Re: Definition of Randomness (Wilkins quote mining project)

On Dec 7, 5:18 pm, j...@xxxxxxxxxxxxx (John S. Wilkins) wrote:
Burkhard <b.scha...@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
Third, I would consider it highly unlikely that Darwin, or any other
of his contemporaneous materialists, would consider "random" or
"chance" the way you describe them, as true randomness.

The Golden Rule: Text without context is error.


"I HAVE hitherto sometimes spoken as if the variations—so common and
multiform in organic beings under domestication, and in a lesser degree
in those in a state of nature—had been due to chance. This, of course,
is a wholly incorrect expression, but it serves to acknowledge plainly
our ignorance of the cause of each particular variation." Chapter V
Origin, 1st ed


Context: The quote is from the first edition "Origin" (written to
Christians) when the jury of scientific opinion was still out,
transmutation acceptance was hanging in the balance at this initial
stage. This is the first explanation for Darwin's **admitted**
equivocation.

Read the quote: it does NOT repudiate "chance." The quote admits that
he has credited chance then he contradicts himself and says he doesn't
know how variation occurs. *How* variation occurs (ignorance) is not a
repudiation of "chance" (unsupervised-non-directed quality of material
agency). It is an egregious bait and switch. "Chance" is left intact.

"I am aware that the conclusions arrived at in this work will be
denounced by some as highly irreligious; but he who thus denounces them
is bound to shew why it is more irreligious to explain the origin of man
as a distinct species by descent from some lower form, through the laws
of variation and natural selection, than to explain the birth of the
individual through the laws of ordinary reproduction. The birth both of
the species and of the individual are equally parts of that grand
sequence of events, which our minds refuse to accept as the result of
blind chance. The understanding revolts at such a conclusion, whether or
not we are able to believe that every slight variation of structure,—the
union of each pair in marriage,—the dissemination of each seed,—and
other such events, have all been ordained for some special purpose."
Descent p395f


Context (1871 Vol.2): Pages 394-95: "The belief in God has often been
advanced as not only the greatest, but the most complete of all the
distinctions between man and the lower animals. It is however
impossible, as we have seen, to maintain that this belief is innate or
instinctive in man. On the other hand a belief in all-pervading
spiritual agencies seems to be universal; and apparently follows from
a considerable advance in the reasoning powers of man, and from a
still greater advance in his faculties of imagination, curiosity and
wonder. I am aware that the assumed instinctive belief in God has been
used by many persons as an argument for His existence. But this is a
rash argument, as we should thus be compelled to believe in the
existence of many cruel and malignant spirits, possessing only a
little more power than man; for the belief in them is far more general
than of a beneficent Deity. The idea of a universal and beneficent
Creator of the universe does not seem to arise in the mind of man,
until he has been elevated by long-continued culture."

Then the Wilkins excerpt follows. Context is controlled by the
statements "belief in God" resulted from "the reasoning powers of man"
and "in his faculties of imagination." This is Materialism: God is an
invent of the human brain. This is why Darwin began the Wilkins
excerpt by saying "I am aware that the conclusions arrived at in this
work will be denounced by some as highly irreligious...."

The "blind chance" phrase simply recognizes the Theism beliefs of his
readership who he has just insulted with Materialism conclusions. It
says nothing about rejection of "blind chance" by himself.

""It is impossible to answer your question briefly; and I am not sure
that I could do so, even if I wrote at some length. But I may say that
the impossibility of conceiving that this grand and wondrous universe,
with our conscious selves, arose through chance, seems to me the chief
argument for the existence of God; but whether this is an argument of
real value, I have never been able to decide." Life and Letters I p306


Darwin states an argument made by Theism (grand and wondrous universe
could not arise through chance) then says his position is quasi-
agnostic. His correspondent was undoubtedly a Christian so he couldn't
tell him that he was an Atheist. But Darwin already admitted in
"Descent Of Man" that he was a Materialist while concealing the
admission in pro-Theism-Deism double-speak that could be construed as
genuine if anyone challenged.

"Another source of conviction in the existence of God, connected with
the reason, and not with the feelings, impresses me as having much more
weight. This follows from the extreme difficulty or rather impossibility
of conceiving this immense and wonderful universe, including man with
his capacity of looking far backwards and far into futurity, as the
result of blind chance or necessity. When thus reflecting I feel
compelled to look to a First Cause having an intelligent mind in some
degree analogous to that of man; and I deserve to be called a Theist.
This conclusion was strong in my mind about the time, as far as I can
remember, when I wrote the 'Origin of Species;' and it is since that
time that it has very gradually, with many fluctuations, become weaker.
But then arises the doubt, can the mind of man, which has, as I fully
believe, been developed from a mind as low as that possessed by the
lowest animals, be trusted when it draws such grand conclusions?

