randomness

[auswiq]

I submit this for thoughtful consideration by evolutionists:

Considering randomness, per se; I would define it as 'directionless continuity'. Etymologically, the word 'random' refers to 'aimless galloping'. Pure randomness, if we are to use the word according to it's true meaning, cannot logically give rise to existence, as we experience it.

 A 'going nowhere' scenario cannot engender order or system. According to my understanding of popular scientific opinion, evolution, speaks of 'disorganized nothingness' bringing forth an organized cosmic system including lifeforms.

Everything that makes up the cosmos, takes the form of 'bounded entities' - by that, I mean that there are inherent laws in all of nature, by which every existent thing has it's being that is defined by it's boundaries. A plant is a plant; a planet, a planet. Each entity does not encroach the boundaries of others.(e.g, We can't pass our finger through the boundary of a billiard ball). These laws also serve to arrange all entities into a system (the cosmos) and what is more, a teleological one (telos - Gk- purpose). System implies order, which in turn, implies a Mind that is equal to what It conceives and brings to be. A Mind, capable of Foresight (capacity to plan ahead) and of Will (ability to independently choose - in this case, produce a cosmos) to fulfill a pre-ordained purpose. Sufficient for now.

 

[sulphur]

You make many assumptions. Be careful or you will be jumped on from agreat height

 

[auswiq]

...jumped on from a great height....  hmmm.. well perhaps I might just prepare a few little upturned spikes to greet them as they land ...

 

[Micaiah]

G'day Auswig, and welcome to the forum. Interesting post.

A 'going nowhere' scenario cannot engender order or system. According to my understanding of popular scientific opinion, evolution, speaks of 'disorganized nothingness' bringing forth an organized cosmic system including lifeforms.

I agree. Evolutionists scoff at the faith of Christians, but I think they show much more faith in their philosophy. All of my experience suggests to build something and get it working properly requires careful thought and directed activity by an intelligent being. The greatness of the creator can be assessed by viewing the creation. I have an engineering background and have been acutely aware of the work involved in designing, constructing, and operating mechanical systems - even those considered relatively simple.

I understand evolutionists don't like it when we liken the chances of creatures evolving to the chance of getting a jet plane by throwing all the components in the air. Personally, I like the analogy, since I think the probabiliites of the two happening are equally impossible. They consider the chances of evolution are greater because living things can undergo genetic change and chances are improved by natural selection. Actually I understand their own experts consider natual selection improves the chance of survival marginally. I'll let them put forward their case. Their argument relates to living things (biogenisis) but doesn't explain how living cells got going in the first place (abiogenesis).

I look forward to hearing from you further.

Sulphur,
How about making your statements a little more simple to interpret.

 

[notto]

Micaiah,

Many Christians accept mainstream biology and evolution as well as mainstream geology and cosmology.

They don't do this out of "faith", they do it because that is where the evidence leads them. Many (most?) scientists in the United States are Christian and have no problem with mainstream theories in biology, geology, and cosmology.

Acceptance of Young Earth Creationism does not define a Christian. Many (most?) Christians do not accept the YEC interpretation of Genesis. Many highly respected biblical scholars and historians reject YEC because of the evidence that falsifies it.

Do not equate acceptance of evolution to atheism. To do so would be incorrect.

 

[Micaiah]

My use of the word evolutionist here is a matter of convenience. It gets cumbersome to say atheistic evolutionsists all the time.

 

[notto]

Then when you make statements like "Evolutionists scoff at the faith of Christians, but I think they show much more faith in their philosophy" why don't you just say atheist if that is what you mean?

Also, just to clarify, when you speak of Evolution, do you mean the scientific description that deals only with Biology or do you mean something else. You seem to be implying something else that deals with the creation of the universe and all that is in it. This is not evolution as discussed in biology by biologists and other scientists.

Evolution is a scientific theory, not a philosophy.

 

[auswiq]

G'day and greetings there, Micaiah,

a darn good analogy in my book too, just like the explosion in a printing shop scenario.

