Organization: Pacesetter Systems Inc., Sylmar, CA
Lines: 64

In article <356@iham1.UUCP> rck@iham1.UUCP (Ron Kukuk) writes:
>
>    C.  NEW RESEARCH SHOWS THAT  THE  REQUIREMENTS  FOR  LIFE  ARE  SO
>        COMPLEX  THAT CHANCE AND EVEN BILLIONS OF YEARS CANNOT EXPLAIN
>        IT.
>
>       28.  If life is ultimately the result of random chance, then so
>            is  thought.   Your  thoughts--such  as  what  you are now
>            thinking--would in the final analysis be a consequence  of
>            accidents  and  therefore  would  have  no validity [a-c].
>            Similar  problems  have  been  acknowledged   by   several
>            prominent writers.

	First error, in evolutionary theory chance plays only a
*limited* role, selection is *not* a chance process, it is an
organizing principle, thus the rest does not follow.
>
>            a)  ''But then arises the doubt,  can  the  mind  of  man,
>                which  has,  as I fully believe, been developed from a
>                mind as low as that possessed by the  lowest  animals,
>                be  trusted  when  it  draws such grand conclusions? I
>                cannot pretend  to  throw  the  least  light  on  such
>                abstruse  problems.''  [Charles  Darwin,  THE LIFE AND
>                LETTERS OF CHARLES DARWIN, edited by  Francis  Darwin,
>                (London: John Murray, 1887), Vol.1, p. 313.]
>            b)  ''For if my mental processes are determined wholly  by
>                the  motions of atoms in my brain, I have no reason to
>                suppose that my beliefs are true. They  may  be  sound
>                chemically,   but   that  does  not  make  them  sound
>                logically. And hence I have no reason for supposing my
>                brain  to  be  composed  of atoms.'' [Professor J.B.S.
>                Haldane, POSSIBLE WORLDS  (London:  Chatto  &  Windus,
>                1927), p. 209.]
>            c)  ''If  the  solar  system  was  brought  about  by   an
>                accidental  collision,  then the appearance of organic
>                life on this planet was  also  an  accident,  and  the
>                whole  evolution  of  Man  was an accident too. If so,
>                then all our present thoughts are mere  accidents--the
>                accidental  by-product  of  the movement of atoms. And
>                this holds for the thoughts of  the  materialists  and
>                astronomers as well as for anyone else's. But if their
>                thoughts--i.e.   of  Materialism  and   Astronomy--are
>                merely  accidental  by-products, why should we believe
>                them to be true? I see no reason  for  believing  that
>                one  accident  should  be  able  to  give me a correct
>                account of all the other accidents.'' [C.S. Lewis, GOD
>                IN  THE  DOCK (Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1970), pp.
>                52-53.]
>
	On the rest of this maybe you should review the recent
discusion of free-will in net.philosophy which debated this whole
issue quite extensively. The main result was that there are many
opinions on the issue and very few definitive statements. Some
foloowed b) above, others saw physical determinism and free-will
as being compatible and others followed CS Lewis. But *nobody*
had any actual scientific evidence as to which point of view was
correct. Thus the syllogism breaks down because one of its premises
is questionable as to its validity.
-- 

				Sarima (Stanley Friesen)

{trwrb|allegra|cbosgd|hplabs|ihnp4|aero!uscvax!akgua}!sdcrdcf!psivax!friesen
or {ttdica|quad1|bellcore|scgvaxd}!psivax!friesen