Must ‘evolution by random mutation and natural selection’ (Darwin’s term) be considered an inevitably purposeless process and therefore incompatible with the idea of divine intention?
In our dialogue so far, Antony and I have found agreement in recognising that the Creator is actively upholding his creation at all times. This gives clear evidence in the awesome fine tuning of the universe, in the beauty and complexity of the living world, perhaps especially in the fact that it is so amenable to mathematical description, that resonates with a theistic view of origins. Because of that amazing order, predictions can be made on the basis of observed precedents. According to the late Prof. Donald M. Mackay of Keele University. “The maintenance of precedent on which science depends is attributable to the stability and coherence of the divine upholding agency.” (an essay entitled, “The Mythology of Chance”, in “The Open Mind and Other Essays”, IVP, 1988)
Donald Mackay goes on to show that the divine fiat is perfectly consistent with events undetermined by precedent or even contrary to precedent. He talks about “events determined by the giver of being.” This includes miracles, sovereign acts of divine free will that do not fit into our observed patterns of precedent. It also includes events where we cannot see how they fit into our observed patterns of precedent. We remain confident that they do fit into the Creator’s plan and hope that someday we will gain an insight into that plan in our scientific research.
This lays the foundation for approaching the specific issue raised in Q3. How do “random” acts fit into the theistic scheme?
The Creator is in no way less sovereign in the realm of “chance events” than in the realm of events that fit into a pattern of physical cause and effect. Donald Mackay says, “For biblical theism all events, equally, with or without precursors according to precedent, need God’s say-so in order to exist at all.” Proverbs 15:33 says,” The lots may be cast into the lap, but the issue depends wholly on the Lord.”
Learning again from Donald Mackay’s essay we set out the argument logically as follows. Events determined by fiat may be (1) determined by precedent; (2) undetermined by precedent; or (3) contrary to precedent. (1) is the area where science is comfortable and where events may be predictable in practice, predictable in principle or unpredictable in practice. In (2) or (3) the events are unpredictable in principle. It must be noted that unpredictable in principle is not the same as indeterminate. The latter implies that there had been no prior specification, therefor no Creator. Unpredictable in principle means only that all known schemes of prediction are in principle inadequate to provide a prior specification for the event. In all cases they could be the product of a divine fiat.
Where do random mutations fit into all this? Evolution is driven by random mutations (plus gene duplication, gene flow and DNA recombination to complete the picture). These changes are then sorted by natural selection. These random mutations bring changes in the visible world around us, some of them contributing to an exquisitely beautiful and awesomely ordered creation. Random mutations may be unpredictable in principle and in practice, but still operate within a created pattern of physical events that was originated by the Creator and upheld by him, and that can be described by scientists in terms of physical laws.
Many atheists would argue that evolution by random mutation and natural selection rules God out of the equation. So, does “random” exclude God or not? Is it simply a synonym for indeterminate?
This reminds us of many other cases of random activity in the natural world. Brownian motion first observed by a Scottish scientist shows smoke particles moving randomly as a result of the random movement of air molecules. Yet this random movement gives rise to temperature and pressure that can be precisely measured and can be related in the Gas Laws. Individual atoms of radioactive elements decay in a random order yet the half-life of the element is very precise. Such random events are in no way inconsistent with plan and purpose and an ordered universe. We can find a parallel in algorithms designed to produce a random sequence of numbers or a random visual pattern on a screen where a human mind designs a mathematical process leading to random patterns.
Whether we are talking about the chance decay of an atom of an unstable radioactive element, the behaviour of an electron or random mutation in the world of living things God is still sovereign. As Donald Mackay puts it, “For biblical theism, nothing in the technical scientific idea of chance implies or requires any release of events from the sovereignty of the Creator.”
We have argued that random events in the natural world in no way rules out a Creator. I would now like to draw attention to Dr Denis Alexander’s, “Is there Purpose in Evolution”. There he makes a strong case for considering the probability that evolution is not the product of blind chance, even in the scientific use of the term. There is increasing evidence that if we could rewind the clock to the first living cell the progress of evolution would lead to a world substantially the same as we know today. Why would that be? One answer to that is the recognition that evolution happens within the God ordained pattern of activity of the created world of energy and matter. Even random mutations are constrained by the orderly functioning of the physical world.
Those who think otherwise and see random mutations as being of indeterminate origin, never the product of any plan or purpose, are guilty of confusing a metaphysical belief statement, that comes out of an ideological commitment, with a scientific theory.
Random mutation and natural selection are not purposeless.
The straight answer to the question here is no.
It is so important to define the terms here. I will concentrate on the key word, ‘random’.
