Is this a contradiction?

[learning]

hi, I'm reading the Penguin Pocket version of 'A View From Mount Improbable' by Richard Dawkins, and I found these quotes right after each other, and they seem to me, to not fit, or make sense. In other words, they seem to contradict each other. Am I reading this wrong? Please tell me what you think.

Page 5 'The Darwinian explanation for why living things are so good at doing what they do is very simple. They are good because of the accumulated wisdom of their ancestors. But it is not wisdom they have learned or acquired. It is wisdom that they chanced upon by lucky random mutating wisdom that was then selectively, nonrandomly recorded in the genetic database of the species.'

OK, then just before this, on page 4, 'What Hoyle.... overlooked is that Darwinism is not a theory of random chance. Natural selection, to be sure, needs (random) mutation as the original source of the variation upon which it works, but natural selection is the very antithesis of a chance process. '

????

[Tiggy]

Hi learning,

hi, I'm reading the Penguin Pocket version of 'A View From Mount Improbable' by Richard Dawkins, and I found these quotes right after each other, and they seem to me, to not fit, or make sense. In other words, they seem to contradict each other. Am I reading this wrong? Please tell me what you think.

Page 5 'The Darwinian explanation for why living things are so good at doing what they do is very simple. They are good because of the accumulated wisdom of their ancestors. But it is not wisdom they have learned or acquired. It is wisdom that they chanced upon by lucky random mutating wisdom that was then selectively, nonrandomly recorded in the genetic database of the species.'

OK, then just before this, on page 4, 'What Hoyle.... overlooked is that Darwinism is not a theory of random chance. Natural selection, to be sure, needs (random) mutation as the original source of the variation upon which it works, but natural selection is the very antithesis of a chance process. '

Nope, they say the same thing. On page 5 Dawkins is merely using 'accumulated wisdom' as a metaphor for 'random mutations that confer a survival advantage, and are passed down in the gene pool of the survivors'. The statements are in agreement.

- Tiggy

[spiritmech]

They do say the same thing. There are two mechanisms. One is random (mutation). One is not (natural selection).
sm

[learning]

How is natural selection, 'not' random?

[spiritmech]

How is natural selection, 'not' random?

It's just a process. It collects data. The data it collects is random, but the process itself is not.
sm

[learning]

So nature just collects what works and discards what doesn't? How does it know?

But why are there these blank or broken gene things? And how are they connected to random or non-random processes? I'm just trying to put this together so it makes sense, but it doesn't seem to make sense to me.

[spiritmech]

So nature just collects what works and discards what doesn't? How does it know?

But why are there these blank or broken gene things? And how are they connected to random or non-random processes? I'm just trying to put this together so it makes sense, but it doesn't seem to make sense to me.

Yes. It doesn't know.

Things either stay together (like a rock) or they fall apart. The things we identify as plants or humans or even amoeba survive because of the ability of its cells to stick together.

Nothing is really discarded. The material, say, from a dead amoeba is picked up and used by other amoeba, possibly.

Nature doesn't care. But it's not random. Mutation is random.
sm

[learning]

so... where is God in this?

[spiritmech]

so... where is God in this?

Well, there is room for a Designer. While natural selection itself doesn't require a design, there are rules that are followed by chemicals, physical objects, etc.

I do believe that God created me in a very real and personal way. But evolution happens. Does it happen on a micro-evolutionary level, such that new species are generated? I don't know. It's possible.

But it doesn't shake my faith a bit.
sm

[learning]

Thanks for your answer. I know it was heading off topic, but since you're a theist and Christian, and appear to argue for the evolutionary view of things, I wanted to see how you reconciled the two. I do agree that it IS possible for God to work through evolution, just not sure how He does and how much He does. I guess this is a view of how much, from a theological view I guess, is God involved in our lives, free will, nature, etc. I do believe He is, just not sure how much.

