Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Hello World! – An Introductory Post

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

Greetings all. Since I’m going to be contributing some posts here at Uncommon Descent, it’s been suggested I explain to everyone just where I’m coming from intellectually and in the context of the Intelligent Design discussion. Before I do that, I just want to express my thanks to the powers that be on this site for allowing me this opportunity – with luck it may lead to some interesting conversations on a topic I’ve enjoyed following over the years.

So if you’re at all curious of where I stand on the questions of ID, evolution, and so on… Well, just read on.

First, when it comes to questions of my intellectual background I’d like to be explicit: I’m very much an average person. My pseudonym doesn’t hide someone with important credentials, and I’m neither an academic nor a scientist. I’m simply someone who became very interested in Intelligent Design, along with the related questions of design, science, and so on years ago, and have taken part in many conversations both on here and at Telic Thoughts (another blog dedicated to teleological topics.)

Second, my views on ID are somewhat complicated. If you were to ask me if I think Intelligent Design can offer arguments, evidence and reasons to think that design exists in the natural world, I’d say yes. Now, if you’d ask me whether I think ID is “science”, I’d say no – but I’d also say that Darwinism as offered up by many (and Michael Ruse in particular) is not science either. The other side of that coin is that I’m pragmatic – if it’s “science” to argue, as many Darwinists do, that science CAN in fact detect the presence or absence of design in nature (and inevitably, they always insist that science has shown its lack), then my response is “Then detecting design in nature is science after all, therefore ID is science.” I strongly believe that the one thing many ID critics fear most is consistency: They want all positive inferences of design ruled out as non-scientific, but all negative inferences of design to be called not only scientific, but utterly true.

Third, you could classify me as a theistic evolutionist of sorts. I’m a Catholic who grew up with a Catholic family and schooling, and the result was that evolution never struck me as a problem for my faith – the impression I’ve always gotten is that it simply hasn’t been considered a major issue for quite some time, at least among many Catholics. That said, I have little patience for Darwinism – at least, I’ve had little patience for it after coming to realize that “Darwinism” was different from “evolution”, and this will be one of my focuses while I contribute at UD. Further, I simply don’t have the fiery indignation many TEs have when it comes to this topic. I got over my (largely ignorant, cultural) hostility to YECs years ago, I don’t find the suggestion of designer interventions in natural history as some kind of terrifying “science-stopper” much less obviously untrue, and I think both the natural world in general and evolution in particular bear signs of intention, design, purpose, mind, and teleology from top to bottom even if it’s granted for the sake of argument that no direct intervention took place. In other words, for me, design in the world is obvious – and questions of whether biological organisms evolved, were directly created, or otherwise strike me not as a question of whether or not design took place, but as an implied affirmation that it did take place with the “How?” being of central concern.

Fourth, my interest in ID is not purely or even largely religious. And by that I mean, if tomorrow it were demonstrated to me that Christianity was false, my interest in ID would remain. I think it’s to ID’s credit that its major proponents have repeatedly stressed that ID may allow one to infer, even strongly infer, a mind or teleology being responsible for what we see in the natural world – but that this mind is not necessarily the specific God of Christianity, or may not even be a ‘god’ at all (though the particularities of that question are dicey.) In fact, I think ID as a movement would benefit by stressing this point further – I feel that many otherwise agnostic people would find the broad inferences, questions, and ideas in the ID ‘big tent’ to at least be worthy of serious consideration. In some ways, I feel this is an eventuality regardless.

In the near future, I hope to post about a wide variety of ID-related topics – from giving my own take on why Thomists should support ID, why agnostics should support ID, the mistakes some prominent ID critics and/or TEs make, the ideas of some lesser-known ID-sympathetic people, and more.

I think that wraps things up for now. So a belated Merry Christmas to you all, and an early Happy New Year.

Comments
markf, What do you want me to do – lie? I asked you which bit you disagreed with. No response. First, I said we were done here. When you say you can't give a straight answer, especially after the backtracking, the entire thing starts to come across as an all-too-common internet game. Second, 'no response' is flat out untrue. I said explicitly that your talk of 'establishing the truth of design' was ludicrous, because science isn't in the business of 'establishing truth' on those terms right in 69. Somehow, that just passed you by. Further, design - even by ID proponents, at least every one I've thus far been familiar with - is regarded not as an establishment of truth, but as the taking of a reasonable inference subject to the same limitations of any scientific inference. As it is, you've gone from saying that design can be detected so long as motivations and abilities are assumed, to then saying that assumptions of motivations and abilities are ad hoc and therefore the inferences aren't scientific, to then saying, well no you can kinda-sorta use a scientific-ish method to refute a design claim but observations consistent with design claims don't count because they don't 'establish truth' and also they're ad hoc to now.. mostly just sticking around. Figure out what you actually think about these questions, figure out a way to state it concisely, and be willing to either stick to your position or admit it's being dropped or modified. Until then, there's just nothing interesting you're telling me.nullasalus
January 1, 2011
January
01
Jan
1
01
2011
03:31 PM
3
03
31
PM
PDT
#72 null Mark, your discussion with me has been marked by – in your own words – you claiming you misspoke, miscommunicated, were not coming across clearly, and finally it was capped off with an admission of not being able to give a straight answer. If you ‘can’t recall where I disagreed with you about anything’, I suggest you go back and read the exchange. I looked and couldn't find anything. However, there are quite a lot of comments and I may have missed something. When someone does not understand my point I tend to assume it is my fault for not making myself clear. So I try to rephrase it a different way. I like to think this is more polite and constructive than the usual "aren't you able to read?" or "you need to take lessons in ..." that you often get on blogs. It is quite hard when the response is to be accused of continually shifting the goalposts! Look again at my comment #53. It was a fairly simple answer - I couldn't give a straighter answer because the answer is not simple. What do you want me to do - lie? I asked you which bit you disagreed with. No response.markf
January 1, 2011
January
01
Jan
1
01
2011
03:16 PM
3
03
16
PM
PDT
