Darwinism and anthropic principle?

Question

Why do scientists accept that random mutations and natural selection indicate that evolution has no purpose, while at the same time they reject that the fine tuning of the universe nature's constants for life does not indicate any purpose? Isn't that contradictory? I think we should accept or reject both, but can not accept one conclusion while rejecting the other.

eri: No, random is not "just that - random". We only use the word "random" to say that evolution is **unpredictable**. Things are so awfully complex that we can't predict the outcome. But from this doesn't follow nothing about the purposefulness of things. The extrapolation of the lack of a purpose in evolution is just metaphysical as the opposite claim that wants to see ID in the universe.

jonmcn: And in what sense does your re-difinition of randmoness as "no set numerical order" (what is "order"?) differ from "unpredictability"? You are only rephrasing your metaphysical assumptions.

As to the fact that I'm an "anthropic principle supporter", this was your own mental projection again.

jonmcn49: and this is a definition of randomness??? Oh, my dear... you have still a long way to learn the most elementary mathematics I'm afraid. Google for "Chaitin" and you will have some nice surprise.

Frank N: Those scientists who tell you that evolution is purposeless will certainly tell you also that fine tuning doesn't proof anything. And this is a methodologically a contradiction. Go out and ask them and you will see.

Jason: you are confusing scientific naturalism with philosophic naturalism. E. g., saying "mutations are random" is a scientific statement, while saying "mutations are purposeless" is a philosophic metaphysical one. Its scientists who replaced a pragmatic naturalistic approach with philosophic transcendental claims, not me. And you did not answer the question. Why does science resort to philosophic naturalism for evolutionary theories, while rejecting it for fine tuning? The only explanation I can see is that we use a priori an ideological standpoint, not a scientific one.

Samwise: "there is no basis for assuming a purpose and certainly no proof of one". Exactly! But when science transforms this statement presenting it as *evidence* for a lack of purpose it is transforming it into a philosophic metaphysical statement.

Answer 1

I usually hear those arguments parallel, not crossed in an apparently contradictory way. One side says mutation and natural selection are not driven by a purpose, and also that the 'ideal' values of nature's constants also do not imply a purpose. The other side says that both the nature of lifeforms and the ideal constants hint at purpose or design more than they hint at randomness or arbitrariness. Each position is consistent. Can you cite a scientist who says evolution is purposeless but constant selection is purposeful?

Answer 2

Nope. Random mutations are just that - random. Most don't cause any harm or help. Some are harmful. Some are helpful. But they are random.

We don't accept the fine-tuning argument of the universe as evidence for design because, quite frankly, if the universe wasn't the way it is now you wouldn't be here to ask why it wasn't. There are only a very small subset of universes in which we could have evolved at all, so why be surprised to find ourselves in one of them?

Answer 3

No we do not use the word random to say evolution is unpredictable. Random means, " in no set numerical order. " It does not mean what you putatively educated ideologues want it to mean!
We have been predicting the random mutation rates for many organisms for some time.

Where do you nut-jobs get the horrible mistaken idea that the anthropic principle supports your design rantings?

And you obviously no nothing of math, either. 1,2,3... set order.

4,7,2,6,3

4,7,2,6,3

Random, but predictable.
Not metaphysical, but real. You should try " real " sometimes and stop wasting other peoples time.