God of chance

[zoegirl]

THis if from another thread but is really is a new topic.

That being said, I am completely open to the guiding force that has (so far) left no tracks. I'm unimpressed, however, with the techniques that the brain power behind the ID movement (DI) has used to further its cause. So much time, space, and effort is expended by these people criticizing evolution from every direction when evolution is so obviously (to me) the methodology He used. After all the rhetoric (or ignoring the rhetoric) what is left is evidence, to me, the only important consideration.

David, I just cannot for some very obvious reason grasp how you reconcile God and the god of Chance working together synchronously in this very asynchronous dialogue. I know many on this forum share the same view (which I respect), I just can't get my head around it.

I can see God playing no role, I can see God play a role, but I can't see a God that designs by rolling dice and expecting predictable results. The most I can grasp is pseudo-random results, predictable but not entirely.

K.Miller who shares your view has had a reputation of attacking Intelligent Design. What K.Miller does like Dawkins, is take the word of Darwin and adapt it to thy faith system, and to add to the confusion, a faith not equally shared by neither Dawkins nor Miller.

Godslanguage, your comment about the god of chance really resonates with me and this concept of chance and probability has been whirling around my head for awhile.

Here is my issue. With our belief that GOd is in control of the universe and sustains it, as scripture holds, how do we even reconcile chance and probability. WE seem to be somewhat paradoxical in our thinking, I"ve been wondering, in holding to the idea that GOd has established a world with order, believing in that world of order, and basing our decisions on that wolrd of order, establishing probabilities of events. (lottery tickets, poker hands, blackjack, coin tosses) and yet we then suscribe to this idea (rightly so, I totally affirm this) that GOd is sovereing.

If we can reconcile these two seemingly paradoxical ideas....(we constantly acsribe seemingly random events to God's ordering right?), then why does the idea of a directed process, whehter we call it progressive creationism or theistic evolution, so unreasonable?

NOw I totally agree that what most theistic evolutionists are really describing is simply a driving force or a deist model of God's involvement, and I don't hold that scripture shows this. But if we believe in a personal God, invovled intimately with us and His creation, then why is this "intimate creator driven process "model of creation wrong to believe?

And to be honest, I really want to know if I am commiting some wrong thinking here, some incorrect application of scripture. I just seems that we are able to reconcile the "God of chance" with other aspects of the world and HIs creation and yet refuse to do so here.

PLease let me know your thoughts here and of course, others are welcome to add. What are the thoughts here?

[godslanguage]

Zoegirl, I don't have a problem with believing that God works though "mysterious" ways or ways inconceivable to
our feeble minds.

If theistic evolutionists define chance as:

• no assignable cause
  a risk or hazard
  unexpected, random, chance result
  meet accidentally
  without plan or purpose

...which corresponds to Darwinism then I don't see how God is conceivable even to our inconceivable minds.

However, if theistic evolutionists define chance as:

• force that cannot be foreseen or controlled
  likelihood of something happening
  predictable event
  a favorable set of circumstances

...then that makes the pathway more conceivable and consistent within a design framework. Its also more consistent with scripture.

[godslanguage]

• 
  no assignable cause ->
  a risk or hazard ->
  unexpected, random, chance result -> all these point to anti-teleology whether inconceivable or not, can be thought of as truly random
  meet accidentally ->
  without plan or purpose ->
  

• 
  force that cannot be foreseen or controlled -> leaves a question mark opened
  likelihood of something happening -> pre-defined/ prescribed/ front-loaded/ goal-directed /directed /pseudo-random
  predictable event -> pre-defined/ prescribed/ front-loaded/ goal-directed /directed /pseudo-random
  a favorable set of circumstances -> pre-defined/ prescribed/ front-loaded/ goal-directed /directed /pseudo-random
  

[zoegirl]

Ok, I like those distinctions.

So really, we need to clarify terms. So for things like, rolling a die or flipping a coin, would you use a term iike chance or random? It sounds like you wouldn't,

See, to me, then, if we have no problem with asigning a purpose to a flip of a coin then I dont' see a problem with God being the "conductor" of past events that to us, look random.

I know it may sound silly or nit-picking but really, this has been bugging me.

I am in absolute agreement over the philosophical ramification of the idea that it is non-purposeful.

Thanks, youve given me more to think about and certainly have clarified terms

[godslanguage]

So really, we need to clarify terms. So for things like, rolling a die or flipping a coin, would you use a term iike chance or random? It sounds like you wouldn't,

I think its terribly hard to find an example of something that is truly random. The act of flipping a coin means the coin toss requires the coin tosser, the tosser defines how to toss the coin, how to read the results and interpret the meaning of those results. A random number generator generating floating point integers is never truly random since its always within a defined range and within the limits of the floating point unit, this is why it beats the purpose in creating computer programs to emulate Darwinian Evolutionary pathways such as Avida. Biological systems can never truly be random since they have a defined architecture and cannot all the sudden produce something unexpected. If evolution was truly random evolution itself would not be possible. The universe for that matter has a defined architecture which is the laws of physics and can be thought of as having control over itself. If the point of origins of the universe were truly random then we would not be able to make sense of the laws of physics or anything following it for that matter since anything truly random has no real finite properties, has no meaning and cannot be made sense of either by itself or by us.

Just to add, order of the given magnitude of complexity and function in living systems is a very unlikely target of a universe that Kenneth Miller would like us to think is governed by random and chance events while closing the gap for any design inference.

