This post pertains to my recent discussion with Richard.
Since Richard indicated he will be out of town I have
sent a copy to his e-mail address.
I've decided not to respond point by point to Richard's
last post as I felt this would just yield further convolutions
without returning back to the point of purpose.
This is an important issue for me because I feel that
there are certain people who manage to get Christian
lay persons stirred up and then actively opposed to
science by telling them that evolution reveals a world
without purpose meaning or design. Now, if this really
is the result of the science of evolution then this is
justified. If it is instead certain scientists claiming that
their theological speculations are actually scientific
conclusions then I think its high time for some corrections
to be made. One problem is, of course, that the most
vocal elements on both sides of the evolution/creation
debate agree on this point.
My position is that there are no technical, objective
definitions of randomness that say anything about
purpose meaning etc. This being the case I am quite
happy to pursue the definition that you provided.
So, let's define a random process as one that involves
at least one random element. Now I would like to go
back to a statement you made in an earlier post in
this thread:
======================================
"So, if a designer has been manipulating the events of evolution to produce a
desired result, then evolution is not a random process. On the other hand,
if a designer set up the evolutionary mechanism and then let it run without
interference, then the process of evolution is random, and is without
purpose, plan or design." -- Richard
=======================================
Let's consider the first part "So, if a designer has been
manipulating the events of evolution to produce a
desired result, then evolution is not a random process."
Suppose we have a case of random mutations giving
rise to variations but with artificial instead of natural
selection. I suppose we could just consider a dog breeder,
but I'll consider a somewhat more powerful designer.
This designer monitors all living things and selects those
individuals (or species) which survive. The designer selects
only individuals (or species) that are fit enough to survive
on their own without further intervention. Otherwise, the
selection is sometimes whimsical. The designer rejects
one very fit individual because it has ugly ears. Another
marginally fit individual is selected because she thinks
it is cute.
So, here we have a designer who is manipulating the events
of evolution to their own purposes. Yet the process has
a random element and is thus a random process.
Now for the other case: "On the other hand, if a designer set
up the evolutionary mechanism and then let it run without
interference, then the process of evolution is random, and is
without purpose, plan or design." -- Richard
This corresponds to the design process that I discussed
earlier. We must conclude then that a design process is
"without purpose, plan or design."
Brian Harper
Mechanical Engineering
Ohio State University
"Baby, I was born bawlin' and
I'm gonna bawl the rest of my life."
-- Fats Waller
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Sep 14 2000 - 16:09:19 EDT