Follow-up on Randomness Issues
Mervin, others, thanks for the interaction and clarifying where you stand on some of these issues. I really value the opinions and feedback of those familiar with multiple approaches to some of these issues that relate to my earlier post on randomness. This is a follow-up to our earlier discussion for anyone interested. Hopefully, this will be my last really long post, but no promises ;-o)
So, I would certainly be teleological in my belief/approach. I can’t imagine, however it happened, that creatures a wonder as us and those we see in nature are not part of a Creator’s plan. I can only believe abiogenesis could occur without direct intervention if God planned it to occur that way and front-loaded the inevitability for it (and, no, I don’t mean informational front-loading in the same sense Garvey argues against) into initial conditions either of our universe or multiverse that made one like ours inevitable. Sure, God could have miraculously spontaneously created the first cell or whatever it was. But, front-loading the conditions of the universe/multiverse to make that inevitable is no less miraculous. I think it is far more.
I do believe in an Intelligent Designer and Intelligent Design, per se, along these lines http://www.thegospelandevolution.com/can-an-evolutionist-stand-in-awe-of-gods-design-in-nature-2/ but don’t identify with the ID movement in promoting god-of-the-gaps irreducible complexity arguments, especially about biological evolution because I’m now rather absolutely convinced by the newer molecular evidence of evolution and that God’s action or direct guidance by direct intervention in biological evolution was unnecessary. And we’d have to explain why God didn’t prevent or fix various genetic diseases that appeared in the inheritance trail of DNA in our genomes and the genomes of great apes that go back to a common ancestor long before there was man to be a moral agent. More on that below.
Regarding the new molecular evidence, fellow evangelical Christian and cancer biologist and lecturer, Dr. Graeme Finlay, writes what I think is the definitive book on the definitive evidence that changed my mind about evolution after 34 years as a scientific creationist (initially YEC) in, Human Evolution: Genes, Genealogies and Phylogenies. See my review on Amazon http://amzn.to/170bDdZ .
Again, it is not about what God CAN do but what God DID do. What does the evidence show? And, given the loss of the credibility our witness that has occurred from 6-day and other anti-science approaches by Christians and the fact that our interpretation of scripture is certainly not inerrant, I’d agree with those who say we should place a high premium on sticking to a view that is consistent with modern science while rejecting scientism. Of course, the trick these days, as we can see from this new Cosmos series, is to separate the scientism from the science.
I searched the Jon Garvey’s site http://potiphar.jongarvey.co.uk/ that you cited, Merv, for the term “intervention” and I did read half a dozen of his posts. It made me wish I had unlimited time to weigh in. I did agree with some of his points about this and that, but others not-so-much – so many interesting arguments, so little time.
I’ll just hit some of the key highlights with a few thoughts I think need to be weighed further.
Randomness not really random?
Jon Garvey urged in one of these that, perhaps, “…randomness doesn’t actually exist, even scientifically, but is just a pattern we haven’t seen yet”, and you added that perhaps randomness, “…will forever appear to scientific eyes as chaos and uncertainty” (Merv).
I suppose that is possible but, in addition to running cross-grain with science, I don’t see it as necessary or a good explanation, especially if indeed high intelligence and an advanced civilization can result through the evolutionary processes that allow organisms to adapt to changing environments. There are other considerations that relate to this below.
In a correspondence with fellow ASAer, Thor Ramsland, he noted that billion dollar Las Vegas gambling industry provides evidence not only of the randomness of these games of chance but the reliable predictability of its randomness that allows casinos to take full advantage of their knowledge of the odds wherein they win and where people lose 6 billion a year http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/gamble/etc/facts.html.
Difference between covering His tracks and deliberate deception
Sure, it’s possible that God, desiring to cover His tracks so that He cannot be proved (This much I believe is true, lest, with God proved and our faith sight, we live in a police-state where all HAVE to believe) created a mere semblance of random mutations + natural selection so that He could tweak genes here and there, at least at key junctures in history, to actively guide evolution to specific ends behind-the-scenes in an interventionist sense?
This amounts to creating an appearance of random mutation & natural selection when it is really God’s intervention and action in the world behind the scenes.
