And is never seen in this universe?! I propose it would be more accurate (on the human view – as always) to say that chaos is less neatly bounded chance. I.e. instead of six tidy (and roughly equal) outcomes designed into some system, we can’t enumerate all the possible discrete outcomes of a chaotic system (though this doesn’t remove it from the realm of statistically addressable analysis in its agregate operation again --just like the dice). But it seems a stretch to say that chaos cannot exist in this universe. Can we say, at least, that a phenomenon very much appearing as chaos to our analysis exists? I.e. in the same way that dice do a good job appearing random to us, so do many phenomena (weather patterns, turbulent flows …) do a good job appearing as chaotic to us. I agree that we can’t prove they truly are random in any ontological much less theological sense (i.e. --to God).
At the risk of detracting from your main (and valid point) … this particular example would severely stretch the meaning of “possible”. Technically possible, yes. Statistically possible? --hardly. We would conclude in a heartbeat that the die was loaded if we ever witnessed this. (quick calculation: about 37% probability that this could be achieved in 6^19 rolls of twenty dice --more than a small continent population could do 24/7 for their entire lifetimes).
I should have specified that I was treating chaos colloquially, rather than in terms of chaos theory: apologies to all. That latter kind of chaos certainly exists, but it really implies unstable systems rather than randomness - dice being a case in point (though not quite as graphic as a tossed coin). It’s because a cubic dice (or a flat coin) is designed to be unstable except in 6 (or two) positions that the system can generate “chance”. In fact, chaotic systems are such because their parameters are closely specified - quite a different sense of the word “chaos” from the complete disorganisation of Epicurean “chaos”.
I believe, though, that the scientific kind of chaos is usually held to be physically deterministic - Laplace’s Demon would be able to predict the rebounds of the billiard ball, but the rest of us cannot because we lack sufficiently detailed information. Once again, “epistemological randomness” rather than “ontological randomness” is the distinction that matters. The situation is compounded by the fact that chaotic (in that sense) systems are mostly beyond reduction to clean experimental conditions. Maybe you could prevent the hurricane by cleaning out all the butterflies, but it isn’t going to happen, so the insect’s habitual non-random wing-flapping is going to give you a big surprise across the globe.
In human experience, of course chance exists, or we wouldn’t play dice. And the freak gust of wind owing to chaotic (but presumably deterministic) weather is still an accident to the person the tree falls on. But I assume the background to this thread is not how things appear, but what is happening at the divine level - is there a thing called “randomness” independent of God or of his providence? I argue that, apart from other considerations, he can’t sustain, or create, what he doesn’t comprehend: and what he doesn’t create and sustain cannot exist.
As to your last point, I agree that I’ve stretched the meaning of possible, though not as far as many atheists do. However, that turns us both into design proponents as far as something like a self-replicating homochiral RNA molecule appearing, without loading the current understanding of the dice, is concerned. My example (whose maths I didn’t work through as you did), if it takes into account that dice have been played round the globe since Roman times, still sounds remotely possible, though one would put ones money on cheating. My point was only intended to show that unusual patterns inevitably turn up in a probability distribution.
However once the probabilities start to exceed the estimated number of quantum events in the whole history of the Universe, belief in “chance” either shows pathological faith in Epicurus, or you have to follow Eugene Koonin in recruiting the multiverse to your cause.
I suspect arguments may continue on what we may mean by chaos, chance and random - the point to all of these discussions (or at least the beginning of most of these exchanges) is related to neo-Darwinian evolutionary theory and its proponents who claim it is without purpose, is random in that sense and outcomes are unpredictable scientifically (or some may argue, are subject to a purposeless selection they think is in Nature).
So I am saying the point of it all is the claim by atheists and anti-theists, to some scientific basis for their view that there is no purpose, point, teleology (or any synonyms that can be included) to the ND theory.
Once we accept this as the central argument, we can avoid great generalisations related to random etc. Even notions of multi-universes and what have you, are motivated by a commitment by advocates to a purposeless, pointless, Godless creation. Science is brought in for that purpose - it is not science that inevitably leads them to such an outlook.