Yes, I too am dubious about this idea of some spontaneous eruption of cosmic diahorrea,
belched out of a primordial, hyperspacial case of hypothetical constipation, wheelbarrow-illions of
years ago, and of which we are supposed to be very auspicious products. Certainly smelly, this evolutionary big bang stuff alright.


 

 

[Freodin]

Hm, I would like you to show one "evolutionist" who thinks evolution is based on "pure randomness".

Are you attacking a strawman here?

 

[notto]

auswiq,

Why wouldn't God need a "designer" based on the criteria in your first post?

 

[LewisWildermuth]

Micaiah...

Thank you for clearing up my religous beliefs for me, I seem to have been mistaken in believing I was a Christian... But since I accept the Theory of Evolution as a valid scientific theory I obviously am an Atheist. I guess now that I am an Atheist I can happily start killin, taking drugs and other such sinful behavior.

Your words of wisdom and deep understanding have reached me and set me free of my mistaken belief that I am or had ever been a Christian at all.

 

[LewisWildermuth]

Since just about 99% of the Theory of evolution has nothing to do with chance I would guess your point is rather meaningless auswiq.

Please atleast bother to learn what the Theory of Evolution is actualy about before you say that it is all wrong.

 

[Micaiah]

I think most people on both sides of the fence understood the points I raised. I am not suggesting you cannot be a Christian if you believe in evolution. You made your comments to correct something you consider wrong. People can read them and draw their own conclusions.

 

[Micaiah]

Since just about 99% of the Theory of evolution has nothing to do with chance I would guess your point is rather meaningless auswiq.

I understand otherwise. One of the underpinning assumptions of NDT is that point mutations occur randomly. As stated previously, natural selection increases the chance of survival marginally.

 

[lucaspa]

Originally posted by auswiq  According to my understanding of popular scientific opinion, evolution, speaks of 'disorganized nothingness' bringing forth an organized cosmic system including lifeforms.

Your premise is in error.  IOW, your understanding of popular scientific opinion is wrong.  There is not complete randomness. See the end of the post for more on that. 

Everything that makes up the cosmos, takes the form of 'bounded entities' - by that, I mean that there are inherent laws in all of nature, by which every existent thing has it's being that is defined by it's boundaries.

This certainly applies to theories. All theories have their boundaries and there currently is no "theory of everything". 

A plant is a plant; a planet, a planet. Each entity does not encroach the boundaries of others.

This, unfortunately, is not true.  On the quantum level, entities are very gray.  For instance, electrons are both particles and waves at the same time.  The cat is both dead and alive.  Atoms can exist at two places at the same time.  The reason a planet looks like a planet is that its wave is so very very much smaller than our senses can detect.

System implies order, which in turn, implies a Mind that is equal to what It conceives and brings to be. A Mind, capable of Foresight (capacity to plan ahead) and of Will (ability to independently choose - in this case, produce a cosmos) to fulfill a pre-ordained purpose.

HERE we go.  The pre-Darwin philosophy.  Might I recommend the first 2 chapters of Dennett's Darwin's Dangerous Idea to you?  What you have said is the old top-down philosophy.  Deity or "Mind" at top, then Intelligence below that, then Design, then Order, then Chaos.  You skipped Design and went to Order, which you call System. 

What Darwin found was an algorithmic process to convert Order to Design -- natural or Darwinian selection.  That broke the philosophy.

The breaking at the bottom is that Chaos can organize to Order by the use of the physical laws.  Without any apparent intervention by a deity or "Mind".  For instance, dry heat amino acids and then add water or a saline solution and you get living protocells.  The organization comes from emergent properties of the amino acids and the chemical process.

Once you have matter/energy/spacetime (in the Big Bang), then the processes we have discovered by science are sufficient, as material causes, to produce all the order and design you see around you, including human intelligence.

Orthodox Christian theology would not have it any other way.  Christianity is not a god-of-the-gaps theology, which is what you are trying to introduce.  God created a complete universe, with no gaps in material causes into which 'Mind' has to be directly inserted to keep things working.

