Some great points in that speech. One of the things I have heard along the way is that there is no such thing as chance or randomness. “Chance” is simply a name for a law not yet recognized. So far, that seems accurate to me.
Take the classic example of “randomness,” the coin flip. It’s 50/50, right? Well, from guessing at a level of perception, sure. But, if you knew the starting position and how many times the coin flips, you could “predict” the outcome, with 99.99% accuracy (I’d say 100%, but there always seems to be something else we don’t know). Most people don’t even look at which side is up to start. But illusionists use this, and an even number of flips (zero) to be able to be near 100% accuracy-
A Rubiks cube is another great example. We think it’s “solved” when all sides are the same color, and “scrambled” in any other combination. But in truth, every other combination is simply differently ordered. This is how Steven Brundage, the Rubik’s Cube magician, can do some of his illusions. I’m sure he’s figured out certain “scrambles” that he knows as well as most people know the solved state. If they take 9 specific move to get from “solved” to that “scramble,” you can simply reverse those moves from that scramble to get back to solved. The cube is never random. It’s simply in a different order.
Funny thing, if there is no “randomness,” that means that atheist arguments like those proposed by Richard Dawkins, are flawed at their very foundation. He argues that Natural Selection disproves any sort of Creator or god, as mutations happen out of “randomness.” But, using the above definition, that simply means that “random” mutations are just mutations that happen according to some law that man hasn’t figured out yet, even to the degree that Natural Selection is accurate. This, of course, shatters the very foundation of his argument, rendering it null. I think there are other things that he overlooked as well (like, why does any certain DNA combination create a different living thing, if there weren’t a creator to set up such rules in the first place), but destroying the very foundation of his argument pretty much means he would need to go back to the drawing board to draw a better argument (if even possible) anyway.
Author
