Chance or by Design ?

Originally posted by Proper Knob
[b]I think some kind of punctuated changes of sudden modification may be a better fit for the fossil record.

What would you base that conclusion on exactly?

Just out of interest, have you ever read a book written by an evolutionary biologist?[/b]

Me:

I think some kind of punctuated changes of sudden modification may be a better fit for the fossil record.

What would you base that conclusion on exactly?

Thinks I have read about the Cambrian explosion and the fossil record. Fossils reveal events. Unfortunately, fossils do not indicate processes by which those events occured. And evidence of gradualism which one would expect to see in the record is not there.

Who says so ? Science #267:1421-1422, 1995, R. Kerr - Did Darwin Get It All Right ?

" ... the most thorough study of species formation in the fossil record confirms that new species appear with a most un-Darwinian abruptness."

Paleontologist Dr. Jan Bergstrom was cited in the New York Times that new morphologies could have suddenly appeared within as little as 1,000 years. The article was called "Spectacular Fossils Record Early Riot of Creation". And "Creation" was the word used by either the article's author or its editors. I see nothing preventing them from having entitled it " ... Early Riot of Evolution".

According to the article the burst of multicellular life is believed to have started in the Cambrian, 530 million years ago. The fossils reveal more of a staccato like bursts of changes. So I think that is where the Evolutionists should focus their research. It strains the imagination enough to conceive of chance mutations being selected out naturally to arrive at new types of animals in a million years. Within a thousand years is harder to believe.

But changes within species, ie. peaks enlarging or shrinking, moths darkening or lightening, dogs varying in appearance, etc. I can more easily see evidenced.

Just out of interest, have you ever read a book written by an evolutionary biologist?

I think both my high school biology text and my college biology text may have been written by evolutionary biologists. Did you ask me this before ?

I think I told someone of a book I read much of call "The Mystery of Life" which was definitely by a Evolutionist. I did not read the whole book. I tend to read articles on biology more these days.

Those who thought that as we moved into the 21rst century science would somehow make the assumption of design less necessary, I think are a dying out breed. The opposite case is emerging. As we move into the 21rst Century the tuning of the universe for the biosphere and man in particular is becoming more and more difficult to ignore.

Originally posted by jaywill
Is there a third alternative ?

Yes - which I believe has been pointed out a number of times already.
But just to re-iterate:
Most of the universe operates via physical 'laws' or rules or when they are combined into something more complex, we can call them processes. A process / law / rule does not necessarily have a goal/purpose, but nevertheless cannot accurately be described as 'pure chance'.
Where the process/law comes from is another matter. It could be a 'brute fact' or it could have a cause. If it is a 'brute fact' then I guess one could say its specific attributes are 'by chance' but I don't think that really captures the essence of what we normally mean by chance.

Some of the 'laws/processes' of the universe contain elements (inputs or outputs) that are, as far as we can tell, statistically random. That, is what we call chance.

Originally posted by twhitehead
Yes - which I believe has been pointed out a number of times already.
But just to re-iterate:
Most of the universe operates via physical 'laws' or rules or when they are combined into something more complex, we can call them processes. A process / law / rule does not necessarily have a goal/purpose, but nevertheless cannot accurately be described as 'pu ...[text shortened]... hat are, as far as we can tell, statistically random. That, is what we call chance.

Yes - which I believe has been pointed out a number of times already.
But just to re-iterate:
Most of the universe operates via physical 'laws' or rules or when they are combined into something more complex, we can call them processes.

A law is a plan.
A law is rule which I definitely regard as a plan.

So I don't regard this "law" as a third alternative. It falls into area of something much more like a plan.

A process / law / rule does not necessarily have a goal/purpose, but nevertheless cannot accurately be described as 'pure chance'.

A lawful process is much closer to somthing strongly implying a purpose. Sorry. I don't accept your third alternative as that much different from that of scheme or plan.

Where the process/law comes from is another matter. It could be a 'brute fact' or it could have a cause.

A computer progammer may create a program. Then she dies. Long after her demise the program continues to operate. The PLAN is built into the program. We do not have to think of the program as thinking, choosing consciously, or being itself alive. However, the plan is built into the operation of the program.