So, if we accept this, we should also accept that the ND theory put forward (by the majority of biologists) has to be re-examined within this matrix. Trying to change a portion of ND to suit a theologically suspect outlook cannot be a reasonable exercise - we must re-examine all biological theory and seek a scientific basis (without the baggage that comes with ND) for a sound theory of biological diversity and the phenomena that we term Nature. This has been the approach that has yielded such insights from the physical science thus far, and it will continue to do so.
Neo-Darwinian theory, which I’m not sure would be considered current but can for this purpose stand in for the general scientific investigation of biological origins, and the proponents who claim that it is without purpose are not an all-inclusive group. Case in point: Biologists who prepare articles for Biologos like Dennis. A metaphysical proposition about “purpose” and current scientific theories of biological development are really orthogonal domains. Neither really say much about the other.
Now, Cornelius G. Hunter has tried to make the case that evolutionary theory is actually a religious theory. However, most people don’t buy his arguments. Philip Johnson has also argued against the atheistic contamination of evolution theory, suggesting that makes it suspect, and proposing a ‘theistic science’ instead. I’ll grant there are always some baggage and schools of thought that change over the years, but I’m not at all confident that re-examination in the light of various, potential metaphysical biases will lead to something that much scientifically different from what is happening today. Todd Wood acknowledges the arguments behind common descent and evolution are real and strong.
My comment assumes that bio-scientists are/will examine their current paradigm and hopefully will improve the scientific content - the key point I wish to make is more to do with changes that are made ad hoc to provide a theologically suspect outlook. My reading of a fairly wide range of papers in the ND field leaves me convinced that many (if not all) proponents of ND (or their paradigm) either explicitly state it as purposeless, non-repeatable, or imply this in their treatment of the notion of natural selection. I am aware of controversy and debate on various notions (which is healthy for any science), so I try and bring the discussion to these debates, on a way of emphasising the needless opinions and changes on Christian beliefs - for example, there has been a great deal of opinion and speculation regarding Adam and Eve on this site, and all non-orthodox views are motivated by ND thinking. Yet as I have pointed out, there is great uncertainty regarding the nature and approach of population modelling, gene-pools from past populations, and so on. The salient point is why people feel a need to question Christian doctrine? These models, although relevant to further research in the area, are hardly sufficient to warrant re-casting of scripture. Trying to dress speculation and modelling (with their limitations and assumptions) as “theistic science” is, imo, making things worse - even if portions of the biologist’s arguments are considered persuasive by some. The obvious desire and determination to wed whatever version of biological evolution with atheism, and purposeless materialism by prominent biologists (and others), is real, and cannot be put to one side as a metaphysical “thing” they bring to it - it is the very core of their thinking and thus is part and parcel of the theory they build for biology.
I think it would also be useful to drop the term ‘Neo-Darwinism’ as it may not represent the current state of thinking in evolutionary biology. The term has taken on altered meaning over time and that can cause some confusion. “Current evolutionary theory” or just ‘evolutionary theory’ may do better.
I hate to differ with such a distinguished company, but the question that I was endeavoring to discuss is not theoretical or philosophical, but strictly scientific. The question is how does Natural Selection work. This is a natural process, but it has been elevated to metaphysical by those who claim evolution is metaphysical, which as I have said seems to be almost everyone.
To the contrary I have linked Natural Selection to the scientific discipline of ecology. Ecology is not theoretical or metaphysical, so if I am right in this view, ecology should give us a clear scientific explanation of how Natural Selection and thus evolution works.
Now what seems to happen is that George and others have claimed that ecology is not determinate because Natural Selection is (he claims) not determinate. In other words, you take a problem and reject any solution that does not agree with one’s point of view, because it does not agree with one’s point of view, rather than trying to an objective way to determine the truth of the propose4d solution.
So there are4 two questions that have been raised, Is ecology the basis of Natural Selection? and Is ecology and thus Natural Selection determinate? To me the answers are clear, Yes to both.
Whose current state of evolutionary biology, Argon? Is the proposed extended synthesis “current”, or Dennis Noble’s contention that an extension is insufficient and we need a whole new paradigm, or those who say all the new work in epigenetics, NeoLamarckism, structuralism, virology, etc is just a flash in the pan and selfish genes or population genetics still rules, OK?
