Can Randomness and Chance cause the Evolution of life?

[Audie]

Where I am I calling anything God? That’s another discussion. I said conscious volition.

Lower case god, upper case. Same thing. Supernatural intervention
to cast lightning or steer evolution.

 

[Yerda]

I understand and I never said it iwas impossible for the complexity of life to have formed through happenstance alone just that it seemed only a very remote possibility in my (and Flew’s) mind.

OK. I'm fine with that and I agree for the most part.

I think it was less happenstance than you do because I picture evolution as one of the processes driving chemical and then living systems toward complexity. Sometimes the laws of nature seem (to me) to be geared towards generating stability, persistance and replication.

 

[Audie]

OK. I'm fine with that and I agree for the most part.

I think it was less happenstance than you do because I picture evolution as one of the processes driving chemical and then living systems toward complexity. Sometimes the laws of nature seem (to me) to be geared towards generating stability, persistance and replication.

Stanility...

The end point of that is a universe of huge perfect
crystals!

It is geared, too, to decay and chaos.

For lo, is it not the interplay of these forces, growth
and decay, that blah and blah.

 

[shunyadragon]

No, it was the good work of the designers and builders.

Natural Law does the good work in nature.

Neither trucks, cars, airplanes nor nature exist based on randomness as having any causation of cause and effect outcomes.

 

[shunyadragon]

So what additional factor am I missing? Maybe we are understanding the word bappenstance differently? Without conscious volition I call it happenstance.

Call it conscious volition or happenstance, because they are very anthropomorphic description of human interactions and not factors in the cause and effect outcomes in nature.

 

[George-ananda]

OK. I'm fine with that and I agree for the most part.

I think it was less happenstance than you do because I picture evolution as one of the processes driving chemical and then living systems toward complexity. Sometimes the laws of nature seem (to me) to be geared towards generating stability, persistance and replication.

OK, my thoughts are even more about how the process of self-replicating life got started (abiogenesis) but also about evolution.

 

[shunyadragon]

OK, my thoughts are even more about how the process of self-replicating life got started (abiogenesis) but also about evolution.

This does not help your case. Your appealing to an 'Intelligent Design' philosophy, and it has a religious agenda, for which there is no evidence. The only known cause of life, and the processes of life is Natural Laws.

If your 'appealing to ignorance' about what is no presently known concerning the origins of life your appealing to a fallacy to justify your argument.

 

[George-ananda]

This does not help your case. Your appealing to an 'Intelligent Design' philosophy, and it has a religious agenda, for which there is no evidence. The only known cause of life, and the processes of life is Natural Laws.

If your 'appealing to ignorance' about what is no presently known concerning the origins of life your appealing to a fallacy to justify your argument.

I said earlier: I understand and I never said it was impossible for the complexity of life to have formed through happenstance alone just that it seemed only a very remote possibility in my (and Flew’s) mind. The existence of these 'Natural Laws' is happenstance as far as science knows.

I also consider information from beyond mainstream science (spiritual sources) in forming my personal worldview. Science needs remain agnostic to my beliefs until it learns more.

My agenda is not religious but rather just believing what I find most reasonable to believe.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I said earlier: I understand and I never said it was impossible for the complexity of life to have formed through happenstance alone just that it seemed only a very remote possibility in my (and Flew’s) mind. The existence of these 'Natural Laws' is happenstance as far as science knows.

I also consider information from beyond mainstream science (spiritual sources) in forming my personal worldview. Science needs remain agnostic to my beliefs until it learns more.

My agenda is not religious but rather just believing what I find most reasonable to believe.

But Flew is not an authority in the matter. It does not matter what he thought on this.

And what "information" are you talking about? Creationists seem to have as difficult of a time defining "information" as they do "kind".

 

[shunyadragon]

I said earlier: I understand and I never said it was impossible for the complexity of life to have formed through happenstance alone just that it seemed only a very remote possibility in my (and Flew’s) mind. The existence of these 'Natural Laws' is happenstance as far as science knows.

I also consider information from beyond mainstream science (spiritual sources) in forming my personal worldview. Science needs remain agnostic to my beliefs until it learns more.

