Would you also consider water turning to ice to be an example of disorder → order even though that requires a reduction of (heat) energy?
Not super-strong on science, but intrigued by, and keen to understand, what you are saying here.
Thanks .
Kind of obvious that crystals are more orderly than
a liquid, and that there is a flow of energy involved.
Too much heat (rapid movement of molecules) prevents
the crystals forming. Give the molecules half a chance, and
they will order themselves into neat ranks.
1 Like
The water cycle involves a lot of chaotic motion, but is governed by specific laws. It is chaotic in the same way that any other aspect of weather, or rolling a die, or a double pendulum is.
The water cycle certainly does involve kinetic or thermal energy, which is non-directional or oscillating, and has been labelled as random. I find it hard to accept that a system is chaotic, that is without order, when it is very orderly except for the temporary power of lightning and wind unleashed to restore the balance of nature.
What I think is the problem here is that scientists use words taken from philosophy and then use them in a different manner. which creates much confusion. Random is a prime example, but it is clear that chance is random in a way that chaos is not.
Weather is random in that it cannot be predicted in advance, although it can be predicted, so certainly it is not totally random, which is why we need a better label for it. On the other hand, when I did read up on chaos theory the conclusion was that weather was best predicted by using computer models, which is what they are doing today. This is because it is the environment which guides the weather, in much the same way that the environment guides evolution.
Yes, that’s exactly what I would mean by “chaotic”.
The problem with this, which I encounter fairly often on this website, is that, according to Darwin and not disproven elsewhere, natural selection guides evolution. This means that it is scientifically correct to say that evolution is guided unless you maintain that Darwin’s theory is not science.
Is natural selection guided by anything, or is it independent?
“Unguided” in that quote is as in no supernatural guidance, not as in no physical guiding mechanism, which is what “natural selection guides evolution” refers to.
Perhaps the answer to this is both yes and no…
From the perspective of methodological naturalism the answer is no. Things might influence natural selection (eg. Ecology) but natural selection is not guided in a teleological sense by anything scientifically detectable. Or at least that is the understanding I have developed hanging out here and reading posts from folk far knowledgeable about this than I.
Yet from the perspective of my theological tradition I would say the answer is yes - natural selection (like all things) is guided by the good, right, and perfect providence of God. Here the end to which God directs natural selection is the final cause to which he directs all things - the manifestation of his beauty.
In my view, this yes and no are not mutually exclusive but rather, like heads and tails on a coin, are different perspectives on the same object.
2 Likes
Natural selection is a natural process. It is not independent of nature, but it is not dependent on nature either. The way it works is based on the way it is designed to work, and there is only one way to determine how it is designed to work and that is by observation.
Natural selection is determined by ecology, which is in turn determined by all the natural laws which shape our universe, which was designed by the Creator.
We do not live in a dualistic, two-tiered world. Unguided means unguided. Since the physical cannot think, the physical cannot guide. God guides, but God does so indirectly.
God really is not determined by philosophy and teleology. God is interested in Creation through the Logos. Darwin discovered that Nature/God used the ecology to shape and direct evolution via natural selection.
1 Like
Hi Roger, I think there has been a misunderstanding here.
Sure, God isn’t determined by teleology or philosophy. Yet, as you’ll see from the quote your posted, I wasn’t talking about God but about Natural Selection. In my understanding, Natural Selection has no scientifically identifiable ‘thing’ guiding it. Ecology, nature, genetics, etc. might all influence natural selection but they are not guiding it through intentional agency and/or towards a predetermined goal.
So if there is something guiding natural selection in an intentional way it must be something outside of the natural and thus undetectable by scientific methods. Or put it another way, if God is guiding natural selection (and I believe he is) then he is doing so in away that science cannot detect or determine.
Hope that clarifies things for you.
To be honest, I think for once, we might actually be agreeing with each other, Roger! 
Albeit we are coming at this from different starting points. If so, I wonder how we can build on this common ground to increase are mutual understanding?
3 Likes
I would like to make a few comments on the video at the top of this forum topic. The question is: Why would God use evolution if it results in flawed beings?. While I don’t know why God used evolution to make humans, if we take as a starting point that he did, I would like to offer a few points of view on some of the matters raised in the video even though I am not an expert on human anatomy or human evolution.
Firstly, I think that it is easy to make generalizations on what parts of the body seem to be flawed without an in-depth analysis of whether these things are actually flawed in the overall context of the human body and its evolution. It seems to me that the term flawed is being used in relation to a hypothetical ideal that might not be able to be realized in the context of how God made things. Also, to look at a “flaw” in isolation from the rest of the body and from what is possible through the evolutionary process is to my mind inappropriate, especially if a “design” to replace the “flawed” organ is not presented that is shown to be possible evolutionarily and to be more beneficial in the context of the whole body.
The octopus eye is not an outgrowth of the brain as is the vertebrate eye, but rather an invagination of the body surface. It seems to me that the vertebrate eye is a brilliant organ for what it can do. Could the octopus-type eye have developed in an efficient manner in humans (and other vertebrates), considering the origin of the vertebrate eye, the rigid nature of the head, the need for the eye to sit outside the bony skull yet still be protected to a certain extent by it without compressing the retinal nerves, etc.? I don’t know the answer, but if it couldn’t, why say that the eye is flawed? Senescence and death are “programmed” into human cells, so there will be changes in the eye with age, as in other organs of the body. The same thing can be said of the human sinuses. Where would they be situated otherwise whilst retaining their necessary functions (as mentioned in the video) and efficiency of function (being near the nose), considering the advantages of a flat face for vision, the need for space for a relatively large brain, the efficiency of a relatively compact head for support reasons, etc.?
