Is Suffering Part of God's Plan?

[FIND]

At least she's honest about it unlike Obama.

No offense, but expecting honesty out of an American politician..... You would have better chance of waiting until you fart rainbows so you can collect pots of gold.....

That is a refreshing story however. I get really tired of hearing politicians go on and on about their religious affiliation just for the sake of votes.

 

[shagdrum]

Faith aside.... Proving you came back from the afterlife seems like an INCREDIBLY difficult proposition to me.

People come back from the dead every day on this planet. My grandfather died and had his heart restarted a few times before passing away at a later date.

There have been numerous accounts of an afterlife experience by these people, including Don Piper's 90 Minutes In Heaven. Verifying weather or not they truly experienced the afterlife is almost impossible to do; in large part because an afterlife is not, by it's very nature, something that can be empirically verified.

It just sounds to me like you are making a very heavy handed and broad claim that really doesn't seem justifiable to me.[/QUOTE]

What claim is that? Atheism being rooted in faith?

 

[FIND]

People come back from the dead every day on this planet. My grandfather died and had his heart restarted a few times before passing away at a later date.

I will not dispute this point. The problem is whether or not they actually experience anything.

There have been numerous accounts of an afterlife experience by these people, including Don Piper's 90 Minutes In Heaven. Verifying weather or not they truly experienced the afterlife is almost impossible to do; in large part because an afterlife is not, by it's very nature, something that can be empirically verified.

As I sad before, therein lies the problem....

What claim is that? Atheism being rooted in faith?

Yeah. I wanted to hear your reasoning on this.

 

[shagdrum]

Yeah. I wanted to hear your reasoning on this.

Basically, materialism.

Atheism assumes materialism on faith. From that point everything else in the Atheist viewpoint falls logically into place. Most any viewpoint of this nature is going to have some sort of premises that are treated as axiomatic and taken, ultimately, on faith. Agnosticism, however, would be an exception to that.

Start at around post #43 of this thread, it starts getting in depth on the materialist stuff around post #79.

If the solar system was brought about by an accidental collision, then the appearance of organic life on this planet was also an accident, and the whole evolution of Man was an accident too. If so, then all our present thoughts are mere accidents—the accidental by-product of the movement of atoms. And this holds for the thoughts of the materialists and astronomers as well as for anyone else’s. But if their thoughts—i.e. of materialism and astronomy—are merely accidental by-products, why should we believe them to be true? I see no reason for believing that one accident should be able to give me a correct account of all the other accidents. It’s like expecting that the accidental shape taken by the splash when you upset a milkjug should give you a correct account of how the jug was made and why it was upset.
-C.S. Lewis

 

[FIND]

Basically, materialism.

Atheism assumes materialism on faith. From that point everything else in the Atheist viewpoint falls logically into place. Most any viewpoint of this nature is going to have some sort of premises that are treated as axiomatic and taken, ultimately, on faith. Agnosticism, however, would be an exception to that.

Start at around post #43 of this thread, it starts getting in depth on the materialist stuff around post #79.

If the solar system was brought about by an accidental collision, then the appearance of organic life on this planet was also an accident, and the whole evolution of Man was an accident too. If so, then all our present thoughts are mere accidents—the accidental by-product of the movement of atoms. And this holds for the thoughts of the materialists and astronomers as well as for anyone else’s. But if their thoughts—i.e. of materialism and astronomy—are merely accidental by-products, why should we believe them to be true? I see no reason for believing that one accident should be able to give me a correct account of all the other accidents. It’s like expecting that the accidental shape taken by the splash when you upset a milkjug should give you a correct account of how the jug was made and why it was upset.
-C.S. Lewis

I will make a concession:

Science does not define creation or anything else as an accident, and speaking on a universal scale, the creation of intelligent life is not only possible but probable. Therefore creation from an atheist's point of view is no accident, but a near certainty. I mean, we could get into discussions over physics, string theory, quantum mechanics, and the like, but that would be off topic and irrelevant under the following circumstances.

The concession I will make is that one must have faith that the evidence science cites is accurate, and that there was no supreme being or god that influenced creation in such a way as to appear to be a natural phenomenon with a scientific explanation.

I will further concede, that in the past, atheism required greater faith as there was less "proof" available to the scientific community.

