Turns out Random is Better (Evolution)

by dhw, Thursday, February 25, 2010, 18:27 (5194 days ago) @ xeno6696

DHW: What we see after life has started is exactly the same process whether it's been designed or not, so the only point at issue is whether we think the mechanism which allows for heredity, adaptation and improvement could have ORIGINATED by chance. I would argue that here the dilemma is real, and yet again that brings us back to the limits of our credulity, i.e. to personal faith in chance or in a designer.-MATT: The only issue I have is that as far as I've seen on the website, the two adversaries are chance v. design, meaning that a distinct line has been drawn. Are we talking degrees or kind? Obviously randomness exists, but I've criticized many times that I think "chance" is a bit of a catch-all strawman, because even on THAT end of the spectrum, there's bits of determinism involved. My criticism still stands that I think in terms of causation, we don't quite know enough to forcefully declare the question is that of a binary nature.-I'm not sure that you've followed the drift of my post ... maybe it drifted a bit too much! ... so I'll try again, though this time incorporating the alternatives you may have had in mind. (I do make every effort to read your thoughts!) For me the discussion proceeds in two stages, the first of which is confined to whether there is or is not a creator. This entails a straight choice between chance and design: if he exists, he created life (design); if he doesn't, life created itself (chance). There's no degree or kind. The only alternatives that have been offered to us are a God who created life by accident and who can't do anything about it (Frank) ... in which case I don't see much difference between believing in him and believing in chance ... and BBella's suggestion that life has always existed. This appears to blur the distinction of chance v. design, but in my view shifts the focus to conscious v. unconscious, which eventually brings us back full circle to the question of whether the eternal life force is unconscious, impersonal Nature (= atheism) or universal intelligence (= theism). -Once we've dealt with the existence/non-existence of God (life originated by design or by chance), we move to Stage Two, which is the nature of God as manifested by everything that follows on from the birth of the original mechanism. Here I agree there are no distinct lines between chance and design, and questions relating to a possible God's physicality, to teleology, to his interest in his creation are all a matter of speculation.
 
As regards Stage One (the existence of God), I'm certainly happier with your "beyond a reasonable doubt" than with your use of absolutes, but one man's reasonable doubt is not the same as another's, as is clear from the conclusions drawn by George and David. Again it comes down to personal limits of credulity. As regards Stage Two (= the nature of a possible God), I would say the potential variations are so extensive that all doubts are reasonable, including those concerning the degree of chance/design in life as it evolves.-This will be my last post for a few days, as I shall be away until Tuesday. I'll try to catch up in the course of next week.-
---