Is Evolution random or non-random

[Immanuel Can]

I didn't use the term "govern". You and Mike did. You used the word "someone" (which I highlighted in red), to which I said "maybe."

No, it wasn't yours originally...you're right. As I said above, it was quoted by you, in the first post; and originally, it was Mike's. But the point is still important...the minute one says "govern" one is implying "not chance."

I assume that what Mike means by the words "governed by chance." is to essentially say that evolution is not "governed" at all. You're correct, it's an oxymoron and ultimately not a logically consistent statement. It's like someone asking what kind of government do people have under "anarchy" and someone replying that when there is "anarchy," it is "governed" by "anarchy", meaning that it's not "governed" by a government but by whatever forces of nature that move people en masse when there is no government. I assume what Mike means to say is that he believes evolution is "governed" by whatever natural forces take hold and shape evolution's path or direction.

That would have to be it. And phyllo has the same problem when he says that evolution isn't "random." He can't possibly mean it's directed, purposeful, teleological, or aimed at a particular goal of any kind. If it is, then he immediately raises the question, what is the governing factor of the process? And the possibility of a purposeful Creation is reintroduced, which seems to be the very thing he wishes most to avoid.

[Gary Childress]

No, it wasn't yours originally...you're right. As I said above, it was quoted by you, in the first post; and originally, it was Mike's. But the point is still important...the minute one says "govern" one is implying "not chance."

I assume that what Mike means by the words "governed by chance." is to essentially say that evolution is not "governed" at all. You're correct, it's an oxymoron and ultimately not a logically consistent statement. It's like someone asking what kind of government do people have under "anarchy" and someone replying that when there is "anarchy," it is "governed" by "anarchy", meaning that it's not "governed" by a government but by whatever forces of nature that move people en masse when there is no government. I assume what Mike means to say is that he believes evolution is "governed" by whatever natural forces take hold and shape evolution's path or direction.

That would have to be it. And phyllo has the same problem when he says that evolution isn't "random." He can't possibly mean it's directed, purposeful, teleological, or aimed at a particular goal of any kind. If it is, then he immediately raises the question, what is the governing factor of the process? And the possibility of a purposeful Creation is reintroduced, which seems to be the very thing he wishes most to avoid.

For a theist, yes, the possibility of "purposeful creation" is introduced. It's not ruled out. However, it's not evidence that a foolproof, valid, and sound deductive argument can be constructed out of.

[Immanuel Can]

I assume that what Mike means by the words "governed by chance." is to essentially say that evolution is not "governed" at all. You're correct, it's an oxymoron and ultimately not a logically consistent statement. It's like someone asking what kind of government do people have under "anarchy" and someone replying that when there is "anarchy," it is "governed" by "anarchy", meaning that it's not "governed" by a government but by whatever forces of nature that move people en masse when there is no government. I assume what Mike means to say is that he believes evolution is "governed" by whatever natural forces take hold and shape evolution's path or direction.

That would have to be it. And phyllo has the same problem when he says that evolution isn't "random." He can't possibly mean it's directed, purposeful, teleological, or aimed at a particular goal of any kind. If it is, then he immediately raises the question, what is the governing factor of the process? And the possibility of a purposeful Creation is reintroduced, which seems to be the very thing he wishes most to avoid.

For a theist, yes, the possibility of "purposeful creation" is introduced.

No, for anybody who thinks evolution can be teleological, purposeful, guided, or intentional, in any way. When you bring in things like "governance," or "rules" or "intended outcomes," you're already presupposing some kind of super-intelligence that superintends the evolutionary process. So you're then a Theistic Evolutionist.

[Gary Childress]

That would have to be it. And phyllo has the same problem when he says that evolution isn't "random." He can't possibly mean it's directed, purposeful, teleological, or aimed at a particular goal of any kind. If it is, then he immediately raises the question, what is the governing factor of the process? And the possibility of a purposeful Creation is reintroduced, which seems to be the very thing he wishes most to avoid.