 

[shagdrum]

I will make a concession:

Science does not define creation or anything else as an accident, and speaking on a universal scale, the creation of intelligent life is not only possible but probable. Therefore creation from an atheist's point of view is no accident, but a near certainty. I mean, we could get into discussions over physics, string theory, quantum mechanics, and the like, but that would be off topic and irrelevant under the following circumstances.

The concession I will make is that one must have faith that the evidence science cites is accurate, and that there was no supreme being or god that influenced creation in such a way as to appear to be a natural phenomenon with a scientific explanation.

I will further concede, that in the past, atheism required greater faith as there was less "proof" available to the scientific community.

Substitute "random" for "accident" in that quote and it might make more sense.

We have had this discussion before. As you said, there really is no reason to get into it.

Are you conceding that Atheism takes materialism on faith?

What is your justification for your claim that, "creation from an atheist's point of view is no accident, but a near certainty"?

 

[KD00LS]

But I believed it was water before I knew what hydrogen and oxygen were; when I was a kid.

I don't see accepting the explanation as a leap of faith in and of itself. I think that may be what you are doing (not sure though). If I am wrong, I apologize.

To run with the Athiest position, here is where I see the leap of faith:
1) Assume materialism (leap of faith)
2) A deity would have to transcend the physical (material) world and metaphysical world.
3) since materialism is true, no metaphysical world can exist.
THEREFORE
4) There can be no deity

Now, where do you see a second leap of faith? I assume you see the rationale differently, I am just unclear how you see it and where the extra leap(s) of faith come in.

I think I'm confusing myself (and you too to my dismay). When you assume materialism, that's the first leap of faith. I was trying to describe it in ways of 'creation' and meaning of the universe.

2,3, and 4 all depend on a certain level of faith as well. By our logic, these things would have to be, but we don't contain all knowledge of the universe, and therefore our logic is flawed. I think I'm over exaggerating the level of the leap, but it's still a leap in my eye regardless. I think we'd have to have knowledge of what the metaphysical world would be before we can make such claims.

So maybe defining it as top(God) down(religion), or bottom up, has it's problems as people see it from different ways, but it is essentially the same thing.


1 + 1= 2
We must assume that 1 is actually equal to what we perceive it to be. Then, we can assume that 1 + 1 does equal 2. Assuming that 1 is actually what it should be, is a leap of faith, regardless how small. Saying that 1 + 1 = 2, is another and stronger leap of faith. For a wild example, say we accidentally had switched the symbol 1 for another, like 8. Then the real equation would be 8 + 8= 2. We had faith that 1 was the correct symbol, then had faith that 1 +1 had really equaled 2.

We have to believe that the components are true before we can believe the solution. There must be a reason for a belief in a God, and if it turns out that one's evidence is wrong, then their conclusion is wrong, therefore 2 leaps of faith are wrong (one for evidence, one for conclusion). The problem with logic structures such as that is they don't compensate for anything other than themselves. One can use evidence to prove (in their own mind) just about anything. Your conclusion is also a leap of faith.

ex.

If our conception of "1" is wrong, then our conclusion that 1 + 1 = 2 is also wrong. Which leap of faith is bigger is hard to say, and is based on the situation. I'm spinning in circles I feel.

 

[FIND]

Substitute "random" for "accident" in that quote and it might make more sense.

Are you conceding that Atheism takes materialism on faith?

What is your justification for your claim that, "creation from an atheist's point of view is no accident, but a near certainty"?

Science would also avoid the use of the term random, as these things are only random from a layman's point of view without fully applying scientific theory and studying the events in depth.

For the sake of argument, I'll let you have this one, they are taking materialism on faith in a way. But only in the way that they must have faith that scientific theory accurately reflects the evidence given, and that that evidence was not the creation of a higher power, which is entirely possible. I mean, for all I know, God could have created everything and just made it look like a naturally occurring phenomenon.

Creation being a near certainty..... well that would be a REALLY long REALLY technical discussion of physics. Honestly, it would take you less time to watch every episode of Cosmos with Carl Sagan or something of that nature... I was merely stating that given the accepted theories and findings of physics, creation, as it were, is an almost certain event under the circumstances that existed. But, do you really want to discuss things like astrophysics, abiogenesis and the Drake equation?

FWIW, in case there is any misunderstanding. I was not asking for explanation as to why you believed there was faith needed. I had originally read your statement as saying that atheists do not address materialism.

 

[shagdrum]

Science would also avoid the use of the term random, as these things are only random from a layman's point of view without fully applying scientific theory and studying the events in depth.

