In my mind, I split it up between statistically random and ontologically random. We can create a model of what random processes should look like, compare observations to the model, and use statistics to define the fit between the two. That only allows us to say what something looks like, that is statistical randomness. However, we can only use axioms and epistemologies to describe the underlying ideas of what randomness is, which would be ontological randomness. Another way to describe it would be pragmatic and philosophical definitions.
I agree, the big thing though is as observers we can’t make the difference between statistically random and ontologically random.
That’s my conclusion as well. I tend to be more pragmatic, so the philosophical debates over the “real meaning” of randomness don’t interest me as much. I am curious to see how far down the rabbit hole physicists can go, but for the time being I am happy with “it looks random”.
Why would God intervene seamlessly, i.e. as if He hadn’t? And how would He at the quantum level and to what end?
What actually is your argument and which way around should I have got it?
Incorrect… though perhaps I do not understand the meaning of your second sentence. The indeterminism is certainly not purely epistemological. All evidence tells us that the values are created by the measurement event and it has been proven that there are no hidden variables – not within the premises of the scientific world view. There is room for some causality there from outside the space-time mathematical laws of nature, but only as long as they do not alter the probability distributions.
Thank you for your comment.
-
Contingent definition, dependent for existence, occurrence, character, etc., on something not yet certain; conditional (often followed by on or upon): Our plans are contingent on the weather.
-
random : [adjective] lacking a definite plan, purpose, or pattern. made, done, or chosen at random.
For me and it seems most people there is a huge difference between random and contingent. When we say random, we mean there is no pattern, which is what people like Dawkins say about evolutionary change. Most people do not experience life as random.
When we talk about contingent we are talking about a pattern since one aspect of the process is dependent on another, and this is what evolution and science in general is all about.
Another side of this is predictability. Evolution cannot be predicted because it is contingent on changes which normally cannot be foreseen by humans. On the other hand, it seems that evolution can be explained using 20/20 hindsight.
The next result of the coin flip is not predictable, but we can predict that 50% of 100 will be heads. If not the process is not random.
Weather prediction is a very complex process, which is why it is difficult to predict. But experts are using science-based computer programs to understand this complexity and increase the accuracy of their predictions.
Some people might say that quantum physics indicate that no prediction can be reliably accurate so all of life is “random” in this sense, which I would reject.
Evolution is not random because it is guided by natural selection. This is what Darwin said. I would just add that since God created nature, God is the ultimate guide of natural selection. This is the way to reconcile theology and science.
Thanks for sharing Coop,
I, too, am working my way through understanding evolution in light of biblical creation. Since the Bible is indeed the inspired Word of God, I prayerfully struggle with rightly dividing the Word of truth. I can only share what I think I am learning. On page 137 of Francis Collins’ book *The Language of God, there is a side-by-side illustration comparing the Human chromosomes to the Chimpanzee chromosomes with notes pointing to the few differences. My questioning notes in the margin are 1. A genetic upgrade? 2. A day in God’s laboratory?
From a “theistic evolution” viewpoint and consistent with the “fossil record,” I think those genetic differences were coded into the appropriate Animal Kingdom DNA when God created the early Homo Species. When God created the “kinds” of flora and fauna, He designated how He intended them to develop over extended periods of time and be diverse and seasonally renewed. I think He manages His guidelines imprinted in nature to achieve his intentions from the molecular level.
This approach “crosses your bridge” as an event controlled by the Creator rather than a random mutation or a natural selection. Once you wrap your head around that, I also think that the Creation of Modern Man is biblically introduced with Adam and Eve first physically and later spiritually as a living soul. The principle parallels Jesus’ requirement that “you must be born again” … spiritually.
Personally, as an aside, I suspect that Adam was the first Human name written in God’s Book of Life and I also suspect that the six-billion base code of his DNA is the name written there. But, now that I got over to this side of your bridge, here is some more food for thought. If my DNA name is written in God’s Book of Life perhaps my new name written on a white stone in Revelation is my name in The Lamb’s Book of Life. I am excited to know when I get there. Blessings!
I certainly accept that the Bible describes a “shepherd God”, but that does not deny a “watchmaker” God of design and purpose. The two are completely compatible in my mind.
