My ID Challenge

Faith & Science Conversation
394

@gbrooks9
@fmiddel

Thank you, George, As you definition makes clear. Chaos theory is not about randomness. It is about complexity. In fact, chaos theory indicates that which might seem to be governed by randomness is not. It might be governed by local conditions in ter4ms of weather or by fractal equations.

Therefore there is no indication that ecological Natural Selection is random as the result of Chaos Theory. This is a red herring. All the changes in the ecology that you suggested are determinate. No one is saying that humans can determine exactly how the climate and topology will change, but we can see how the green house effect and other pollution are changing our climate and our ecology.

This is not a reason to claim ecological evolution is random.

1 Like
395

@Relates, I cannot tell if you are INTENTIONALLY exploiting the confusion between RANDOM and LAWFULNESS.

Throwing dice is RANDOM… but dice throws are completely lawful.

Ecological change can be random … but also completely lawful.

SO: it is frequently impossible to know whether a change in ecology leads to a change in a gene pool… or causes the gene pool to perish.

396

And again, you seem to be understanding me to say things I’m not saying. I didn’t say “random.” I said “unpredictable.”

397

@fmiddel

You are getting confused in your terminology.

Random IS Unpredictable: throwing dice creates random numbers… they are unpredictable. But it is not UNLAWFUL.

You must always keep in mind the example of dice when discussing randomness or unpredictablity…

398

@gbrooks9

Randomness and lawfulness are two different unrelated concepts Random means without pattern or structure, which does not exist for the most part in nature. Maybe pi is the best example I can think of. When there is cause and effect, it is not random. Natural selection is cause and effect, therefore it is not random.

The rolling of the dice is designed to minimize cause and effect, so it is designed to be random, even though it is governed by the laws of physics.

@fmiddel And again, you seem to be understanding me to say things I’m not saying. I didn’t say “random.” I said “unpredictable.”

The question is not predictable or unpredictable. The question is determinate or random, unpredictability is not a valid objection.

399

I don’t think you can say dice throwing is without structure.

I.E… Throwing Dice [and natural selection] is cause and effect, there it is not [_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ].

You can’t use the term random here.

Whatever you say about Evolution … it is the same for throwing dice.

You want to say that “Random” is the opposite of “Indeterminant”. I’m not sure that is the best choice of words.

“Random” seems to be the opposite of “Predictable”. Nobody can predict which side of the dice will appear… though technically, I suppose one could predict if one knew everything.

“Lawful” vs. “Unlawful” seems to be more to the point that you are attempting to get to.

Some like to contrast “Theoretically Predictable” vs. “Unpredictable” - - but the difference between “Theoretically Predictable” and “Unpredictable” is difficult to measure as systems become more complex: we can’t even get people to agree to terminology for something as simple as dice - - with only six choices to consider!

1 Like
400

@gbrooks9

George,

You need to look at the context. We are comparing Variation with Natural Selection.

Variation is random of a sort. When two sea gulls mate, you get at least one baby sea gull, not a turkey. However it is random whether this baby is male or female, and exactly how the genes will be of the parents will be shared and if there will be any new genes or mutations. These changes are random.

On the other hand if the check is born with a heart defect caused by a mutation, then it will be selected out by the determinate process of Natural Selection. The chick might fail to reach maturity and breed for a number of reasons, but if it is better adapted to its ecological niche than its fellow sea gulls it has a better chance of surviving and flourishing, which is not random, but determinate. This is the basis of real evolution, which is not random, anymore than birds evolved from dinosaurs long ago by random chance and not by a determinate evolutionary process.

401

I’m coming late to this discussion, but I’ll reply anyway and hope I’m not rehashing ground. . .
Everything about your statements here seems to me simply wrong. If a process is natural, that says nothing at all about whether it has purpose or not; the two concepts are orthogonal. I employ natural processes all the time – in fact, I employ nothing but natural processes – but I (sometimes) do so with purpose. Natural processes are also, to the extent we can tell, not deterministic. Even if they are, though, what does that have to do with purpose? Why should processes with a purpose be non-deterministic?

And then he goes on to say this:

"Not so fast. The biological account of lucky historical contingencies that led to our own appearance on this planet is surely accurate. What does not follow is that a perceived lack of inevitability translates into something that we should regard as incompatibility with a divine will. To do so seriously underestimates God, even as this God is understood by the most conventional of Western religions.

