"Why are things the way they are, and not some other way? The ToE purports to explain the latter. Yet to the extent that it relies on randomness for its answers, I fail to see what has been explained..."
You have it exactly backwards. The theory can only explain why things are the way they are. It cannot predict the path of evolution and it doesn't try to. You are talking nonsense now. Are you saying that the theory should explain humans don't have four eyes? That is silly.
"One thing I've noticed about some neo-Darwinists I know: They seem to think that the ToE is somehow a kind of standalone phenomenon that doesn't in any way depend on such things as physics, mathematics, or information theory."
What are you saying? For the theory to work you certainly have to agree to a certain amount of knowns. Some of them involve physics and mathematics.
I'd love to hear your alternative theory. But I sense that you have none. You've already said you agree with evolution. Please tell me what you are arguing!
Can you PLEASE ANSWER THESE QUESTIONS FOR ME:
What difference would it make to the Theory of Evolution if we found out that a) aliens implanted the first life b) god created the first life or c) life first appeared by a random chemical reaction? How would any of these three effect the Theory of Evolution?
Explain how bacteria can digest nylon.
Explain why whales have reminants of feet.
Explain how AIDS, E. Coli, Ebola and various other diseases came about in the past 25 years.
Explain the Archaeoptryx(I mangled the spelling)fossils.
Explain the entire fossil record.
Let's hear your explanation and then we can match it up with the Theory of Evolution. You are making circular arguments without stating a position because you have none.
That's the point, LGN: None of them would affect the ToE. It is impervious to the questions raised by your a), b), and c). And yet arguably, each of these sources would produce a distinctly different universe.
So our question of the day is: Empirically speaking, which of these putative universes would come closest to comprehensively describing your own direct observations and experience?
It seems to me: ToE comes under the category of "the life sciences." But it doesn't start with "life"; it presumes life already exists, and then gives an account of how it develops over time.
Which reminds me of my dear astrophysicist friend, who confidently tells me that the origin of the universe (which predates the origin of life as you know) was "a random fluctuation in a false vacuum."
I don't even have to go into the futility of "randomness" as any kind of explanation of anything to find problems with this idea. For one thing, as my dear friend Alamo-Girl is ever fond of reminding us, there is no "fluctuation" absent time; no event can occur absent space.
This "origin myth" does not account for the origin of space and time, which it absolutely requires in order to be valid.
That is to say, this "origin myth" does not get to the real origin. Like Darwin, it already assumes a "going concern" without much troubling over the nature of the ultimate foundation of the "going concern."
Now you may tell me, LGN, that this is not a problem for science. Okay. I'll accept that, provided you will grant me equal courtesy so as not to condemn all questions not amenable to the scientific method as "unreal," "supernatural," or otherwise illegitimate.
Thanks for writing!
For the sake of argument, let us say that darwin explanations are true… Explain how human consciousness is ‘ultimately’ the result of mindless mechanisms. No, actually… Explain how ’you believe’ your brain (morality, ethics, etc..) ultimately came from mindless mechanisms (stupid design).
'Tis odd you should say that. Many cartoons have been posted mocking Christians for disbelieving evolution, and proposing that said Christians be forced to forgo the benefits of such things as vaccines, GMO foodstuffs, etc., on the grounds that these items are the fruits of evolution's power to be harnessed.
I would draw the distinction that in the current state of knowledge, evolution in many ways is more like the humanities (sociology or psychology) in that it can predict general trends and correlations, but cannot predict even in principle individual outcomes.
Full Disclosure: ...and they call economics "the dismal science".
Cheers!