Brian:
>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.
Hi Brian,
Do you think the controversy would disappear if we were somehow able to adopt
your devinition of random?
Most people's definition of random means without plan, purpose, meaning or
design. I agree that a process which includes plan, purpose, meaning or
design can also include random components. In that case I wouldn't call the
process random, myself. I don't think most people would. I'm sure everyone
agrees all of nature includes random elements. Do you mean that in "random
mutation and natural selection" the mutations are random but natural
selection is not? That is what I take Darwinism to mean. (correct me if I'm
wrong) As an ID supporter I am skeptical of Darwinism, and suggest that the
mutations are not random and natural selection doesn't play much part in the
creation of complex organisms. Respectfully trying to understand your point,
Bertvan
http://members.aol.com/bertvan
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Sep 14 2000 - 17:16:28 EDT