But, in my mind, that scenario comes perilously close to the argument that God merely created the world with the appearance of great age, including fossils.
"I believe in a designer, but not a deceptive one" (Kenneth Miller http://youtu.be/dK3O6KYPmEw )
It’s one thing for God to Create in a way so that He cannot be proved, as would be obvious with de novo special Creation, but it would be another thing to deliberately Create the appearance of a sufficient evolutionary process such that we have to wrestle with the issue.
Guiding and intervention by God?
Yet, I once held that behind-the-scene-tweaking-at-key-junctures-to-guide-evolution view for a time after my paradigm shift in 2010 and similarly looked to Asa Grey for support. But, neither Asa Grey nor Darwin, for that matter, had any knowledge of the DNA mechanisms involved in evolution. I just searched the word "random" and it doesn't even occur in Darwin's, "On the Origin of Species", much less “gene” or any knowledge of the mechanism of inheritance.
Perhaps that knowledge would have given Asa Grey a different perspective.
For me, I could no longer believe that God specifically guided evolution when encountering the genetic evidence of an inheritance trail of genetic diseases that go back to our common ancestors with great apes and other primates -- long before any possibility of a historical fall into sin. See especially Slides 17 & 18 of A Story in our Genes by fellow Christian and cancer biologist, Graeme Finlay, e.g.,
- Goucher’s disease (Slide 17)
- Gout (Slide 18)
Other slides are helpful for those unfamiliar with molecular genetics. Note, users of iPhone & iPad will need an app like the Photon Flash Player to play this flash-based format.
If God guided in an interventionist sense, then why didn’t He prevent or fix diseases that occurred before man and before man was a moral agent?
While "Sub-optimal design" is yet another area of evidence, it is not nearly as persuasive to me as the inheritance trail of genetic diseases.
Evolution a not a blind process
Garvey refers to “blind” forces. But, taken together, they're hardly blind if, indeed, God Purposefully Created them initially in an ordained and sustained manner with inevitable and sufficient outcomes in mind.
A major point is that even randomness isn’t a blind force when combined with constraints that owe themselves to the Purposefully exquisitely fine-tuned initial conditions ( or in the case of a multiverse, Purposeful initial conditions sufficient to enable a multiverse that made exquisitely fine-tuned initial conditions inevitable).
It doesn’t appear God guided niches into place in an interventionist sense but purposefully planned the initial conditions/laws to inevitably result in life able to adapt to sufficient environs and their niches wherever they occur, and to produce high intelligence and advanced civilizations where those environs are sufficient and stable enough for it.
Again, Evolutionary Creation (EC) ≠ Deism
Merv, thanks for your feedback on (EC) ≠ Deism regarding the table cited and discussed earlier and good to know you generally don’t have a problem with that. I think Garvey is largely referencing other versions of theistic evolution (TE) and Deism, as he interprets them. Perhaps they don’t make the distinctions apparent that God is immanent and involved in the life of His Created creatures and actively sustains the Created universe and its physical laws. EC accept the incarnation and resurrection.
Similarly, and this is discussed in more detail below, but I’d also understand the EC “front-loading” of initial conditions in a non-informational sense, i.e., it is distinct from the informational algorithmic variety of front-loading that Garvey addresses.
Mother Teresa – Tweaked genes or God’s Immanence in Her Life + Common & Saving Grace
Jon Garvey, objected in his blog that any chance element left in evolution means that you can’t “…determine the existence of Homo sapiens, let alone Mother Theresa”, for example. I agree. Even if high intelligence and an evinced civilization are inevitable, that doesn’t mean any particular species is or any particular persons, e.g., Mother Teresa. But, we have to weigh a couple points on that one.
1. Is Mother Teresa the one whom we admire as Mother Teresa primarily due to
a. The active tweaking of genes;
or
b. God’s immanence in her life as well as His common and saving grace combined with her own choices (through the grace of God), i.e., her relationship with God that so move her to love?
Which glorifies God more, a. or b.?
Isn’t everything else INCIDENTAL?
