Turns out Random is Better (Evolution)

by xeno6696 , Sonoran Desert, Wednesday, February 24, 2010, 16:06 (5196 days ago) @ dhw

dhw, didn't realize I hadn't answered this.-Throwing out teleological notions of a creator simplifies the number of subjective criteria, but leaves me in the position I hate being: The one in which I can find no purchase. I don't know how to argue for or against a creator in this line of thought. -Assumption 1: God has no goal for his creation. 
Is this assumption valid? One would beg the question on creating something with NO goal in mind, as even a painter has the goal of putting paint on a canvas.-Returning to the question you wanted me to return to, why would you have to mathematically justify randomness vs. intelligence, the fact remains that at the heart of this line is that life is created by an intelligent entity. If you're making a claim of randomness, you need to be able to demonstrate that the random pattern is truly random or that the creation of life absolutely requires intelligence. -Put into other words, if you're going to draw the line and say "Random vs. Designed" you need to have the means to demonstrate that one or the other is correct. If it's designed, its a game of detecting intelligence--the existence of self-assembling molecules itself isn't evidence--isn't far enough. If it's random, then we need to be able to truly quantify the randomness--which is a job for a mathematician. -In computer science there's big money to be had in creating a truly random random-number generator. What about the possibility that it requires an insane amount of intelligence to create a truly random process? I could build a similar argument to David's based on the knowledge that it takes intelligence to build something that's fully random.-If God is concealed from us, and doesn't want us to find it, what better way than to devise a mechanism for randomness? One that's built into the very fabric of the cosmos? This scenario I think is just as likely as David's creator. In this light random vs. designed are the same, and the division you seek is a false dilemma.

--
\"Why is it, Master, that ascetics fight with ascetics?\"

\"It is, brahmin, because of attachment to views, adherence to views, fixation on views, addiction to views, obsession with views, holding firmly to views that ascetics fight with ascetics.\"