A DIALOG: RANDOMNESS, REASON AND EVOLUTION

For those readers who are interested in the subject, this is another sequel to the essay I had written, The Quandary of Intelligent Design, wherein one of my readers takes issue with the point of view I expressed.

Randomness

FR:

"The theory of evolution is not a random way of the formation and development of life, it is a statistically very sophisticated and complex development of life according to the rules of the Universe."

"What [is termed] 'random events' is actually part of the plan of the universe, they follow certain rules, call it perhaps laws of physics, and the end result of all these "random" events can actually be a quite determined state of affairs. This holds when there are a very, very large number of random events, basically uncountable to a layman, and only partly grasped by scientists who study such things - in my case statistical mechanics. Suppose one could repeat the same conditions, for instance another earth with nearly identical conditions of formation. It would cool slightly differently, the currents of the earth and all would be a bit different. But continents would have formed, life would have arisen, and it would have developed into something quite similar to what we have now, and in about the same time frame. Much would depend on when and how big were the meteorites that hit the earth, as life was developing, how the continents formed, drifted around and broke up, how the volcanoes formed and all. These would be different in the details, but the general end result would be quite similar to what we presently have."

"A very simple example is the statistical mechanics of gases. These are just molecules bouncing around, sort of like billiard balls. What we see are the pressure, temperature and other macroscopic properties. These follow quite well defined rules, almost but not quite called laws. However, they are only statistical, and could be quite different in some extraordinary case. But such a case is so extraordinary as to have a totally negligible chance of being realized in the life of the universe. Now that is a very simplified case, and there are all sorts of in-between examples."

LJY:

The concept of randomness is a very interesting one. It doesn't need to imply chaos, as some might view it. For example, the outcome of a coin flip being either heads or tails is properly a random occurrence. But the statistical outcome is invariably 50/50 when the coin is flipped enough times, as you had mentioned. Random occurrences actually follow a rule, or law, under certain circumstances, but one wonders why there even is such a rule. While it may seem perfectly reasonable that the coin flip is constrained by its numerical probabilities, that is one of two, there would be no reason to think that in a truly random or chaotic universe the coin should come up 50% of the time heads, and 50% of the times tails. In a truly random universe, there would be no rules, not even statistical ones. The only way I could see where the physical laws of the universe might cohabit in a truly random universe is where these laws are merely reflective of the way man thinks, assuming these are universally applicable; that is, our minds create the order we see in the universe, though this view has its obvious problems, also. Otherwise, these laws can neither be descriptive, nor immanent and certainly not imposed if true randomness were the rule. I accept your analysis, then, if this means that randomness exists as isolated states within an ordered structure, though I could easily conceive of ordered states in a random structure as well, where the physical laws are applicable only to those ordered states. But that is another subject.

Since it is now doubtful that random mutations and natural selection alone are a powerful enough force to drive evolution, you seem to imply, then, that the origin of life would have had a high statistical probability of happening, so much so that it can be conceived of as having been determined. If so, then who or what is the source of this determination? Your support for the idea that random events are directed, or determined, towards particular outcomes by the laws of the physical universe takes a lot for granted, of course, as you accept that the universe has direction and purpose, but want to avoid attributing this to anything that might have consciousness. There would be no "blind watchmaker" in this universe, just a brain-dead one. There is, still, only a nuance of difference when one speaks of "the plan of the universe" or "the plan of God", and that nuance is consciousness.

Natural and Rational

FR:

"Scientists, in general, support evolutionary theory. And consider it scientific. For the scientific worldview (I believe) rejects the notion of what would crudely be called 'magic'. And specifically, that there is a creator who interferes in the processes in our lives, in this world, in the universe, make decisions or something, as it wishes. Scientific discipline is based on repeatable observations, with the same or similar results, which anyone can carry out, and all come to the same observations. There may be a diversity of deductions from the observations, much discussion in the literature, and meetings, and directly, and, in many cases, over a period of time some sort of consensus will be obtained. But not always, if the basic evidence is ambiguous, or incomplete, then there will be different theories."

"So for evolution what would you have? If your world view encompasses a 'directing hand', then I would posit this is not scientific, but religious. If your world view takes the things in the world as 'natural', and capable of being understood and explained (though we may not begin to approach that level yet, for many things), then that is 'scientific' I suppose, or at least based on rational ideas."

LJY:

Though the following is really another subject for discussion, it is interesting to note that the idea you expressed that, “Scientific discipline is based on repeatable observations, with the same or similar results, which anyone can carry out, and all come to the same observations” is something that has been called into question concerning “nano” phenomena, where it is precisely because this is not the case that physicists are feeling the need to reformulate their theories about the physical universe. The directions they are going are quite astounding.

But pursuing the discussion, your last statement above is loaded with unexamined assumptions and suggests the bias that only explanations which are based on naturalistic principles are rational, and therefore worthy; and those which suppose a "directing hand" are religious, therefore irrational and unworthy. The judgment of what is rational and what is not also presumes an utter knowledge of what is real. There is no one living, I believe, who has that knowledge. Also, you confuse the classifications of worldviews in general with religious, secular and scientific ones and treat them unequally. There is the strong implication that the religious worldview is not valid only because it is not scientific, which is assumed to be the only one that is valid — so there is nothing new here — and presumes that propositions of the nature “God does not exist” are true. But no one, I believe, is in the position to pronounce on the question of God’s existence. The question is still open.