For a theist, yes, the possibility of "purposeful creation" is introduced.

No, for anybody who thinks evolution can be teleological, purposeful, guided, or intentional, in any way. When you bring in things like "governance," or "rules" or "intended outcomes," you're already presupposing some kind of super-intelligence that superintends the evolutionary process. So you're then a Theistic Evolutionist.

We know that there are patterns and rules of physics that all matter obeys. We don't know that they were created by anything that human beings have traditionally identified as "God".

[phyllo]

I don't have a problem.

From the pdf I previously referenced:

Misunderstanding 4: Natural Selection Is
Teleological – It Is Working Toward a
Goal or Final Purpose

Natural selection does not have a final goal or
telos. It also has no foresight – in other words, it
is impossible for natural selection to take into
account future conditions. Though the products
of selection can be beautiful and complex, the
process itself is blind and mechanistic.

[Immanuel Can]

For a theist, yes, the possibility of "purposeful creation" is introduced.

No, for anybody who thinks evolution can be teleological, purposeful, guided, or intentional, in any way. When you bring in things like "governance," or "rules" or "intended outcomes," you're already presupposing some kind of super-intelligence that superintends the evolutionary process. So you're then a Theistic Evolutionist.

We know that there are patterns and rules of physics that all matter obeys. We don't know that they were created by anything that human beings have traditionally identified as "God".

Great. You must know another theory. What other agency do you have in mind as an alternative? In fact, what accounts for the very existence of "patterns" "rules" and "physics"?

[Gary Childress]

No, for anybody who thinks evolution can be teleological, purposeful, guided, or intentional, in any way. When you bring in things like "governance," or "rules" or "intended outcomes," you're already presupposing some kind of super-intelligence that superintends the evolutionary process. So you're then a Theistic Evolutionist.

We know that there are patterns and rules of physics that all matter obeys. We don't know that they were created by anything that human beings have traditionally identified as "God".

Great. You must know another theory. What other agency do you have in mind as an alternative? In fact, what accounts for the very existence of "patterns" "rules" and "physics"?

I don't know of another theory of how the universe came into being. Does that mean that the universe could only have come into being via what human beings have traditionally called "God"? Is "I don't know how the universe began, therefore it began with what human beings have traditionally called 'God'" a logically valid and sound argument?

[Immanuel Can]

We know that there are patterns and rules of physics that all matter obeys. We don't know that they were created by anything that human beings have traditionally identified as "God".

Great. You must know another theory. What other agency do you have in mind as an alternative? In fact, what accounts for the very existence of "patterns" "rules" and "physics"?

I don't know of another theory of how the universe came into being. Does that mean that the universe could only have come into being via what human beings have traditionally called "God"?

Not necessarily. But it means there's only one theory left, so it may as well. If our belief is that there's some kind of "governance," or "direction," or "purpose" or "goal constraints" on evolution, it implies volition, intention, design and intelligence engineering it. So then we'd have at least indicative evidence of Divine Design, and nothing at all as any contrary theory.

The upshot is that any non-Theistic evolutionary theory would need to avoid any such assumption. It would have to be believed to be entirely random. Absent that, it would have to give its own account of what "non-randomness" was constrained by.

[Gary Childress]

Great. You must know another theory. What other agency do you have in mind as an alternative? In fact, what accounts for the very existence of "patterns" "rules" and "physics"?

I don't know of another theory of how the universe came into being. Does that mean that the universe could only have come into being via what human beings have traditionally called "God"?

Not necessarily. But it means there's only one theory left, so it may as well. If our belief is that there's some kind of "governance," or "direction," or "purpose" or "goal constraints" on evolution, it implies volition, intention, design and intelligence engineering it. So then we'd have at least indicative evidence of Divine Design, and nothing at all as any contrary theory.

The upshot is that any non-Theistic evolutionary theory would need to avoid any such assumption. It would have to be believed to be entirely random. Absent that, it would have to give its own account of what "non-randomness" was constrained by.