I do believe that when God stands back from our lives or creation (or appears to do so) that this doesn't diminish His care or His sovereignty, but it does make me wonder, should I do more, or ask Him to do more sometimes? Perhaps God 'appears' silent or doesn't 'appear' to do something sometimes, in order to get us moving? Just some philosophical ramblings!

[spiritmech]

Thanks for your answer. I know it was heading off topic, but since you're a theist and Christian, and appear to argue for the evolutionary view of things, I wanted to see how you reconciled the two. I do agree that it IS possible for God to work through evolution, just not sure how He does and how much He does. I guess this is a view of how much, from a theological view I guess, is God involved in our lives, free will, nature, etc. I do believe He is, just not sure how much.

Just so you know, I'm not really a naturalist, although I do think evolutionary theory is pretty solid. I do not put any limits on God being involved in our lives through miracles and such. He could use the natural world. But He could also do things Himself, or through an angel, or whatnot.

I'm not sure how I reconcile the two. Perhaps I don't. I may be a hypocrite, I don't know.
sm

[learning]

Just so you know, I'm not really a naturalist, although I do think evolutionary theory is pretty solid. I do not put any limits on God being involved in our lives through miracles and such. He could use the natural world. But He could also do things Himself, or through an angel, or whatnot.

I'm not sure how I reconcile the two. Perhaps I don't. I may be a hypocrite, I don't know.
sm

Hey, I don't know that we have to reconcile the two. After all, if God is described as light, and light itself can be both a wave and a particle, perhaps we don't have to reconcile the two. Perhaps there can be two different things. I believe there is some things of truth in naturalism, and some things of truth in the spiritual view of things, and the important thing is the truth.

[rossum]

Thanks for your answer. I know it was heading off topic, but since you're a theist and Christian, and appear to argue for the evolutionary view of things, I wanted to see how you reconciled the two. I do agree that it IS possible for God to work through evolution, just not sure how He does and how much He does. I guess this is a view of how much, from a theological view I guess, is God involved in our lives, free will, nature, etc. I do believe He is, just not sure how much.

You might find this idea useful:

I can illustrate my concern most simply with this bag of watch parts. Actually, in the interest of truth-in-advertising, I should tell you that this isn't really a bag of watch parts, but a bag of little screws and wires and bits and pieces I picked up around the lab. But imagine please that I have disassembled a watch and put all the parts in this plastic bag. Now, I could shake this bag 24 hours a day for years and years, and the watch would never reassemble itself. But now, imagine, that I have another bag with the parts of a watch that is designed to self-assemble. When I shake this bag, a little spring hooks onto a little screw and latches into place. The battery snaps into the battery holder and stays there. All the pieces of the watch are constructed so that, when two pieces that belong together collide with the right sort of trajectory, they hook together and stay hooked together. So if you shake this bag for an hour or so, in the end, you'll have an entire working watch – working, but with some tiny scratches here and there which indicate its history of being shaken together. Now I present you with the ordinary watch, and with the watch which can self-assemble, and I ask this question: which watch is more cleverly designed? I know how most people would answer. My point here is not to try to prove that God creating life-forms through evolution is somehow "better" that God creating life-forms through miracles. My point, rather, is that self-assembly is not the opposite of "design." Watches and biological life-forms can, in principle, be designed to self-assemble from simpler component pieces.

(Is Intelligent Design "Scientific"?)

rossum

[Snarf]

How is natural selection, 'not' random?

It's not random for a few reasons:

Mating is not a random process-most organisms have control over who they are mating with.

Natural selection is based on weighted probabilities. If a feature is unfavorable for an organism in terms of mating (e.g. a white female crow is not regarded as being sexy by male black crows), then it will pass on fewer of it's genes to descendents. Thus, there would be fewer white crows in the population as a result of the failure of the aforementioned female to mate. NS is basically a filter- traits which are bad for survival and reproduction get filtered out. If it was random, then the white crow would be able to mate with whichever crow she wanted to, and her genes would stay in the population. But this doesn't happen.