kairosfocus, However, it can provide warrant that leads us to the provisional conclusion that certain experiences are factual [including the empirical laws that summarise them, e.g unsupported objects near earth's surface tend to fall at 9.8 m/s^2], certain theories are empirically reliable on such facts, and some conclusions are credibly true and worthy of routine use, pending only a solid counter-example. Absolutely, science is useful in that regard. However, judging any motion or effect - even the relatively mundane example with a radioactive lump - as being 'unintended', 'unforeseen', etc, is another matter. On some questions, science as science is extremely hobbled. I can even provide very qualified counter-examples to back up my inference - an example of something an individual judges as random and purposeless, which is in fact purposeful. This should at least be enough to illustrate my own point, and give people pause when they start talking about identifying randomness - whether in the strong Darwinian sense of 'foreseen by no one, planned by no one, permitted by no one', or in your own cited dictionary sense - much less as arguing science demonstrates this as a truth. Similarly, the patterns of radioactive decay show a pattern that is credibly random, following a pattern that fits with a probabilistic distribution leading to the theoretical and empirical decay curves. But I haven't at all denied that we identify patterns in nature, nor claimed that said patterns do not come with some explicit explanation of the intention (if any, or lack thereof) behind it on the part of any designer, much less God. Certainly we can identify patterns, even a lack of correlation to such-and-such in the particular. It's the stronger claims about the lack of intention, lack of purpose, etc, that I question. You are free to reject such testimony of observations, but if the criteria you use to do so were generally applied, you would lose confidence in your contact with reality through conscious experience of the world based on use of your senses and common sense. But I'm not rejecting the testimony. Indeed, I'm accepting it, but noting - insofar as science goes - its limitations. Philosophy and theology may work with science to make me take a certain position, but the science on its own won't do such a thing. (Putting aside, for a moment, that science is never utterly free of metaphysics.) This reminds me of the question of scientific realism versus anti-realism. Oddly enough, the question of what position to take is a philosophical one, and some scientific anti-realists do exist. (Stephen Hawking himself seems to be flirting with that position. I'm surprised that didn't get more press than his God comments.) Radioactive decay, closely follows models of randomness, and it is highly reasonable to believe that relevant quantum processes like quantum tunnelling, obey probability distributions of randomness. the burden of proof is on the one who imagines they are only pseudo-random. Actually, I've always understood that the burden of proof comes on whoever is making a positive claim to begin with. If I claim 'those random distributions are only pseudo-random', then the onus is on me to make my case. But if someone claims 'these distributions are truly random (and random means without purpose, intention, foresight, etc)', they get the burden. That there is a burden - that the answer to these questions is not self-evident on the terms of science alone - is part of my point here. But I make no claim here on whether the 'randomness' in nature is 'truly' random or 'pseudorandom'. I merely note the limitations of what we can glean from observation. And again, if an army of physicists tells me they believe X, but X happens to be beyond their capacity to determine, I will remain unmoved at least on those terms alone. Going further, you will note from the examples already given, that the ancient hebraic view as recorded in the scriptures, is entirely compatible with real randomness, but open to intervention from God for purposes of his own. I haven't been touching on the theological end of things, nor saying that said readings are incompatible. The philosophical and theological discussions are important, just not my focus here. Nor am I taking a 'hard determinism' position. I certainly am not saying that reading X is the only possible reading of scripture. The science, its limitations, and the violations of those limitations is central for me here.nullasalus
January 1, 2011
January
01
Jan
1
01
2011
02:50 PM
2
02
50
PM
PDT
Null: First, I agree: science can provide no demonstrations beyond all doubt. However, it can provide warrant that leads us to the provisional conclusion that certain experiences are factual [including the empirical laws that summarise them, e.g unsupported objects near earth's surface tend to fall at 9.8 m/s^2], certain theories are empirically reliable on such facts, and some conclusions are credibly true and worthy of routine use, pending only a solid counter-example. That micro-particles undergo random motion consistent with the kinetic theory etc, has been taken to be a fact ever since Einstein's explanation of Brownian motion in Annalen Der Physik in 1905, which made a significant contribution to his Nobel Prize. (Contrary to popular belief, Relativity did not contribute much to the award.) Indeed, that analysis, that the particles that undergo Brownian motion acted like giant size micro-particles, dancing around as they share the random thermal motion of the invisible atoms and molecules, was taken also as a direct confirmation of the reality of atoms. So, I have excellent reason to accept that randomness at this level is real. Similarly, the patterns of radioactive decay show a pattern that is credibly random, following a pattern that fits with a probabilistic distribution leading to the theoretical and empirical decay curves. You are free to reject such testimony of observations, but if the criteria you use to do so were generally applied, you would lose confidence in your contact with reality through conscious experience of the world based on use of your senses and common sense. I confidently conclude that randomness is real and empirically reliable, and that those who deny it have the burden of proof. Now, by "true randomness," I mean, again, in effect what wiki described as cited above, as opposed to the pseudo-random distributions that can, say, be made with a suitably organised counter with well chosen feedback networks. Such counters are actually deterministic, but put out a pretty good imitation of random numbers [and are often used in testing]. Similar things can be done in software. I repeat, such things do not in any wise imply onwards that there are uncaused effects or events, once we understand that that which has a beginning has factors external to itself that are blocking [if absent]/enabling [if present]; i.e. necessary causal factors. So, we have no reason to fear that randomness leads to a chaos not a cosmos. Indeed, it seems that randomness is a part of the design of the cosmos, that enables a lot of things to get done, including many life processes such as getting rid of wasted in the blood in our kidneys, the functioning of lungs to get oxygen into the blood and CO2 out of it, etc etc. So, the controlled use of randomness is a part and parcel of the design and organisation of our world. And as a direct consequence we come to the Second Law of Thermodynamics, one of the most reliable of all laws in physics. Radioactive decay, closely follows models of randomness, and it is highly reasonable to believe that relevant quantum processes like quantum tunnelling, obey probability distributions of randomness. the burden of proof is on the one who imagines they are only pseudo-random. Going further, you will note from the examples already given, that the ancient hebraic view as recorded in the scriptures, is entirely compatible with real randomness, but open to intervention from God for purposes of his own. In short, randomness is not necessarily opposed to God acting directly in specific cases to achieve particular results, while using general randomness as a means of achieving many useful results. [Indeed, even walking is dependent on processes that have random components in them.] GEM of TKIkairosfocus
