RE: Helpful hints for christians
October 14, 2015 at 8:29 am
(This post was last modified: October 14, 2015 at 9:00 am by Neo-Scholastic.)
Since both Rythym and Rocket think sieves are a sufficient analogy, then I guess I must understand how either of you apply it. If I wanted to sort small objects I suppose I could design a seive tailored to sort out the shape and sizes I wanted. I take it that you think the hole is random too. Or maybe I could shave down some of the objects before shaking the box. And where did the seive come from in the first place? But my analogy isn't really any better or worse which is why I put it forward.
All I am saying is that, at this time I do not think it has been adequately demonstrated that chance mutations produce enough perfectly timed beneficial features to make the vast number of highly precise biological changes required to account for speciation in the time since life appeared 6000 years ago. (Just joking about the 6000 years). That doesn't mean that some outside force meddled with the process. It could be that Nature as a whole conforms to self-organizing principles that steer chance, built into the system as it were.
The theory of pure chance seems to me unfalsifiable in the sense that someone would have to prove a negative, I.e. the lack of a teleological principle. The theory has parsimony on its side and even that's debatable. Its very easy to say that chance was sufficient to do the job without considering the actual odds which as far as I can see, those odds are extremely difficult to calculate.
All I am saying is that, at this time I do not think it has been adequately demonstrated that chance mutations produce enough perfectly timed beneficial features to make the vast number of highly precise biological changes required to account for speciation in the time since life appeared 6000 years ago. (Just joking about the 6000 years). That doesn't mean that some outside force meddled with the process. It could be that Nature as a whole conforms to self-organizing principles that steer chance, built into the system as it were.
The theory of pure chance seems to me unfalsifiable in the sense that someone would have to prove a negative, I.e. the lack of a teleological principle. The theory has parsimony on its side and even that's debatable. Its very easy to say that chance was sufficient to do the job without considering the actual odds which as far as I can see, those odds are extremely difficult to calculate.