2. Humans? Note that Simon Conway Morris, an ardent Christian and an ardent evolutionist, entitles his book, “Life’s Solution: Inevitable Humans in a Lonely Universe”. He does make a case for, not only the inevitability of high intelligence, but also essentially humans, per se. I suspect much of the difference of opinion between evolutionary biologists on the question of the inevitability of high intelligence and an advanced civilization comes down to whether we are talking about Homo sapiens, per se, or a matter of semantics on what we mean by human, etc. And/or I expect most have never read his book and reject the idea out of hand, having just gotten used to the idea of evolution as an undirected process.
3. Development/maturation process – few have a problem with the fact that we develop into moral agents after birth through a process of maturation, i.e., gestation, birth, learn to walk, speak. It’s a process – an inevitable process after fertilization. Developing through evolution into high intelligence and an advanced civilization into what we now call human is much the same kind of development, as Denis Lamoureux has pointed out.
4. Soul – We don’t know exactly how you are you. Even atheists wonder at the mystery of consciousness (see the conclusion of this Sam Harris article, The Mystery of Consciousness II) – a seemingly non-material reality in our physical bodies that is far more significant and valuable that our physical bodies even if it relies on our physical bodies, at least in this world). I do believe God, who is above and/or transcends time and space can foreknow you and me before we are born. But, foreknowing is different from the idea of guiding genes to make me look just so and with whatever predispositions are incorporated in my genes.
The soul and whether it is distinct or one with our physical being is a hot topic involving much speculation that also includes the whole area of nature vs. nurture. We could also add …vs. something specially imparted by God that make you YOU that is meant for eternity. Exactly how this works may always be a mystery until we are on the other side, which I accept by faith.
Are the results of any remaining freedoms or chance INCIDENTAL?
It doesn’t sound like Jon Garvey was aware of the inevitability of high intelligence and an advanced civilization in evolution spite of the randomness of mutations as held by some eminent evolutionists. See here for quotes from Dawkins, Sagan, Simon Conway Morris, and Kenneth Miller. For me, that really was a game-changer.
Jon makes it sound like he interprets the remaining “freedoms” in evolution discussed at BioLogos to equal that we are just products of random chance. That seems a distorted picture if indeed evolution means “high intelligence and an advanced civilization” is INEVITABLE, as held by the experts I cited. That’s not so random! If “high intelligence and an advanced civilization” are INEVITABLE through evolution without intervention by God, then the features that result from freedoms or chance that remains is arguably either INCIDENTAL or predictable, i.e., predictable like having camera-like eyes and having 2 instead of 1 or 3 or more.
If indeed, as these prominent evolutionists hold, “high intelligence and an advanced civilization” are INEVITABLE, then the remaining results owed to chance are arguably either predictable or INCIDENTAL, e.g., incidentals such as whether those eyes would be blue or brown or purple and your skin tan or red or yellow or black or blue and having hair all over your body (seen that before too) or not and whether it is red or brown or black, curly or straight. I see almost all of these on the Metro train every morning. Or, perhaps we’d have scales instead of hair. But, isn’t even scales vs. fur incidental to what God is after? Regardless, Simon Conway Morris makes the case the warm-bloodedness is a requirement for large brains, and therefore high intelligence is only likely in mammals and warm blooded mammals are inevitable in the competition for the high intelligence niche. Although it may be possible to have all three (scales, warm-bloodedness and intelligence) because Tuna (which have scales) are actually warm-blooded, or so I’ve heard.
Beyond features that are predictable (like having exactly 2 camera-like eyes), whatever else is left up to chance is INCIDENTAL and arguably a plus – variety is the spice of life & “celebrate diversity”.
Unfortunately, in human history it is incidentals, like the color of our skin, that has been the cause of so much prejudice. Perhaps such incidentals are an inevitable part of God’s Plan to play a necessary role in our personal character development as individuals and maturation as a society.
And it may turn out that much of what we might think of as still being left up to chance or incidentals will actually be found to be quite predictable after further study along the lines of Simon Conway Morris’s work. Even the color of our skin is largely a function of sunshine.
Contingencies
BTW, the main objection of other scientists to the inevitability of high intelligence and an advanced civilization are the numerous contingencies involved. But, as Simon Conway Morris argue extensively in his book, and, as touched upon in my comments on Episode 1 under heading, “Chance and the criticality, or not, of the K/T event”, contingencies may merely postpone or sometimes, in the case of the K/T event, speed up the inevitable.