Darwinian evolution is rooted in the idea of random mutations.

For the sake of argument, I'll let you have this one, they are taking materialism on faith in a way. But only in the way that they must have faith that scientific theory accurately reflects the evidence given, and that that evidence was not the creation of a higher power, which is entirely possible. I mean, for all I know, God could have created everything and just made it look like a naturally occurring phenomenon.

I think you may be confusing materialism with methodological naturalism.

Where is the "faith" is the scientific theory accurately the empirical evidence? If the empirical evidence doesn't logically support the theory then the theory is wrong. The theory is not taken on faith, it is the hypothesis to be tested. I don't see where faith comes in.

The one exception would be Darwinism which, when it assumes methodological naturalism, assumes the premise that is supposed to be tested. So all the empirical evidence proves the hypothesis because the hypothesis is already assumed, a priori, to be true; circular reasoning.

Materialism is not methodological naturalism (though MN is derived from materialism).

Creation being a near certainty..... well that would be a REALLY long REALLY technical discussion of physics.

Here is my problem with what you say; Darwinian evolution rejects creation. Considering that Darwinism is the reigning scientific paradigm in this area, your statement is counter intuitive.

I had originally read your statement as saying that atheists do not address materialism.

Most that I have encountered haven't. In fact, most Atheists I have encountered don't even understand what it is and refuse to even attempt to understand it let alone confront it.

 

[FIND]

Darwinian evolution is rooted in the idea of random mutations.

No. That is a gross misrepresentation. Darwinian evolution is rooted in the idea of natural selection. There is nothing random about it. Animals develop traits that help them cope with their environment. These traits eventually become more developed and more dominant among a species.

Here is my problem with what you say; Darwinian evolution rejects creation. Considering that Darwinism is the reigning scientific paradigm in this area, your statement is counter intuitive.

..... I meant the creation of the universe, not creationism. I meant the creation and following evolution of the universe, galaxies, planetary systems, planets, and life were all inevitable. Straw man?

Most that I have encountered haven't. In fact, most Atheists I have encountered don't even understand what it is and refuse to even attempt to understand it let alone confront it.

Somehow.... I doubt that.

As for the part I cut out. I am not arguing that with you since you don't seem to understand what you are talking about. You certainly don't understand Darwinism, or at the very least, you are only willing to take a creationist view on Darwinism that will ignore or distort the evidence to skew the results in your favor.

 

[shagdrum]

No. That is a gross misrepresentation. Darwinian evolution is rooted in the idea of natural selection. There is nothing random about it. Animals develop traits that help them cope with their environment. These traits eventually become more developed and more dominant among a species.

Natural selection relies on random mutations that lead to biological advantages.

..... I meant the creation of the universe, not creationism. I meant the creation and following evolution of the universe, galaxies, planetary systems, planets, and life were all inevitable. Straw man?

Interesting how you are so quick to label something a straw man when it was clearly a simple misunderstanding...

Somehow.... I doubt that.

It is hard to believe that a man is telling the truth when you know that you would lie if you were in his place
-H. L. Mencken

As for the part I cut out. I am not arguing that with you since you don't seem to understand what you are talking about.

Projection: The attribution of one's own attitudes, feelings, or desires to someone or something as a naive or unconscious defense against anxiety or guilt.

 

[FIND]

Natural selection relies on random mutations that lead to biological advantages.

No it does not. These mutations are not random whatsoever. They are influenced by their environment. Do you know anything about evolution not taught in church?

Interesting how you are so quick to label something a straw man when it was clearly a simple misunderstanding...

Very well, I apologize. Though you note, I was asking if that was a straw man.

It is hard to believe that a man is telling the truth when you know that you would lie if you were in his place
-H. L. Mencken

Projection: The attribution of one's own attitudes, feelings, or desires to someone or something as a naive or unconscious defense against anxiety or guilt.

Now you are projecting....

 

[foxpaws]

I think that mutations are random, as shag states. Whether a mutation happens or not is generally unrelated to how useful that mutation would be. It is the 'natural selection' part that is judge and jury on the success of the mutation. I know there is something that indicates the environment (natural selection) could speed up the mutations, but not the direction of the mutation. There could be a larger 'variety' to chose from, but that doesn't equate to quality of mutation.

If we live in a toxic waste dump - there could be lots of mutations - but that wouldn't mean that they are 'good' mutations, or that 'good' mutations would occur at a greater rate.

