If the study of physics shows that nature is a closed system and it is, strictly speaking, a scientific fact that miracles and freedom are impossible, then it would seem that a theist could not do physics well. But what about the fact that there are and have been successful physicists who believe in God and freedom? Apparently theism did not keep George Lemaitre from discovering the big bang! If, on the other hand, one's ability to do physics is not adversely affected by theism etc., then the exclusion of miracles and freedom is not so much a scientific fact as as a philosophical inference--or perhaps an act of faith.
How about defining it as an instance of functional complexity? And treating the list of properties as following necessarily from this definition? Okay, this is very diamond-in-the-rough (or perhaps zirconium...) but here goes my thoughts on the matter: (Complexity) Many diverse parts (functional) acting for the sake of the whole I think I need to add something like "not as the instrument of another" or something like that. Given that they act together as one whole and given entropy, etc., the organism will need to posses more order than its surroundings (homeostasis). It will therefore need to take in energy (nutrition), which it will use to sustain its readiness to interact with its environment so as to preserve its own being (homeostasis again?), but which will eventually break down (death), so that in order for that life form to continue it will need to duplicate itself (reproduction), which, upon occurring, will involve both development (growth) to maturity and...
Comments