My agenda is not religious but rather just believing what I find most reasonable to believe.

Your argument completely unravels here down to a personal opinion without science. If your information is 'spiritual sources,' it is a religious argument simply by definition, and the what you present It is only the religious perspective of evangelical Christianity that makes this argument, and no one else. Since you are agnostic to science there is no other motivation other than religious, 'spiritual sources.'

Again Flew, like you, does not have any background in science for his testimony to be meaningful.

Describing science and natural laws as happenstance represents a new hallmark of avoidance, Most ID advocates usually try vainly to use science, not dismiss it.

 

[gnostic]

Actually, I agree with that. Science should remain agnostic to things it can't directly study at this time.

Agnosticism and agnostic relate to the question of existence of god, George.

Like atheism and theism, deism and other possible “-ism”, they all (including agnosticism) have nothing to do with science.

And science is study of nature (hence natural science), as well as study of anything relating to objects that could be man-made.

Natural science includes -

1. physical science (physics, chemistry, Earth science, astronomy)
2. and life science (biology, which would include evolution if you studying genetic changes in biodiversity).

But if it is the study of human social behaviour or actions or what the believe in, social science is a very different type of science (not natural science).

I know that (natural) science cannot answer all questions, particularly as to pertaining to what people believe in, like religion and spirituality and paranormal activities.

Which bring me to this:

I for one, consider more than science in forming my personal thoughts on reality and the OP question. Nothing wrong with that.

I know you can believe in whatever you like, whether it be religions, gods, Brahman, creation myths, scriptures and such, but this topic or thread is about evolution, hence it related to biology; it isn’t about world view or belief.

If you want debate what you believe in, “personal thoughts”, why hijack this thread? Why not start a new thread?

If your thoughts are on Intelligent Design, which isn’t science, but religion (creationism) pretending to be science, then it is still have nothing to do with evolution.

If your thoughts are not about answering the question of randomness or not randomness in evolution, then you are in the wrong thread.

I am not a biology student or a biologist of any kind, but I do think there are answers to this question about randomness.

 

[gnostic]

And my personal reflections lead me to believe that these amazing body and brains built from microscopic DNA coding is not just the result of random happenstance. Something beyond science's ability to directly study at this time is involved is my considered personal opinion.

No one said evolution is happenstance of randomness, but it certainly isn’t beyond science to study.

If talking about DNA being controlled by some supernatural being, like Brahman, as the Intelligent Designer, then you are clearly barking the wrong tree, and clearly you don’t understand evolution or DNA.

The study of DNA, don’t require supernatural answers.

 

[George-ananda]

Agnosticism and agnostic relate to the question of existence of god, George.

I used the word 'agnostic' properly as it can be used for issues beyond God's existence. Definition 2) for agnostic in Webster's Dictionary:

2 : a person who is unwilling to commit to an opinion about something

• political agnostics

Natural science includes -

1. physical science (physics, chemistry, Earth science, astronomy)
2. and life science (biology, which would include evolution if you studying genetic changes in biodiversity).

But if it is the study of human social behaviour or actions or what the believe in, social science is a very different type of science (not natural science).

I know that (natural) science cannot answer all questions, particularly as to pertaining to what people believe in, like religion and spirituality and paranormal activities.

Which bring me to this:



I know you can believe in whatever you like, whether it be religions, gods, Brahman, creation myths, scriptures and such, but this topic or thread is about evolution, hence it related to biology; it isn’t about world view or belief.

If you want debate what you believe in, “personal thoughts”, why hijack this thread? Why not start a new thread?

If your thoughts are on Intelligent Design, which isn’t science, but religion (creationism) pretending to be science, then it is still have nothing to do with evolution.

If your thoughts are not about answering the question of randomness or not randomness in evolution, then you are in the wrong thread.

I am not a biology student or a biologist of any kind, but I do think there are answers to this question about randomness.

I don't understand. This topic is in the 'Religious Debates' section so my discussion was appropriate.

 

[George-ananda]

The study of DNA, don’t require supernatural answers.

It doesn't disqualify intelligence either. Science doesn't know at this time.