I totally agree with this statement. I do not believe God created because he needed something, but rather because he DESIRED to share love and relationship. That does not preclude design and purpose.
I accept that Genesis chapter one is not a literal, mechanical description of origins over a literal seven days, and one could even suggest that it alludes to evolution and natural selection - "Let the land produce vegetation: plants yielding seeds and trees on the land bearing fruit with seed in it, according to their kinds.” Even though it is symbolic on some level, I see purpose and design in the message of chapters one and two - “God said…”, “God made…”, “God planted a garden…”. “Let us make humankind in our image, after our likeness, so they may rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air, over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over all the creatures that move on the earth.” That statement certainly suggests design and purpose both on God’s part and on the part of human beings.
The Bible is full of design and purpose but that in no way suggests that we are just “tools” for God to accomplish something he "“needs”.
To be sure, but it really does not make the process as a whole “random.” What you describe is much like the evolutionary process. Variation produces a potential change in genes. Natural selection determines if that change is beneficial or harmful, or neutral.
Most mutations are not beneficial, so do not survive. Neutral changes may survival because the life form is already selected in.
The big question that science has not answered is How does natural selection determine whether a change is beneficial or not? Now we know how we solve a problem. We work it out, look at all the possible answers and determine which is best according to our criteria, but we are rational beings who can think, and nature is not.
However, life is designed so that it can develop using trial and error mechanism. This is not based chance. A life form must be adapted to its ecological niche, or it can adapt its habitat to meet its needs. Of course, its habitat is constantly changing and so we are talking about a very dynamic situation. Basically, I am saying that the interaction of the life forms and their environment that acts as natural selection. I think that is what you are saying too.
This should solve the problem, because 1) It would be clear that evolution is not random, even though it contains random aspects, 2) natural selection could be scientifically verified as valid, 3) This would verify that life has meaning and purpose. 4) It points the way God guides evolution (by controlling the ecology.)
To be sure, but it really does not make the process as a whole “random.” What you describe is much like the evolutionary process. Variation produces a potential change in genes. Natural selection determines if that change is beneficial or harmful, or neutral.
Most mutations are not beneficial, so do not survive. Neutral changes may survival because the life form is already selected in.
The big question that science has not answered is How does natural selection determine whether a change is beneficial or not? Now we know how we solve a problem. We work it out, look at all the possible answers and determine which is best according to our criteria, but we are rational beings who can think, and nature is not.
However, life is designed so that it can develop using trial and error mechanism. This is not based chance. A life form must be adapted to its ecological niche, or it can adapt its habitat to meet its needs. Of course, its habitat is constantly changing and so we are talking about a very dynamic situation. Basically, I am saying that the interaction of the life forms and their environment that acts as natural selection. I think that is what you are saying too.
This should solve the problem, because 1) It would be clear that evolution is not random, even though it contains random aspects, 2) natural selection could be scientifically verified as valid, 3) This would verify that life has meaning and purpose. 4) It points the way God guides evolution (by controlling the ecology.)
To be sure, but it really does not make the process as a whole “random.” What you describe is much like the evolutionary process. Variation produces a potential change in genes. Natural selection determines if that change is beneficial or harmful, or neutral.
Most mutations are not beneficial, so do not survive. Neutral changes may survival because the life form is already selected in.
The big question that science has not answered is How does natural selection determine whether a change is beneficial or not? Now we know how we solve a problem. We work it out, look at all the possible answers and determine which is best according to our criteria, but we are rational beings who can think, and nature is not.
However, life is designed so that it can develop using trial and error mechanism. This is not based chance. A life form must be adapted to its ecological niche, or it can adapt its habitat to meet its needs. Of course, its habitat is constantly changing and so we are talking about a very dynamic situation. Basically, I am saying that the interaction of the life forms and their environment that acts as natural selection. I think that is what you are saying too.
This should solve the problem, because 1) It would be clear that evolution is not random, even though it contains random aspects, 2) natural selection could be scientifically verified as valid, 3) This would verify that life has meaning and purpose. 4) It points the way God guides evolution (by controlling the ecology.)
If you would like to see random mutation at work, take a look at the following youTube production.
This topic was automatically closed 6 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.