Yes, the explosive diversification of life on this planet was an unpredictable process. But so were the rise of Western civilization, the collapse of the Roman Empire, and the winning number in last night’s lottery. We do not regard the indeterminate nature of any of these events in human history as antithetical to the existence of a Creator; why should we regard similar events in natural history any differently? There is, I would submit, no reason at all. If we can view the contingent events in the families that produced our individual lives as consistent with a Creator, then certainly we can do the same for the chain of circumstances that produced our species."

In other words, Miller’s belief is pretty much the opposite of the one you ascribe to him.

1 Like
402

Actually, I’m not confusing the two. I use “unpredictable” from a human point of view. What is absolutely unpredictable from our point of view is not unpredictable for God. It is not the same as random.

403

A valid objection to what? I said that chaos theory guarantees unpredictability. You gotta go waaaayyyy back up the thread to see where I said that. Look at the context.

404

[@fmiddel wrote:

There are enough factors (arguably) to introduce randomness into Natural Selection (chaos theory and all that…)…
[/quote]

For the record this is exactly what you wrote.

405

Ah, thanks for the doing the work. My apologies.

My comment was in response to this:

My point was that in spite of your confidence, Natural Selection does not work to make evolution clearly determinate. From God’s point of view, maybe. From our point of view, indeterminate–chaos theory. Too many variables. This is arguably true; not definitively true. So my point was merely that evolution is not “clearly determinate.”

406

OK, now you seem to make the same mistake that @gbrooks9 is making. You are confusing indeterminate with random, and there is reason for this confusion. Random means without structure and order, which means that it is by nature unpredictable.

Natural Selection and life in general are complicated enough that we cannot confidentially predict the future, however life and Natural Selection are by no means random, so we can and must plan for the future. It seems that many people look at the world situation and the climate change issues and throw up their hands in dismay Yet God does not want us to act as if we are powerless against the negative world order.

Science is studying the effects of climate change. We can change our ways. We can make adjustments.

Christians are not called to take the easy way out. We are called to take God’s way forward. Let’s not look for a cop out. Let’s act like people of God, if that is who we are. This is God’s Creation and we are God’s Stewards, so we are responsible.

407

@Relates

The only way I’m going to know what you mean is to simply tell me whether Dice Throws are

A] “without structure” (i.e. random)

OR

B] “Predictable” (non-random).

Once I know how you are using the terms in connection with the behavior of dice… I’ll be able to follow the rest of your discussion.

408

I don’t think intelligent design is the right place to dig trenches. Intelligent design is the same as creationism in that it assumes that God must interfere with the natural order in order to create. This in turn is an based on the assumption that the natural order is a universe made of physical objects which are somehow independent from God.

I would tell the OP to research Berkeley’s Idealism, Berkeley was a philosopher who rightly foresaw that the assumption of existence of the physical would lead to skepticism and eventually Atheism. Furthermore, physical objects can logically be shown not to exist. Arguments to the contrary are profoundly unconvincing, if you can get past your strong gut intuition and follow the logic where it leads.

Why should God interfere with the natural order when he created it in the first place? Does he need to correct mistakes? Of course not, God does not make mistakes. From the beginning of the universe, Everything unfolded as God wanted it to, however since no one was alive back then, we don’t know whether it really did unfold or whether God just gave the universe a very detailed “back story”. But as far as we are concerned, it makes no difference to science or Faith.

409

@pacificmaelstrom

You are in “no man’s land” when you try to argue that God can’t do this or won’t do that.

You write: “I don’t think intelligent design is the right place to dig trenches.”

Well, then I guess you don’t need to be here, right? BioLogos ASSERTS that God was involved in Evolution. Any sampling of the discussions here show how DIVERSE the opinions are about what that means:

  1. God is involved only to the degree that he PLANNED something that is 100% natural… including the natural and lawful use of radiation to create desired mutations.

  2. God is involved by exerting non-natural, non-lawful actions on what would otherwise be a completely lawful process.

This is not Deism if we still have God communicating with self-aware persons.

One of the reasons there are thousands of denominations in the world is because of the many flavors and reciipes for God’s involvement in the Cosmos.