January 1, 2011
January
01
Jan
1
01
2011
02:20 PM
2
02
20
PM
PDT
markf, What I find very odd is that throughout the discussion I don’t remember you identifying anything I wrote that you thought was wrong. Mark, your discussion with me has been marked by - in your own words - you claiming you misspoke, miscommunicated, were not coming across clearly, and finally it was capped off with an admission of not being able to give a straight answer. If you 'can't recall where I disagreed with you about anything', I suggest you go back and read the exchange. Maybe what you meant is that you don't recall saying anything that didn't proceed to get rephrased and modified and reworked each time I pursued the reasoning of what was being said.nullasalus
January 1, 2011
January
01
Jan
1
01
2011
12:45 PM
12
12
45
PM
PDT
kairosfocus, Pardon, my phrasing was plainly unclear — and unnecessarily hurtful — to you. I am sorry for that. No problem, just making sure. Truly random means that something is highly contingent without specific intelligent direction of outcomes. Then this is the first time I've run into this usage of "truly random". All other times "truly random" as I've read it has been intended as "outcomes foreseen and/or preordained by no one, God included". The Oxford English Dictionary defines “random” thus: Having no definite aim or purpose; not sent or guided in a particular direction; made, done, occurring, etc., without method or conscious choice; haphazard. ... As a philosophically and theologically aware physicist, I see no good reason to reject the reality of randomness. I see no good reason to jump from accepting that reality to the conclusion that we live in a world where events are causeless. All I can do here, in the interest of brevity, is repeat my last response: Science does not, and indeed cannot, establish the truth of 'randomness' - even in the modified sense you're using, certainly in that stronger "hard determinist" (Calvinist?) sense. Pick the most mundane example you want, like an emission from a radioactive lump. Was said emission without purpose? Was it guided? Was there no method involved, no act of mind? Science can suggest patterns, expected conditions, likely results, etc, but not much more than that. Now philosophically and theologically, we may have good reasons to believe certain things - maybe rejecting 'hard determinism', maybe embracing it, maybe many other things. As I said, I'm sidestepping the greater theological discussion in this case, because noting the limits of science (and breaches of said limits) is my main concern here. You can tell me that every physicist in the world believes X is true, but if X happens to be something beyond science's capability to deal with, I will remain unmoved - at least insofar as the status of a physicist carries some authority.nullasalus
January 1, 2011
January
01
Jan
1
01
2011
12:41 PM
12
12
41
PM
PDT
#69 nullasalus I agree we are done. I have laid out my position as clearly as I can. I am sorry that you do not find it to be straightforward (surely it is not so very complicated?). But I am not going to give a straightforward answer that I believe to be wrong just to satisfy you. What I find very odd is that throughout the discussion I don't remember you identifying anything I wrote that you thought was wrong.markf
January 1, 2011
January
01
Jan
1
01
2011
12:37 PM
12
12
37
PM
PDT
markf, I can only tell you what I believe to be true which happens not to be a straightforward answer. If you add some assumptions about motives (but nothing else) then you can refute it scientifically but cannot establish its truth scientifically. Thank you - we're done here. The fact that you won't give a straightforward answer to a very simple question speaks volumes. Further, no one said anything about 'establishing truth', but about reasonable inferences - even Jerry Coyne will say that 'all truth in science is provisional'. It's bad enough to deal with shifting goalposts, but when someone refuses to even put the goal in the ground in the first place, my interest disappears. But hey, at least we've had a great demonstration of how some people desire deeply to maintain a clearly hypocritical position about science re: design.nullasalus
January 1, 2011
January
01
Jan
1
01
2011
12:23 PM
12
12
23
PM
PDT
as a side note, Please note, in the following video, the similarity of the effect noted at the 3:22 minute mark, for traveling at the speed of light, with the 'light at the end of the tunnel' effect noted in many Near Death Experiences. Traveling At The Speed Of Light - Optical Effects - video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/5733303/bornagain77
January 1, 2011
January
01
Jan
1
01
2011
11:58 AM
11
11
58
AM
PDT
Here's the entire quote: ‘God is neither a cosmic rapist who forces His love on people, nor a cosmic puppeteer who forces people to love Him, rather God, the very personification of love, grants us choice. So people who have lived a whole lifetime voluntarily distancing themselves from God are not in the end involuntarily dragged into His presence for all eternity, if they were heaven would not be heaven, heaven in fact would be hell.bornagain77
January 1, 2011
January
01
Jan
1
01
2011
11:55 AM
11
11
55
AM
PDT
I like this quote from this video around the 2:30 min. mark: 'God is neither a cosmic rapist who forces His love on people, nor a cosmic puppeteer who forces people to love Him, rather God, the very personification of love, grants us choice.' Studying Near Death Experiences - 4 / 8 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gdE6fAGR3Okbornagain77
January 1, 2011
January
01
Jan
1
01
2011
11:46 AM
11
11
46
AM
PDT
that should read, "chosen to become a new creature and [allow ourselves] to be transformed"StephenB
January 1, 2011
January
01
Jan
1
01
2011
11:23 AM
11
11
23
AM
PDT
---vivid: "So God has no virtue? The angels in heaven have no virtue? When we are in heaven we will have no virtue? It is impossible for the angels, the saints in heaven and for God to sin." Vivid, it is God's nature to be good. Indeed, God is goodness itself and cannot do evil. Humans and angels are different. Many angels made bad choices, failed the test of virtue, and lost heaven; others made good choices, passed the test of virtue, and won heaven. It's all in the record. It is the same with men, all of whom, with the help of God, must pass the test of virtue. Without God's help no one can pass that test. ["Without me, you can do nothing"] In the final analysis, we choose our own destiny. Once we win heaven, however, we can no longer lose it because we have already chosen to "become a new creature" and transform ourselves into Christ. While we inhabit the earth, though, we must, with the help of God's grace, make a free will decision to allow that transformation to take place. There is no charm in a "yes," unless a "no" is possible.StephenB
January 1, 2011
January
01
Jan
1
01
2011
11:13 AM
11
11
13
AM
PDT
KF RE 62 With all due respect the points you are making are not in dispute. Neither God ,angels or men are robots.To be in suspense over which of good or evil to do is not a sign of the imperfection of choosing in itself. Nor are "my theologians" asserting that free choices are not made by men God, Christ in the garden or by the angels in heaven. As to "my theologians" I am perfectly capable of thinking for myself thank you very much.The issue is does virtue, love and free choice require non neccessity in order to be present. Is it a sign of a mature and perfect will when good and evil are before it that one is in suspense as to which to choose? I am speaking of neccessity as choosing in the same way as you when you wrote "And it is not a tautology nor a logic of necessity external to himself; goodness is in his character" Vividvividbleau
January 1, 2011
January
01
Jan
1
01
2011
09:07 AM
9
09
07
AM
PDT