 

[FIND]

I think that mutations are random, as shag states. Whether a mutation happens or not is generally unrelated to how useful that mutation would be. It is the 'natural selection' part that is judge and jury on the success of the mutation. I know there is something that indicates the environment (natural selection) could speed up the mutations, but not the direction of the mutation. There could be a larger 'variety' to chose from, but that doesn't equate to quality of mutation.

If we live in a toxic waste dump - there could be lots of mutations - but that wouldn't mean that they are 'good' mutations, or that 'good' mutations would occur at a greater rate.

There can be random mutations, however this is not the basis for Darwinian evolution. Seemingly random mutations occurring at seemingly random times or among seemingly random members of the community are different from random mutation. I know it is semantics, but it is important, since the very ideas are different.

 

[foxpaws]

So, FIND, maybe you can walk me through this...

Darwin stated that evolution occurred because of two steps - variation and natural selection - correct? And variation is the 'random mutation' part - right?

If it isn't random - then it is directed.

How would our DNA 'know' how to mutate? What would key the 'optimal mutation' in something like our genes?

That leads to Intelligent Design I think...

 

[cammerfe]

'...and if it turns out that one's evidence is wrong, then their conclusion is wrong...'

Not necessarily. Explore C.S. Lewis's example of the 'horrid red things' and you'll see that it is not, of any necessity, true. It may be irretrievably inaccurate.
KS

 

[shagdrum]

Find, it is very simple. As Foxy laid out; if it is not directed, it is random. Being "influenced by the environment" doesn't change that. Some of those random mutations die out, and some, which provide an advantage of some sort, are passed to later generations. "Random" is being very specifically used as being opposed to directed/designed.

There can be random mutations, however this is not the basis for Darwinian evolution. Seemingly random mutations occurring at seemingly random times or among seemingly random members of the community are different from random mutation. I know it is semantics, but it is important, since the very ideas are different.

Then what is the basis of Darwinian evolution?

Darwin said that, "natural selection means only the preservation of variations which independently arise."

Random mutations occur and some provide an advantage which are, through natural selection, passed on to later generations; adaptation (or evolution in one sense).

Those adaptations keep occurring and, eventually, result in the creation of a new species; speciation (evolution in the Darwinian sense).

Now, where am I wrong here?

 

[shagdrum]

I think I'm confusing myself (and you too to my dismay). When you assume materialism, that's the first leap of faith. I was trying to describe it in ways of 'creation' and meaning of the universe.

You answer questions and raise new ones.

2,3, and 4 all depend on a certain level of faith as well. By our logic, these things would have to be, but we don't contain all knowledge of the universe, and therefore our logic is flawed. I think I'm over exaggerating the level of the leap, but it's still a leap in my eye regardless. I think we'd have to have knowledge of what the metaphysical world would be before we can make such claims.

Ok, this is starting to make sense. I don't see it necessarily as a separate leap of faith, but simply a logical consequence of that first leap of faith.

I think that is where our difference is.

Why do you see it as a separate leap of faith?

1 + 1= 2
We must assume that 1 is actually equal to what we perceive it to be. Then, we can assume that 1 + 1 does equal 2. Assuming that 1 is actually what it should be, is a leap of faith, regardless how small. Saying that 1 + 1 = 2, is another and stronger leap of faith. For a wild example, say we accidentally had switched the symbol 1 for another, like 8. Then the real equation would be 8 + 8= 2. We had faith that 1 was the correct symbol, then had faith that 1 +1 had really equaled 2.

I think it might help if you could give some indication of where (and why) you see a distinction between a logical consequence of one leap of faith and a separate leap of faith.

 

[FIND]

Find, it is very simple. As Foxy laid out; if it is not directed, it is random. Being "influenced by the environment" doesn't change that. Some of those random mutations die out, and some, which provide an advantage of some sort, are passed to later generations. "Random" is being very specifically used as being opposed to directed/designed.



Then what is the basis of Darwinian evolution?

Darwin said that, "natural selection means only the preservation of variations which independently arise."

Random mutations occur and some provide an advantage which are, through natural selection, passed on to later generations; adaptation (or evolution in one sense).

Those adaptations keep occurring and, eventually, result in the creation of a new species; speciation (evolution in the Darwinian sense).

Now, where am I wrong here?

