Well, it’s debatable but I think it comes down to defining your terms.
“Evolution is blind” suggests no guidance at all, and as you say there is randomness, but an important part of the evolutionary process is survival and propagation which are guided by the environment. so arguably evolution is NOT blind.
However the evolutionary process is reactive and does not involve long-term planning so you could argue that “blind” means “looking ahead, considering more than what you can immediately sense.” so arguably evolution IS blind.
Either perspective agrees that there is no “Grand Architect” and/or “God’s Plan” which I think is the general point being made. But it’s just a little distracting.
evolution is blind because all of it is an accident. life forms that survive long enough to make more life forms get their genes to live on. any life form that doesn’t, well, doesn’t. better survivability because of an error in copying genes? more offspring. worse survivability? less offspring
there is no intention to evolution, it’s simply a consequence of the fact that some primitive life forms at some point felt a desire to copy their genes and the process of doing so is imperfect. That desire, probably a product of random copying itself, is what made all living things today
On what basis comes the conclusion that there is no architect behind it?
Do students in elementary school understand why they have all the subjects? Do students in secondary school understand yet, that if they want to pursue higher education as an engineer they need good math and physics? Do students who prefer the humanities yet understand the focus of studies such as sociology vs. anthropology vs. ethnology? Does me as an engineer not understanding why i had to learn how to analyze poems in grade 7-10 invalidate the necessity of that education for someone who later studied linguistics and literature?
Us not being able to comprehend an architecture does not mean it is not there. In the same way, before there were microscopes bacteria still existed, even though many early proponents of there being small life forms that would cause diseases were ridiculed.
Opposing religion is not scientific. Any good scientist understands the limits of his knowledge. Opposing religion is a matter of faith just as embracing religion is a matter of faith.
On what basis comes the conclusion that there is no architect behind it?
That’s a great point - if there are divine beings, they wouldn’t necessarily build the universe using a bunch of elves or something – better to spark a Big Bang with the right starting conditions and let everything develop from there. I think it’s more correct to say that evolution and modern physical cosmology provide an explanation of how and why the universe exists without necessarily needing divine intervention.
Well, it’s debatable but I think it comes down to defining your terms.
Either perspective agrees that there is no “Grand Architect” and/or “God’s Plan” which I think is the general point being made. But it’s just a little distracting.
evolution is blind because all of it is an accident. life forms that survive long enough to make more life forms get their genes to live on. any life form that doesn’t, well, doesn’t. better survivability because of an error in copying genes? more offspring. worse survivability? less offspring
there is no intention to evolution, it’s simply a consequence of the fact that some primitive life forms at some point felt a desire to copy their genes and the process of doing so is imperfect. That desire, probably a product of random copying itself, is what made all living things today
On what basis comes the conclusion that there is no architect behind it?
Do students in elementary school understand why they have all the subjects? Do students in secondary school understand yet, that if they want to pursue higher education as an engineer they need good math and physics? Do students who prefer the humanities yet understand the focus of studies such as sociology vs. anthropology vs. ethnology? Does me as an engineer not understanding why i had to learn how to analyze poems in grade 7-10 invalidate the necessity of that education for someone who later studied linguistics and literature?
Us not being able to comprehend an architecture does not mean it is not there. In the same way, before there were microscopes bacteria still existed, even though many early proponents of there being small life forms that would cause diseases were ridiculed.
Opposing religion is not scientific. Any good scientist understands the limits of his knowledge. Opposing religion is a matter of faith just as embracing religion is a matter of faith.
That’s a great point - if there are divine beings, they wouldn’t necessarily build the universe using a bunch of elves or something – better to spark a Big Bang with the right starting conditions and let everything develop from there. I think it’s more correct to say that evolution and modern physical cosmology provide an explanation of how and why the universe exists without necessarily needing divine intervention.