Our shared observation of the world is the point of reference for science, beyond that I do not know how we will arrive at a view of the world that sees randomness or purpose as being the central tenet
Thank you! I look forward to that
addendum–neat study! Thank you!
Once again, the randomness of mutations is a tentative scientific conclusion based on data, not an assumption or tenet.
2 Likes
But that isn’t a fact, it’s a failure to understand the biblical worldview.
There is no biblical support for YEC, while a flat Earth-disk was part of their worldview, so yes, there is a massive chasm. By definition there cannot be biblical support for YEC because YEC is based on an unbiblical foundation, namely that the Holy Spirit intended to teach modern science.
Which reminds me, have you found a text yet that states that the scriptures intend to teach science, or one to support the other YEC claaim that if there’s even one scientific error then the whole Bible must be untrustworthy?
It’s an interpretation of the data, and one can see the mutations that brought about human life as purposeful or random
Look at the fascinating nuance with which Noble understands the question of purpose or design
The objection raised by many scientists is that teleology must entail belief in an overall purpose in nature and therefore belief in an ultimate intelligence, or god. In a relativistic context, however, this is not the case. Teleology as purpose in the context of a particular organism–environment interaction makes perfectly good scientific sense; it is verifiable. An engineer has no difficulty in performing tests to determine whether a man-made machine exhibits purposive behaviour towards a goal.
And then this which I admire
Could we do the same for the ‘why’ question in relation to a molecule like water? The answer at the moment is no. We simply do not understand the processes by which the fundamental properties of matter emerge that enable the characteristics of water that are advantageous to life.
The entire purpose of science is to interpret data. I can fully understand why people would see purpose in the pattern of mutations, but the only conclusion science can reach is that mutations are indistinguishable from a random process.
2 Likes
A chaotic process like a group of chimpanzees pressing a keyboard and writing Shakespeare can be interpreted with a different conclusion
I would add scientists determining the process is not purposeful, would be an example of metaphysics and not science
Perhaps you could look at the data in the following papers and show why the scientific conclusion of randomness with respect to fitness is wrong (within the realm of science).
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC169282/pdf/jbacter00003-0114.pdf
3 Likes
You seem to be saying that the belief in purpose is unfalsifiable within scientific methodology. Is that the case?
1 Like
I believe @klw said it in a way I would agree with here
1 Like
I agree with @klw as well. This is why I have been very careful with how I describe these processes. For example, I stated that the data we have on mutations is indistinguishable from being random with respect to fitness. This is the standard that science uses. It doesn’t pronounce that mutations are “truly” random in a metaphysical or philosophical manner. However, for the sake of pragmatism science has adopted parsimony which accepts lower causes when they are found to be sufficient. A random process is sufficient for explaining mutations, so that is the tentative conclusion science reaches. Could God be part of the process, giving it purpose? Could be, but that is not something science can rule in or rule out. Science can only go as far as data and empiricism will let us.
5 Likes
If the word “random” is changed for “purposeless,” would the statement have the same meaning for you?
No, it wouldn’t have the same meaning. Randomness is quantitative while purpose is subjective, at least within the context of this subject. Science is all about what you can measure, and purpose doesn’t meet that requirement with respect to mutations. However, we can measure randomness which is why it is baked into the very foundation of science and statistics. For example, a p value is essentially the probability that a random sample of data will support the null hypothesis. The null hypothesis itself is often a random distribution of data.
4 Likes
Randomness defined as a quality or state of lacking a pattern or principle of organization, can be considered with respect to the pattern and organization in biology.
Noble writing on molecular networks, makes an interesting comparison to knots and provides a link to knot theory on wikipedia. He says this,
Imagine a knot made by intertwining two lengths of string. Even with just two strings we can make knots that are difficult to unravel. Add some more strings and very rapidly we arrive at knotted networks that defy even the cleverest at unravelling knots. Understanding networks is a little like the problem of understanding knots.
1 Like
I don’t understand what the problem would be with looking at genetic mutations as being organizing and disorganizing
or random in the sense of being predicatable or unpredictable
“I think what we find emotionally or aesthetically more appealing is not the basis for science.”–Douglas Futuyma
Analogies and metaphors can help our brains start to make sense of world, but at some point there needs to be quantitative analysis of empirical data, at least for science. Is there a statistical correlation between what the organism needs and the mutations gets? No, there isn’t. Is there any known mechanism found ubiquitously in biology that could sense a specific challenge in the environment and produce specific beneficial mutations in response to that environmental cue? No, there isn’t. Are random mutations with respect to fitness consistent with the data? Yes, they are.
The scientific problem is that your aren’t tying your descriptions to data in a testable and quantifiable manner. You are using rhetoric instead of data.
3 Likes
Looking at biological life as we now do, using this definition, I find it impossible to see mutations as being disorganizing. I would say they can be either organizing or disorganizing. But again this raises a question of relativity, what is it to be organized.
I hope we would be able to agree biological systems are relatively organized.