That is how I must think of Evolution. The plan is built into the process. I agree that WHERE the plan originated is another issue. No, I do not think the Creator died. I might agree that scientifically the Creator cannot be detected by any instrument of science.

However, the plan is programmed into the evolutionary process, if there is indeed such an evolutionary process.

If it is a 'brute fact' then I guess one could say its specific attributes are 'by chance' but I don't think that really captures the essence of what we normally mean by chance.

Some of the 'laws/processes' of the universe contain elements (inputs or outputs) that are, as far as we can tell, statistically random. That, is what we call chance.

And the MUTATIONS of the four rungs of the DNA double helix are said to happen randomly. By far most mutations are harmful.

The unharmful ones get Natural Selectioned through like a filter and Evolution supposedly marches triumphantly along. Its not an accident. You do not have to be a IDer or a Creationist to admit that it is too improbable to be chance that life thus develops.

Some Naturalists or Atheists loath to use the expressions of plan, purpose, goal. So they hunt for some alternative to Luck / Chance and to Purpose. That is what you are attempting here. Humy seems hopelessly caught in the same attempt.

What you discribe is much closer to a plan - a law.

Now I know the mantra - "Origin of Life has nothing to do with Evolution". Okay? I know the mantra. But I submit anyway the following. Iiya Prigonmgine, a recipient of the Nobel prize in chemistry, wrote in Physics Today -

"The probability that at ordinary temperatures a macroscopic number of molecules is assembled to give rise to the coordinated functions characterizing living organisms is vanishingly small. The idea of the spontaneous genesis of life in its present form is therefore improbable, even on the scale of billions of years."

First let's get it out of our system - "Evolution has nothing to do with the origin of life."

Okay, given that (dubious chorus) the problem of a planless, goaless, schemeless,purposeless process CONTINUING the rise of the coordinated functions of a living organism is also improbable.

The problem of how Evolution could progress is not erased by distancing the processs from origin of life issues. It doesn't help the plausibility of maintaining there is no plan in the Evolution process. It is mathematically unreasonable to assume that random mutations are the driving force behind evolution.

Remember, before the filter of Natural Selection you have to have the Randomness of Mutations first.

Originally posted by jaywill

These questions just tell us you do not understand evolution and that you have a homo-centric view of creation.

[b] Of course I don't understand evolution !! What are you trying to do to me, embarress me ?

If there is no scheme then the biosphere exists because of pure chance. If it is not pure chance then there must be rd.

And we haven't even gotten much into the problem of "convergent evolution".[/b]

And we haven't even gotten much into the problem of "convergent evolution".

what “problem” of convergent evolution?

If there is no scheme then the biosphere exists because of pure chance.

No.

Something not having a “scheme” behind it does NOT logically imply it must exist by pure chance.
Other than just pointing out one does not imply the other ( which apparently doesn't convince you because you consistently reject deductive logic ), I can prove this just by giving just ONE example ( one is ALL that is needed ) of something that exists but not by pure chance but rather as a result of something causing it and there being no “scheme” behind it:

the noise of thunder after a lightning strike.

The fact that this is unlike evolution in all other respects is absolutely totally irrelevant -you cannot rationally use one logic to one concept and use a contradictory logic to another for you cannot logically validly have two kinds of logic both being valid if they contradict each other. So, for example, to not contradict yourself, either you must agree that “X not having a scheme/aim/purpose/goal behind it does NOT logically imply X must exist by pure chance” for ANY X REGARDLESS of what that X is ( such as evolution, hurricanes, thunder after lightning, earthquakes, complex ice crystal growth etc ) or for NO X and you can NOT logically have it both ways! This is just the way deductive logic works.
But if you say that that is always false for X i.e. NO X, then you will have to make an absurd conclusion that the noise of thunder after a lightning strike must have a scheme/aim/purpose/goal behind it.
Therefore, to avoid such absurdity, you can only rationally accept that “X not having a scheme/aim/purpose/goal behind it does NOT logically imply X must exist by pure chance” for ANY X

so which do you agree with?
Either this is always true or always false and you cannot have it both ways:

X not having a scheme/aim/purpose/goal behind it does NOT logically imply X must exist by pure chance

-so is this above proposition TRUE or FALSE? Tells us which....