My point is that there is a new state of flux in biology currently, and a new consensus has not, it seems, yet arrived (with prominent workers actually threatening death to ENCODE in their lectures! In such a situation, it seems to me that GJDS is defining his terms appropriately by specifying adaptationist Neodarwinism, firstly because that is the paradigm that carries the greatest metaphysical baggage, and secondly because, for the most part, it’s still the story the general public (and the man/woman in the pew) gets from popular science presentations , together with the “unguided” metaphysical message.
Larry Moran is not the only one to say the synthesis is dead - but whilst Jerry Coyne is lobbing grenades at him from the other side, one needs to try and makes sense of who’s saying what - hey, that sounds a series BioLogos ought to run!
I think the state of the art would be a good series.
Personally…
About proposed big-drivers or missing but claimed essential mechanisms of evolution:
Not too long ago ‘evo-devo’ was a bit of a fad. It has quieted down a bit. We’ve know for a long time that regulatory components can be swapped and changed rapidly. Regulatory networks, their robustness and their plasticity are active research areas.
I think much of the proposed impact of epigenetics (and neoLamarckism) is overblown. In my mind, for creatures like animals, the mechanisms for translating ‘states’ of the general organism into germ cells are problematic. It’s extremely fanciful thinking at this point to suppose these drive evolution in a big way. To me, epigenetics is yet another regulatory mechanism, akin to phenomena like other those affecting regulation of transcription and translation which were discovered decades ago and continue to be uncovered.
'Natural genetic engineering" - Nope. I’m not with Shapiro on that one. It’s pretty vague, mechanism-limited, with little evidence of impact. I will go so far as to say I believe ‘evolvability’ of some degree can evolve, but the level of integration and feedback Shapiro requires for his notion to work is not something I see currently. I’m definitely with Larry Moran and John Wilkins on this. Similar to the idea that epigenetics is a major, under-recognized driver of evolution, I suspect drift and biological ‘noise’ would likely overwhelm such a mechanism.
ENCODE: I don’t think the data currently adds a lot to evolutionary theory. It really needs to be de-cluttered by separating signal from noise.
Structuralism: This may have merit in some cases, but probably nowhere near to the degree Michael Denton wishes. Some cases are simple, for example the similar streamlined forms in aquatic animals. Others might be particular protein folds that function well in certain reactions. I think the accessible developmental space available is much broader than Denton supposes and likely less confined. Part of my problem with Denton’s idea is that he’s basing his assumptions on life as exists here and concluding that this single sample set exhausts the ‘possibility space’ life can potentially take.
Now, is it possible that there is a direction to evolution that tends toward organisms of more complexity? I think it’s possible but perhaps that is a weaker driver than Denton proposes.
Endosymbiosis - a la Lynn Margulis. I don’t think I’ve ever encountered a more inconsistent and sloppy thinker than Margulis. The idea that evolution was driven mostly via symbiosis is pure wishful thinking. There is very little evidence to support her later contentions about the universality of that mechanism.
Neutral theory. Mutationalism: Yep. I think it’s clear most inherited variation is effectively neutral. This suggests that historical contingency likely plays a large role evolution because while variation may be neutral in most contexts, a change in situation or a recombination of previously neutral variations may set the stage for further evolution. They jury is still out on mutation-driven evolution (e.g. Nie, Stoltzfus) but it’s an interesting area of work, What also helps their case is that they actually have a good, detailed, professional level understanding of current theory.
Population genetics: Yep. Still relevant. It provides many tools for evaluating mechanisms and tracking relationships between extant and extinct species. The work gets more complicated as additional mechanisms are factored in and the relationships to phenotypes are worked out.
Selfish genes: Instances of these clearly exist but they likely don’t drive a lot of evolution directly. There are cases where transposons and ERVs have blanketed genomes at various times and probably had a side-effect on genomic reorganization and regulation.
Natural selection: Clearly a real factor in evolution but hard to quantify relative contributions except in very simple cases.
Modelling: I have a fear that in order to model biological systems in sufficient detail we may have to resort to using machine learning with inputs and results so complex that we may not be able comprehend how they work. That is, we may see that the models work and reflect real world situations but won’t be able extract many useful generalizations. That would truly suck eggs. Still, it might at least indicate which mechanisms play lesser roles and whether some mechanism are even necessary.