BTW, I just found a FREE audio file, cited elsewhere on iTunes, of the fascinating interview on this topic with Simon Conway Morris, including Dawkins, Sagan (quoted my Miller), Kenneth Miller, Daniel Dennet, and Sean B. Carroll available here on Jim Flemming’s, To-The-Best-of-Our-Knowledge site. But, there is so much more on it in S.C. Morris’s book.
On the apparent inconsistency of believing God intervenes in miracles but not evolution
Of course, when believing in miracles, e.g., the incarnation or resurrection of Christ, we are not strictly “sticking to science”. But, if we believe in physical miracles in whatever sense, then why shouldn’t we posit God’s guidance of evolution through behind-the-scenes intervention? There several reasons we should consider.
Issues with God Intervening During the Evolutionary Process:
- Appears that we don't accept the scientific evidence for evolution -- runs contrary to a modern science view with new molecular evidence to show not only common descent but the sufficiency of evolutionary processes in biological evolution.
- It’s one thing to posit that God intervenes in miracles, like the resurrection, when not provided for in the natural order. It’s another thing to posit it when it IS part of the Created order.
- It would mean God didn’t get it Creation right from the start and had to fix it with subsequent guidance.
o Was God not omnipotent enough to get it right initially?
o Is our God too small to do that?
- As noted above, if God actively intervened to govern evolutionary change then we have to explain why God didn’t prevent or fix genetic diseases (cited above) that clearly arose in evolution in common ancestors long before man was a moral agent.
- It wasn’t automatic – not as glorious an invention.
How do miracles happen???
As an aside, some of my friends believe that the God who created natural laws can circumvent them to do physical miracles. Other friends posit there could be an alternative physics that God uses in physical miracles that we simply know nothing about (I’m imagining some other-dimensional worm-hole of sorts…).
Where do I stand on that? Well, as for me, I am for my friends!
Actually, I’m intrigued by both speculations. About the alternative physics idea, if we came to discover it, would we still call it miracle or would we then label it as natural? Would it be taken as proof or disproof of God? Or would be understand that everything is ultimately a miracle and, “God is either behind all of nature or none of it.” (Polkinghorne said something to that effect)?
Not the kind of “front-loading” we’re talking about here
In answer to the argument "…that God is clever enough to fulfil his specific purposes through the initial laws and conditions of the Creation.”, Garvey urges that Rob Sheldon, in his in “The Front Loading Fiction” blog post, “…proves pretty adequately that this is not intrinsically any more possible than God’s creating a square triangle."
I did read, “The Front Loading Fiction” and Sheldon either isn’t talking about “front loading” in the same sense that I have above (i.e., as an anthropic fruitfulness inherent in the exquisitely fine-tuned initial conditions and physical laws) and describe more below. Rather, Sheldon characterizes (or mischaracterizes???) the TE argument as positing an algorithmic determinism and that all the information content had to be there in the front-loading like a computer-code or blueprint-style so that it proceed like an oak tree develops from an acorn. But, that kind of front-loading with computer-like information or blueprint isn’t what I’ve read and isn’t what I’m talking about.
Accordingly, I didn’t find Sheldon’s or Garvey’s arguments persuasive – we’re talking apples and oranges.
Once life starts and there is a genetic system, the genetic blueprint that gets passed-on to subsequent generations has the potential for modification and acquiring new features at every generation along the way. How does this happen? For example, new features or functionality can occur when chromosomal or gene duplication mutations result in multiple copies of the same gene(s). One copy continues its normal function, while the other is free to mutate during subsequent generations into other functions. See, for example, Dennis Venema’s series, http://biologos.org/blog/evolution-and-origin-of-biological-information-part-1-intelligent-design. For example, this likely explains the human blood clotting factor cascade of homologous proteins. Each has a different function in the process even though each has unmistakable sequence similarity to the others.