Adaptation is not a random occurrence. Variations independently arising in no way infers random. Sometimes, random mutation occurs, however natural selection is rooted in the idea of survival of the fittest. Therefore the one who has adapted the best to the environment survives. Natural selection is not a random process. Adaptation and evolution per Darwin is based primarily on development and strengthening of traits that increase survivability in an environment. They may appear random at times, or appear in seemingly random members of a community, however this is only a process in which one with a natural disposition towards a trait is strongest, which is difficult at best to determine, outside of genetic mapping.

For instance. When a child is born with down syndrome, this is because the parent carries that gene, even if it is dormant or not dominant in themselves. When two people with down syndrome reproduce, there is an even greater likelihood of that gene becoming dominant. How is this random? Apes lose much of their hair and begin walking upright so that they can better survive on sparse savanna instead of dense jungle environments where they needed the hair as protection for their skin against the foliage and hands and feet suited for climbing. Instead these apes now have legs made for running upright over vast empty areas, meaning they use fewer muscles for propulsion, meaning they use fewer calories to run and can run greater distances faster since they only need to supply additional oxygen to a couple muscle groups instead of the whole body. The hands stay much the same only changing slightly in proportion to reflect the differing use. They lose their hair so they can easier perspire and cool down in this environment where they do not have the shade of the trees. Being monkeys, they are smarter than most mammals, but living in the dangerous environment they are in now, where they have to avoid the largest predators constantly and predators that can move far more quickly across great distances, who are built for the quick viscous attacks that are possible in this environment, the ones who cannot think of ways to overcome these predators are killed first. Therefore only the most intelligent and the ones most suited to the environment are able to reproduce. Eventually as these monkeys spread into harsher environments they need to find more and more ways to cope. The paler skinned monkeys become more survivable in cold climates, the dumbest monkeys continue to die in these unforgiving environments. Eventually, you have man. How is this a random process? Honestly, the genes are still there for us to grow thick hair over our whole body. This is where these types of genetic mutations come from. You don't see people being born with gills, because we lack the genetic code for it, or it is at least regressed to such a degree it cannot effect humans.

To state that natural selection is a random process is nothing near what Darwin proposes. Natural selection is a process of survival of the fittest. The fittest are able to develop traits that are useful in an environment. As they pass on the traits, they become more and more dominant, and the unused traits become more and more dormant.

 

[KD00LS]

Not necessarily. Explore C.S. Lewis's example of the 'horrid red things' and you'll see that it is not, of any necessity, true. It may be irretrievably inaccurate.
KS

Yes, you are right. I really confused myself with that argument somehow haha. The conclusion could be correct, but for the wrong reason. Socrates' knowledge vs. true belief sorta thing.

 

[KD00LS]

Ok, this is starting to make sense. I don't see it necessarily as a separate leap of faith, but simply a logical consequence of that first leap of faith.

I think that is where our difference is.

Why do you see it as a separate leap of faith?



I think it might help if you could give some indication of where (and why) you see a distinction between a logical consequence of one leap of faith and a separate leap of faith.

I see what you mean. This is getting tricky. I guess it has to do with the validity of 'knowledge' that we have. We 'knew', or believed, that the world was flat hundreds of years ago. From this, we can logically deduct that we'd fall off it if we sailed around the world. The problem is, using a logical deduction, this isn't the only case. Invisible barriers, going under the world to the other side of the plane, etc. It takes another leap of faith to believe in your own conclusion of what would have happened. I see your point about it being merely a consequence, but the problem is that it is so black and white, and I don't think you can account for the world with a simple logical deduction.


Think of the different sects of religion-Catholic, yada yada. They may all believe in Bible, but have their own (and even sometimes individual) interpretation of God that they have faith is correct.

Essentially, we gather information which we believe to be true (first leap), then use it to make our own interpretation (second leap).

 

[shagdrum]

I see what you mean. This is getting tricky. I guess it has to do with the validity of 'knowledge' that we have. We 'knew', or believed, that the world was flat hundreds of years ago. From this, we can logically deduct that we'd fall off it if we sailed around the world. The problem is, using a logical deduction, this isn't the only case. Invisible barriers, going under the world to the other side of the plane, etc. It takes another leap of faith to believe in your own conclusion of what would have happened. I see your point about it being merely a consequence, but the problem is that it is so black and white, and I don't think you can account for the world with a simple logical deduction.


Think of the different sects of religion-Catholic, yada yada. They may all believe in Bible, but have their own (and even sometimes individual) interpretation of God that they have faith is correct.