Regarding the epiglottis, I think that is an excellent solution for human speech, taste, breathing, etc. These use both the mouth and nasal cavity. For example, taste (when including flavours) requires both, owing to the innervation by the two cranial nerves involved. Humans have chewing teeth and hands to cut or break food, and so don’t need to swallow large items of food. Some birds and reptiles that swallow relatively large food items whole (not having teeth or chewing teeth) will need to have a means of breathing while they feed or else they would die, and such a feeding system would be selected against by natural selection. Birds and reptiles don’t have speech like humans, and speech is incredibly important for humans. I don’t think that the design of the human throat is flawed after all.
Regarding the anterior cruciate ligament, I would think that the vast majority of people in the world have not torn or ruptured theirs, and so the ACL doesn’t require a good blood supply to it. The ligament needs to be tough for the stability of the knee, and the ligament does a good job under “normal” circumstances (e.g. walking, running). Sure, overstressing knee joints in high impact or extreme sports can lead to rupture or tearing of the ACL, but that is not the context in which the human knee developed. Similarly for the Achilles tendon. It plays a very significant role in the efficiency of human locomotion (walking, running, jumping) and provides for both elasticity and shock-absorbance in the foot. It’s really an amazing part of the human body, and to my mind is not flawed at all. What more efficient mechanism would replace it?
If natural selection has so operated that humans have lost the ability to synthesize certain essential macronutrients, shouldn’t there have been some advantage to that loss, or at least shouldn’t the loss be neutral in evolutionary terms? Otherwise, one would have expected that if the loss would have been disadvantageous, the individuals carrying the genetic defects would have been selected against. So it would seem to me that the loss of the ability to synthesize vitamin C etc. was not disadvantageous. But might there evolutionary advantages for human nutrition and the human body to have to obtain certain macronutrients from the diet? Has research been done to answer this question? If not, can we really say that this loss of the ability to synthesize various compounds is a flaw? (Theologically, we think of the enjoyment of food (including food such as vegetables and fruit) as a gift of God).
Similar arguments can be made for the other parts of the body mentioned in the video. I am inclined to be unwilling to call something in the human body a flaw unless the term flaw is clearly defined and the context in which the term is used is clearly stated.
1 Like
Thank you for your comments. The reason why I said what I said is because it6is clear to me that the statement that
It all comes down to this, God is rational, and nature/science is rational, [which is why I can say that God created nature/the universe.] Therefore, if God guides natural selection in a rational way, then it should be scientifically detectable.
The “down-side” of this is that some will say that this opens up God to rational scrutiny. I really do not think that this is a serious problem, however it still means that the existence of God cannot be proven beyond a shadow of doubt because fools can always find “reasons” to question.
Nature would seem to be the agency which guides “natural” selection, and that seems to be the assumption that believers and non-believers make, but Nature has no intentional agency outside of that of its Creator, which is the reason I call it God guided, not nature guided.
Genetics also plays a role in evolution, but only indirectly in selection. Thus, genetics does not guide.
That leaves ecology, which is really a very broad range of influences on evolution. It is my view that since ecology influences, that is, guides natural selection, and natural selection guides evolution, then ecology guides evolution. A longer stretch maybe saying that the God Who created the physical universe out of nothing uses the physical universe to create the biological universe including us.
Jesus mixed His metaphors rather often. John 3:8 (NIV2011)
8 The wind blows wherever it pleases. You hear its sound, but you cannot tell where it comes from or where it is going. So it is with everyone born of the Spirit.”
The observation Jesus is making is that we cannot see the wind, just as we cannot see the Spirit, but we see the effects of the wind and we see the effects of the Spirit, so we know that both are real.
Darwin determined that evolution was achieved by a combination of random chance (variation) and guidance (natural selection.) That is what his science says. Scientists today do not accept this.
Good observations, and to me it would be more a “sub-optimal” design rather than a flaw, if I were an ID sort of guy. Since I am more an EC guy, those things are actually more a “great use of the materials at hand.”
2 Likes
The more I read about the human eye, the more I can’t accept that it is sub-optimal. From what I have read so far, and to my mind, the arrangement of the optic nerve and the resultant blind spot are not “flaws” but are necessary for the eye to be able function effectively. For example, the movement of the eye by the attachment of the ocular muscles to the sclera (which is advantageous) and the need to protect the eye and it’s components within the sclera necessitates the optic nerve arrangement as does the need to provide a rich blood supply to the retina necessitate the adjacency of the choroid to the retina. From what I have read so far, the inverted nature of the retina is vital to its functioning and is optimal for human vision. The lesson for me is not to take views such as those expressed in the video as necessarily correct, but to research such matters further to get closer to the truth
1 Like
Agree that it would be difficult to say the eye could have been better, but pretty easy to say the spine is not really a great design.
Phil, what on earth are you thinking? You must have back problems.
@AdrianA , your comments are well taken, however I think that most people when they say that people are flawed are referring to the spiritual and moral, not the physical character, of other people (not themselves of course.)
Of course, God did not make us flawed. That is on us, but we can be flawed, and we are flawed, and it is much easier to blame God than to take responsibility for ourselves.
The basic “flaw” of humanity is that we are finite, we are mortal, we die. Life is a gift, but it does not last forever. We accept it with gratitude and make the most of it in love, or blame God because God did not give us what we think we want.
Actually, I do have a backache today. But a huge percentage of people have back problems as the spine was just not designed for upright posture, and has a failure rate that is huge.
Of course, we are all flawed in many different ways. Being a good creation is not being a perfect creation.
2 Likes
Not in breeders. And it’s not designed by anything of course, apart from selection pressures.