Aye & A&E were the common man and woman; When Adam delved and Eve span, who was then the gentleman? (John Ball, Blackheath, 13th June 1381, The Peasants Revolt). The story is absolutely remarkable for its humanity, its inspired humanism, including of God, with roots going back a thousand years from its final post-Exilic edit.
ârandom, haphazard, casual mean determined by accident rather than design. random stresses lack of definite aim, fixed goal, or regular procedure. a random selection of books haphazard applies to what is done without regard for regularity or fitness or ultimate consequence.â Merriam Webster
@Albert, @GarciaGonzalez
Can something come out of nothing? The answer is No. 0 x 1 = 0. Yet we know that universe had a beginning, which means that matter, energy, time, and space also had a beginning. The universe being finite did not create itself. Only God, Who is infinite, can create something out of nothing. Only God can create order out of nothing (disorder.)
Science is about order. Science is about natural laws or order. If evolution is not about discernible order, then it is not science and useless, since it is without meaning or purpose.
In his groundbreaking book, Wonderful Life, Stephen Jay Gould said that evolution was random because we could not have predicted which species would survive the Permian-Triassic extinction, based on past experience. While this may be true, that fact is not definitive, because extinctions are caused by changes in the ecology. Thus we cannot predict the future based on the past when the future is marked different from the past.
This does not mean that we do not know that the dinosaurs went extinct because of climate change, and mammals were able to adapt and flourish in the new, cooler environment of our age. The evidence is very clear. The environment guides evolution. God created the environment and through it guides evolution, until now when humans dominate the environment, which gives us the power to destroy ourselves.
First . . .
âDarwinism is not a theory of random chance. It is a theory of random mutation plus non-random cumulative natural selection. . . . Natural selection . . . is a non-random force, pushing towards improvement. . . . Every generation has its Darwinian failures but every individual is descended only from previous generationsâ successful minorities. . . . [T]here can be no going downhill - species canât get worse as a prelude to getting better. . . . There may be more than one peak.â --Richard Dawkins
With respect to random mutations, I would hazard a guess that biologists and physicists are saying nearly the same thing. It wouldnât surprise me to hear a Christian scientist claim that an absorbed photon will be emitted in a random direction, or that unstable nuclei will randomly decay. Biologists are using the same language to describe mutations.
Nature is statistically random. This has been empirically verified, and this is why it is part of science.
However, there is a big difference between statistically random and ontologically random which is probably what you are trying to describe.
2 Likes
I agree with you. What is a completely random process to science and to us is not to God
I know that this is a major theme of yours, and recently was watching a program on casting a shipâs propellor that illustrated how that take place. In what is essentially lost wax casting, a wax model is made and the hard mold formed around it. The wax is melted out, and an empty space is left to be filled by the molten metal. In the same way, voids in the ecosystem are created by asteroids, change in climate, change is sea levels, disease, etc. and that empty eco-space is filled by whatever is available and can adapt to fill it. The direction of evolution is defined by the space to be filled when a void occurs. Of course, multiple organisms compete to fill the space, and this simplistic idea does not cover all evolution as within the space change occurs through competition and other factors such as genetic drift, but is does help to visualize how evolution may be directed, even though the final result is not known.
Thank you, my friend, @T_aquaticus for this quote from Dawkins. I would appreciate a reference.
@Albert, @GarciaGonzalez @gavin_kemp
First of all, Dawkins is right. Darwinism is not science. Darwinism is a theory.
Is it a scientific theory? Yes, and No. Random mutation has been clearly proven, but non-random natural selecti0on has not, so it is ambiguous. Both advocates and critics have their talking points which makes it impossible to resolve one way or the other.
Is it a theory of random chance as so many say and BioLogos does not dispute, even if Dawkins seems to dispute this here?.
@jpm, Phil, thank you for the model of the ship. We know that there are two things that determine where and how a ship moves, the propeller, which moves the ship and the rudder, which guides the ship.
For evolution the propeller is variation which makes change possible, and the rudder is natural selection, which guides the ship in the direction chosen by the captain. (Please do not overlook the captain as one of the three things that determine where the ship goes.)
The problem with the Darwin/Dawkins understanding of natural selection is that it is not clear or specific. How is improvement determined? How does natural selection âpush toward improvement?â Variation and the way DNA changes is clear., but natural selection is not, so it is no wonder that the whole process is said to be random, when it is not.
First, random mutation is not the problem here, natural selection is. Random mutation is the question only if one thinks that it is the way that nature guides evolution, not by natural selection.
Second, nature has devised several ways to randomize reproduction, so random quantum mechanics theory is not really the basis of variation. Please do not confuse physics with biology.
I thought time was part of nature. Is time âstatistically random?â I hope not. Please clarify the difference between statistically random and metaphysically random.
As a part of my research into science I have discovered what seems to be a very important fact. There are two basic forms of motion and energy that are very different in form, that one is random and the other is not.
The one that is non-random is kinetic energy/motion such as the expansion of the universe caused by the Big Bang. It is definitely non-random and the source of time.
The other is âthermalâ energy/motion which is random, Browning motion. Thermal energy also resulted from the Big Bang which produced in the creation of matter.
Kinetic energy is linear Newtonian billiard ball motion, which is extrinsic to matter⌠Thermal motion is the holistic zig zag of Browningian motion and the fact that Absolute Zero or rest cannot be attained for molecules, which is intrinsic to matter.