Originally posted by twhitehead
Yes - which I believe has been pointed out a number of times already.
But just to re-iterate:
Most of the universe operates via physical 'laws' or rules or when they are combined into something more complex, we can call them processes. A process / law / rule does not necessarily have a goal/purpose, but nevertheless cannot accurately be described as 'pu ...[text shortened]... hat are, as far as we can tell, statistically random. That, is what we call chance.

You are reaching far into the abyss in order to try to justify your refusal to accept the obvious conclusion that God created the heavens and the Earth.

Originally posted by humy

And we haven't even gotten much into the problem of "convergent evolution".

what “problem” of convergent evolution?

If there is no scheme then the biosphere exists because of pure chance.

No.

Something not having a “scheme” behind it does NOT logically imply it must exist by pure chance.
Other than just poin ...[text shortened]... exist by pure chance

-so is this above proposition TRUE or FALSE? Tells us which....[/b]

You will not find the truth by searching the abyss.

Originally posted by humy

And we haven't even gotten much into the problem of "convergent evolution".

what “problem” of convergent evolution?

If there is no scheme then the biosphere exists because of pure chance.

No.

Something not having a “scheme” behind it does NOT logically imply it must exist by pure chance.
Other than just poin exist by pure chance

-so is this above proposition TRUE or FALSE? Tells us which....[/b]

what “problem” of convergent evolution?

I refer to the low probability of two different animals in two different phyla (two different body plan groups) evolving independent of each other, independent of a common ancestor, yet converging on similar body part.

Ie. The vertabre eye and the mullusk eye are an example of convergent evolution. The eye of the octopus evolved independently in the mullusca phylum from the eye of the human in the vertabre phylum.

Mullusca and vertabre, along with the other animal phyla, are believed to have separated 530 million years ago, at the development level just above protozoa. The solution to the problem of sight was "solved" in the octopus and the human by evolution independently. The mullusca phyla evolved a solution selecting particular proteins. And the vertabre phyla evolved a solution using different proteins.

This remarkable similarity of organs in very different animals in two different phyla is refered by some as "convergent evolution".

Now we have to account for random mutations at the molecular genetic level arriving at a similar solution.

"The hypothesis that the eye of the cephalopods [i.e., the octopus and squid] has evolved by convergence with the vertebrate eye is challenged by our recent findings of the [human] Pax-6 related gene sequences in octopus and squid."

[R. Quiring, U. Kloter, W. Gehring, "Homology of the Eyeless Gene in Drosophila to the Small Eye Gene in Mice and Aniridia in Humans" Science 265:785-789, 1994]

Calculating that the likely producing of a particular sonnet by Shakespeare by random typing is about one chance in 26 to the 490th power (or 10 to the 690th power). Convergence would be the expectation that the same sonnet would be produced TWICE.

That is random mutations with a filtering out of problem solving mutations from problem producing mutations by natural selection. Different amino acids to produce different proteins to arrive at similar solutions across two body plans (phyla).

For example both the octopus and the vertabra need an eye. But different development patterns arrived at the survival enhancing solution convergently. The retina of the octopus forms from optically sensative skin cells. But the vertebrate retina forms from optically sensative brain cells.

Something must have channeled to two lines of independent evolution to converge.

If there is no scheme then the biosphere exists because of pure chance.


No.

Something not having a “scheme” behind it does NOT logically imply it must exist by pure chance.

I think we have to look out the outcome of that process. Apparently you are unimpressed with the outcome of the theorized process. I was unable to suggest to you that a pile of snow from an avalanche is a poor comparison to the biosphere, though both involve a process.

Other than just pointing out one does not imply the other ( which apparently doesn't convince you because you consistently reject deductive logic ), I can prove this just by giving just ONE example ( one is ALL that is needed ) of something that exists but not by pure chance but rather as a result of something causing it and there being no “scheme” behind it:

the noise of thunder after a lightning strike.