Vivid: God loves because his character is good, indeed, he is the fount of good will and all that is good -- as was just celebrated. God is not a robot, nor are angels, nor are men. To be in suspense over which of good or evil to do is not a sign of the imperfection of choosing in itself , but of our moral struggle; indeed your theologians need to reflect a bit more on the Garden of Gethsemane and Who was choosing there, even sweating blood: not my will but thine. God, who knows the right perfectly, also chooses the right perfectly. But on a far better authority than any theologian you can cite, it is a choice. And it is not a tautology nor a logic of necessity external to himself; goodness is in his character. G'day GEM of TKIkairosfocus
January 1, 2011
January
01
Jan
1
01
2011
08:22 AM
8
08
22
AM
PDT
RE 60 The same holds true for choice. God neccessarily ( by neccessity) cannot choose ever to sin. If true freedom of choice requires non neccessity, then God Himself, the most free being, does not have free choice. Vividvividbleau
January 1, 2011
January
01
Jan
1
01
2011
07:59 AM
7
07
59
AM
PDT
KF RE 50 "Similarly, to enable virtue, God grants freedom to choose to love — no choice, no love and thus no virtue — " This is a perfect example of the old adage that if you say something enough times it becomes accepted as a fact. So God has no virtue? The angels in heaven have no virtue? When we are in heaven we will have no virtue? It is impossible for the angels, the saints in heaven and for God to sin. So following your logic God cannot love nor is God virtuous the same goes for the saints and angels in heaven. "The highest and the perfect state of the will is a state of necessity; and the power of choice, so far from being essential to a true and genuine will is its weaknes and defect. What can be a greater sign of an imperfect and immature state of the will than that,with good and evil before it, it should be in suspense which to do?" Mozley Vividvividbleau
January 1, 2011
January
01
Jan
1
01
2011
07:47 AM
7
07
47
AM
PDT
OOPS: His studied UNresponsiveness would be amusing, if it were not so sad.kairosfocus
January 1, 2011
January
01
Jan
1
01
2011
05:16 AM
5
05
16
AM
PDT
F/N: As usual, MF is refusing to acknowledge the force of the argument that causes trace to chance, and/or necessity and/or art, that each has empirically discernible, reliable signs, and that for the signs relevant to design theory, there are obvious empirical tests. For example if a typical 20 or so word sentence or two in English could credibly have come to be in our observation on chance variations, then the whole concept of functionally specific complex information as a sign of intelligent design, and the wider concept of complex specified information would collapse. Thus, the possibility of empirical test and refutation is there. So far, on billions of cases on the internet, the sign is holding up very well thank you. (His studied responsiveness would be amusing, if it were not so sad.)kairosfocus
January 1, 2011
January
01
Jan
1
01
2011
05:15 AM
5
05
15
AM
PDT
Null: Pardon, my phrasing was plainly unclear -- and unnecessarily hurtful -- to you. I am sorry for that. Please note, I specifically highlighted that the strawman mischaracterisation I spoke of is inadvertent and that it traces to the old debates over Calvinism and hypercalvinism that blind us to alternatives that are there. I feel that I am being squeezed into someone else's shoes that pinch hot hot hot! How many other ways can I say that, to make it plain that you have not accurately captured either the range of possibilities or my views, and that this is leading you into a distorted conclusion? I hope I am clear enough, without being unnecessarily painful. I proceeded to elaborate such on the old Hebraic praxis of casting lots. That is, a random process may exist in a world designed by God as a real thing, without implying that God cannot intervene specifically if he wishes, or that he world at large is a chaos. Randomness does not entail a chaos not a cosmos. The underlying projection of a misunderstanding comes out in the implied contrast:
If you’re saying that God foreknows all, even if He does not force all, then I fail to see how the ‘random’ can be ‘truly random’. Certainly a distinction must be made.
Truly random means that something is highly contingent without specific intelligent direction of outcomes. The sequence of readings of a fair die under normal -- not "lot-casting" -- circumstances will be random in this sense. Same, for the distribution of kinetic etc energies among microparticles in a body of gas or liquid. God does not have to tell every molecule of H2O in that coffee pot on the fire to take up this particular quantum of energy just now. Setting up a situation where microparticles exchange energy by interacting freely and in great number is sufficient for the result to happen. That God knows immediately -- by omnipresence and omniscience -- that each and every particle will have a particular quantum of energy at a given instant, and succession of instants, does not mean that he has assigned angels to push them around from moment to moment [though he presumably could if he wanted to]; all that is needed is to set up a physical system with the appropriate parameters. Indeed, it is no accident that the empirically observable gas laws and parameters such as pressure, temperature, volume, PVT relationships would emerge mathematically by setting up a model of particles moving at random and deducing consequences. At a different scale, and factoring in nuclear reactions, a model cloud of hydrogen atoms forming a gas body, and collapsing under gravity and forming a hydrogen ball will go through the credible, empirically supported life cycle of a star. Is the involvement of random atomic and molecular processes in such a model a mark of chaos beyond lawful, orderly processes of the natural world? Not at all. By sharpest contrast, when such molecular interactions are held to be responsible for he origin of life in some warm little pond or undersea volcanic vent or wherever the latest scene for act 1 scene 1 on the evolutionary materialist tree of life is set, as an applied physicist who has worked with digital information systems from the gates, circuits and registers, machine code and assembly language view, I must say: no way! The sort of functionally prescriptive information involved in DNA is so complex that the resulting configuration space is going to so deeply isolate islands of function relative to searches on the scope of our cosmos as observed, that the account is not plausible at all, and certainly bears no comparison to H-ball models for stellar formation and life cycles. The same holds for the onward models proposed for the elaboration of the dozens of main body plans on chance variation and culling on differential reproductive success. In that context, we have good reason to see that random processes are involved in a lot of natural phenomena, starting with something so commonplace as what your thermometer is reading. Here, I cite AmHD:
ran·dom (rndm) adj. 1. Having no specific pattern, purpose, or objective: random movements. See Synonyms at chance. 2. Mathematics & Statistics Of or relating to a type of circumstance or event that is described by a probability distribution. 3. Of or relating to an event in which all outcomes are equally likely, as in the testing of a blood sample for the presence of a substance. Idiom: at random Without a governing design, method, or purpose; unsystematically: chose a card at random from the deck. [From at random, by chance, at great speed, from Middle English randon, speed, violence, from Old French, from randir, to run, of Germanic origin.] random·ly adv. random·ness n. The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition copyright ©2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Updated in 2009. Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.
