The issue of chance... (Evolution)

by dhw, Monday, June 01, 2009, 23:30 (5452 days ago) @ George Jelliss

George: dhw claims that he has not written anything about "chance creating everything". He may not have used that exact phrase but he has certainly implied it. The following are extracts from his text: [numerous quotations from the "brief guide"]. - I'm impressed and touched, George, by the thoroughness with which you've studied my text. Let me say immediately that I stand by every single one of the quotes, and in the context of genesis and evolution I can even confirm your statement: "he thinks chance is the atheist equivalent of God", to which I'll return in a moment. Nor do I deny making repeated references to the creative role of chance. However, I do not like to be quoted as saying something I never said, especially since I regard it as an over-simplification of my views, just as Matt S. regards it as an over-simplification of atheist views. - I'm afraid it all comes back to your pet theory of abiogenesis. Since we both accept the general basis of Darwin's theory of evolution, and since for the purposes of this post I would prefer not to go into BBella's theory of intelligent matter ... which I liken to Pantheism ... we are faced with a choice: something brought into existence the first replicating molecules with their potential for an astonishing range of variations; theists call that something God, and atheists call it chance. Therefore in the context of genesis and evolution, chance is the atheist "equivalent of God", and as all your well-chosen quotes demonstrate, this requires a similar faith. - Once the codes have formed themselves by chance (atheism) or been formed by God (theism) or have somehow come into existence (agnosticism), evolution takes its course. This too is hugely influenced by chance in the form of collisions, environmental influences and mutations ... though I have doubts about the latter ... and as I have said repeatedly in the course of our discussions, I have no difficulty accepting this role of chance, just as I have no difficulty accepting its role in the events that make up our lives. I do have difficulty imagining that chance alone could produce new, hitherto non-existent organs, even in their most primitive form, but I can believe in refinements and improvements arising from natural selection. When the initial codes come into operation, the adaptations etc. may be triggered by chance but are not created by chance, since the mechanism is in place to react as necessary. I see no reason why this part of the process should not be acceptable to theists, atheists and agnostics alike, but the process ... and indeed the whole argument ... hinges on the complexity of the first replicating molecules. On 28 May in your response to David Turell under the James Le Fanu thread, you agreed that "certainly the mechanisms of the cell are mind-blowingly complicated, but that doesn't mean that they couldn't have evolved...by natural processes." True, but "doesn't mean that they couldn't..." is no more scientific than "you can't prove there's no God." The atheistic belief that mind-blowingly complicated mechanisms can be formed by chance has no scientific backing and requires faith. I have never understood why you find this so difficult to acknowledge. - So let me replace the manufactured quote "chance creating everything" with a more accurate one, which summarizes all those in your list and which you are welcome to hold against me: "atheists have faith in the ability of chance to create the mind-blowingly complicated mechanism which led to replication and evolution". - However, I'm reluctant to end this post without establishing some kind of balance, so perhaps you will allow me to put one of your quotes in its full context: "it's hard to believe that life came about by chance" in fact reads: "But if it's hard to believe that life came about by chance, it's just as hard to swallow the explanations offered to us by religion and myth." - **** My thanks to Matt S. for his extremely interesting posts, which I have only just read. I shall need some time to digest them.