|
|
Dr. Allan Harvey's Response To A Critique By Ross Olson
For Dr. Harvey's original article click HERE.
For a critique by Ross Olson click HERE.
This is Dr Harvey's response to that critique.
From: SteamDoc{at}aol.com
Sent: Monday, January 21, 2002
8:48 PM
To: ross{at}rossolson.org
Subject: Re: Second
Law
Dear Dr. Olson,
Thanks
for your (long) note. I fear I'm way too short on spare time to respond to
even most of the details, so I'll hit a few points and then make some general
comments, and hope it stays coherent as I'm writing in bits and pieces over a
span of a week or so.
I do appreciate your writing, especially in a
reasonable tone. I get maybe a couple of e-mails a month in response to
this essay. About half are compliments, which are easy to take. Most
of the disagreeing ones are, unfortunately, sneeringly hostile or ignorant --
often people parroting whole sections from Henry Morris or (if they are slightly
better read) Wilder-Smith in a way that shows they have no idea what they are
talking about and haven't bothered to try to understand what I wrote. I've
given up trying to communicate with those in that category, but you have given
some thought to things and therfore deserve some reply.
In a message
dated 1/7/02 7:25:45 AM Mountain Standard Time, ross{at}rossolson.org writes:
I notice that although you recognize that the concept of
information entropy
"is plausible enough to be taken seriously," when
dealing with creationist
arguments, you tend to revert to the classical
definition of thermodynamics.
For example, you maintain that energy from
the sun can account for life on
earth by balancing the entropy accounts.
But is there not a qualitative
difference between the formation of ice
crystals, which have a repetitive
and predictable structure, and the
Encyclopedia Britannica? In other words,
I would not expect raw energy
applied to my computer's hard drive to write
the next version of Windows
or even to improve the existing version.
I would not
expect that either, but it would not violate the Second Law of Thermodynamics,
to which I am confining my essay.
You write that the mechanism for a naturalistic origin of life
"is not so
clear." That is a gross misrepresentation! Rather, I
think, you should have
stated, as firmly as a physicist can state, that it
is essentially
impossible. This is because on a scientific level, we do
not simply lack
data, we actually have firm data -- that it does not
happen and could not
happen. And on a Biblical level, if the Holy Spirit
inspired Romans 1, then
God's existence, divine nature and eternal power
are so plain from what has
been created that those who do not see it are
without excuse.
I reject the misrepresentation
accusation. I daresay you are not qualified to make this "essentially
impossible" judgment (I hasten to add that I am not qualified either, nor was
Wilder-Smith for that matter). Certainly there are unanswered scientific
questions there, but the "essentially impossible" arguments I have seen are
either arguments from ignorance or oversimplified probability calculations.
Since you mentioned Romans 1, let me digress a moment. I think
those who try to apply that verse to scientific biological studies are missing
the boat. What Paul was writing about was supposed to be plain to all, not
just those who could make sophisticated biological probability calculations.
As somebody has observed, if you can't see God in a sunrise, you won't see
Him in cellular biochemistry.
Also, I do not understand the connection you make between God
intervening in
the creation of life and His continued intervention.
My point (if you are referring to the section I think)
is that, if going from zero humans to two was a violation of the Second Law of
Thermodynamics, then going from two to 6,000,000,000 is a much bigger violation
(since entropy is a strictly additive quantity). I presume you would not
claim that God is violating the laws of thermodynamics each time a person is
born. If going from two to 6 billion does not violate the laws of
thermodynamics, then going from zero to two must not either. You may
claim, perhaps not unreasonably, that going from zero to two is unlikely for
other reasons, but I'm talking about the 2nd law, not these other reasons.
Further, when God said that Eden was "very good," if that
world included
many hundred-millions of years of disease, death and
struggle for survival,
then God seems to be either cruel or uncaring.
Moreover, He seems to use
methods that are very tedious and wasteful, in
sharp contrast to the
Scriptural picture of a God Who intervenes
spectacularly in Biblical
miracles, culminating in the resurrection of
Jesus Christ. Yes, God is
patient, but He also notes every sparrow's fall
and is not willing that any
human should perish – although some will by
their own choice.
If evolution is the way God created, then there was
death before sin – it is
even God's creative method. So why is death
called the enemy and treated as
an intruder? Why did Jesus have to die
physically to conquer sin and death?
There's a lot that can
be said here, but I'll just offer a few words:
1) There is nothing in
Scripture that suggests that plants and (non-human) animals did not die before
the Fall.
2) One can make a good case that the (human) death brought on by
the Fall was *spiritual* death, not physical death. God tells Adam and Eve
"the day you eat of it you shall die," but they did not die physically for many
years. If we take Paul's "As in Adam all die, so in Christ shall all be
made alive," the life Christ gives (and, by extension, the death we have in
Adam) is spiritual.
3) After the Fall, physical death is an enemy. But
not necessarily in God's design (why did he make carnivores?). Arguments
that amount to "God would not have created that way" presume to know the mind of
God, and his ways are higher than our ways. Evolution might appear to us
like a "wasteful" way to create. Just like incarnation with a peasant
couple in a stable might appear like an inefficient way to redeem us. The
"wasteful" argument also fails because "wasteful" implies the waster has limited
resources. If God "spends" lavishly in creating rather than doing it in
some miserly way, he still has an infinite amount of resources left, so can't be
criticized as "wasteful."
4) God does not always work "spectacularly."
