The scientific definition of random is precise enough that experiments can be designed to test it. In the context of genetic mutations it means random with respect to fitness. You appear to have equated “random” to “Godless” in your mind, and so have set up a stumbling block that contributes to your anti-scientific views.
I will use “random” in the following to denote a mathematical kind of patternless randomness. In a larger sense, of course genetic mutations aren’t “random” – they must obey the laws of biochemistry. We don’t expect chemical reactions to be “random” in that sense. For example mixing up Helium and Carbon and Hydrogen won’t give us a “random” molecules like C H_4 He_7. ( ).
I think of the description in Genesis 1 of God creating the universe from “formless and void”, as God speaking into existence the laws of nature that would bring form and order to Creation. Biology, and in particular biochemistry proceed according to the laws of nature that God created. I am not trying to argue with you, I am just trying to explain that many of us in the scientific world are able to synthesize God’s sovereignty over Creation with a certain amount of randomness as defined in ToE.
I have found helpful some of the writing of Simon Conway Morris - Wikipedia, a Christian biologist. He argues that the contraints of biology make the development of creatures by biological evolution that are capable of a relationship with God practically inevitable.
Sorry, but that’s childish and naive. The number of technical terms that have common meanings as well is immense, and denying the use of technical terms is just stubborness. It isn’t deception, it’s clarity; the only ones who would perceive deception are those too lazy to learn.
It’s not about being “hyper-precise”, it’s about honesty.
And anyone who actually wants to talk about a topic will learn, and use, the new meaning.
There’s another word with numerous definitions, depending on whether you’re talking about navigation, statistics, psychology . . . .
There’s a difference between being out of one’s depth and insisting that one is right while refusing to learn.
A homeless person who moves regularly?
A blip on a radar screen?
A small plant that springs up in response to rainfall, living only long enough to produce seeds?
The point is that words have uses, and technical terms are special uses often of common words. TO be honest, one must learn the meanings for a context and use terms that way.
Or evolution. Though I don’t really know what was meant in that context.
There’s also a difference between knowing that one is out of one’s depth (and consequently asking for explanations) vs not knowing (and assuming you don’t need them).
As I’ve said before, it’s frequently what some-one doesn’t know they don’t know that trips them up.
A power surge in an electrical supply?
A non-repetitive feature in an acoustic signature?
A mathematical function (e.g. 1/x) that decreases to zero asymptotically as x increases?
A seasonal worker, e.g. a crop-picker?
A software library or font that is removed from memory immediately after use?
A sojourn with a Philippine family?
A choice of action that affects others as well as oneself?
A rapidly decaying supernova?
A fluctuation in water pressure caused by the opening or closing of a valve?
A bird undergoing migration?
My work includes three different technical areas, and ‘transient’ has a different meaning in each of them. This isn’t unusual. Words with only one meaning are uncommon.
Yes, absolutely!
I think most people understand, though, that it’s important to ake space for people who don’t have the right vocabulary but lots of important questions.
I encountered some hedgehog-like defensive suspicion years ago regarding honest but naive questions. There has to be room here for the honest but naive. The green and uninformed.
But yes, once one has been given the right terms or concepts, or has been directed to appropriate resources for background reading and learning, then it’s time to start incorporating that new learning.
).