Sidebar

[Actor]

Originally Posted by boxcar

• It cannot be purposeful
  
• without rhyme, reason or purpose
  
• One last point -- and it's not a pleasant one -- to follow this secular line of thinking to its logical (but depressing) conclusion, any life -- including yours and mine -- produced through the random process of evolution then becomes biologically purposeless in and of itself, because evolution [itself] is random, purposeless.[/i]
  
• To be random is to be without guidance.
  
• Evolution has no direction, no aim, no objective, no purpose. Therefore, it is not guided.
  
• And this further implies that to be random is to be blind.
  
• Finally, because "random" lacks any and all purpose, intentionality, direction, aim, objective or guidance, all this further implies that biological life is one huge cosmic accident. You and I and all other living things are accidents with no purpose whatsoever behind our existence. Again, my M-W Collegiate under the synonyms section of the adjective "random" has this to say:
  
• When you stop to ponder all the above implications to "random" evolution, one is led to wonder how in the world could so many evolution books be written in the name of science, and perhaps even more philosophy books written to explain the meaning of life when there could not possibly be any biological or philosophical reasons behind life. Wouldn't a succinct one liner suffice instead:
  
• "Life is nothing more than an accident"? Or "Life is an accident in progress"? Or as Wilson essentially said, "Life just happens"?

You might be starting to get it:

• The universe is under no obligation to make sense to you.
• The universe is under no obligation to be pleasant.
  • And it often is not.

Originally Posted by boxcar

• One of the definitions of "blind" in my mighty fine M-W Collegiate is: lacking a directing or controlling consciousness.
  
• Another definition for "blind" is: made or done without sight of certain objects or knowledge of certain facts that could serve for GUIDANCE.

Which is why scientists use "double blind" tests, where even the scientist do not know who got the real thing and who got the placebo.