Re: [asa] Random and natural vs intelligence

That's why it is so important to understand the concept of random
mutation as it is being used in evolutionary theory versus the more
common understanding of the term 'random'.
If some creationists want to confuse the meaning of the term to
suggest that random cannot mean 'no designer' then they are doing a
disservice to science.

It may appear to be random the observer since the observer lacks the
context. For instance, is a random message (encoded) one which is
without 'design'? And you to the casual observer the message appears
to be fully random and yet.

If God guides mutations then they may still appear to be random to the
observer, random in the statistical sense, and yet still designed.

That's why I believe it is better to describe evolution as variation
and selection, as Darwin did, rather than by using the term random
mutation, which is an unfortunate terminology as it tends to lead to
confusion.

John seems to have the same problem when stating 'the totally random
process of evolution'. Unless one specifies what is meant by this, it
is clear that evolution is far from random, even if one ignores
selection. A 'random mutation' of a codon has a non-uniform
distribution of effects, many of the changes are neutral as the
mutated version ends up encoding for the same amino acid, many will
have minor effects (depending on the environment these effects can be
slightly detrimental or slightly beneficial) and few will be lethal.

What is meant by intelligent design in creation? Merely the claim that
natural processes of regularity and chance (which I argue includes
natural intelligence) cannot explain a particular system.

I think the major fallacy comes from the concept 'random' and how
people misinterpret its meaning. Randomness is a statistical measure,
that's all.

On 11/5/07, Randy Isaac <randyisaac@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>
> The November 2007 issue of Christianity Today includes a book review titled
> "Deconstructing Dawkins" in which author Logan Paul Gage critiques McGrath's
> book "The Dawkins Delusion." I don't think it's available online yet so let
> me just type in two paragraphs of the article which I think deserve
> discussion. My point is not to agree or disagree but to say that this is an
> articulation of a critical point of difference within our communities that
> needs to be clearly addressed.
>
> "While theists can have a variety of legitimate views on life's evolution,
> surely they must maintain that the process involves intelligence. So the
> question is: Can an intelligent being use random mutations and natural
> selection to create? No. This is not a theological problem; it is a logical
> one. The words random and natural are meant to exclude intelligence. If God
> guides which mutations happen, the mutations are not random; if God chooses
> which organisms survive so as to guide life's evolution, the selection is
> intelligent rather than natural.
>
> "Theistic Darwinists maintain that God was "intimately involved" in
> creation, to use Francis Collins's words. But they also think life developed
> via genuinely random mutations and genuinely natural selection. Yet they
> never explain what God is doing in this process. Perhaps there is still room
> for him to start the whole thing off, but this abandons theism for deism."
>
>
> This is essentially the same argument that Lee Strobel used on the radio a
> few weeks ago when he firmly but respectfully rebuked Francis Collins.
> Evolution is inherently random and without guidance and is therefore
> mutually exclusive with divine guidance, he said.
>
> Randy
>

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Mon Nov 5 22:10:13 2007