I think that Christians who experience some conflict linked to faith-science may be better served if they were helped in gaining a deeper understanding of the doctrine of Creation, and why the Faith places such emphasis on God, the Word of God, creating all there is and ever will be. Orthodox Christianity addressed this question for centuries, and excellent examples of rebuttals against pagans and Gnostics can be found in Patristic writings, while Thomas shows how we may understand pagan philosophy (Aristotle) within the context of God as the Creator. If we are grounded in these doctrinal discussions, we may then venture to ask, why is so much of current scientific debate driven by materialists and atheists, and why have sections of Christian communities taken an unreasonable emphasis on a controversial theory that we may term evolutionary biology. An interesting treatment of this area is given by Joshua M. Moritz (2011): The Search for Adam Revisited: Evolution, Biblical Literalism, and the Question of Human Uniqueness, Theology and Science, 9:4, 367-377, who states in his concluding remarks:
“A religious faith that endeavors to seek a true understanding of the reality that God created can never be merely existential and, as such, fully devoid of actual cognitive content. While the doctrine of creation demands that Christians take science seriously, a large part of taking science seriously is to understand that science, as such, is not (and never has been) in the business of making unalterable pronouncements about the nature of reality. Because there is so much terrain in both science and theology that remains unexplored we must press onward in faith, sobered by a good dose of epistemic humility, and taking care in the meantime to not greatly exaggerate the reports of Adam’s death.”
Either dice throws are considered theoretically predictable … because dice don’t have Free Will … and the alleged unknowability of quantum mechanics doesn’t usually apply to something as large as dice.
… OR …
the respondent is proposing that dice really are UNPREDICATBLE at a fundamental level.
I would laugh at that … but it still helps us know where a person is coming from.
I have never said most of those things … nor will I ever say most of them, Roger.
Evolution is NOT metaphysical.
But BioLogos’s stance on Evolution-with-God is certainly DIVINE.
As for “determinancy” vs. non-determinancy … I presume you mean this in the same way someone would say “lawful” vs. “naturally unlawful”.
I see God arranging Creation very precisely to accomplish what He wants… with little need for (though still the possibility of) miraculous Godly actions that do not follow normal natural law.
Aside from such exertions by God, all nature is QUITE DETERMINANT.
In the realm of humanity and souls… my position is the paradoxical view that the only way humans can ever have REAL FREE WILL is if God exists and is working in the Universe (this is the opposite of the usual interpretation).
Without God… EVERYTHING is natural law … and no real freedom.
Maybe I see why Roger has problem with your dichotomy, because its parameters aren’t mutually exclusive.
A process may have a completely determinate structure (dice throwing, for example, as far as we take the matter scientifically, is a slam dunk case of a simple, intelligible, system) and yet be unpredictable to us. That could be because we don’t have detailed information about the individual parameters (eg exactly how a dice was tossed) or (more generally) that we don’t understand the system we’re observing, and haven’t yet discovered the probability distribution or the factors producing it. Neither, of course, do we have access to God’s mind should his individual providence play any part.
In that case, people will talk about “chance”, “random”, “stochastic” etc legitimately, but without any warrant to say there is no “structure”, as you put it, because in all cases there _is _ a structure, but it’s hidden from them. If you build a coin tossing machine (it has been done) which reliably applies the same force to a coin every time, coin tosses are entirely predictable, and presumably the same could be done for dice. But not for hurricanes or sea-battles, not because they are less intelligible intrinsically, but because they are not reducible to simple models…
Since to God (or Laplace’s demon), all the information is known, then each event we’ve been calling “random” is in fact predictable to him - if indeed God had to stoop to “calculating” or “predicting” what he himself has created and sustains in being.
In my first post I questioned whether it is even conceivable, in a theistic creation, for truly random (ie entirely unstructured) events to exist, because cause and effect would cease - “random process” is an oxymoron, because a process just is a structure of causes and effects, so can’t be unstructured.
thus a random number generator uses an algorithmic process which can predict the outcomes, and it’s structured to model artificially what a supposed unstructured process would do - only it doesn’t, because the real thing would generate something more like “624¬green85Pluto ”
If one applies that background to any “randomness” in evolution, whether in variation, environment or anything else, we can only be talking about human ignorance of causation, and not lack of structure or causation - and usually, because these are hugely complex situations, without even knowing the probability distributions involved. But at a minimum, they are the sum of structured secondary causes God created and sustains, and more than that - in accordance with Christian teaching they are ultimately governed by God’s own purposeful ordering.
