Pigliucci Challenges Randomness (Religion)

by xeno6696 , Sonoran Desert, Thursday, January 21, 2010, 18:15 (5420 days ago) @ dhw

As for the absurd claim that all theistic evolutionists reject natural selection, what on earth does he base that on? Let me yet again quote Darwin himself: "It seems to me absurd to doubt that a man may be an ardent theist and an evolutionist." (Letter written May 7, 1879). I don't think he intended to exclude natural selection from that statement. And incidentally, the biology teacher who first introduced me to evolution long, long ago was a lay preacher.
> -I think I'm going to tackle this first as it was a complete fudging of my own wording here. I meant to say that it was Natural Selection that is singled out by all types of theist-minded thinkers. They don't challenge inheritance, they challenge that part that on many levels suggests that evolution is undirected or as many argue, "random." I think he's trying to argue that random is a false distinction; that just because something *wasn't* designed, it doesn't mean that it was built at random. I know he argues later in the book that the appearance of order in nature necessarily means "not random." -As for your comment about his continuum of belief/unbelief, that's a better point for you to make to him than to me. But in America ID is a mask for creationism as the Discovery Institute made clear, so I think its natural and fair to remind people about that. -For the meat of your post, remember, if evolution makes no sense minus natural selection, than you cannot have one without the other. I don't necessarily view that as an equivocation, because at least at the moment, there is nothing better. -At this point I'd almost recommend trying to find the book, because he actually discusses much of what you talk about in your post: his ultimate goal about the book was to show these points:-1. Evolution is universally supported by science.
2. The battle about evolution is limited to the United States, to one specific subset of its religious population.
3. That the objections to evolution and natural selection at large are a thrust towards materialism and not science at all. 
4. That the arguments as posited by ID proponents in the United States have a political and cultural goal, not one of science. -He goes out of his way to demonstrate that it is possible for theists to support evolution, and cites many religious denominations that openly do so. --> *** Thanks for the piece about language. Fascinating subject, which I'll respond to next time round.-It's my attempt to try again to talk about Seth Lloyd's ideas in a way that might be useful to you. Though remember, he didn't touch upon origins or theism in the slightest, only the physical theories and laws. I'm just trying to... help you understand both him, and my ideas that are based off of his. ("educate" sounds condescending in an online reading...)

--
\"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.\"