The original question had to do with some theories of evolution, I believe. Some people claim that the genetic changes that shift over time in the population, in other words evolution, are random, and some claim that they must be directed or caused. My understanding of these mutations is that they are random because in many cases, they are “caused” by DNA molecules being struck by cosmic rays and other miscellaneous background radiation. The particular spot on any particular gene that is struck and changed is a matter of random chance, although the change itself was, in fact, CAUSED by the energy of the particle that hit it. The anti-evolution, intelligent design folks want to say that there is some intention in the decision on which genes should change and how they should change. That would be a different meaning of the word, cause. It implies intent. I think most people would say that the mutations are random and although they’re brought about by the interaction of external forces, i.e. radiation, they are haphazard and unpredictable. At least I would say that, and I think that’s true for most biologists and scientists who study evolution.
Regarding the Quantum Mechanics/Quantum Reality questions, Bell’s Inequality, and Aspect’s experiment, I would recommend the bood “Quantum Reality” by Nick Herbert. He addresses Bell’s Inequality and the many theories of Quantum Reality. Ultimately the question of “What is the nature of reality, assuming that Quantum Physics isn’t grossly incorrect?” is unanswerable now, but many acceptable explanations exist, such as the Copenhagen interpretation, the many universes theory, various superluminal theories, and one assuming absolute determinism (the experimenters have no free will in the experiments they choose to perform, thus their results provide no deep insight into the nature of reality).
This phrasing makes it sound like directed and caused are the same thing. I certainly wouldn’t say that. Being caused is not a good logical argument for being directed or not.
At the very least, between the lines there is an attitude from many evolution supporters that evolution “just happened”. I don’t think these people are being entirely honest with the theory. It is these types that have Johnson so riled, but I also know that he doesn’t do well at separating the wheat from the chaff.
So I was asking if everything is caused, or if they could in fact be meaning that there were significant things that “just happen”. If everything is caused, then it’s arguable that some intelligence was not involved, barring miracles (which we’d have no real evidence of in fossils or anything, anyway). All the causes caused all the effects, which were causes to more effects… You still have the problem of the First Cause, but after that, it gets pretty dry.
From what I’m gathering here, though, it seems like the entire thing is up in the air. No one knows what causes some things, and it’s deeply suspected that the effect essentially has no cause. The photon goes off in a certain direction or the particle gets a spin based on nothing, it is supposed. (I hope I’m right with that photon bit.)
If things can “just happen”, then both sides are kind of left with an out:
“It’s just what happens in this world. Randomness has led to these circumstances.”
“God could not only be the First Cause, He could be in the randomness of the spin properties.”
I’m pretty uncomfortable with the second one, as I said, because people keep shoving God into unexplained phenomena, and then getting embarassed later. Maybe He is, maybe He ain’t.