Good list Argon, and underlines my point about “current theory”.
Your last point, to me, is the most crucial. It looks very much to me as if (a) all these processes and more are significant participants in evolution (add Jablonka’s cultural evolution, the role of viruses etc) and (b) the degree of interaction between them and within them is quite possibly beyond useful calculation or reduction.
In one sense that’s good, because there’s lot’s more to learn, but on the other hand it looks less as if there’s a simple “explanation for life”. I’m currently reading Lamarck’s Zoological Philosophy, and one has to admire the guy for some astute insights. But his assumption is not only that he’s sussed the existence and the processes of life and evolution incontrovertibly (and that future discoveries will just fill in the details), but that any simple such simple description is possible. Darwin just repeated the same assumption with a more plausible simple mechanism.
The truth seems to be that biology is more like political history than physics: many comprehensible causes, many incomprehensible and many completely unknowable. That’s fine, I would say, for biologists and lovers of nature, but defuses the sociological or theological significance of evolution. Nobody, after all, seriously suggests that political history of itself speaks one way or another to the involvement of God.
Yes, I agree with that. There is a constant risk of OVERLAPPING with adjectives that are not necessarilly mutually exclusive!
That’s exactly why someone has to answer the DICE question … to determine how they intend to use the meaning of “lawfulness” vs. “randomness”.
It should be instantly apparent to most that the throw of Dice has the APPEARANCE of randomness… but is clearly not “unlawful” in terms of natural law … otherwise 6000 rolls of one dice would not approach 1000 results for each number, from “1” to “6”.
If dice rolls were NOT lawful, you could have 4000 results for a “4” and only 1000 results for a “1”… and so on…
If dice rolls were NOT lawful, you could have 4000 results for a “4” and only 1000 results for a “1”… and so on…
Yup - that’s the key point, George. A similar point can be made even about quantum events being “acausal”, when in fact they are statistically predictable - you can’t predict something causeless, even statistically, because no result is more likely: the dice could turn up a six, or the Statue of Liberty. That doesn’t mean the physicists are wrong to say that there are no physical causes for individual quantum events, but that’s not the issue in a discussion that includes God.
Heck, it’s not even the issue in a discussion on physical “laws”, because laws aren’t physical either, so can’t be a cause either, but just an observation of how God sets up his probability curves. So much confusion would be avoided in discussion of theistic evolution (where human science, material reality and divine oversight are all involved), if people clearly discriminated between what (in my preferred vocabulary) one would call “ontological randomness” (something has no determinate cause) and “epistemological randomness” (we humans can discover no determinate cause).
I’d just like to reiterate my former claim in closing: it’s unlikely that any true examples of ontological randomness will be ever found in this universe:
theologically because it’s impossible for God to create a non-cause
scientifically because we have no theories of causlessness above the quantum level, and because all chance tends to reveal a probability distribution on investigation (as the dice do),
and epistemologically because we can only fail to find such a probability distribution, but cannot know there isn’t one hiding somewhere.
Finally, there are some TEs who say that God built true ontological randomness into creation to give it “freedom”. That’s nonsense on stilts, unless being hit by a falling tree or subject to a random mutation is a blow for liberty, but I’d like them to say, in the light of the above discussion, what they think they even mean by God’s creating causelessness.
None of this changes the truth of what I have been saying. But once again you use the phrase, “evolution guided by God.” What exactly do you mean when you say this?
Nick…I have never claimed that ID is scientific proof of God’s existence. What I have claimed - and not a single person who has contributed to this thread has challenged - is that the data processing and molecular machinery that lie at the foundation of every living organism, constitute solid evidence that life requires a Creator.
I remain astounded that any Christian would refuse to celebrate this evidence for what it is.
Again, it is this evidence that has delivered me (and many, many others) out of atheism. It is this evidence that has the power to keep many young believers from straying away from their faith as they go out into a viciously secular world; a world which does not even allow God or His Word in the public square or in the halls of academia.
And no matter what scientific discoveries lie in our future, advanced data processing and advanced technology will always remain clear signatures of design. There is simply no reason for any Christian to fear this evidence
”