"I cannot pretend to throw the least light on such abstruse problems.
The mystery of the beginning of all things is insoluble by us; and I for
one must be content to remain an Agnostic." Ibid, 312f


These comments will be explained in my paper. They require too much
argument to post here. But when we remember that Darwin had to conceal
his Atheism in the subsets of Deism and Agnosticism, the latter two
and the comments made in their support are thus seen as the method of
concealment and as a proselytizing tool directed at his correspondent
or readers.

and finally

"MY DEAR HOOKER,—I fear I shall weary you with letters, but do not
answer this, for in truth and without flattery, I so value your letters,
that after a heavy batch, as of late, I feel that I have been
extravagant and have drawn too much money, and shall therefore have to
stint myself on another occasion.

When I sent my MS. I felt strongly that some preliminary questions on
the causes of variation ought to have been sent you. Whether I am right
or wrong in these points is quite a separate question, but the
conclusion which I have come to, quite independently of geographical
distribution, is that external conditions (to which naturalists so often
appeal) do by themselves very little. How much they do is the point of
all others on which I feel myself very weak. I judge from the facts of
variation under domestication, and I may yet get more light. But at
present, after drawing up a rough copy on this subject, my conclusion is
that external conditions do extremely little, except in causing mere
variability. This mere variability (causing the child not closely to
resemble its parent) I look at as very different from the formation of a
marked variety or new species. (No doubt the variability is governed by
laws, some of which I am endeavouring very obscurely to trace.) The
formation of a strong variety or species I look at as almost wholly due
to the selection of what may be incorrectly called chance variations or
variability." Nov 23, 1856, Life and Letters II, 86f

Darwin clearly means by chance in a biological context some statistical
distribution that lacks a definite cause (although not something that
lacks *any* cause). In the broader metaphysical context he shies away
from randomness as a property of the universe, although he repeatedly
says that he cannot trust his thought processes because they have
evolved (so there, evolutionary psychologists!).
--
John S. Wilkins, Philosophy, University of Sydney
scienceblogs.com/evolvingthoughts
But al be that he was a philosophre,
Yet hadde he but litel gold in cofre

Right, because they have evolved----Materialism (God doesn't exist,
only material nature exists).

Context: Before the "Origin" was published. Written to Creationist
J.D. Hooker. Darwin is attempting to feel out and acquire support.

In 1868 after he didn't need any single person's support, that is,
after the "Origin" enjoyed wild success, Darwin revealed his true
colors and denounced any notion that variation or natural selection
was supervised or "led along certain lines." Darwin clearly implies
that material agency is completely random or chance (which it must be
since it has no mind and is unguided) in the context of repudiating
God ("Variation" 1868:432 Vol.2).

Wilkins is in the business of making Darwinism-Materialism acceptable
to Theism, which was Darwin's business. Darwin had to misrepresent
his ideas to a world controlled by Christians in order to secure their
support. Darwin was an Atheist-Materialist. See Notebooks M and N
conceived and written in 1837 and 1838----the same two years in which
he conceived and developed his theory.

Ray

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: POTM Re: Difference between randomness and automated selection
    ... Darwin, 353-54). ... while using chance throughout his book. ... that "natural selection" has no meaning. ... plainly our ignorance of the cause of each particular variation." ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: POTM Re: Difference between randomness and automated selection
    ... Darwin, 353-54). ... while using chance throughout his book. ... that "natural selection" has no meaning. ... plainly our ignorance of the cause of each particular variation." ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: POTM Re: Difference between randomness and automated selection
    ... Darwin, 353-54). ... while using chance throughout his book. ... that "natural selection" has no meaning. ... plainly our ignorance of the cause of each particular variation." ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Lamarck was a Creationist
    ... Darwin quotes where he made it absolutely explicit what he means by ... Lamarck published consisted of several components. ... selection works on some organism that, by chance, had a variation. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Lamarck was a Creationist
    ... Darwin quotes where he made it absolutely explicit what he means by ... Lamarck published consisted of several components. ... selection works on some organism that, by chance, had a variation. ...
    (talk.origins)