Sometimes, God is in the still small voice. Sometimes, God works
through peasants and fishermen. If there's one thing we should have
learned from the way Jesus confounded the Jews' expectations for the Messiah, it
is that God does not always work in the way we would expect him to.
The discussion, as you can see, gets a bit far afield from just
thermodynamics. This is partly because, used by the atheist,
rebuttal to
thermodynamic arguments is important to make spontaneous
appearance of life
seem plausible. And, for the Christian, blanket
acceptance of the secular
paradigm makes God seem irrelevant if not
non-existent.
The most dangerous "secular paradigm" is
the "God of the Gaps" view that, once we have a natural explanation for
something, that means God didn't do it. Blanket acceptance of THAT
paradigm (which contradicts the Biblical teaching that God is sovereign over
nature) is what I see as the biggest problem for Christians in this area.
If you accept that paradigm (which I might call the Dawkins/Johnson
paradigm), then the Christian must oppose evolution as though the faith depends
on it, putting up a big stumbling block to those who (rightly or wrongly) think
the theory of evolution is a correct scientific description of how life got
here.
And, just to provoke you further, I think that there really is
a strong case
for a young earth. The unanimity of the opposition is
related more to
censorship and rationalization than intellectual
superiority. Please peruse
the Twin Cities Creation Science Association
web site (www.tccsa.tc) for
more information.
This
almost made me toss your e-mail without replying. I feel that no
reasonable person could look at the multiple lines of evidence for great age and
come to that conclusion. Unless you are one who takes the "appearance of
age" position which can't be scientifically falsified (but which I feel makes
God into a deceiver). Try reading "The Age of the Earth" by Dalyrymple
which I review under my Web page. Or Glenn Morton's "Foundation, Fall, and
Flood" or Hugh Ross's "Creation and Time."
Thank you for reading this far. I will appreciate any
feedback you have
time to give, and would also like, with your permission,
to post your
responses on the web site
Ross S. Olson MD
A couple of more general comments:
1) I
made my essay sort of narrow on purpose, to stick to my expertise. A few
times you chide me for not going off into biological probabilities, etc. I
am a thermodynamicist, so I confined myself to writing about *thermodynamic*
systems and the Second Law of *thermodynamics*. There may be areas where
rough parallels to the Second Law apply, such as biological information (though
I have yet to see that presented in a coherent way, with the possible exception
of the work of Yockey). But at that point, you are getting outside the
realm of thermodynamics proper. I say in my essay that I have some
sympathy with the sort of biochemical probability calculations you advocate.
But those arguments are not thermodynamic arguments, so I don't go there.
You may go there if you wish; just don't claim to be basing your arguments
on the laws of *thermodynamics*.
2) The more I prayerfully consider
these things, the more I think we need to have our theology straight before
arguing the scientific points. This has become clearer to me since I wrote
that essay. I think that if we develop a healthy Biblical view of God's
relationship to nature, most of our problems in this area go away (and evolution
becomes no threat to faith). As a result, there are other things I have
written that I feel are more important than this Second Law essay. If you
want to see how I view these more important issues, please go to:
http://members.aol.com/steamdoc/writings.htm
The most important essay
there is "Science and Christian Apologetics." After that, you could try "A
Personal View of the Evolution Issue."
3) As I have said, I am not
wholly unsympathetic to some of the arguments you mention, particularly those
concerning abiogenesis. DEPENDING ON HOW THEY ARE ADVANCED. And this
is a key point. There are two ways a Christian might use these arguments:
3a) God is sovereign over nature, so finding a "natural" explanation for
something doesn't rule out God, it just tells us how God did it.
Therefore, natural explanations for phenomena in nature (whether it be the
evolution of life, or the formation of stars or mountains) are no threat to
faith. However, I find inexplicable gaps in natural history, which I use
as an apologetical tool offering evidence for God. But my apologetics do
not depend on these gaps as their foundation, so if I am wrong about the "gaps"
it does not mean there is no God.
3b) Evolution and Christianity are
fundamentally incompatible. In order for God to be the "real" Creator, he
must have left "his fingerprints all over the evidence." Natural
explanations that make no reference to God mean that God didn't do it.
Therefore, these "gaps" I am proposing in natural history are essential in
order for theism to be true. If I am wrong about these "gaps" and the
natural explanation provided by evolution proves to be true, then there is no
basis for the Christian faith.
I hope you can see the horrid theology in
(3b). (3b) (known as "God of the Gaps theology") denies God's sovereignty
over nature. Its error can be easily seen by applying the same logic to
things for which the Bible tells us God is responsible but for which our natural
explanations are clearly correct, like rain or star formation. It also
errs by basing the faith on something other than Jesus.
You sound like
you may be in the (3a) category, and I don't object to that. However, I
find that *most* in the "creation science" and "Intelligent Design" movements
take the (3b) position, though they may not say so explicitly. Phil
Johnson is a prominent example. Because (3b) is so harmful to our witness
and such lousy theology, I believe those in the (3a) category need to loudly
denounce the (3b) position, and affirm that it is theologically OK for God to
work via his sovereignty over nature. I discuss this more in one of my
essays called "What does 'God of the Gaps' Mean?"
Blessings,
Allan Harvey
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Dr. Allan H. Harvey, Boulder, Colorado |
SteamDoc{at}aol.com
"Any opinions expressed here are mine, and
should not be
attributed to my employer, my wife, or my cats"
|
|