Anti-Chance (1973)
Cover to anti-chance philosopher Ernest Schoffeniels’s 1973 Anti-Chance: a Reply to Monod’s Chance and Necessity, where he refutes the chance-based views of Jacques Monod and his Chance and Necessity (1970). [6]
In hmolscience, anti-chance, or “non-chance” based, as opposed to chance-based models, refers to the operation of the nature of things in a manner that is independent of chance.

In c.455BC, Empedocles introduced his four element and two force model of things according to which the regular laws of nature govern the behavior of all the components of the world. His model, retrospectively, is deemed to not invoke what chance events. [8] There are, however, usages of the term "τύχης", variously translated as luck, fortune, or chance in some fragments:

“Thus, by the will of “τύχης” (luck, fortune, chance), all things have thought.”
— Empedocles (c.455BC), Fragment I95 / DK103

Latter commentary by Aristotle (Physics 2.8), on Empedocles' theory of the formation of animals, also, supposedly, paint on a chance varnish to Empedocles' theories.

In c.1675, Benedict Spinoza objected to the deeply ingrained Greek atomic theory chance-based models of existence, wherein, previously, ever thing was deemed a result of a "fortuitous concourse of atoms", as follows:

Nothing in nature is by chance. Something appears to be chance only because of our lack of knowledge.”
Benedict Spinoza (c.1675); Publication (Ѻ); cited (Ѻ) by Heinz-Otto Pietgen in Baustein des Chaos (1992)

In c.1705, Isaac Newton, in his “A Short Schematic of the True Religion” (see: Newton on god), stated his reasons for objecting to atheism as follows: [7]

“Opposite to the first is atheism in profession and idolatry in practice. Atheism is so senseless and odious to mankind that it never had many professors. Can it be by ‘accident’ that all birds beasts and men have their right side and left side alike shaped (except in their bowels) and just two eyes and no more on either side the face and just two ears on either side the head and a nose with two holes and no more between the eyes and one mouth under the nose and either two fore legs or two wings or two arms on the shoulders and two legs on the hips one on either side and no more? Whence arises this uniformity in all their outward shapes but from the counsel and contrivance of an author? Whence is it that the eyes of all sorts of living creatures are transparent to the very bottom and the only transparent members in the body, having on the outside a hard-transparent skin, and within transparent juices with a crystalline lens in the middle and a pupil before the Lens all of them so truly shaped and fitted for vision, that no artist can mend them? Did ‘blind chance’ know that there was light and what was its refraction and fit the eyes of all creatures after the most curious manner to make use of it? These and such like considerations always have and ever will prevail with mankind to believe that there is a being who made all things and has all things in his power and who is therefore to be feared.”

In c.1745, Denis Diderot, in his Philosophical Thoughts, juxtaposed chance, god, and nature as the three choices of operation of the universe, as follows:

“We do not know nature at all; causes hidden deep within her may have produced everything. Look in your turn at Trembley’s polyp! Does it not contain inside it the causes of its own regeneration? Why then would it be absurd to believe that there exist physical causes for which everything was made and to which the whole chain of this vast universe is so necessarily linked and subordinated that nothing that happens could not have happened; that it is our absolutely invincible ignorance of these causes that has made us look to a god, who is not even a being of reason, according to some? Thus, destroying chance does not mean proving the existence of a supreme being, for there may be something else which is neither chance nor god; I mean ‘nature’, the study of which can as a result only produce unbelievers, as is proved by the manner of thinking of all its most successful observers.”
Denis Diderot (c.1745), Philosophical Thoughts; cited by Julien la Mettrie (1747) in Man: a Machine (pg. 24)

In 1770, Baron d’Holbach, in his §4: “Of the Laws of Motion common to all the Beings of Nature—of Attraction and Repulsion—of Inert Force—of Necessity”, stated the following very-ripe anti-chance (or non-chance) view of a dust storm and a political revolution: [1]

“Two examples will serve to throw the principle here laid down, into light—one shall be taken from physics, the other from morals. In a whirlwind of dust, raised by elemental force, confused as it appears to our eyes, in the most frightful tempest excited by contrary winds, when the waves roll high as mountains, there is NOT a single particle of dust, or drop of water, that has been placed by ‘chance, that has not a cause for occupying the place where it is found; that does not, in the most rigorous sense of the word, act after the manner in which it ought to act; that is, according to its own peculiar essence, and that of the beings from whom it receives this communicated force. A geometrician exactly knew the different energies acting in each case, with the properties of the particles moved, could demonstrate that after the causes given, each particle acted precisely as it ought to act, and that it could not have acted otherwise than it did.

