[Tribune7]

And any ridicule is not directed at the medical career, but at ideas that, if implemented across the profession, would have it stagnate.

Natural selection occurs as does random mutations and these are factors in biodiversity and anyone who argues otherwise is foolish.

And if one believes that it is possible for all biodivesity to have occurred via random chance from a single instance of life forming by random chance, and seeks evidence backing up his theory, nobody should stop him.

But if one believes otherwise that doesn't make him illogical or anti-science or a believer in magic. I'd argue that a good scientist would express honest skepticism of the theory -- without rejecting it out of hand, of course.

Some argue that if one expresses skepticism or rejects absolute randomness, one is resorting to "God did it" and forfeits any claim to science.

Once science was predicated on the belief that God did do it and the job of the scientist was to find out how. If God did do it, saying so is a much better model of reality than one claiming all exists by accident.

[Sam Cree]

I hesitate to comment on one of these threads.

However: It's pretty clear that there is a parallel to this in the "free market," which acts very much in a random manner, as opposed to the socialist model of "central planning," in which everything is worked out ahead of time, from the top down.

The "evolving" free market clearly produces infinitely greater diversity and infinitely superior results than the artificially "created" model of central planning.

OTOH, God, by definition, is all powerful and omniscient, so his version of central planning would, of course, not only work, but be beyond human comprehension.