Hi, folks!
I think there are two important points you guys are missing.
First of all, I think that if we want to discuss something in scientific
terms we must stick to the scientific jargon regardless of how people
usually use a word. Otherwise we are comparing apples and oranges. Words
such as random, chaos and homology may cause problems like that. In this
sense, there is no association between the word "random" and the idea of
purpose. Curiously, some people commonly use random variables to achieve
the solution of optimization problems (e.g. Monte Carlo models).
Also, the distinction between "deterministic" and a "random" is not
necessarily true. Even though it is impossible to predict the outcome of a
single coin toss, if you toss it a sufficiently large number of times you
will get a frequency distribution (a probability distribution) that is
highly deterministic.
Cheers
Marcio
> 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 - 17:48:03 EDT