In those terrible convulsions that sometimes agitate political societies, shake their foundations, and frequently produce the overthrow of an empire; there is not a single action, a single word, a single thought, a single will, a single passion in the agents, whether they act as destroyers, or as victims, that is not the necessary result of the causes operating; that does not act, as, of necessity, it must act, from the peculiar essence of the beings who give the impulse, and that of the agents who receive it, according to the situation these agents fill in the moral whirlwind. This could be evidently proved by an understanding capacitated to rate all the action and re-action, of the minds and bodies of those who contributed to the revolution.”

Here, to clarify, firstly we see Holbach explicitly jettisoning the Greek chance-based version of atomic theory.

In 1771, Goethe, and his college friends (see: Goethe's circle), which eventually included Friedrich Schiller, read Holbach's System of Nature. The view of “non-chance”, in Goethe’s writings, according to Bernhard Kuhn (2013), is captured, in part, throughout his Poetry and Truth, in what he refers to as the “daemonic” (see: Goethe’s daimonic), a type of force like chance, but not chance: (Ѻ)

“I perceived something in nature (whether living or lifeless, animate or inanimate) that manifested itself only in contradictions and therefore could not be expressed in any concept, much less any word. It was not divine, for it seemed irrational; not human, for it had no intelligence; not diabolical, for it was beneficent; and not angelic, for it often betrayed malice. It was like chance, for it laced continuity, and like providence, for it suggested context. Everything that limits us seemed penetrable by it, and it appeared to dispose at will over the elements necessary to our existence, to contract time and expand space. It seemed only to accept the impossible and scornfully to reject the possible.”

In c.1795, Friedrich Schiller, like Goethe, stated his non-chance view of things as follows:

There is no such thing as chance; and what seem to us merest accident springs from the deepest source of destiny.”
Friedrich Schiller (c.1795), (Ѻ)

In 1855, Ludwig Buchner, in his Force and Matter, stated the following:

“What we still designate as ‘chance’, merely depends on a concatenation of circumstances, the internal connection and final causes of which we have as yet been unable to unravel.”
— Ludwig Buchner (1855), Force and Matter (15th ed) (pg. 226) (Ѻ) (see: anti-chance)

In 1926, Albert Einstein, who had read Buchner's Force and Matter at age 13, also a Goethe-Spinoza proselyte, in a letter to German physicist Max Born, about quantum mechanics, commented the following: [4]

Quantum mechanics is certainly imposing. But an inner voice tells me that it is not yet the real thing. The theory says a lot, but does not really bring us any closer to the secret of the "old one." I, at any rate, am convinced that he does not throw dice.”

In 1943, Einstein, in conversation with biographer William Hermann, concerning what is real and exists versus what is but mental constructs, stated the following: [5]

Nature doesn’t know chance, it operates on mathematical principles. As I have said so many times, god doesn’t play dice with the world.”

In 1973, Ernest Schoffeniels (1927-1992), a French physician and “comparative biochemist” (Ѻ), in his Anti-Chance: a Reply to Monod’s Chance and Necessity, refuted the chance-based views of Jacques Monod, as presented in his Chance and Necessity (1970); the following is a representative excerpt: [6]

“When Schrodinger wrote that biological systems feed on negative entropy he meant to say therefore that their existence depends upon a continual increase in the entropy of the environment. This concept has been proposed at a time when bioenergetics being still in its infancy, the reconciliation of the second principle and the biological fact was reached with difficulty. An organism feeds not on negative entropy, but on energy which permits it to maintain its entropy constant and eventually even to decrease. Since the whole process represents an apparent violation of the fundamental rule of the increase in entropy, the overall appearance is of a consumption of a hypothetical negative entropy supplied by the environment. This is toying with words (always this fascination with words!) representing the state of ignorance within which the biologist and the physicist debated at the end of the Second World War. It is thanks to the work of Meyerhof and especially of Lipmann that the notion of coupling has been defined and that finally a little light has been thrown on the subject of transducers characteristic of the biological systems. If we do not know in their finest detail all the phenomena of coupling, we have nevertheless a very satisfactory view of the mechanism leading to the transformation of chemical energy into mechanical work (muscular contraction), light (bioluminescence) and into osmotic work (active transport of ions), etc. Also the transformation of radiant energy of the sun into sugars (photosynthesis) is generally speaking well understood.”

Constructal flow
In 2012, Adrian Bejan, in opposition to the views of Ilya Prigogine (1995), stated his belief that the world and its formation, e.g. trees, lungs, etc., is non-chance based process. [3]
In 1995, Adrian Bejan, while attending an international conference on thermodynamics in Nancy, France, listened to a pre-banquet speech by Ilya Prigogine, who asserted that the various tree-shaped structures in nature, e.g. river basins, river deltas, air passages, or lightning bolts, such as shown below, were aleatoires, i.e. “random” (Ѻ), the results of throwing dice, cosmic coincidences.