Wiki has an unusually good elaboration: _________________ >> Randomness has somewhat disparate meanings as used in several different fields. It also has common meanings which may have loose connections with some of those more definite meanings. The Oxford English Dictionary defines "random" thus: Having no definite aim or purpose; not sent or guided in a particular direction; made, done, occurring, etc., without method or conscious choice; haphazard. Closely connected, therefore, with the concepts of chance, probability, and information entropy, randomness implies a lack of predictability. [I add, but God makes no actual predictions -- he is present everywhere, everywhen in our space-time domain so he is immediately aware of all that is or from our viewpoint, will be] Randomness is a concept of non-order or non-coherence in a sequence of symbols or steps, such that there is no intelligible pattern or combination. [I add: in other words, knowing the past path does not give you a guide to the specific outcomes for the future, though it may help you characterise a probability distribution, thus bridging from uncertainty to risk in decision-making] The fields of mathematics, probability, and statistics use formal definitions of randomness. In mathematics, a random variable is a way to assign a value to each possible outcome of an event. In probability and statistics, a random process is a repeating process whose outcomes follow no describable deterministic pattern, but follow a probability distribution, such that the relative probability of the occurrence of each outcome can be approximated or calculated. For example, the rolling of a fair six-sided die in neutral conditions may be said to produce random results, because one cannot know, before a roll, what number will show up. However, the probability of rolling any one of the six rollable numbers can be calculated. [notice the classic example] The term is often used in statistics to signify well-defined statistical properties, such as a lack of bias or correlation. Monte Carlo Methods, which rely on random input, are important techniques in science, as, for instance, in computational science.[1] Random selection is an official method to resolve tied elections in some jurisdictions[2] and is even an ancient method of divination, as in tarot, the I Ching, and bibliomancy. Its use in politics is very old, as office holders in Ancient Athens were chosen by lot, there being no voting. >> _________________ Here, the implication is strong: randomness does not have any grand metaphysical import. Randomness in its clearest terms, is a particular statistical property:
In probability and statistics, a random process is a repeating process whose outcomes follow no describable deterministic pattern, but follow a probability distribution, such that the relative probability of the occurrence of each outcome can be approximated or calculated.
Things may be according to a flat or peaked bell type curve or reverse J or even a U distribution or the like without that requiring that the world is a chaos. Those who infer from the existence of randomness to the absence of cause of such random outcomes, and onward to a chaos not a cosmos, are committing demonstrable non-sequiturs, or jumping to conclusions driven by question-begging hidden a prioris. Once we see that things that begin to exist have circumstances under which they do not/do exist, then they have blocking factors that can prevent their existence. Such blocking factors are necessary causes, e.g. no gas, your car cannot drive. So, since we live in a world that credibly had a beginning, we have every good reason to see the cosmos as caused, much less what is in it. We may be unable to specify the necessary and sufficient conditions for a particular effect to happen just now just there, to just that, but that is different form the event has no cause. The very fact that it begins at a some when, somewhere, somehow means it has a cause external to itself. So, the notion of causeless events is absurd, once we recognise the reality of necessary -- as opposed to sufficient -- causal factors. For instance, no unstable atom, no radioactive decay. The atom must exist and it must be unstable, for it to be able to subsequently decay. That we cannot predict when a particular atom will decay is irrelevant to the fact that the decay must be caused, since it has necessary factors. And,the fact that a population of atoms exhibits a definite probabilistic pattern to the decay implies that there is a lawlike process governing the decay. Now, in such a context, that God could make a world in which such randomness occurs, does not entail that the world is somehow out of control. Nor does having creatures able to choose to love mean the world is an out of control chaos that God is either watching in a horrified panic or is desperately trying to figure out how to bring it back into order. A Creator God is not to be confused with a Demiurge. So, we are not forced to imagine that randomness is opposed to the sovereignty of God, that is a questionable jump to a conclusion that is unwarranted by the evidence in hand. Nor are we forced to make the even more illogical leap from randomness exists to the random events are causeless and we live in a chaos not a cosmos. If that is your concern, the answer is to correct the errors of reasoning involved. Starting with helping such to see that cause is more than and different from what hey seem to imagine it is, in their haste to reject it. As a philosophically and theologically aware physicist, I see no good reason to reject the reality of randomness. I see no good reason to jump from accepting that reality to the conclusion that we live in a world where events are causeless. And, I see no good reason to leap to the further absurdity that -- despite the success of science in elucidating precisely the many causal patterns we study -- that the world is a chaos not an orderly and at least partially intelligible cosmos. GEM of TKIkairosfocus
January 1, 2011
January
01
Jan
1
01
2011
04:56 AM
4
04
56
AM
PDT
#53 You mean they’re assumptions, exactly like you were saying is not only allowed, but you consider necessary to detect the presence or absence of design? Necessary - but not sufficient. Just tell me straight out, Markf: Can the design of an omniscient, omnipotent being and/or its lack be detected by science, or not? I can only tell you what I believe to be true which happens not to be a straightforward answer. If that is the total description then it cannot be detected (or refuted) by science. If you add some assumptions about motives (but nothing else) then you can refute it scientifically but cannot establish its truth scientifically. If you say something also about how it implemented its design then it can be both refuted and potentially detected scientifically. I believe this is what I have been saying all along. I am sorry if it has not been clear. Now which bit do you disagree with?markf
January 1, 2011
January
01
Jan
1
01
2011
04:23 AM
4
04
23
AM
PDT
Onlookers: MF of course hints at the problem of evils -- how neatly atheistical debaters omit the problem they face: implications of the reality of good and the related reality of evil -- without admitting he actual state of play post Plantinga's Free Will Defense. Cf,. here.kairosfocus
January 1, 2011
January
01
Jan
1
01
2011
03:50 AM
3
03
50
AM
PDT
kairosfocus, Some quick responses for now. Sniff, sniff, I think I smell a burning strawman in the morning . . . Sorry, that's just offbase. I burnt no strawmen - I asked for clarification in the open theism case, since you spoke of the "truly random", and I aired what I thought was a particular problem with any talk of the truly random. If you're saying that God foreknows all, even if He does not force all, then I fail to see how the 'random' can be 'truly random'. Certainly a distinction must be made. For, at first level corrective, as a point of simple analysis: God’s (and here I am speaking of God in the sense of the concept of God) foreknowing — or more accurately his immediate and direct awareness of all things at all times — is not to be conflated with his direct programming that this must and shall be so. Knowing that X is not the same as forcing that X. Even, for God. ... (This is a crucial error often made by those who so focus on God’s sovereignty that they swallow all up in a hard determinism, regardless of absurd and perverse consequences.) Plenty to discuss here theologically, but I'm going to sidestep it for one reason: The theological dispute isn't the point for me. It's the scientific dispute, namely just what science as science can possibly show. And crucially, science cannot show - is incapable of showing - that the outcomes and events of evolution are neither foreknown or preordained nor ultimately guided. Perhaps God foreknows all but does not force all. Perhaps God foreknows and does program everything. Perhaps many different things, and perhaps these things can be demonstrated with philosophy and reason. But science just has not, and in principle cannot, cross that bridge. And when Darwinians say that God cannot and did not foreknow the outcomes of evolution, cannot have or did not guide the evolutionary process, and that this is science, it is an abuse of science. (You'll note that I have not been claiming the truth, much less scientific truth, of any kind of "hard determinism". I've focused squarely on a documented claim made by some Darwinians, and what I see as one of the central problems with the entire modern discussion about evolution and design.)nullasalus