 

[shunyadragon]

It doesn't disqualify intelligence either. Science doesn't know at this time.

Since, science by its nature is neutral to assumptions of an 'Intelligent' origin of our physical existence science will most likely never 'know' whether an 'Intelligent' Source exists or not. Science cannot falsify any thesis without objective physical evidence for the existence of an 'Intelligent' Source.

I believe in God, and I am a scientist. I find these arguments for using science to justify the philosophy of 'Intelligent Design.' and the existence of God to be contrived and dishonest.

God is a Creator as nature naturally is, and not an engineer that intelligently designs things.

 

[George-ananda]

I find these arguments for using science to justify the philosophy of 'Intelligent Design.' and the existence of God to be contrived and dishonest.

Oxford Dictionary:
in·tel·li·gent de·sign
NOUN

1. the theory that life, or the universe, cannot have arisen by chance and was designed and created by some intelligent entity.

Maybe you don't understand me. I am not actually arguing for Intelligent Design because even though I do believe life arose by intelligent entities I do not say it cannot have arisen by chance. I do understand that it could have arisen by chance.

 

[shunyadragon]

Oxford Dictionary:
in·tel·li·gent de·sign
NOUN

1. the theory that life, or the universe, cannot have arisen by chance and was designed and created by some intelligent entity.

Maybe you don't understand me. I am not actually arguing for Intelligent Design because even though I do believe life arose by intelligent entities I do not say it cannot have arisen by chance. I do understand that it could have arisen by chance.

First, science does not propose the life arose and evolved by 'chance' or oddly and foolishly happenstance, which is likely impossible. As far as I know no one proposes this.

Second, your argument is 'Intelligent Design' regardless of your acknowledgement of 'possible' phony alternatives which no on in science proposes. Acknowledgement of a possibility does not change the facts.

Third, the Oxford dictionary definition is seriously flawed from the scientific perspective. 'Intelligent Design' is a philosophy without objective verifiable evidence, and cannot qualify as a theory in science,

 

[gnostic]

I used the word 'agnostic' properly as it can be used for issues beyond God's existence. Definition 2) for agnostic in Webster's Dictionary:

2 : a person who is unwilling to commit to an opinion about something

The terms, “agnosticism” and “agnostic” were actually coined in the mid-19th century biologist, Thomas Henry Huxley, which started a new philosophical movement (1869).

It was only after Huxley, that people began using agnostic for other areas.

But you wouldn’t use in science, because it is misleading.

 

[Audie]

I said earlier: I understand and I never said it was impossible for the complexity of life to have formed through happenstance alone just that it seemed only a very remote possibility in my (and Flew’s) mind. The existence of these 'Natural Laws' is happenstance as far as science knows.

I also consider information from beyond mainstream science (spiritual sources) in forming my personal worldview. Science needs remain agnostic to my beliefs until it learns more.

My agenda is not religious but rather just believing what I find most reasonable to believe.

I said earlier: I understand and I never said it was impossible for the complexity of life to have formed through happenstance alone just that it seemed only a very remote possibility in my (and Flew’s) mind. The existence of these 'Natural Laws' is happenstance as far as science knows.

I also consider information from beyond mainstream science (spiritual sources) in forming my personal worldview. Science needs remain agnostic to my beliefs until it learns more.

My agenda is not religious but rather just believing what I find most reasonable to believe.

We find that you will never achieve a reasonable pov as long
as you persist in this deep confusion about
"happenstance" v "ID" or whatever the word du jour.

I wonder why you use the words "beyond" for that which
is not "mainstream" science.

Much is implied by the use of those adjectives.
What is the agenda?

 

[gnostic]

It doesn't disqualify intelligence either. Science doesn't know at this time.

No, George, you are wrong.

In science, nothing is ever true by default.

It can only be true, if you can provide empirical evidences to directly support your claims that Intelligent Designer is real and actually doing the “design”.

Evidences that you (and other ID advocates) don’t have.

All you are doing is conjecturing (that’s not science) and projecting your belief that “intelligent” being involved in making DNA (again, that’s not science).