In 2012, Bejan, in his atheism-implicit Design in Nature, commented retrospectively on this: [3]

“When [Prigogine] made that statement, something clicked, the penny dropped. I knew that Prigogine, and everyone else, was wrong. They weren’t blind; the similarities among these treelike structures are clear to the naked eye. What they couldn’t see was the scientific principle that governs the design of these diverse phenomena. In a flash, I realized that the world was not formed by random accidents, chance, and fate but that behind the dizzying diversity is a seamless stream of predictable patterns.”


Mean IQ
The mean IQ of anti-chance based philosophers, based on the following 9 thinkers, with established IQ citations, namely: Spinoza (185|#53), Newton (220|#2), Holbach (190|#31), Goethe (225|#1), Schiller (185|#68), Buchner (190|#35), Einstein (215|#3), Lotka (185|#78), and Henderson (180|#104), as of Mar 2018, is: 197|#41.

The following are related quotes:

“Who could be so sottish as to think all those things [e.g. flying mechanism of insects] the productions of ‘chance’?”
Robert Hooke (1665), Micrographia (pgs. 171-72); cited by Stephen Inwood (2002) in The Man Who Knew Too Much (pg. 73)

“The word ‘chance’ expresses only our ignorance of the causes of the phenomena we see happen and succeed each other without any apparent order.”
Pierre Laplace (1782), Publication; cited by Ernest Schoffeniels in Anti-Chance (pg. v)

“We do not know, moreover, that the word ‘chance’ expresses only our ignorance of causes.”
Jean Lamarck (c.1800), Publication; cited by Ernest Schoffeniels in Anti-Chance (pg. v)

“My theology is a simple muddle. I cannot look at the universe as the result of ‘blind chance, yet I can see NO evidence of a beneficent design, or indeed or design of any kind.”
Charles Darwin (1870), “Letter to Joseph Hooker” (Ѻ), Jul 12

Matter and energy have an original property, assuredly not by chance, which organizes the universe in space and time.”
Lawrence Henderson (1913), The Fitness of the Environment [7]

“Problems of evolution are in large measure problems of probabilities, statistical problems. Incidentally, this reflection disposes of the rather foolish objection sometimes raised against the theory of evolution, that it ascribes the course of events in an evolving system to chance. When we describe a phenomenon as being governed by chance, we do not, of course, mean that there are no definite causes (determining factors) at work; we merely state in these terms that the causes are complex and not known to us in detail.”
Alfred Lotka (1925), Elements of Physical Biology (pg. 25)

“I do not feel that I am the product of chance, a speck of dust in the universe.”
Jean-Paul Sartre (1980), deathbed conversation with Pierre Victor

See also
Atheism types by denial and belief

1. d’Holbach, Baron. (1770). The System of Nature: Laws of the Moral and Physical World (notes by Denis Diderot; translator: H.D. Robinson) (pgs. 31-32). J.P. Mendum, 1889.
2. (a) Henderson, Lawrence. (1913). The Fitness of the Environment (quote, pg. 308; matter and energy, 25+ pgs). MacMillan Company.
(b) Parascandola, John. (1992). “L. J. Henderson and the Mutual Dependence of Variables: From Physical Chemistry to Pareto”, in: Science at Harvard University: Historical Perspective (editors: Clark Elliott and Margaret Rossiter) (quote, pg. 174). Lehigh University Press.
Bejan, Adrian and Zane, J. Peder. (2012). Design in Nature: How the Constructal Law Governs Evolution in Biology, Physics, Technology, and Social Organization (theory origin, pgs. 1-3; thermodynamics, 34+ pgs). Doubleday.
4. Einstein, Albert. (1926). “Letter to Max Born”, Dec 4; in: The Born-Einstein Letters (translated by Irene Born) (Walker and Company, New York, 1971).
5. Hermanns, William. (1983). Einstein and the Poet: In Search of the Cosmic Man (pg. 57-58). Branden Books.
6. Schoffeniels, Ernest. (1973). Anti-Chance: a Reply to Monod’s Chance and Necessity (L’Anti-Hasard) (Amz) (pg. 20-21). Pergamon, 1976.
Newton, Isaac. (c.1705). “A Short Schematic of the True Religion” (Ѻ)(Ѻ) , Manuscript.
Empedocles. (435BC). The Poem of Empedocles: a Text and Translation with an Introduction (editor: Brad Inwood) (pg. 67). University of Toronto Press, 1992.
TDics icon ns

More pages