Pigliucci Challenges Randomness (Religion)

by dhw, Monday, January 18, 2010, 16:08 (5421 days ago) @ xeno6696

Fallacy 4: Natural Phenomena Mean Randomness
"For some reason many people, not just creationists, seem to think that if something is natural, then it must also be random (in the sense of being undirected and therefore, in the minds of those with a misunderstanding or ignorance of natural selection, clearly not designed). This is the basis for one of the most persistent fallacies of creationism: that evolution cannot be true because it purports to explain complexity in the biological world by means of random accidents."-Before I continue, David, dhw, does any of this pertain to your views? I don't want to waste valuable time. -My own short answer to your question would be no. However, a short answer won't do, because Pigliucci's fallacy as presented here is itself a fallacy and also a gross oversimplification of a complex argument. But perhaps this statement has been taken out of context, so what follows may be an unfair criticism. I can only comment on the quote.
 
His fallacy lies in the sly manner with which he skips from natural selection to evolution as if they were synonymous. Natural selection is only one component of the theory, as I tried to point out under 'Evolutionary Catechism', and non-creationist ID-ers and agnostics (presumably those meant by "not just creationists") can accept both its naturalness AND its non-randomness. Similarly they, and theists too, can accept that all forms of life sprang from one or just a few forms. So are they evolutionists or aren't they? Creationists, of course, believe in the literal truth of the Bible, which is a totally different starting-point. -The controversial areas which Pigliucci has tried to conflate for the sake of his generalization are those in which randomness really does compete with design, i.e. certain ASPECTS of evolution (such as innovations), and the mechanism that led to evolution, as opposed to evolution itself. The question here, as you know, is whether those first living organisms which were capable of replication, adaptation and innovation (e.g. through random mutations) could have come into existence through a random combination of globules of matter. The claim that this hugely complex mechanism arose naturally IS the same as randomly, and that is where materialism requires just as much faith as theism.