The fact that this is unlike evolution in all other respects is absolutely totally irrelevant -you cannot rationally use one logic to one concept and use a contradictory logic to another for you cannot logically validly have two kinds of logic both being valid if they contradict each other. So, for example, to not contradict yourself, either you must agree that “X not having a scheme/aim/purpose/goal behind it does NOT logically imply X must exist by pure chance” for ANY X REGARDLESS of what that X is ( such as evolution, hurricanes, thunder after lightning, earthquakes, complex ice crystal growth etc ) or for NO X and you can NOT logically have it both ways! This is just the way deductive logic works.
But if you say that that is always false for X i.e. NO X, then you will have to make an absurd conclusion that the noise of thunder after a lightning strike must have a scheme/aim/purpose/goal behind it.
Therefore, to avoid such absurdity, you can only rationally accept that “X not having a scheme/aim/purpose/goal behind it does NOT logically imply X must exist by pure chance” for ANY X

so which do you agree with?
Either this is always true or always false and you cannot have it both ways:

I'll think on that. However, all the examples you use do not involve LIFE. Somehow I think when you speak of the natural processes concerning LIFE you are in another catagory from your customary comparisons to non-livng things like air, snowflakes, particles of rock or soil.

With evolution you have a process going "upstream" against the universal tendency of encreased entropy.

The more you protest trying to get me to thing of a earthquake or avalanche as the same as Evolution the more I think vastly underestimate the near miraculous outcome of the process, if it is true.

You look at the biosphere with a "Ho Hum" attitude and say "Big Deal. We would expect about as much from an avalanche." Like I said before, throw a grand piano down the slope of a mountain. If you hear chaotic clashing of discord it is not surprising. If instead you hear out of the tumbling a Chopin like Polynaise being played you suspect a plan in there somehow.

I don't agree with your underestimate of the result of Evolution. And I don't think Charles Darwin agreed. In Origin of Species , the sixth edition, 1872, the last edition during Darwin's life this closing comment if found:

" There is a granduer in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being , evolved."

I find you view actually dehumanizing. It is like asking me to view Mount Rushmore as about the same as the Grand Canyon. I think you have lost something of your humanty in the way you think. There is a cognitive dissonance in not admitting that something quite exotic has happened to produce the biosphere.

The odds against it existing are astronomical as testified by the fact that it is so rare in our known universe so far. There are a lot more rocks than there are orangatangs. Even Darwin didn't dumb down the existence of living things like you want to.

Richard Dawkins wrote "Biology is the study of complicated things that give the appearance of having been designed for a purpose." I believe they have such an appearance because they probably were somehow designed.

If someone says that that is not good inductive logic, I'll bear that opinion. At least the cognitive dissonance of suppressing the reality that is starring me in the face is not damaging my humanity.

You on the other hand have to take Francis Crick's suggestion - "...biologists must constantly remind themselves that what they see was not designed, but rather evolved."

Even with evolution design and program, plan and goal, is there demanding my attention.

Originally posted by jaywill

what “problem” of convergent evolution?

I refer to the low probability of two different animals in two different phyla (two different body plan groups) evolving independent of each other, independent of a common ancestor, yet converging on similar body part.

Ie. The vertabre eye and the mullusk eye are an example of convergent evo design and program, plan and goal, is there demanding my attention.

I refer to the LOW probability of two different animals in two different phyla (two different body plan groups) evolving independent of each other, independent of a common ancestor, yet converging on similar body part. (my emphasis)

how do you know it is a “LOW” probability?
Evolution predicts it should be a HIGH probability given the existence of many creatures with similar ways of life living in very similar kinds environment.

Now we have to account for random mutations at the molecular genetic level arriving at a similar solution.

NO, I do NOT have to “account for random” anything for this. Random mutations only help give new variation for natural selection to work on. It is NATURAL SELECTION, which is NOT purely random and is itself an inevitable process under the right conditions, that makes it virtually inevitable that convergent evolution will occur under the right conditions.