Yes, when a void or space - opportunity is created by a mass extinction or another ecological change, those life forms that are best able to meet that challenge will step in and adapt. This causes diversity and enriches the ecosystem as God designed it to work. It also rewards rationality.
Climbing Mount Improbable, Chapter 3.
A google search found it at Quote by Richard Dawkins: âDarwinism is not a theory of random chance. It ...â
Why wouldnât it be completely random to God too? Unless it isnât completely random. Whatever it is. Few things are. Evolution isnât for a start.
Thx Klax. As Christians we believe in the providence of God. By defenition that is a faith statement. So it cannot be random to God
1 Like
I would think that randomness has a time dependent, change factor. God is not subject to time.
Thank you Albert. We certainly do. It certainly is. So what canât be random to God? The roll of dice? Mutation? Quantum events?
1 Like
Bottom of pg 75 of âClimbing Mt. Improbableâ found here:
Thatâs like saying a Ford Focus is not a car. It is a sedan.
Your grasp of what science is, and what Darwinism, evolution, mutation, and natural selection are, seems to be extremely warped.
Natural selection has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt. The patterns of conserved sequences in genomes are part of that proof.
Why would you ever expect a single sentence to specifically describe almost the entire field of biology? If you donât think Darwin and Dawkins dealt with the specifics of natural selection, then you are simply misguided. Have you read their works?
If physics is not the basis for the production of mutations, then please tell me what is.
Statistically random means the data fits an idealized model of randomness, such as a Gaussian curve. Metaphysical randomness is the unprovable philosophical position that no intelligence is guiding these processes.
2 Likes
Wow! Your response is interesting and a mouthful! I agree mostly with what you are saying. But I do think that evolution is a theory and a fact!
One of the moderators wanted to know how can we accept a random and unguided process as Christians who believe in a God that cares for us in every way?
You have to be careful with definition, this looks like the casual definition as opposed to the scientific definition which have to be much more precise. It like theory that casually mean hypothesis but scientifically it is an explication that can be repeatedly tested.
The definition you provide canât work for science. I donât really see a test that can be devised to determine intente. Also their are services used in IT that are specifically designed to generate randomness, they usually use a nuclear source to produce the random data but their is also a company that uses lava lamps. the pseudo random generators are also designed to appear random.
Now from a scientific perspective, this make no difference whether it is randomness from your definition or randomness from my definition, our measurement would be the same and our conclusions would be the same as well from our perspective we canât make the difference. But from a theological perspective, it very importante to because it means that randomness is not synonymous with no intervention.
Was that to me Albert? Or @T_aquaticus? But I think, as in know, that too. The answer to one of the moderators is that a God cares for us in a way deducible from a random and unguided process aka material creation that He instantiates. And incarnates in.
So theology can make random events meaningful? The only way that can be true is that God is the instantiator of nature, the ground of deterministically intrinsically ordered and random being that gives all the appearance of meaninglessness. The warrant for God is Jesus, the only intervention we can ever believe and therefore infer that God grounds the prevenient laws of order and chaos.
Random is popularly used in at least three senses. The technical mathematical sense is something that we can best describe using the laws of probability - will mutation X occur? what will be the outcome of flipping a coin or casting lots? will this radioactive atom decay?
More loosely, we use it to describe things that are humanly unpredictable. Some of these have no mathematical formula; others may have a formula that is technically not probabilistic but still practically unpredictable, such as chaotic processes. This would include things such as the weather and the long-term course of human or natural history.
It is also used to mean undirected or purposeless. Here, the problem is âat what level?â Genesis 1 assures us that all of nature - the heavens, the sea and sky, the land, the stuff in each of those - is merely a part of His creation. Forces of nature do not have purposes of their own. Studying science to look for purpose in nature is like trying to understand this message by analyzing the properties of the electrons and electronics.
Examples of each of these categories are identified as under Godâs control in the Bible. As with evolution and the original question of the thread, one can regard ârandomâ events or anything else as being under Godâs control or not. The event itself does not answer that question - it reflects the underlying assumptions that we bring in. Likewise, any event can be interpreted either deterministically or indeterministically - those who are predestined to favor free will will interpret the event in light of that predilection, and those choosing a deterministic viewpoint will interpret it differently. The Bible affirms Godâs sovereignty and our responsibility, without spelling out precisely how that works out.
Ironically, the accusations that theistic evolution is deistic typically come from someone arguing for intervention-style design, which is typically a âpunctuated deismâ, god of the gaps. This is why the Discovery Institute has been endorsing New Atheist claims lately - both fall into the error of looking for God within the science, rather than looking for the science within God.
1 Like
Thx for tbis response. I agree with your thinking on this cardinal matter.
I agree there is no purpose in nature. I rather believe that God has a purpose FOR nature
No, that not what Iâm saying. What I said is their is much less to randomness in science than their is in common speech. In science it simply means that their is no discernable pattern and that it is not predictable.
In essence, its not because an event is scientifically random and unpredictable that god didnât choose the outcome of such an event. It, of course, also possible that god didnât intervene. This is importante because its one of the most common counter argument to a theistic god but which is only valide if you are using the wrong definition of random.
If the outcome of an event is random, by whatever definition, God did not choose it for sure. No events anyone living encounters for the past two thousand years, including in history and evolution further back, are chosen by Him whether they are random by any and all definitions, including deterministic randomness, or appear to be, or random which appears to be determinism, or deterministic. Or⌠Whichever combination of randomness and determinism occurs in nature, God does not influence it beyond grounding it. Why would He?