Autor: Mehrere Autoren: Theological Studies; 01-SEP-06

Buch: Theological Studies; 01-SEP-06

Titel: Byrne, Patrick H., Evolution, randomness, and divine purpose: a reply to Cardinal Schonborn

Stichwort: Zufall, Wahrscheinlichkeit: ein relativer Begriff; Unmöglichkeit eines absoluten Zufalls (Karl Popper); Unmöglichkeit eines zufälligen Einzelfalls

Kurzinhalt: But as Karl Popper has argued, it is impossible to establish by empirical means alone that a given series of events is absolutely random and conforms to no conceivable intelligible pattern.

Textausschnitt: CLARIFICATION OF THE NOTION OF RANDOMNESS

3a Randomness has been notoriously difficult to define. First and foremost, it is difficult to define because it is a negative concept. To assert randomness is to assert that something is lacking. Second, there is a misleading confusion in common speech about "a random event." Properly speaking, randomness applies to a series of events, not merely to one single event. Randomness in the proper sense means that a whole series of events does not conform to some intelligible pattern or rule.1 Hence, when one speaks of an individual event as "random," one really intends to single out that event from the series in which it occurs, and observe that it does not conform to the pattern or rule manifest in some or even all other events in that series. (Fs)

3b This definition (i.e., that a series of events is random if it does not conform to some intelligible pattern or rule) brings to light the fact that randomness is a relational concept. Relative to some sort of pattern (say, the curve on a graph), the actual events deviate from it. For example, Hubble's law in astrophysics is a simple straight line that relates the distance of a galaxy to its velocity of recession away from the earth. But actual measurements of distances and velocities of galaxies scatter around that straight line.2 Those data points could conceivably conform to some other intelligible pattern. If, for example, they oscillated around a straight line in a sinusoidal fashion, they would be random relative to the straight line, but not relative to a more complex pattern that includes sine waves. It is, however, fairly easy to show that the actual data on galactic recession do not conform to this somewhat more complicated pattern.3 But as Karl Popper has argued, it is impossible to establish by empirical means alone that a given series of events is absolutely random and conforms to no conceivable intelligible pattern.4 The most that can be established is that the data are random relative to some specifiable (albeit extremely complex) kinds of patterns. To claim that some series of events is absolutely random goes beyond scientific verifiability. It turns a relative into an absolute without scientific warrant. (Fs) (notabene)