Something must have channeled to two lines of independent evolution to converge.

yes, the right conditions for convergent evolution. Namely; many creatures with similar ways of life living in very similar kinds of environment making it highly probable that some will evolve via natural selection, which is NOT purely random, with similar adaptations for that similar ways of life living in very similar kinds of environment.
Actually, the fact that we have evidence of convergent evolution is evidence that natural selection is not purely random as you keep pretending it is.

I think we have to look out the outcome of that process.

why? Why should the outcome of a natural mindless process have anything to do with if there is a goal involved?

Apparently you are unimpressed with the outcome of the theorized process.

actually, I AM impressed by the outcome of evolution; so how is being “impressed” relevant?

I'll think on that.

There is not a lot there to “think about”. You either must accept deductive logic in its entirely as completely valid and reject your illogical beliefs or you will be stuck with your erroneous logic which would inevitably give you false beliefs.

I ask again, and you don't need a lot of time to think about this; just think about it for a few moments about this very simple question; is this assertion below true or false?

X not having a scheme/aim/purpose/goal behind it does NOT logically imply X must exist by pure chance

-you cannot have it both ways i.e. sometimes true and sometimes false because all valid true propositions in logic can only be simply true or false.
So which is it?

I don't agree with your underestimate of the result of Evolution.

were have I said/implied that the result of evolution is trivial and in what sense? If the sense you mean is merely it doesn't involve a goal then, if anything, that makes me even more impressed with the outcome in this case and it doesn't, in my mind at least, trivialise the outcome.
And what has whether I “underestimate” the result of Evolution ( whatever that is supposed to mean ) got to do with anything anyway?

And I don't think Charles Darwin agreed.

why would I always agree with Charles Darwin? -I don't. He didn't get always it all right! -just most of it right. Science has now told us how evolution really works and it happens, for example, by punctuated evolution which Darwin didn't know about.

Originally posted by humy

I refer to the LOW probability of two different animals in two different phyla (two different body plan groups) evolving independent of each other, independent of a common ancestor, yet converging on similar body part. (my emphasis)

how do you know it is a “LOW” probability?
Evolution predicts it should be a HIGH probability given the exis ks and it happens, for example, by punctuated evolution which Darwin didn't know about.

C'mon guys. Lets consider the convergent evolution of anteaters and in particular the evolution in Australia of the the banded anteater, or numbat, which is marsupial "Like many ant-eating animals, the numbat has an unusually long, narrow, tongue, coated with sticky saliva produced by large submandibular glands. A further adaptation to the diet is the presence of numerous ridges along the soft palate, which apparently help to scrape termites off the tongue so that they can be swallowed. The digestive system is relatively simple, and lacks many of the adaptations found in other entomophagous animals, presumably because termites are easier to digest than ants, having a softer exoskeleton. Numbats are apparently able to gain a considerable amount of water from their diet, since their kidneys lack the usual specialisations for retaining water found in other animals living in their arid environment..." Wikipedia

The numbat is not related to the large anteaters of South and Central America. Here, "Anteaters are one of three surviving families of a once diverse group of mammals that occupied South America while it was geographically isolated from an invasion of animals from North America, the other two being the sloths and the armadillos.

At one time, anteaters were assumed to be related to aardvarks and pangolins because of their physical similarities to those animals, but these similarities have since been determined to be not a sign of a common ancestor, but of convergent evolution. All have evolved powerful digging forearms, long tongues, and toothless, tube-like snouts to make a living by raiding termite mounds. This similarity is the reason aardvarks are also commonly called "anteaters"; the pangolin has been called the "scaly anteater"; and the word "antbear" is a common term for both the aardvark and the giant anteater...."

So here we have convergent evolution running rampant and how do we account for this?

ANSWER: we can explain it as the product of evolution by natural selection, in which these animals adapted to eat a specialised diet of ants and termites.