410

@gbrooks9

Dice is way to create randomness. It shuffles the deck several ways so structure and control are minimized.

Since dice are used in gambling, the problem is that someone could learn to control them and gain an unfair advantage.

First the dice must not be rigged. Then there are two dice, which gives an extra factor of chance. Then the two dice are placed in a round opaque cup, covered and shaken vigorously. Finally the dice are thrown against one surface to land on another surface not at right angles to the first.

Dice is one way to produce unpredictability. It is not purely random, because it is limited. You are working only with the numbers 1 - 12. Some numbers are less likely to come up then others. That is why it is difficult to talk about randomness as scientists do if it were a uniform quality, because it is not. However this process has been created to take advantage of variations to produce a random situation, which is very similar to Variation as found in evolution and very different from Natural Selection,

In Variation we have two double strands of DNA which separate and come together making a new double strand of DNA i9n a random manner. The is the primary way that nature shuffles the deck to create new life forms in the form of children. Also we have mutations in the form of “mistakes” in the creation of the new DNA and also changes resulting from radiation or chemicals, which cause mutations. There are other ways mutations take place, which are also random. These all produce Variations in a species.

It is natural Selection which determines which Variations survive and flourish. That is why evolution is basically determinate, although it is not very predictable. Variation randomly provides the ability to change. Natural Selection determines the direction and nature of that change, based on ecological factors.

Have you ever used the technique of brainstorming? It is very much like that management tool. The first part is random, while the second is determinate.

411

I think you’re having an argument with someone else. I was making no statements at all about climate change and what should or should not be our responsibility towards it.

412

@Relates

LOTS of discussion. But you still haven’t produced the PRECISE answers that allow us to understand your positions.

Please answer this question … and ONLY this question:

THE THROW OF DICE IS - -

A] “without structure” (i.e. random)

OR

B] “Predictable” (non-random).

Thanks!

413

May I interject, perhaps helpfully?

“A dice throw” is a good example of a system designed teleologically in order to produce a particular probability distribution reliably, for a partular purpose (ie a game). It does so by “randomising” deterministic laws and deliberately chosen actions within severe contraints.

It does this firstly by requiring a human operator, whose muscular control is imprecise enough to produce a continuous (and precisely unknown) range of magnitudes of toss and spin, especially given a variable range of starting positions.

Secondly, it requires a flat surface, whose deterministic properties will, neverthless, produce unpredictable (to humans not equipped with lab equipment) bounce, but which will always end up ensuring one dice face is up.

Thirdly, the dice is carefully designed so that, although velocity, rotation and the angle of fall vary continuously, the fall will always resolve into one of only six positions. If you visit “professional dice” manufacturer’s websites, you can see how carefully they measure outcomes to ensure that over many throws, the results for each face are as equal as possible (they’re never exactly equal, because the design and manufacture is never perfect in practice).

Nothing in the system is (in terms of physics) random - humanly speaking it is designed to be “random” in the limited sense that, operated as designed, each dice throw is unpredictable but the aggregate (given a large enough series) will be an even distribution. Each individual result is thoroughly deterministic - but human design has carefully harnessed that determinism to produce “chance”.

Now, one can get theological and add divine providence to that: Johnny’s run of twenty sixes might not be cheating: statistically, such things happen occasionally. But if God ordained that run at that time, he could do so by tweaking the laws of physics from “outside” (Alvin Plantinga), by always or sometimes governing events through the laws (as in the classic Christian doctrine of concursus), by influencing mentally how Johnny actually makes his throw, or by some other means.

But you’ll notice that there is nothing in the account, whether thinking purely naturalistically, or taking God’s will into account, that is ontologically random, in the Epicurean sense. It is not that chance creates order (a game of dice) - it’s that orderly design produces chance, the particular character of which (the probability distribution) betrays the hand of design, because true chance is chaotic and can produce nothing (and is never seen in this Universe, as far as I am aware - or else it would not be a “cosmos” but the opposite, a “chaos”.)

If you can understand dice fully (including God’s knowledge of all the variables and his own providence) there is no randomness involved. The real problem is trying to conceive of any way that true randomness could even in theory exist in a universe created by the God of Christianity, “who sustains all things by his powerful word”. How would one go about sustaining chaos?