Thanks, youve given me more to think about and certainly have clarified terms

No problem, so long as you know that I am not trying to change anyone's mind or implying that "I am right and you are wrong".

[David Blacklock]

Hi GL,

It's OK for randomness to occur within a set of parameters. An initial poker hand of five cards is limited to those possibilities of 5 card combinations from a 52 card deck. The word random still applies, even though you can't add a cow in to the possibilities. In the same way, biological systems can be random, within the acceptable and common usage of the word, with the range of possibilities still having limits.

Of course, if the card dealer has practiced ways to predict the outcome, it is no longer random. Perhaps this how God manages to influence evolution without leaving apparent tracks. I suggest the ID people do some real research along these lines and find those tracks - instead of throwing up their hands, pronouncing something irreducible complex, and claiming by default, "it can't be done."

DB

[godslanguage]

Thats the point David, if you think God and chance as defined as "lacking aim or method; purposeless; haphazard" then you have to explain how you think such a God is conceivable versus "A pseudorandom process is a process that appears random but is not. Pseudo random sequences typically exhibit statistical randomness while being generated by an entirely deterministic causal process" which "...then that makes the pathway more conceivable and consistent within a design framework." (quoting myself)

The following is obviously not truly random:

Of course, if the card dealer has practiced ways to predict the outcome, it is no longer random. Perhaps this how God manages to influence evolution without leaving apparent tracks. I suggest the ID people do some real research along these lines and find those tracks - instead of throwing up their hands, pronouncing something irreducible complex, and claiming by default, "it can't be done."

Neither is this:

It's OK for randomness to occur within a set of parameters. An initial poker hand of five cards is limited to those possibilities of 5 card combinations from a 52 card deck. The word random still applies, even though you can't add a cow in to the possibilities. In the same way, biological systems can be random, within the acceptable and common usage of the word, with the range of possibilities still having limits.

So...whats your boggle?

[David Blacklock]

Hi gl,

Thanx for your reply,

>>So...whats your boggle?<<

That you might be misusing the word "random." The universe is full of randomness. Some of it may be universal but much of it is confined to certain types of randomness within closed systems.

DB

[Gman]

Nonetheless... You can't say that the process isn't random without a designer at the helm. Even if you want to say it was smaller or slower random changes from the beginning, it is still "chance" you are dealing with without a hint of divine intervention. The lifeless god of chance...

[godslanguage]

Catch this Link as it relates to the topic thread.

[David Blacklock]

Josh McDowell's book, co-authored by Dembski, is pretty blatantly anti-science.

DB

[godslanguage]

David,

An open system is generally what you want, not a closed system. An open system is more friendly to adaptability, survivability...A closed system can be confined enough limiting any external input internally. If you define a biological system as a closed system then any causal changes are caused by that existing system, thus evolution driven by the environment, the laws of physics...would not be a very good way for a biological system to either filter or create functionality. At the same instance, you increase predictability and you decrease randomness in a closed system. While an open system is directly opposite-decreasing predictability while increasing randomness. The choice is yours.

[David Blacklock]

Hi GL,

>>An open system is generally what you want, not a closed system<<

It doesn't matter what we want - we work with what we have. In biological systems, there are constraints to change:

The constrained (hard to change) parts of the genome are the "conserved core processes." These include metabolic processes of: the first bacteria, first eukaryocytes, first multicellular organisms, bilateral body plans of metazoans, Hox genes for embryonic segmentation, neural crest cells in vertebrates, limb formation in the first land vertebrates, and the neocortex. They include basic information processing of DNA, RNA, protein synthesis and all aspects of cellular metabolism. Mutations occur in these DNA segments just as often as they occur in other DNA segments, but then the new life form dies, therefore the mutation (a random event) doesn't reproduce itself.

These core processes have special properties that allow them to be linked together in new combinations, generating new phenotypes. Originally described as the "Baldwin Effect," a stressful environment causes the above-mentioned special properties to stretch phenotypic expression, creating outlying (physiologically exceptional) individuals who are fitter models for a stabilizing mutation.

Despite the randomness of mutations, phenotypic variation cannot be random because it involves modification of what already exists in the core processes - yet, the possible varieties of combinations amongst the core processes are limitless.

Core processes arose hundreds of millions of years ago in a few intermittent waves of innovation. Most evolutionary change since the Cambrian has not changed core process genes significantly. Instead, successful mutations have been on regulatory DNA altering core gene expression - placing core processes into new combinations and amounts at new times and places. Lethal mutations are minimized and evolutionary change is facilitated.

Another concept recently advocated by many followers as a mechanism for producing novelty is called "epigenetic variation." The short story is that selective methylation on a cytosine site on DNA does something to influence phenotype.

While some of your other assertions here I think are true: >>If you define a biological system as a closed system then any causal changes are caused by that existing system, thus evolution driven by the environment, the laws of physics...increase predictability...an open system decreases predictability<<

Others I question: >>[a closed system] would not be a very good way for a biological system to either filter or create functionality<< Again, we don't get to choose what type of system we're dealing with in biology or in any number of subgroups involving the chemistry and physics of the universe. It is full of limiting subgroups. >>At the same instance, you...decrease randomness in a closed system<< I don't know about this one in general but am not sure it is relevant. Lethal mutations are limited not by their frequency but by their survivability.

DB