The constraint to seek exclusively naturalistic explanations is built upon the nonchalant assumption that other life or consciousness beyond this world cannot and does not exist, even though there is no compelling necessity for this. Unless someone has a monopoly on the truth and has categorically proven that no superior intelligence exists capable of creating life in the universe, or has demonstrated that he knows unequivocally what “REALITY” is, he will never be dealing realistically with the issue concerning origins. As I had written in the original essay, it is the search for truth that should be one’s major preoccupation, rather than the strict adherence to a dogmatic rule that may well hinder that objective.

Now, there seems to me to be some confusion cultivated as to what science is and is not. I have the impression that it is, when convenient for polemical purposes, either merely a method or otherwise, in a larger sense a philosophy, if not a dogma of sorts, also. I believe, though, that what many people have made it into is a "game". The refusal of some to consider intelligent design because it is against the "rules of the game" poses a serious handicap in the search for truth, especially if we might truly be the product of intelligent design. I'm going to qualify my position, though, because I'm aware that it can be easily misinterpreted.

When I say "intelligent design" I don't mean "creationism" as it is conceived by fundamentalist Christians or a "directing hand" as you put it. I don't believe this is something that should be seriously considered, if only for the reason that no one would have come to these conclusions had there been no Bible. There is an amalgam, however, deliberate or not, of associating these groups who are pushing a very distinct agenda, with the valid idea of intelligent design, which unavoidably has religious overtones certainly — and so what? — but doesn't necessarily need to. Nevertheless, I believe that the hypothesis can prove itself useful, and in fact, has proven useful all along in a certain form even as it concerns science. The support for this view is anecdotal, but illustrative of the point I want to make.

When I first got my computer I was completely lost as to it’s functioning, never having had any instruction in its use. It was the classic "black box". But because I rightfully assumed that it was the product of intelligent design, I formed certain hypotheses as to how it might function based on what I might have done if I were the programmer, or what I imagined a software designer might have done. When I was looking to perform a certain operation I spent the time deliberately and persistently searching for the way to do it, thinking that the system or software designer would have anticipated that need, and was correct in my hypothesis 90% of the time.

If I believed, however, that the computer was the product of random events, I don't think I would have wasted much time looking for the way to perform any particular operation because I would have had no reason to think that any would have existed. To do so would have been irrational, even superstitious. Scientists, it seems, unknowingly or subconsciously proceed from the same underlying assumption that I had; that order and purpose exist in the things around us, that the world is governed by "laws", and that other laws may be discovered. This motivates them to search for these laws, whereas a purposeless, random universe would not justify such a motivation. So while scientists might formally reject "intelligent design" as a hypothesis, they nevertheless proceed as though there is intelligent design, if only because it is so much more realistic to do so. The fact that a scientist as yourself affirms that "'random events' [are] actually part of the plan of the universe" — as though the universe actually has a plan — only bolsters my contention. That this phrase may have been intended only in a figurative sense does not diminish the substance of my assertion, insofar as it is revelatory of the deep-seated assumptions we all carry.

I was also struck by the use of the words "natural" and "rational". There are underlying assumptions here which merit examination. What we call "natural" is, of course, a perception; that is, it simply distinguishes between what we perceive to be man made and not, and to an extent what we are used to. If we were born into a world covered entirely in concrete and asphalt of no human origin, I suppose we would call this natural. It would have no implication of design quality or the lack of it. Design exists in the things man has not made, as well as in the things he has made. Is this design intelligent in the same way that human design is intelligent? Personally, I find it more intelligent. Doesn't it strike you as odd that something that would be the product of random events and without direction, as some affirm, should surpass in design what intelligent beings as ourselves could come up with?

The use of the word "rational" is interesting also. Its usage implies that only that which is explicable is rational; and something is rational only because it is explicable. I suppose one can't argue with the validity of a tautology, but does it mean anything? While evolution provides a rational explanation of how the various living forms have arisen, one has to question the quality of this explanation. Just being rational is not good enough; it has to be consistent with the evidence and what it pretends to explain. This theory fails the most basic requirements of a good explanation, though, when we venture unto macro-evolutionary territory; that is, presenting sufficient evidence, let alone sound evidence, from the natural world and the fossil record, and many respectable evolutionists have admitted as much. That accounts for the invention of "punctuated equilibrium", among others. Your earlier affirmation that the fossil record provides all the evidence we need is simply unfounded.

The War Of The Worldviews

FR:

"There are many, many religions and religious beliefs in the world, but so far only one 'scientific' point of view - only one rational point of view. And that rational point of view does not prevent us from having religious beliefs about the purpose of life, the origin of the universe and all that. None of that is answered, or in any way contradicted, but (sic) the theory of evolution."

