"Shall we then agree to use design in an objective sense?"
How would you define design and determine in an objective fashion if
something is designed ?
> Adrian: Actually, chance cannot be used as a causal mechanism. I think
the
> use
> of chance is to explain something is a major violation of the Razor. How
> different is it from using the "God did it" explanation?
> It does not require a supernatural entity.
"But chance is pure abstraction."
My point exactly, it can be defined, predictions can be made.
> Chance can surely be used as a
> causal explanation. For instance the hypothesis that this universe is
> merely an example of a random quantum fluctuation. Or the formation of
the
> steps leading to 'life' for instance.
"Chance is a non-entity. It may be a useful statistical concept, but to
use it as a cause is to say that there is no cause. Chance has no
material content. Take for example, a coin toss. What influence does
chance has on getting the coin to come up heads? None, whatsoever.
Chance cannot influence - it is merely a description of mathematical
possibilities. Arguing for chance as a cause is arguing against logic."
Ah, but that assumes that there is a 'cause' in the meaning you are using
it.
> When looking at design, the apparant design could point to an intelligent
> designer or to a confusion in interpretation of the 'design'. That at a
> biological level, organisms tend to show systems which appear to be
> well-suited for their task need not point to a designer but could, as
> hypothesized, also be caused by a combination of random variation and a
> deterministic force like natural selection.
"How does random variation cause anything? How much influence does random
variation have on a system? Random variation or chance is a non-being.
How can a non-being have instrumental power? To suggest that a system is
cause by a non-being is to argue that the system is self-created.
Self-creation is a violation of the law of noncontradiction. "
Random variation does not 'cause' anything other that than random
variation combined with selective forces can be used as a causal
explanation of observed facts. Your assumption that random variation
should be able to influence a system or that chance needs to be a 'being'
or that it needs 'instrumental' power are all very subjective words. For
instance gravity causes a ball to drop when released. Does gravity as a
causal explanation require it to have a mind of its own ? Is gravity a
being ?
Solar energy causes water to evaporate and causes rain when the water
precipitates.
Why do you suggest that the system needs to be self-created btw ?
I believe our disgreements appear to be caused by definitions of words.