As usual, I'm having a difficult time deciphering your comments.
My point, which you have not addressed, is that your quote characterizes
Darwinism as involving only pure chance. This is a gross mis-
characterization.
The way you phrased your question indicates that you think
pure chance can be creative. I assume this is not what you
meant. Let me assume that your question is something like
"what else is there besides pure chance and how can these
something elses be creative".
Let's consider the first part of my hypothetical question.
What processes other than pure chance? Well at the
opposite end of the spectrum from pure chance there would
be deterministic natural law. And in between there would a
vast number of different types of processes involving both
chance and natural law. Added to this there is a selection
effect. Some of the results of this physical process combining
chance and natural law are selected, others are not.
Now the second part. Can such a process be creative? It seems
to certainly be a possibility which could not be ruled out
_a-priori_. But for the point I was trying to make to you, it
is absolutely irrelevant whether or not it is creative. The point
is that the views of Darwinists were grossly mis-represented
by the quote you gave, mis-represented in such a way as to
make the whole idea look silly.
Brian Harper | "If you don't understand
Associate Professor | something and want to
Applied Mechanics | sound profound, use the
The Ohio State University | word 'entropy'"
| -- Morrowitz
Bastion for the naturalistic |
rulers of science |