At 10:48 AM 8/26/00 +0100, Richard wrote:
[...]
>According to the theory of evolution, evolution is a random process, because
>it involves random events: mutations are one type of random event; another
>is the natural vicissitudes of life which determine which individuals
>succeed in reproducing.
>
>Sure, this random process produces certain patterns, such as the trend
>towards greater adaptation of a species to its environment. But it's still a
>random process.
>
>Similarly, an application of the Monte Carlo method is a random process,
>even though it converges on a predictable result.
Once again, I'm intrigued by your response. It is common to hear creationists
criticize evolution as a random process, but I have seen uniformly and without
exception (until now :) evolutionists emphasizing the point that evolution
is not
random even though it involves a random component. There's a good discussion
of this in Dawkins' <Climbing Mount Improbable> starting round abouts p. 79.
Let me just quote a few of the concluding sentences of that discussion:
"One way to dramatize the adequacy of non-random selection is to emphasize
that mutation is *allowed* by the theory to be random. But, as I said before,
it is not critical to the theory that mutation *must* be random, and it most
certainly provides no excuse to tar the whole theory with the brush of
randomness.
Mutation may be random, but selection definitely is not." -- Dawkins
I think its also useful to point out once again that the randomness is with
respect
to utility. Even the mutation element of evolution is not random in the
statistical
sense of the word.
Since there is a disagreement here on this basic point it will be useful to
define what
is meant by random. The definition I like best comes from algorithmic
information
theory and was developed largely by Chaitin whom I've mentioned before.
This definition
overcomes some difficulties (which I won't go into) with the definition
from probability
theory. In fact, these difficulties were one of Chaitin's motivations for
pursuing this.
I don't want to get bogged down in details, but basically randomness has to do
with patterns. If something has a pattern, then it is not random. So, by your
own admission in your comments above, evolution is not random according
to this definition of randomness. Note also that an advantage this
definition is
that it is objective. There is no talk of purpose, meaning etc. I could not
say,
for example, that evolution is not random, therefore it is purposeful.
Questions
like that cannot be dealt with objectively.
RW:==
> >Let's get back to my engineer. Here the "designer" sets up the simulation
> >and lets it run without interference. Whether the result is "designed"
>depends
> >upon the definition of design, as I've shown above. But one can hardly
>argue
> >that it is without purpose or plan.
>
>I agree that there may be a purpose and plan behind the *result*. But I was
>referring to the events making up the process. Each individual event is
>unplanned and purposeless.
>
>Perhaps the difference between us is whether we're talking about proximate
>purpose or ultimate purpose. I suppose the random events, while individually
>purposeless, are collectively contributing to the engineer's ultimate
>purpose. So, in that sense, I suppose they could be said to have a purpose.
>But I think that's a weak sense.
But the random element in this "design" process is the key. Perhaps the best
way of speaking of it is as a tool.
RW:==
>It might help if you would clarify what your position is on intelligent
>agency. Do you think there has been intelligent direction in the
>process of evolution, or only in setting up the initial conditions? If you
>think there has been intelligent direction in the process of evolution,
>then I don't think you fully accept the theory of evolution.
hmmm.... :). That this seems such an important issue indicates to me
that it is evolutionism of which you speak rather than the scientific
theory of evolution.
Anyway, I've discussed this point in the past. Let me just give a link
to the archives.
http://www.calvin.edu/archive/evolution/200005/0236.html
Your comment about fully accepting the theory of evolution reminded me
of a quote of Dembski that I saw on the asa listserve:
"Not to put too fine a point on it, the Darwinian establishment views
theistic evolution as a weak-kneed sycophant that desperately wants the
respectability that comes with being a full-blooded Darwinist but refuses to
follow the logic of Darwinism through to the end. It takes courage to give
up the comforting belief that life has a purpose. It takes courage to live
without the consolation of an afterlife. Theistic evolutionists lack the
stomach to face the ultimate meaninglessness of life, and it is this failure
of courage that makes them contemptible in the eyes of full-blooded
Darwinists." William Dembski, in _Intelligent Design_, InterVarsity Press,
p. 112.
Is this what you mean by fully accepting?
It might be tempting to say that Dembski is misrepresenting his opponents.
Actually, I do not think he is. In his excellent book <Finding Darwin's God>,
Kenneth Miller devotes a chapter to this type of thing, "The God's of
Disbelief".
He sets up this chapter in the following way:
"By and large, the critics of evolution are not cynical opportunists. They
aren't stupid, and they certainly understand how strong the scientific
evidence is against them. So, why do they oppose evolution with such
passion and persistence? I think I know, and as we shall see in the
next chapter, many of my scientific colleagues, so baffled at the strength
and depth of anti-evolution feelings in the U.S., would be surprised to
discover that they are themselves a large part of the reason why." -- Miller
Lest there is any confusion, Miller is a rather ardent Darwinist.
Anyway, I think Miller's criticism is fair and appropriate.
How is it that my position differs from someone like Phil Johnson? Phil wants
to drive a wedge between science and naturalistic philosophy. I'm all for this.
We would differ in that I would prefer the wedge to be indiscriminate. I would
want the wedge to separate science from all philosophy and theology as well.
Further, I think we already have a good wedge for this purpose, methodological
naturalism. I believe this wedge to be working pretty well in science
itself, where
it sometimes gets put aside is in the presentation of science to the public.
Another difference is this. Phil believes that something like Darwinism can be
maintained only by an a-priori commitment to naturalism. Thus, in effect,
Phil's wedge is being inverted to make a hammer, at least when it comes
to Darwinism. I believe, on the other hand, that naturalistic philosophy can
be stripped away leaving Darwinism as a scientific theory.
To be clear, let me say that if I ever came to the conclusion that I have
been wrong about this. If evolution really does mean all the things that
some of these folks say that it means, then I'll immediately become
a supporter of Phil Johnson and ID, as I once was.
Brian Harper
Associate Professor
Mechanical Engineering
The Ohio State University
"One never knows, do one?"
-- Fats Waller
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Aug 28 2000 - 16:16:42 EDT