 

[lucaspa]

Originally posted by Micaiah
I understand otherwise. One of the underpinning assumptions of NDT is that point mutations occur randomly. As stated previously, natural selection increases the chance of survival marginally.

What is "NDT"?

The observation is that variation in the population is random with respect to the needs of the individual or the population.  The bolded type is important.  In a climate growing colder, just as many deer will be born with longer fur than shorter fur.  In that sense the variations are "random".  Now, because of the climate, only the longer furred deer will survive; the others will freeze or be colder and not able to run fast enough to escape predators, etc. 

It is the variation that improves an individual's chance of survival.  Natural selection is the deterministic selection of those with variations (designs) that best fit the design problem set by the environment.

In a way, it's no wonder that most layperson creationists don't accept evolution: they have a very wrong picture of evolution. If evolution were really what you say it is, then even evolutionists would reject it.

 

[sulphur]

Here comes the crunch.Can you accept christians who believe in evolution, or agnostics that believe in ayoung earth ?Do you think that you change your ideas when confronted by new evidence or are going along with your own ideas set in concrete

 

[lucaspa]

Originally posted by Micaiah
I agree. Evolutionists scoff at the faith of Christians, but I think they show much more faith in their philosophy. ... All of my experience suggests to build something and get it working properly requires careful thought and directed activity by an intelligent being. 

First, since at least half of evolutionists are Christians, they are hardly in a position to scoff at the faith of Christians, are they?  In equating evolution with a philosophy, you are making the common mistake of equating evolution with atheism.  EVOLUTION IS NOT ATHEISM.  If you want to argue against the philosophy/faith of atheists, please go ahead. But by directing your argument against evolution, you are fighting the wrong battle in the wrong place.

Second, search the web on genetic algorithms.  Darwinian selection is being used to get designs that are too tough for human intelligence to get. 

For instance, nature doesn't have a DNA that is also an enzyme.  It has several RNAs that also serves as enzymes, but no DNA.  Humans had no idea how to make DNA to be an enzyme but wanted to for several possible medical purposes. What to do?  Use evolution to make it for you!

20.  Breaker RR, Joyce GF.A DNA enzyme that cleaves RNA. Chem Biol  1994 Dec;1(4):223-9
21.  Ronald R Breaker, Gerald FA Joyce DNA enzyme with Mg2+-dependent RNA phosphoesterase activity   Chemistry & Biology 1995, 2:655-660.

Joyce started with 50 random nucleotide sequences of DNA and then tested them in an environment to act as an enzyme.  The sequences that showed even the tiniest activity were kept and the others discarded. Then Joyce used chemical reactions to randomly modify the DNA.  Then he tested the second generation, keeping the variations that showed even the tiniest increase in enzyme activity. Back to the random modification again, and then back to testing.  Keep that up for 250 generations or so and he had a DNA enzyme that was as active as any ribozyme out there. Only then did Joyce sequence the DNA enzyme in order to try to figure out how it works.

Joyce did nothing but serve as the environment.  For him to exercise the "careful thought and directed activity" that you say, Joyce would have had to put each nucleotide onto the DNA, knowing or guessing in advance how it would help the ultimate purpose.  But he didn't do that, because Joyce had no idea how to get what he wanted.

There are even more extreme examples in the area of chip design and computer programs.  Joyce at least was able to figure out how the DNA enzyme worked.  When Darwinian selection has been used to make computer chips or write computer programs (such as one that beat the human checkers champ), the result was a chip or program that worked great but that the humans could not figure out how it worked.

Now, in all your experience, have you ever run across a human designer making an artifact (such as a watch) that didn't know how it worked when he was done?

 

 

[Micaiah]

Do you think that you change your ideas when confronted by new evidence or are going along with your own ideas set in concrete

I haven't seen anything yet to demonstrate how the beautiful world in which we live came about other than by the Creator.

 

[sulphur]

there are so many perfect things in the universe otherwise we would not exist. why does it require agod