We need to rescue the true meaning of this word. The Oxford dictionary says it means “made, done or happening without method or conscious decision”. In evolutionary terminology this applies to mutations. Mutations are known as ‘errors’ in the genetic code. They occur randomly which means they are undirected and purposeless. In fact, it is foundational to Darwinism that such errors are not influenced by any outside personal agent and that they do not in themselves have ‘telos’.
I am well acquainted with some of the arguments Alan puts forward from Prof Mackay and others, which are to do with the sovereignty of God over what seems random. I have spent much time talking with those of similar view, including lengthy discussions with Denis Alexander. Well-meaning though they may be, they all come down to a re-definition of random. Essentially Alan you are saying there is purpose in the mutations and there is control over them by God. I assume you only mean those mutations that confer some survival value; most being neutral or detrimental. We both agree the very atoms of matter are upheld and sustained by God, but you are taking this to another level, namely the input of genetic information, intentionally by God. That is not random. If you were to change the terminology to say God directs genetic changes (call them directed mutations or divine information input if you like) then we would be much closer to agreement.
You come close to saying this when you use the words ‘divine fiat’ to account for what seems on the surface to be indeterminate. Divine fiat simply means God ordains it or by his word creates. “Let there be light” (Gen 1:3) is in Latin, “fiat lux”. This is absolutely outside any current scientific understanding of evolution. It is miracle. You and I both believe in miracles. Divine input of information into genomes by ‘fiat’ is miraculous. We can be good scientists and, like our heroes such as James Clerk Maxwell, be completely comfortable with miracle.
Intelligent design theory merely confirms the evidence of this. (See my description of the simplest bacterium in may last post).In fact, we know that mutations themselves are completely inadequate to supply the information for natural selection to act upon to end up with humans (recent books by Michael Behe and Douglas Axe meticulously show the latest evidence of this).
I am also aware, as you describe, of the views of Denis Alexander (or perhaps more importantly Simon Conway Morris) on the belief in the ‘inevitability’, if it were ‘re-wound’, of evolution coming to much the same outcome as we see now. There is a strong hint of deism here that I believe every Christian should be wary of. I know you are not a deist Alan, but this type of view certainly points to deism. You write: “Even random mutations are constrained by the ordinary functioning of the physical world”. Indeed, they are. But what you are proposing is a wound-up universe simply obeying physical laws. I know you mean much more than this and you are a theist, but such views do not help the discussion.
I will leave a discussion of what natural selection means and what it can achieve to another post.
And so, the plain answer is that random mutations and natural selection are completely inadequate to account for a theistic idea of creation.
It is very obvious that the dialogue is being carried out by two people totally committed to unwavering belief in the creator God being the undisputed architect of our existence. They also agree that God upholds the operation of our universe. But how does it work? That is essentially the territory of science- always a work in progress. Can we find in science pointers to how the creator interacts with his creation and achieves his divine purpose?
Alan is comfortable that, viewed within a theistic framework, orthodox science- including Biology- is in the process of revealing how God’s creation is constructed and unfolds. The ‘theistic framework’ is a crucial factor. With divine purpose built in, he argues that even apparently ‘random’ changes, seen within that framework are better described as ‘indeterminate’ and take place ‘within a created order’. The overall system of which they are part is not purposeless. ( In The God Question series Lord Jonathan Sacks likens this to a symphony in which we might at times only be aware of the individual notes. ) There is evidence that some scientists are looking seriously at the possibility that the whole of nature is constrained within constraining laws.
( At Home in the Universe : The Search for Laws of Complexity by Stuart Kauffman is just one example.)
The concept of ‘random’ is, of course at the heart of the atheist worldview. If natural selection only has truly random changes to operate on then it is very difficult to argue we are more than an accident of nature. But for Alan, seeing the whole, as operating within God’s sovereign purpose, is a game changer of understanding in relation to evolution by natural selection.
Antony rejects the reinterpreting of the word ‘random’ in this way arguing that our sophisticated existence is evidence of God’s specific purposeful direction of creation and that giving random mutations and natural selection - in the strictly literal sense of the words- a role in achieving this is ‘completely inadequate’ . He is unconvinced that understanding so called random changes taking place within a theistic framework makes randomness any more acceptable. His conclusion is that science is mistaken in its perception of randomness being at the heart of change and development, favouring instead the concept of ‘directed mutations or divine information input’.
And with that we are close to the heart of what divides these two theists. Essentially one accepts the descriptions of how orthodox science sees the operation of the natural world -albeit within a purposeful theistic framework – whereas the other finds the Darwinian explanation in particular to be inadequate.
It is worth pointing out two important facts at this stage.
— No one knows the way in which God interacts with the creative process; there is therefore a measure of speculation and inference at work on our part.
— Science is a work in progress, with understanding deepening regularly about the operation of the natural world. It seems clear that it is premature to hold it to account for what it cannot yet fully explain. In this regard, followers of the Forum might benefit from reading the article entitled ‘ Of wonder and Questions’ by Professor Chris Packard in the Opinions section of this website.