LJY:

In this entire discussion, the central point, I believe, continues to elude us. I'm not terribly concerned about what is science and what is religion, what is rational, natural or mythical. I'm concerned about what may be true, and would want to avoid being constrained by any method if it should hinder me towards achieving that goal. One cannot come to a reasonable conviction about what may be true unless one has full access to all pertinent information and ideas.

I wonder, also, how advisable it is to use the word, or concept, of randomness as it concerns evolution when this can lead to so much confusion among the general population, to the point of becoming one of the pillars of a certain worldview. Scientists make themselves accomplices to this hijacking of "randomness" when they remain silent or make little attempt to correct the false impression promoted in much literature that randomness has not just a very specific scientific usage, but is also the correct way that we should view the world. There are those sharing the evolutionary viewpoint, among them scientists, the intentions of whom is to establish a secular worldview absent of any notion of God. Is there even any hint of the idea being taught in schools, in science classrooms, explicitly or implicitly, that God did not create life? The pertinent question, then, is not what should be taught, but what should not be taught. If the idea that God created life has no place in schools, then the idea that God did not create life should have no place, also. If the theory of evolution is presented in such a way that even seems to imply that, then that presentation should be banned.

Whatever the merits of the theory — and I believe there are many, but also serious inconsistencies — it has been enlisted, perhaps improperly, for the secularists' cause. It is being used as an arm to destroy the idea of God. In that sense, evolutionary theory is no longer science. If scientists are conscientiously or unwittingly promoting evolution to advance the secular cause, then their actions become political, and one can legitimately call either their motives or their competence into question. The "purity" of science as it is represented by the theory of evolution would be seriously compromised if it were being used to push a philosophical agenda having for effect political and societal consequences.

So the debate largely surpasses the scientific issue, and touches more importantly upon societal and political ones as well. If science, and evolution in particular, has become embroiled in the larger issue of the truth of life's origins and all that this implies, its troubles have been largely invited because science has ventured onto territory that the discipline is not wholly equipped to handle. If the war of worldviews is taking place in science classrooms today it is because some leading scientists, encouraged by the successes of the scientific method and the exclusive reliance on naturalistic explanations, have gone beyond their competency by formulating and promoting in the classrooms a supposedly irrefutable vision of man's place and destiny in the universe, and have, thus, chosen these as their battlefield.

God And Rationality

Though there may be many religions and religious beliefs in the world as you say, it is debatable, still, whether there is "only one rational point of view". If someone meets God, or even thinks he has, then the point of view resulting from this experience would have to be considered as no less rational. The "rational" is conditioned by one's experiences. If these experiences are fairly widespread throughout a population such that there is a consensus about them, then this becomes the standard of rationality. For religious adherents who have had experiences with the “supernatural”, their behavior and attitudes are perfectly rational given that context. It is illusory to think, however, that there is an absolute standard of rationality “written in stone”, as it were, which can be based on pure reason. This has been attempted before, and has always failed.

The so-called "scientific" point of view does rely on observed events that would be accessible to anyone who might take the time and make the effort to observe them. But still, there is a good deal of faith on the part of the public as it concerns scientific issues. I say that because, realistically, I would have about as much chance of having access to and observing the results of an experiment at CERN, Switzerland, for example, than I would of having God talk to me. In fact, I would probably have a better chance of having God talk to me.

Anyway, the result is that I simply take on faith the word of those who have observed and interpreted the experimental results. But how different is this from someone who takes on faith the word of someone who claims to have spoken with God? In principle, these are similar situations. And while one can point to science and all the real-world effects of its method, how different is that from all the real-world effects achieved by so many people whose lives have been turned around and transformed, because of an alleged encounter with the supernatural? The real-world effects to society of such occurrences cannot be overestimated, especially if these prove beneficial by having a socializing and civilizing effect on people.

Words and Reason

The difficulty with the controversy over evolution is that it eventually and directly touches upon the question of the existence of God. The universe, however, seems to be made in such a way that ambiguity is continually preserved such that the issue will never be resolved. Any evidence for or against God's existence seems always open to equally valid interpretations, such that no one needs to change his mind once it is made up. Every interpretation lends itself to whatever view one might have; one can see what one wants to see. It ultimately comes down to a question of faith.

You will have noticed that I devoted much of my response to the use of words, reasoning processes and the unexamined assumptions so prevalent in discussions of these sorts, rather than taking on the merits of evolution or intelligent design theories, the literature of which is plethoric and needing no rehash. That being, it is my belief that the power of words must be respected and used carefully, because these have the effect of shaping our views and creating realities where none exist, or denying realities where they do exist. What bothers me about the issue of evolution is the language more than the science, such that one gets the impression from the language of evolutionary literature that everything is possible with evolution. It seems to explain just about everything about origins; the origin of life (abiogenesis), of species, of complex development, of behavior, just everything. It is an all-powerful process, an irresistible force, a mechanism that has brought into existence everything we see or can imagine. All we need to do is endow it with consciousness and there you have it: God!
.

For background on the above piece read:
The Quandary Of Intelligent Design
The Quandary Of Intelligent Design II