January 1, 2011
January
01
Jan
1
01
2011
03:28 AM
3
03
28
AM
PDT
markf, The world was designed by an omnipotent God who wants to maximise human joy. The world was designed by an omnipotent God who wants it to be comprehensible. They are both capable of refutation by identifying aspects of the world that are in one case malevolent and in the other case incomprehensible – and to this extent they are capable of scientific enquiry. You think that 'identifying malevolence' is the stuff of scientific inquiry? Considering science has boo to say about values, that's quite an assertion. Nor does finding an aspect of the word that is currently incomprehensible a 'refutation' in and of itself. Otherwise absolutely any currently inexplicable phenomena is a 'refutation' of, say.. materialism. On the contrary, the fact that science has advanced as much as it has over the centuries just bolsters the rationality claim. On the other hand, even if it turned that the world was completely benevolent and comprehensible to humans they would be unsatisfactory hypotheses because they are ad hoc. You mean they're assumptions, exactly like you were saying is not only allowed, but you consider necessary to detect the presence or absence of design? Just tell me straight out, Markf: Can the design of an omniscient, omnipotent being and/or its lack be detected by science, or not? None of this 'inquired into a roughly scientific way but not satisfactory' stuff. You've gone from saying 'Yes, if you make assumptions about the designer' to 'No' to 'Kind of, you can explore it, but it's ad hoc so it's unsatisfactory so I guess you really can't'.nullasalus
January 1, 2011
January
01
Jan
1
01
2011
03:05 AM
3
03
05
AM
PDT
F/N: Darwin's closing summary: __________________ >> . . Growth with Reproduction; Inheritance which is almost implied by reproduction; Variability from the indirect and direct action of the conditions of life and from use and disuse: a Ratio of Increase so high as to lead to a Struggle for Life, and as a consequence to Natural Selection, entailing Divergence of Character and the Extinction of less-improved forms. Growth with Reproduction; Inheritance which is almost implied by reproduction; Variability from the indirect and direct action of the conditions of life and from use and disuse: a Ratio of Increase so high as to lead to a Struggle for Life, and as a consequence to Natural Selection, entailing Divergence of Character and the Extinction of less-improved forms. Thus, from the war of nature, from famine and death, the most exalted object which we are capable of conceiving, namely, the production of the higher animals, directly follows. There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being evolved." [Origin, Ch 15. Emphases added]] >> ____________________ Some updating may be applied but he substantial claim is still at the core of the modern macro-evolutionary view of origins. And, it utterly fails to cogently address and resolve the issue of origin of required information. I find it probably calculated that Darwin cuts off at the question of the root of the tree of life, origin of life.kairosfocus
January 1, 2011
January
01
Jan
1
01
2011
02:59 AM
2
02
59
AM
PDT
Pardon an excerpt from Wiki: ____________________ >> Cleromancy is a form of divination using sortition, casting of lots, or casting bones or stones as in lithomancy, in which an outcome is determined by means that normally would be considered random, such as the rolling of dice, but are believed to reveal the will of God, or other supernatural entities . . . . Casting of lots occurs relatively frequently in the Bible, and many biblical scholars think that the Urim and Thummim served this purpose. In the Hebrew Bible, there are at least four cases where casting lots was invoked as a means of determining God's mind: 1. In the Book of Joshua 7:11-22, God commands that a thief be found by casting lots, first among the tribes of Israel, then among the families of that tribe, etc. Achan, the person identified in this way, confesses his guilt, and shows where he has buried the loot. 2. In the First book of Samuel 10:17-24, the people of Israel demand God to set a king over them, and God decrees a king to be found by a procedure similar to the above, leading to the selection of king Saul. 3. Also in the First book of Samuel 14:42, lots are used to determine that it was Jonathan, Saul's son, who broke the oath that Saul made, "Cursed be the man who eats food until its evening and I am avenged on my enemies". 4. In the Book of Jonah 1:7, casting of lots is used to determine that Jonah was the cause of the storm. He was subsequently cast overboard, and the storm dissipated. Other places in the Hebrew Bible relevant to divination: * Book of Proverbs 16:33: The lot is cast into the lap, but its every decision is from Yahweh and 18:18: The lot settles disputes, and keeps strong ones apart.. * Book of Leviticus 16:7-10: On the Day of Atonement lots are cast over two goats to determine which will be the sacrifice and which will be the Scapegoat. * Leviticus 19:26: .... neither shall you practice [nahash] or [onan][1]. The literal meaning of nahash is hissing, though it can be extended to whispering, and it has historically been understood to refer to enchantment; onan literally translates as clouds, possibly referring to nephomancy. Some English translations render onan as augury (interpreting the flight patterns of birds), but others translate it as sorcery . . . . Note that there are two distinct Hebrew concepts which are confused if both are translated by casting of lots. Although nahash literally means to hiss when used as a verb, as a noun it means serpent; the idea of divination, or fortune-telling, is conveyed through association with the breath [fig. spirit] of a serpent [fig. deceiver][unreliable source?]. In contrast, the Hebrew word for lot-casting, gowral, merely means to assign portions, or allotments, in the interests of fairness. The most notable example in the New Testament occurs in the Acts of the Apostles 1:23-26 where the eleven remaining apostles draw lots to determine whether Matthias or Barsabbas (surnamed Justus) would be chosen to replace Judas. >> ____________________ I am of course not particularly happy with the Wiki terminology. On substance, we observe that the key concept is that God is able to intervene in a process that is beyond human control and would otherwise be random. Given the universality of gambling in cultures, and its premise on randomness, the Israelites plainly understood this. So, the issue pivots on the same thing as miracles vs the normal course of nature (and is related to the question of the power of a mind to supervene on a body, including a brain); as I previously pointed out. Particularly, that God sets up the normal course of nature and that it has in it causal factors tracing to mechanical necessity, chance and intelligence, does not detract from his sovereignty. It means only that he has chosen to exercise it in a particular way. So, for instance, if God has created an order of creature that can think, decide and love (thus be truly virtuous) -- rather than acting by pre-programmed robotic instructions and/or chance -- that is an expression of his sovereignty, not an undermining of it. That such creatures therefore have significantly -- though not unlimitedly -- free powers of choice and will, similarly, does not undermine God's sovereignty, but is the particular way he has chosen to express it. And, such creatures will not go beyond God's parameters of knowledge of what happens ["in him we live and move and have our being"], nor will they be able to toss the world utterly beyond God's ability to restore it through loving redemption and healing through the Messiah, the wounded healer despised and rejected of men and acquainted with suffering, but also the one who God will raise up after he has made his soul a sin-offering and has been poured out to death and buried with the rich; as Isa 53 so eloquently puts it. God's sovereignty, on the Biblical theology view, is dynamically and interactively exercised, not a passive pre-programming of a rigid program. In this context, that God would similarly allow chance, random behaviour of atoms, molecules etc, is within his sovereignty, not in contradiction to it. In short, the notion that randomness has some great metaphysical import that the world is a chaos, and not a cosmos that . . .
