The issue of chance... (Evolution)

by dhw, Sunday, May 31, 2009, 17:04 (5453 days ago) @ Matt S.

Matt S: After reading the primer, I take issue with the seeming argument that seems to be made about the concept of 'created by chance'. The author seems ignorant concerning the fundamentals of chemistry and what the words 'chance' and 'spontaneity' mean in this context. - Thank you for drawing this distinction. I presume the context you are referring to is the origin of life. My focus is on the chemical combination that initially brought about replication and the potential for self-replicating molecules to vary (through chance mutations, collisions and environmental influences) and to reproduce their variations. This combination is of enormous complexity. You say: "Spontaneity refers to the fact that if the ambient conditions are right for a chemical reaction, it will happen spontaneously, any time the right components are present." This merely tells us that if the chemicals are properly combined for replication, there will be replication. The result of the combination may be "spontaneous" and "inevitable" ... like saying if a sperm fertilizes an egg the result will be offspring ... but the difficulty for me as an agnostic is to share the atheist's faith that the initial combination itself could have come about by chance. Unravelling the code of DNA required so much intelligence and scientific skill that Crick and Watson were awarded the Nobel Prize for doing it. And yet I am expected to believe that no intelligence or scientific skill was required to put that combination together in the first place. - You write: "I think that the author needs to more clearly define what it is he is attacking when he refers to the atheist position being about "chance creating everything" because I feel it is a very gross oversimplification of the position." You have put this in quotation marks, but I do not recall ever writing it (can you give me a reference, please). I thought I had made it clear that I accept most elements of the theory of evolution, and natural selection most certainly is not due to chance. I also accept that there are natural laws that come into operation if certain conditions are fulfilled. But, let me repeat, I am arguing against the atheist belief that chance could create the hugely complex combinations necessary to spark off life and drive the process of evolution, from which of course everything else has followed. However, I should also emphasize that it is no concern of mine what people believe. My only objection is to the kind of fundamentalism that causes some atheists like Dawkins to ridicule religious faith while not recognizing the part faith plays in their own interpretation of the universe. I find that every bit as repugnant and irrational as the arrogance of religious fundamentalism.