So, the information or blueprint for any creature or even life itself doesn’t have to be front-loaded into initial conditions, constants and laws. Those initial conditions, constants and laws just need to result in the right stuff to get us to the point of biological evolution where complexity and functionality inevitably result driven by the constraint of the niche(s) being filled and other factors previously discussed.
Evolution seems bound to impart both selfishness, needed for survival, as well as empathy. Last summer, I asked Denis Lamoureux, “Where does sin come from in an evolutionary paradigm?”, or something to that effect. I like his answer to the effect that, “We have a selfish leg and an empathetic leg produced by evolution, and we have to choose between the two.”, which is a thought derived from the research of primatologist, Frans de Waal, in The Age of Empathy: Nature's Lessons for a Kinder Society. It’s a fascinating book, BTW.
God and Automatic?
Anything automatic for us is bit of a holy grail and a marvelous invention whenever it can be accomplished. When I started as an examiner in 1988, I brought in my own computer before they were government-issue a year or so later. Having done some programming in grad school I had a passion for automating features of the difficult job so we could focus on the important decisions. I then worked in the office-automation section of the Patent Office for a number of years when office-automation and a paperless office was yet to be a reality. Those were the user-functional requirements I worked on. Now, thanks to the efforts of many, we have totally electronic files for patent applications that used to be sometimes come in boxes and electronic examination.
But, why would an omnipotent God do anything automatically? Why use constants and physical laws or do anything automatically when an omnipotent God can actively spin the electrons on 1080 atoms in the universe and when God can go poof and create spontaneously. I do believe God can do that, BTW. But, it is not about what God can do, but what God did do. What does the evidence show?
Why automatic? I certainly don’t know the mind of God on that question and, as far as I know, scripture is silent on a direct answer. It may always be a mystery. But, here are 3 thoughts:
1. It works. Putting aside theodicy issues of pain and suffering in that might be necessary evils in any real physical world like ours that isn’t even our final Home, if God indeed produced all living things through evolution such that high intelligence and an advanced civilization were inevitable along with all manner of other “endless forms most beautiful” and adaptable to changing environments from a few well-thought out initial conditions, WOW! I can’t think of a greater trick short of the incarnation/cross.
2. God has a vested interest in covering his tracts so that He cannot be proved. If God was proved and our faith was sight, then it would be faith anymore, would it? I wouldn’t please God. We wouldn’t have to relationally trust Him because we’d know. “Blessed are those who have not seen… and etc. What better way to cover tracks than through an evolutionary process?
3. Perhaps it is about developing a truly-free free-will? If God created us spontaneously, perhaps Satan could charge God in a Job-esque manner, “These creatures ONLY love and obey You because you created them to do it --- they’re pre-disposed to it -- their will isn’t truly free!”. Perhaps, justice demands it.
· The same charge could be made if God subsequently guided an evolutionary process.
Evolution gives us a selfish leg and an empathetic leg and we constantly have to choose between the two (overheard from Denis Lamoureux).
4. Perhaps it is partly about the glory of God in invention.
So, I don’t think the EC view’s eschewing of subsequent guidance by God is so much about maintaining any kind of “sacred freedom” in the evolutionary process for freedom’s sake. Rather, it’s about placing a premium on sticking to modern science, i.e., except where doing so would clearly be a gospel-busting show-stopper – otherwise, it is likely our interpretation of scripture that is in error.
Science has proven to be the best way to find answers about the physical material world and we deny its clear tenants only at the risk of the credibility of our witness for the gospel -- that is the driver, at least in my mind.
While I’m almost a little surprised to see almost all of my core evangelical beliefs intact after a 4 year paradigm shift, I do think I have to tweak the way I think about the sovereignty of God along these lines and the reasons EC is held to be distinct from Deism.
We don’t want to be too quick to throw the baby of long-held historical doctrinal traditions out with the bathwater of yesterday’s news changed by realities revealed by science. But, we don’t want to make the opposite mistake either. Theological ships turnabout slowly and if we don’t respond quickly enough when we need to then we could end up like the proud Titanic.
I think we also see the pendulum of thought on these nuances go back and forth as this group reacts, sometimes overreacts, to the thoughts of that group and then vice versa before we settle on something approaching reality, hopefully through conversations like this one. Thank you for engaging with me.