a: obeys laws or order (including cause and effect and other first principles of right reason), b: so orders randomness that it is itself orderly on statistical distributions, c: has room for free thinking free willing intelligent creatures, and yet d: has room in it for God's direct (indeed, miraculous) intervention when that is important for God's good purposes
. . . is absurd on its face. So, I think the whole exchange where the reality of chance or randomness is seen as a pivotal metaphysical issue that hinges on the fluttering question: is this a chaos or a cosmos, is simply misdirected. We plainly live in a cosmos, that we experience as orderly, reasonable, intelligible, and open to our choice and also has in it things that show forth randomness under control. In short, I think there are some key deep conceptual issues that should be addressed, as above. Once that is done, the vexed problem of the reality of chance melts away like fog in the sunshine of a new day. Indeed, that process of phase changes is deeply embedded with random microparticle level physical processes under control of intelligible and astonishingly beautiful and powerful elegant laws of nature! GEM of TKIkairosfocus
January 1, 2011
January
01
Jan
1
01
2011
02:44 AM
2
02
44
AM
PDT
Null & T: First, I think a common [mis-]reading of the Copenhagen interpretation is where the error is, not in the theory itself. Remember the significance of the city in which it was held: Bohr's hometown, and hosted by him. No knowledgeable person could reasonably accuse Bohr, especially, of being a philosophical incompetent! (And a lot of others there were no slouches either.) What was meant by the Copenhagen view, is that relevant quantum phenomena follow a random statistical pattern, not that there were no underlying causal factors that set up the situation; which includes necessary ones -- as I have discussed. For instance, radioactive decay by quantum tunnelling of an alpha particle in an unstable nucleus will follow a random pattern, but fits in underlying probabilities so that there is a definite measurable decay constant that leads to a definite half-life. We may not be able to predict which specific atoms in a mass of radioactive substance will decay when, but we know some very definite things about the population of atoms. Similarly, in statistical thermodynamics, we do not know specifics of the individual particles, but we are able to deduce key overall population distribution parameters -- what the Zustandsum or partition function does -- and connect these to bulk properties such as temperature, pressure, electrical activity [I think here of the significance of the Fermi level in electronics] etc. The fact that we have population properties that are stable and measurable, tells us the underlying process though random is not chaotic, outside of law. In turn, that answers to Null's unfortunate characterisation:
Are you denying God’s omniscience and omnipotence? If so, that’s fine – I disagree over that point, of course, and I’d further disagree that there’s no good argument for God’s omniscience or omnipotence. And if someone insists that either this or that particular part of nature, or some whole class of events in nature, is utterly unguided and lacking intention, etc, then I’ll note that no good argument exists to demonstrate that claim . . . . that method doesn’t require that on all those other times God was unaware of the ‘random’ outcomes, or not preordaining them, etc. The context drives that situation . . . . this depends on what ‘truly random’ means. Random, as in not foreseen or preordained by any mind, God included? I can think of plenty of reasons to deny that, and certainly no way to demonstrate it is in fact the case. Nor does asserting that a mind did foresee or preordain (or even interventionally causes, at each and every event) the events taking place in a radioactive lump require that, say.. the pattern that shows up won’t be such-and-such reliably overtime (a nice, qualified ‘random’ distribution, say.)
