RE: [asa] Random and natural vs intelligence

Pim,

Glad to see you are back. I have noticed that you have been quiet for the
last few weeks.

I agree that random and randomness are counterproductive terms to use in
these discussions and I also agree that variation is a much better and more
accurate term as well.

The important point and the reason for my use of Dawkins was simply that
Strobel rightly points out that evolution that is guided is not random, as
in the sense of being totally naturalistic and happening without God, like
in the multiverse argument. The use of the word random implies this
naturalism to a lot of lay audiences like you pointed out and provokes
unnecessary defensiveness.

I understand and appreciate random mutations meaning only not being
preferential for the environment. We agree that randomness is a component in
evolution but I think we also agree that the overall process of evolution
including the natural laws that guide it are not random. The question then
becomes where is the line between random and non-random? I would suggest
that the best answer to this question so far was Behe's latest book that we
discussed in depth several months ago, excepting I would substitute natural
processes for where Behe invokes intervention.

As I have pointed out before, it is a cop-out for Collins to claim God being
involved in the creation of life while at the same time affirming Darwinian
random mutation, and then just saying "I don't know" when pressed as to how
to reconcile these. Not that random mutation necessarily presents a problem,
but him failing to draw the distinction between random mutations and the
non-random processes underlying and guiding evolution is.

This is the challenge before TE's to elucidate this distinction in my
opinion. The focus shouldn't be just on mutations, but on all the factors
of variation including epigenetics and whether the sum total of all that
complexity can be explained without some underlying guiding process.

Thanks

John

-----Original Message-----
From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu [mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu] On
Behalf Of PvM
Sent: Monday, November 05, 2007 11:29 PM
To: John Walley
Cc: Randy Isaac; asa@calvin.edu
Subject: Re: [asa] Random and natural vs intelligence

Not at all and I am amazed that you hold that belief. Random in
evolution means nothing more than that the mutation does not arise
preferentially to the environment. That's all. So let's explore the
many flaws in the argument. I am not sure why you bring up Dawkins
here, I assumed that we were talking about Randy and others used the
term in this thread?

The original question was "Can an intelligent being use random
mutations and natural selection to create?", the answer is of course,
even ID proponents accept this. Randy continues "The words random and
natural are meant to exclude intelligence." Again this is wrong, first
of all natural includes intelligence and intelligence can include
randomness at least to the observer.

There are two parts to the statement; one involves the concept of
random variation, the other one selection. I will show that neither
one forms an objection to a God interacting with His Creation. As I
have already shown in my earlier posting, the concept of randomness
depends on how it is actually being used in evolution and how
randomness is determined. Can a signal be drowned in the noise, of
course. So randomness is no objection to the statement unless you mean
truly randomness, but that's a purely philosophical position and has
little relationship to the term random as used in evolutionary theory.
THen there is selection, the part which truly makes evolution itself
non random. Can God use selection to interact with His Creation.
Again, the answer is a resounding: of course.

John quoted an even worse question "How he saw God's involvement in
creation if he accepted the totally random processes of evolution?".
It should be clear by now that evolution is not random but setting
aside that strawman, the question could be how can God be involved in
His Creation and let evolution determine the course of his Creation.
The answer is almost trivially simple a yes. God's involvement does
not have to focus on the evolution of man, He can intervene in
history, He can have His Son perform miracles and none of this would
require God to intervene in the processes of evolution.

I believe that much of the confusion comes from the term randomness,
and it may be helpful to point out once again that this is not an
important part of evolutionary theory, all that is required is
variation and selection, and I argue that in both instances, God can
contribute in a manner consistent with evolutionary theory.

On 11/5/07, John Walley <john_walley@yahoo.com> wrote:
> But you stretch random to include God's handiwork. You say just because it
> appears random it doesn't mean it is.
>
> That is fine but I bet that is not what Dawkins means by random. He means
> really random with no room for God whatsoever.
>
> And that is what the word technically means.
>
> John
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu [mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu] On
> Behalf Of PvM
> Sent: Monday, November 05, 2007 10:09 PM
> To: Randy Isaac
> Cc: asa@calvin.edu
> Subject: 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.
>
>

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Tue Nov 6 07:19:24 2007