Re: Randomness from full disclosure

From: Rich Blinne <e-lists@blinne.org>
Date: Wed Jan 28 2004 - 19:50:46 EST

bivalve wrote:

>>Does anybody know what historical trends led to "randomness" being seen as one of the big problems with evolution? My understanding is that William Jennings Bryan and others of that period argued against evolution because they thought determinism was the problem. What led to that flip?<
>>
>>
>
>I suspect that this closely tracks the claims of randomness coming from the folks who try to use evolution to attack traditional religious views, though I do not have the data to test this. It seems to be another example of accepting the bad theology of unbelieving evolutionists and attacking their science.
>
>
We need to go back to the arguments concerning theistic proofs in late
18th and early 19th Centuries. David Hume wanted to deny causality
because of its link to the so-called teleological and cosmological
proofs for the existence of God. William Paley picked up on this in his
1802 work, Natural Theology. This is the origin of the now-famous watch
analogy.

But, how do you provide an alternative to God designing the universe?
Evolution appeared tailor-made as the alternative "designer". Dawkins
popularized the alternative in his 1986 book the Blind Watchmaker --
with a direct reference to Paley in its very title.

 In short, the atheistic evolutionist is making the same error the ID
folk are making in reverse. That is:

Design iff Supernatural Processes

If the ID people can prove supernatural processes then they can prove
design and thus a designer. If the atheistic evolutionist can prove
natural processes they disprove God. Both missed the point. A natural
order does not disprove God. This is because it is not
natural/supernatural dichotomy that is what makes something designed it
is the order/disorder dichotomy! The atheistic evolutionist equivocates
on random or stochaistic to mean uncaused. This is to get rid of God.
But when push comes to shove, the order of things must be admitted by
the atheistic evolutionist. Otherwise, no science -- atheistic or no --
can get done.
Received on Wed Jan 28 19:51:13 2004

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Wed Jan 28 2004 - 19:51:14 EST