Finally, I should point out that as editor and commentator on the dialogue, it is subject to my interpretation. My apologies in advance to our interlocutors for any unwitting misrepresentation of their views. I am sure they will correct me if necessary.
Meantime we invite Alan back to the stage! Ed
Natural and naturalistic
Much confusion has been caused by the misuse of the terms “natural” and “naturalistic”. The former is what we understood when we used to do nature study as kids. Nature is the physical world about us that we interact with daily and which science investigates more thoroughly.
Naturalistic is a term that describes an ideological view that denies the supernatural. One cannot be theistic and naturalistic. They are opposing views of ultimate reality.
It is for that reason I have been reluctant to use the otherwise useful term “natural processes” because of the misunderstanding that confuses “natural” and “naturalistic”.
Evolution
Evolution has to do with the origin of species. You talk about microevolution and macroevolution but I feel that these terms cause confusion. For some microevolution is responsible for the production of variety within a species or family. I don’t find that helpful. When I talk about life having evolved from the earliest simple life forms to all that we know today, I am talking of species descending from earlier species. Fish developed limbs and eventually crawled out of the water. Mammals later returned to the water and gave rise to whales. Evolutionary Creation sees all this as part of God’s normal pattern of activity in his creation; in the same way as gravity and tectonic plates shape our non-biological world. It is not a matter of either God or mechanistic processes. It is both.
Life evolving in tune with the framework of the laws of physics is perfectly consistent with the idea of God as Creator and Sustainer of the universe.
Design
In your final reply, Antony, to the exchanges following Question 2 you said, “I am genuinely surprised now that you agree (in your first paragraph) that there is ample evidence of design in the universe and in biology. To me you are therefore, on the face of it, an advocate of ID.” I must admit I was very surprised to read that comment for two reasons. Firstly, I have given ample evidence that there is design in the created order. Secondly, The mere assumption that belief in design in the created order implies adherence to ID doctrines is astounding.
There are three ways in which the word “design” is used.
1) It refers to the relationships between properties, form and function. Birds migrate and build nests.
2) It addresses the area of agency and intentionality. It is the language of authorship.
3) It is a specific detailed plan as in an architect’s drawing or an engineer’s specification – a design brief.
Those of us who adhere to the idea that life has evolved through mechanistic processes, which the Creator brought into being and maintains in being, are very happy with meanings (1) and (2) of “design”. It is the product of an all wise Creator who declared his work to be good. It evokes awe and wonder. It challenges us to unravel its mysteries. With our created human nature we seek to understand that amazing order that encompasses the fine tuning of immense forces, the birth and death of stars, the moving tectonic plates on the Earth’s crust, the Cambrian explosion, the “fearful symmetry” of the tiger and the amazing molecular mechanisms packed into a living cell. The investigation of these wonders is carried out by the scientific method, confident that the created order is an ordered arrangement of physical entities. Its Creator is no capricious ruler.
ID claims to see a design brief, as in meaning (3) above, in very specific biological entities. In these “irreducible complex” entities it is claimed there is a “specified complexity” that defies explanation in terms of the kind of incremental steps proposed by evolution. Specified complexity demands a designer. A watch or mouse trap show clear evidence they are products of a well thought out plan. Can we transfer this idea to entities found in the natural world? ID proponents say we can, and proceed to identify examples such as the bacterial flagellum and the blood clotting mechanism. In passing I would add that merely repeating the mantra that “mutations are not the answer” is no substitute for watertight reason.
Unfortunately for ID there have been reasonable explanations for both of these that are consistent with the usual processes of mutation and natural selection. It is hard to avoid the conclusion that what an ID enthusiast identifies as defying explanation in terms of known physical properties is nothing more than a gap in his own understanding.
ID is a broad church movement that includes theists, deists, Budhists and agnostics so that there is no common agreement as to what or who the intelligent designer might be. For the purpose of our current dialogue I accept, Antony, that you are looking to the Creator revealed in Scripture to fill that role. I also assume that you do not believe in “designed aspects” over against “naturalistic explanations” as we are agreed that naturalism (the metaphysical notion that excludes the supernatural) and theism are opposites.
Am I right in thinking that for you designed features relate to non-designed features as miracles relate to the normal pattern of life? I read something like that in your book, “The Naked Emperor, Darwin Exposed”. If that is the case we are agreed that miracles have happened but we differ widely in our understanding of the purpose of miracles. For me the parting of the Red Sea, the raising of Lazarus and the Resurrection are key elements in God’s unfolding of his plan of redemption. To look on mysteries in the physical world as evidence of miracles not only veers too close for comfort to the “god of the gaps” argument but also demeans the Christian concept of miracle. Miracles in Scripture have a purpose and show very clear divine interruption of the normal pattern of life. Using it to explain the bacterial flagellum can bring into disrepute our belief in miracles. It also has the unfortunate consequence of shutting down normal scientific investigation of such a mystery. Knowing that there is a solution to a puzzle is a powerful incentive to finding that solution.