What is hard about this stuff? The theory of natural selection is simply stated as the proposal that when the environment presents an opportunity for life to enjoy a secure diet, then over time some creature will adapt to take advantage of this. The conditions required are primarily the random diversity in all life, so that given sufficient time, there is probably (not inevitably: we have no Irish anteaters yet and it could be some time before we do) some creature for which this ecosystem offers good opportunities to eat and reproduce. So for example, an animal with a varied diet that includes termites could specialise over time, requiring initially quite subtle changes in habit that become more striking over time.

DIVERSITY IS NOT CHANCE. It is a feature of every living species. It is not even completely random - individual differences and variation arises on existing structures. It is almost a trivial statement, though interesting and important, that individuals are not identical and some will have more, some less of almost any quality that has the feature of being continuously variable - such as length or weight. For example, in any population, some will be taller and some shorter along a normal distribution curve.

Of course Mendel's peas were either wrinkled or smooth in an arithmetical pattern and this type of either / or alternative, different to continuous variables, is also a feature of adaptation and that is an important refinement. It helps explain why some bacteria are more resistent than others to antibiotics for example, so that over time the more resistent strains proliferate and the antibiotic losses its value.

Only very minor mutations are viable because each individual has to live, eat and reproduce to permit transmission of their genes. From time to time a creature is born with two heads but it does not survive and produce live young with two heads because that is not genetically coded and is not a viable mutation.

So the idea that as the environment changes over time, individual differences permit some individuals a better prospect of survival and reproduction than others is not a simple matter of random, meaningless chance events producing species, in the analogy of a hurricane whipping up a modern aeroplane from random flotsam and jetsom. It is a very coherent and intelligible process over time in which the key variables are very well understood.

We have to explain the way life adapts in wuch a way as to fit so many quite distinct types of environment. Natural selection explains this simply and clearly. If it was not there God would have to invent it since I fail to see how we can explain this stuff without natural selection!

Originally posted by finnegan
C'mon guys. Lets consider the convergent evolution of anteaters and in particular the evolution in Australia of the the banded anteater, or numbat, which is marsupial "Like many ant-eating animals, the numbat has an unusually long, narrow, tongue, coated with sticky saliva produced by large submandibular glands. A further adaptation to the diet is the pre ...[text shortened]... vent it since I fail to see how we can explain this stuff without natural selection!

the idea that as the environment changes over time, individual differences permit some individuals a better prospect of survival and reproduction than others is not a simple matter of random, meaningless chance events producing species, in the analogy of a hurricane whipping up a modern aeroplane from random flotsam and jetsom. It is a very coherent and intelligible process over time in which the key variables are very well understood.

Originally posted by humy

I refer to the LOW probability of two different animals in two different phyla (two different body plan groups) evolving independent of each other, independent of a common ancestor, yet converging on similar body part. (my emphasis)

how do you know it is a “LOW” probability?
Evolution predicts it should be a HIGH probability given the exis ...[text shortened]... ks and it happens, for example, by punctuated evolution which Darwin didn't know about.

Maybe, you have become an indoctrinated moron under mind-control.

Originally posted by RJHinds
Maybe, you have become an indoctrinated moron under mind-control.

No, if someone turns up with a real fossil rabbit 100 million years old, there will be a major rethink of evolution. He can and will change. That is a given. What also is a given, you cannot change, your brain is locked into your delusions so profoundly you will never come out of them and will die convinced you will wake up in some kind of heaven where you go La La La La through the tulips forever.

Gag me with a spoon.

Originally posted by jaywill
A lawful process is [b]much closer to somthing strongly implying a purpose. Sorry. I don't accept your third alternative as that much different from that of scheme or plan. [/b]

So, would you describe water flowing down hill under the influence of gravity as a 'planned event'? Would you say that waters 'goal' is to go down hill, or to get to the ocean?
I realise you don't 'accept' the third alternative, but the way you talk about 'plans' and 'schemes' suggests you attribute a lot more to them than laws.

Originally posted by sonhouse
No, if someone turns up with a real fossil rabbit 100 million years old, there will be a major rethink of evolution. He can and will change. That is a given. What also is a given, you cannot change, your brain is locked into your delusions so profoundly you will never come out of them and will die convinced you will wake up in some kind of heaven where you go La La La La through the tulips forever.