OK. Not necessarily. We agree. I'll leave it at that because you're then adding a bunch of assumptions to that, which I don't see as logically following.

[Immanuel Can]

I don't know of another theory of how the universe came into being. Does that mean that the universe could only have come into being via what human beings have traditionally called "God"?

Not necessarily. But it means there's only one theory left, so it may as well. If our belief is that there's some kind of "governance," or "direction," or "purpose" or "goal constraints" on evolution, it implies volition, intention, design and intelligence engineering it. So then we'd have at least indicative evidence of Divine Design, and nothing at all as any contrary theory.

The upshot is that any non-Theistic evolutionary theory would need to avoid any such assumption. It would have to be believed to be entirely random. Absent that, it would have to give its own account of what "non-randomness" was constrained by.

OK. Not necessarily.

Well, yes, necessarily. After all, as philosophers, we can't accept a theory and let somebody get away with not saying what accounts for it, or providing any reasons to believe it. That would actually be anti-intellectual.

[Gary Childress]

Not necessarily. But it means there's only one theory left, so it may as well. If our belief is that there's some kind of "governance," or "direction," or "purpose" or "goal constraints" on evolution, it implies volition, intention, design and intelligence engineering it. So then we'd have at least indicative evidence of Divine Design, and nothing at all as any contrary theory.

The upshot is that any non-Theistic evolutionary theory would need to avoid any such assumption. It would have to be believed to be entirely random. Absent that, it would have to give its own account of what "non-randomness" was constrained by.

OK. Not necessarily.

Well, yes, necessarily.

So are you intending to mean that your further statements in your previous post after the words "not necessarily" form a logically sound and valid argument? Or are you agreeing that we agree to disagree with each other?

[popeye1945]

The world is plastic in the context of the cosmos; organisms are plastic relative to the changing earth. The evolutionary process is then the organism adapting to the changing earth, the changes selecting/as in non-random, the characteristics of the mutations that occur in the patterns of organisms. Those who fail to adapt perish. All things/conditions are temporal, organisms are temporal conditions, ever in the process of adaptation, and evolution is the relational process of organisms adapting to the slowly changing state of the Earth. It is not a random process because it is constant; change is constant, and the process is constant. This much is predetermined, and that which is predetermined as constants cannot be a random process.

[Immanuel Can]

OK. Not necessarily.

Well, yes, necessarily.

So are you intending to mean that your further statements in your previous post after the words "not necessarily" form a logically sound and valid argument? Or are you agreeing that we agree to disagree with each other?

I'm saying that what you're suggesting is not really doing philosophy at all. Philosophy always looks for reasons, for warrant, for justification, for coherence, for consistency, for evidence, and so on. What you seem to be suggesting is that non-Theistic evolutionary theories should be taken seriously without any of that. And I'm just saying that that sort of "pass" is not something a philosopher should give.

[Immanuel Can]

This much is predetermined, and that which is predetermined as constants cannot be a random process.

Your belief in that is purely assumptive and unfounded, as well as being self-contradicting, since you're still trying to change our minds by telling us nothing can change, essentially. so we can't regard that argument as carrying any weight at all. It doesn't even make sense.

[Gary Childress]

Well, yes, necessarily.

So are you intending to mean that your further statements in your previous post after the words "not necessarily" form a logically sound and valid argument? Or are you agreeing that we agree to disagree with each other?

I'm saying that what you're suggesting is not really doing philosophy at all. Philosophy always looks for reasons, for warrant, for justification, for coherence, for consistency, for evidence, and so on. What you seem to be suggesting is that non-Theistic evolutionary theories should be taken seriously without any of that. And I'm just saying that that sort of "pass" is not something a philosopher should give.

Then we're going to have to agree to disagree because if you think questioning unproven assumptions isn't "doing philosophy," then we have different conceptions of philosophy.