Essentially, we gather information which we believe to be true (first leap), then use it to make our own interpretation (second leap).

I think our differences lie in our understanding of what faith is and is not.

I run with essentially, this definition of faith; Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence.

So, the way I look at it, faith is simply anything that is not deducted from logical proof or inferred from material evidence. Assuming materialism (in the case of Atheism) or assuming the existence of a deity (in the case of Theism) would fit that description.

From that point other leaps of faith may follow (especially among the various denominations and different religious sects), but any conclusion that is simply a logical consequence of that initial leap of faith (and possibly other material evidence and/or logical proof) would not classify as a second leap of faith.

Logical proofs and/or material evidence may lead to different conclusions from that initial leap, but that doesn't mean the conclusion is necessarily leap of faith in and of itself. It all depends on the rationale behind the conclusion.

The validity of knowledge is a very interesting point in this. Empirical confirmation is one thing, but logical deduction is generally considered less certain or, more accurately, less verifiable. As knowledge gets less and less verifiable when does it start to become more faith or does it even qualify as faith?

I take it you are saying that at some point, that knowledge becomes more rooted in faith? That is an interesting way of looking at it; a spectrum between unquestionably verifiable knowledge and knowledge rooted in faith. You've given me something to think about. Thanks!

 

[KD00LS]

I think our differences lie in our understanding of what faith is and is not.

I run with essentially, this definition of faith; Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence.

So, the way I look at it, faith is simply anything that is not deducted from logical proof or inferred from material evidence. Assuming materialism (in the case of Atheism) or assuming the existence of a deity (in the case of Theism) would fit that description.

From that point other leaps of faith may follow (especially among the various denominations and different religious sects), but any conclusion that is simply a logical consequence of that initial leap of faith (and possibly other material evidence and/or logical proof) would not classify as a second leap of faith.

Logical proofs and/or material evidence may lead to different conclusions from that initial leap, but that doesn't mean the conclusion is necessarily leap of faith in and of itself. It all depends on the rationale behind the conclusion.

The validity of knowledge is a very interesting point in this. Empirical confirmation is one thing, but logical deduction is generally considered less certain or, more accurately, less verifiable. As knowledge gets less and less verifiable when does it start to become more faith or does it even qualify as faith?

I take it you are saying that at some point, that knowledge becomes more rooted in faith? That is an interesting way of looking at it; a spectrum between unquestionably verifiable knowledge and knowledge rooted in faith. You've given me something to think about. Thanks!

It's hard to have a discussion in things we can't prove. So your saying faith itself is almost supernatural (or just natural), like a muse or inspiration? Something intangible and inexplainable? If so, I can see where our views of it differ. I'm basically substituting believing something with leap of faith.

 

[KD00LS]

Logical proofs and/or material evidence may lead to different conclusions from that initial leap, but that doesn't mean the conclusion is necessarily leap of faith in and of itself. It all depends on the rationale behind the conclusion.

I think I see what you mean here. I'm basically substituting leap of faith with assuming/believing, which you see faith as a different entity.

 

[foxpaws]

Adaptation is not a random occurrence. Variations independently arising in no way infers random. Sometimes, random mutation occurs, however natural selection is rooted in the idea of survival of the fittest. Therefore the one who has adapted the best to the environment survives. Natural selection is not a random process. Adaptation and evolution per Darwin is based primarily on development and strengthening of traits that increase survivability in an environment. They may appear random at times, or appear in seemingly random members of a community, however this is only a process in which one with a natural disposition towards a trait is strongest, which is difficult at best to determine, outside of genetic mapping.
<snip>
To state that natural selection is a random process is nothing near what Darwin proposes. Natural selection is a process of survival of the fittest. The fittest are able to develop traits that are useful in an environment. As they pass on the traits, they become more and more dominant, and the unused traits become more and more dormant.

Natural selection isn't random at all - it is very specific - the 'best' survive.

However, isn't the way that natural selection gets 'choices' is through random mutation? The DNA doesn't just go - "bing, we need to create less melanoma now that we are living further north". It is just that some people randomly have lighter skin - and those then get chosen through natural selection (not randomly) to be the ones that will survive and then pass down the lighter skin gene. The ones with darker skin aren't mating, and therefore their genes become a dead end.

I really thought that this is how this works. Otherwise - how do the genes get that 'input' that tells them a certain trait is needed? I still think that pretty much is a direction that ID followers want you to take - that somehow the genes are directed to alter or mutate.