Gag me with a spoon.

No, if someone turns up with a real fossil rabbit 100 million years old, there will be a major rethink of evolution. He CAN and WILL change. (my emphasis)

yes, I can confirm that. That is just the way rational scientific thinking works.
If new evidence suddenly comes to light that clearly points to a different hypothesis that contradicts the older hypothesis that we made earlier that was based on the older evidence, then I and 'we' will simply switch to that new hypothesis.
We simply go/change with wherever the evidence points.

Originally posted by twhitehead
So, would you describe water flowing down hill under the influence of gravity as a 'planned event'? Would you say that waters 'goal' is to go down hill, or to get to the ocean?
I realise you don't 'accept' the third alternative, but the way you talk about 'plans' and 'schemes' suggests you attribute a lot more to them than laws.

So, would you describe water flowing down hill under the influence of gravity as a 'planned event'? Would you say that waters 'goal' is to go down hill, or to get to the ocean?

I would not discribe water flowing down a hill under the influence of gravity as a "planned event" in the normal sense. However, as we move into the 21rst century it is becomming more evident to many scientists that the LAWS (including the law of gravity) have within them a fine tuning exotically appropriate to the existence of life.

Let's take the gravity by which your water flows down the hill. From the Big Bang event the gravitational force constant has been tuned for proper star formation.

If that constant were larger than it is stars would be too hot and would burn up too quickly and too unevenly. If on the other hand that constant were smaller stars would remain so cool that nuclear fusion would never ignite, and no heavy elements would be produced.

So your law of gravity pulling water down the hill itself includes a setting precisely tuned that our Sun could exist. And of course our Sun's existence makes life on earth possible.

So in one sense the water being pulled down the hill by gravity occurs under a conspicuously well tuned law of gravity.

Then again that finely tuned gravitational law effects the expansion rate of the universe. If it were larger, there would be no galaxy formation. If it were smaller the universe would collapse in on itself. If you do believe in evolution you might well believe gravity has a tuning which allows enough time for life to develop in an expanding universe.

It is this "monkeying" with the constants of the laws governing the universe which suggest a plan. As Fred Hoyle said it appears that:

"a superintellect has monkeyed with physics, as well as with chemistry and biology..." [Fred Hoyle, The Universe: Past and Present Reflections , pg.16 ]

You're forcing the comparison to non-living entities to dumb down the exotic outcome of evolution, backfires on you.

I would tell scientist Hoyle that it appears to be a superintellect is behind the scene because a superintellect IS behind the scene, according to my Christian belief. The appearance indicates the truth. It is just that that aspect of the truth lies outside of scientific instruments to detect.

And Paul Davies wrote in God and the New Physics [New York and Simon Schuster, 1983] :

"... the laws [of physics] ... seem themselves to be the product of exceedingly ingenious design."

I would suggest "ingenious design[s]" indeed are behind the laws of physics. But this is my truth ascertaining Theistic faith speaking. I have no science instrument to show that.

Now what we have with evolution (if macro evolution occured) is much more impressive than a large body of water at the bottom of slope. Gravity has collected all the water to its lowest level. But Evolution is a process which has done more than that. The biosphere is the outcome.

Davies also wrote: "There is for me powerful evidence that there is someting going on behind it all ... It seems as though somebody has fine-tuned nature's numbers to make the Universe ... The impression of design is overwhelming."

Read my keyboard - "THE IMPRESSION OF DESIGN IS OVERWHELMING."

You and humy are simply trying very hard to suppress that impression. While I have no scientific instrument to prove what is behind the impression, there is no need to explain away the impression. No, it is not just some faulty logic on our part.

The impression of ingenious design behind a process of Evolution is overwhelming to some of us. Even many of the laws of physics governing non-living interactions seem designed for a purpose of life in the universe.

I realise you don't 'accept' the third alternative, but the way you talk about 'plans' and 'schemes' suggests you attribute a lot more to them than laws.

You are welcomed to explain more about your third alternative involving only laws. I will not pull it out of you like pulling teeth. If you think your case has not been made, then put more words on it to make it.