Sniff, sniff, I think I smell a burning strawman in the morning . . . More specifically, I think we have been so used to thinking in terms of projecting certain partricular views as highlighted as THE alternatives, that we forget that there is another way. I have therefore highlighted the crucial point where the argument goes off into strawman-tinged error. Doubtless, inadvertently, so deep is the programming tracing to the old and fruitless debates over Calvinism and especially its hyper-forms. For, at first level corrective, as a point of simple analysis: God's (and here I am speaking of God in the sense of the concept of God) foreknowing -- or more accurately his immediate and direct awareness of all things at all times -- is not to be conflated with his direct programming that this must and shall be so. Knowing that X is not the same as forcing that X. Even, for God. To know that X is not to CAUSE that X. That God knows that X will occur is not the sufficient cause that X occurs. It is a necessary condition, on his omnipresence and omniscience, but necessity is not sufficiency in causality or in implication logic. P => Q means P is sufficient for Q and Q necessary for P. Notice the counter-flow of sufficiency and necessity. Fuel is necessary for a fire, but it is not sufficient for it. God knowing that X is necessary once X is real, if God is omniscient, but the mere fact of God's knowing that X does not mean that he is its sufficient cause. X may happen by a random process God has designed and implements for good reason, e.g temperature is a key feature of reality, and is a measure of the average random energy per degree of freedom for microparticles. It is intimately involved in any number of key processes, including life processes that use diffusion or osmosis etc. Similarly, to enable virtue, God grants freedom to choose to love -- no choice, no love and thus no virtue -- knowing that sometimes freedom will be abused, forming evil. But a world in which love and other virtues are possible is a world in which a whole class of good that would otherwise be impossible now becomes possible. (This is a crucial error often made by those who so focus on God's sovereignty that they swallow all up in a hard determinism, regardless of absurd and perverse consequences.) This is why among other points I keep returning to the ancient Israelite practice of seeking guidance from God through what would in normal circumstances be random processes, e.g. casting lots. [ . . . ]kairosfocus
January 1, 2011
January
01
Jan
1
01
2011
02:40 AM
2
02
40
AM
PDT
nullasalus There are multiple misunderstanding between us. So let me start from scratch. I believe these two hypotheses to have the same status: The world was designed by an omnipotent God who wants to maximise human joy. The world was designed by an omnipotent God who wants it to be comprehensible. They are both capable of refutation by identifying aspects of the world that are in one case malevolent and in the other case incomprehensible - and to this extent they are capable of scientific enquiry. On the other hand, even if it turned that the world was completely benevolent and comprehensible to humans they would be unsatisfactory hypotheses because they are ad hoc. This applies to any hypothesis of the form: "The world has feature X because an omnipotent God wants feature X." I do not see what is inconsistent about this and I am not sure which bit you disagree with.markf
January 1, 2011
January
01
Jan
1
01
2011
01:23 AM
1
01
23
AM
PDT
T, According to this interpretation, there is *literally no reason* why one energy level rather than another is assumed by an electron at a given time, or why a radioactive particle is given off at time X rather than five minutes later. I don't think that view (brute, basic indeterminism) is specific to the Copenhagen interpretation. But yes, in quantum physics - as near as I can tell - there is the (popular?) view that at the basic level, nature is probablistic and nothing is determining those probabilities. They 'just happen'. To be fair to the physicists, at least some of them think this question gets into philosophy and metaphysics, and thus try not to attach much weight to the view. On the other hand, some do, and still more love to repeat what they say as if this has been or even could be demonstrated. (Never mind that randomness in evolutionary theory means something different from what it means in quantum theory; TEs can’t handle such subtle distinctions.) I think some handle the distinctions well, though I'll frankly admit many don't. There's the Stephen Barr example again - I think he makes some mistakes on the ID/TE question, but he does a good job of making clear the distinction between 'modeled as if' and 'really is'. I think Barr would object to randomness as Darwinists tend to mean it, but I also get the impression he naively assumes that everyone means what he means when he talks about Darwinism. That strikes me as manifestly untrue. And I think that if one does such calculations, the Darwinian theory is wildly implausible. Macroevolution may have occurred; but if it did, it wasn’t driven by the means specified by Darwin. Something else was going on. Maybe interventions. Or maybe an inherent teleology built into living systems. Either way, it’s design. I think Darwinism - and any science, really - automatically comes with a certain amount of teleology whether someone likes it or not. Worse, I think the idea of 'Darwinian mechanisms' has exploded lately - is neutral evolution a "darwinian mechanism"? The impression I get is "Yes, in that we can call it that, because Darwinism now means whatever we want it to mean". Was deep homology expected on Darwinism? Apparently not, until it was discovered - then it turned out that, well, we can incorporate that into Darwinism too. And HGT. Maybe even mutational biases in evolution. And convergence. And... Further, I honestly wonder what reply of many Darwinists would be to your question of 'likelihood'. The impression I get is that many are committed to saying that what we see in nature is radically unlikely, that we should certainly not expect humans - even mere 'intelligent, moral creatures' - to exist given Darwinism. And yet here we are. Aren't we lucky? After all, the cost of explaining away the chance and arguing that humans or 'moral, intelligent creatures' should be expected on evolution is to add increasing amount of direction to the evolutionary process - but to do that is to dabble even more explicitly in teleology. Yet to argue that we (and perhaps, other complicated structures) are incredibly unlikely given the mechanisms, resources and time - yet here we are - is to open the door to the question of a different variety of rigging. Since we know there's one thing that can use a very 'chancy' process to create a particular outcome - a mind. I guess a good summary of my view would be that I think too much of the anti-teleology that comes with the Darwinism package is of a variety that forms a metaphysical, ideological commitment, not anything that can even hope to be supported scientifically, even in principle. Scrap the metaphysics and you're left with, at best, yet another mechanism and process a designer could implement and exploit to achieve an end. To use a classic example, Mount Rushmore was designed. How was it designed? The possible answers to that are varied. A given designer, certainly one of the sort Christians specifically and theists generally envision, has quite an array of tools at the ready.nullasalus
December 31, 2010
December
12
Dec
31
31
2010
05:26 PM
5
05
26
PM
PDT
kairosfocus: The reason that people have come to interpret "random" as "causeless" is due to a certain interpretation of quantum physics, the so-called "Copenhagen interpretation," which is the interpretation of the majority of physicists. According to this interpretation, there is *literally no reason* why one energy level rather than another is assumed by an electron at a given time, or why a radioactive particle is given off at time X rather than five minutes later. Only a statistical generalization can be made for these events; no sufficient cause can be given for any of them taken individually. And this is not just because human beings don't have the means to perceive the cause; the unpredictability, it is said, is built into nature itself. Randomness is part of the metaphysical fabric of reality, not just a concept useful for science where observation and calculation cannot handle the causal relationships. I happen to think that the Copenhagen interpretation is wrong; I think the physicists who hold to it are philosophical incompetents who don't know what they are talking about. I think they have mistaken the human inability to specify causes for the absence of causes. I think they have mistaken mathematical randomness for ontological randomness. I think that every event in the universe has a fully sufficient natural cause -- except in cases where God intervenes. But my view is neither here nor there; I'm just explaining where the random = causeless notion comes from. The TEs love quantum indeterminacy because it allows them to have things both ways. You can believe in real randomness in nature while affirming that God is behind the randomness; thus, Darwinian evolution, driven by randomness, is true in science, and God is still the designer of nature in theology. (Never mind that randomness in evolutionary theory means something different from what it means in quantum theory; TEs can't handle such subtle distinctions.) Anyhow, my view (and I think nullasalus may agree with me) is that *if* there were "real randomness" in nature, and *if* the mutations that allegedly drive Darwinian evolution were "truly random," then we should be able to calculate how likely it is that evolution could proceed by such processes, and by comparing with the time given by the fossil record, estimate the likelihood that purely Darwinian mechanisms are a significant part of evolution. And I think that if one does such calculations, the Darwinian theory is wildly implausible. Macroevolution may have occurred; but if it did, it wasn't driven by the means specified by Darwin. Something else was going on. Maybe interventions. Or maybe an inherent teleology built into living systems. Either way, it's design. T.Timaeus
December 31, 2010
December
12
Dec
31
31
2010
04:46 PM
4
04
46
PM
PDT
1 2 3 4

Leave a Reply