Replies

We do not know and cannot know the full number and types of dimensions, therefore it is a misappropriation of the term to say that something is "random" in nature. What is actually meant is that the thing is unpredictable - if we were able to see every where and every when all at once as God does, the thing may be highly determined.

Which reminds me of something one of our departed evolution supporters was fond of posting: "The lot is cast into the lap, but its every decision is from the Lord." This is, I believe, the position of most "theistic evolutionists"--that evolution has proceeded throughout history more or less the way science has discovered, but none of it was any surprise to God, who knew exactly what to do to get the results He wanted.

I suspect that even atheistic evolutionists wouldn't object to substituting "unpredictable" for "random" (so long as it was understood that "unpredictable" doesn't mean "whimsical"). Another word I've heard used is "stochastic." The point being that there are some constraints on output imposed by input conditions, but nevertheless the specific output is unpredictable.

But it also seems to me that that offers an answer of sorts to betty's concern that randomness cannot produce its own organizational laws. If evolution is not truly random--if it has unpredictable but probabilistic outcomes, outcomes in fact that may be highly determined if we knew as much as God does, then perhaps the organizational laws can arise "on their own."

Thank you so much for sharing your insights, dear Ha Ha Thats Very Logical!

If evolution is not truly random--if it has unpredictable but probabilistic outcomes, outcomes in fact that may be highly determined if we knew as much as God does, then perhaps the organizational laws can arise "on their own."

I would simply add "from an observer's perspective" to the end of your sentence.

Your comments bring to mind my favorite Einstein quote, "coincidence is God's way of remaining anonymous."