What I meant by using design in an objective sense is to agree first
that a system can be intentionally designed by an intelligent source.
Only then can we talk about how one would go about searching for clues
of design.
> > 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.
Your point was that chance is something real with instrumental power,
very different from pure abstraction, in which case, it doesn't have any
influence on any event.
> > 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.
If the universe is simply random fluctuations, then what business do we
have doing science, which seeks order? Are you shooting down science in
your argument?
Or the formation of
> the
> > steps leading to 'life' for instance.
Chance causing life? How?
> "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.
Three criteria can be used in order to assign cause: association,
temporal order, and isolation. How do you define cause?
> > 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.
Now I am confused. Does random variation cause anything, or not?
> 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.
All words are to some extent subjective. But we are still communicating
aren't we? Let's not retreat to solipsism. :-)
> 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 ?
I am not talking about have volition. I am simply asking how chance, as
a nonentity, can exert influence.
> Is gravity a
> being ?
Are you suggesting that we include chance together in the same category
as the four fundamental forces that we know of?
> 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 ?
Energy is categorically different from chance. I hope you are not
suggesting that they are of the same type.
>
> I believe our disgreements appear to be caused by definitions of words.
Perhaps.
-- ******************************Adrian TeoInstitute of Child DevelopmentUniversity of MinnesotaE-mail: AdrianTeo@mailhost.net******************************