It also casts aspersion on the quality of the Creator’s handiwork. Was the Creator’s chosen means of bringing into being and maintaining in being an orderly physical universe, not able to encompass the bacterial flagellum? The “hand that flung the stars into space” had to resort to a special miracle to get the bacterium mobile. I find that distasteful.
I, too, see the carburetor in my car as designed by an intelligent being, but so also is the whole car.
Random
It is clear we have quite different ideas about the use of the word “random”. I accept that it can carry the metaphysical idea that rules God out of the picture. Clearly, Antony, and most atheist believe evolution to be not only a scientific notion but a metaphysical assertion. For me the word “random” is used in science in a non-metaphysical sense. It describes observed physical phenomena where there is no known orderly principle that can explain them. Which sperm fertilizes the egg, which atom decays in a mass of a radioactive element, seem as predictable as the outcome of the throw of a dice. Yet in all these cases God is still sovereign.
It is worth repeating that current evolutionary research suggests that mutations, the main but not sole driver of evolution, may not be as random as formerly thought. The mechanism involved in mutation may yet be, and I believe they will be, elucidated by science.
Many thanks again Alan for your replies and thoughts. I will attempt to take each section of your last post in turn.
I accept your definition of ‘natural’ as opposed to ‘naturalistic’. Neither of us are naturalistic. I think though, we both agree, as theists, that the ‘natural’ world is sustained and maintained by God all the time. Of course, in that sense there is miracle continuously in and between every atom. I do not separate the ‘natural’ from the miraculous. If God withdrew right now, we and the universe would cease to exist. He is “sustaining all things”. (Hebrews 1:3). There is mystery here. Further on you again suggest that ID only looks at specific interventions by God as if he needed to tweak or alter what he already has done. Nothing of the sort can be inferred from ID (as I have already explained!). The whole of creation is miraculous. How else can we interpret John 1:3? “Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made”. As theists, I suggest, we should not, as you seem to do, confine the miraculous to special events in the bible such as the parting of the Red Sea. That to me is unscriptural and not really theism at all. I would cease praying if I did not think miracles were happening all the time. As Einstein said: “There are only two ways to live your life. One is as though nothing is a miracle. The other is as though everything is a miracle.”
You don’t like the terms micro and macro evolution. However, these are used in most standard evolution texts. Micro evolution is more than variation within a species. A good example is the case of Darwin’s finches in the Galapagos Islands. I was taught in school that this was classic evolution. But it has no bearing at all in accounting for macro changes and new structures that we see throughout the history of life. The finches vary from island to island because variation within the gene pool of the original species (different alleles between individuals) allows selection to occur when the environment differs on separate islands. There is no new genetic information. In fact, sometimes we see the separate ‘species’ themselves breeding amongst each other and changing back to the original type. Another case of micro evolution to confuse the unwary is the case of the Peppered moth (Biston betularia). It is upheld as a good bit of evidence for Darwinism because the colour changed to allow camouflage on the dirty trees of the industrial revolution. In fact, these darker moths were already in the species. They were selected to survive for obvious reasons – but there was no new genetic information. I find most biology teachers don’t understand this and textbooks continue to confuse the case. You would need to explain to me why the peppered moth is still used as evidence of evolution from bacteria to humans, let alone the Cambrian explosion.
…/continued
I feel we are going around in circles Alan with your thoughts on how ID is false. Let me say firstly, you are certainly an advocate of ID if you say the fine tuning of the universe points to a creator. That is scientific evidence of a mind behind everything. What you proclaim for the universe is ID (inferring design from the scientific facts). I suspect you just would rather not be affiliated with ID. Perhaps you should call it something else; but it would still be ID.
You then deny vociferously any such reasoning for biology. You find it indeed ‘distasteful’ to find any scientific evidence (that is ID) in the living world that points to design, while, strangely, at the same time saying you do in fact see evidence for the Creator in biology. For a Christian scientist looking at life this seems odd. Is there really no scientific evidence? I would be grateful if you would reply to my arguments concerning the beginning of life.
You mention various classic cases of irreducible complexity such as the bacterial flagellum and the clotting system. You dismiss these without any given evidence. ID stands or falls on the interpretation of scientific data. This is where we need to get down to the science in some earnest. The flagellum is a sophisticated outboard motor for certain bacteria. It has a proton driven motor with stator and rotor, bushes, rings, gears etc. It can rotate 10,000 times per minute, forward and reverse. It is linked to chemotactic sensors on the bacterium which tell it which way to rotate to approach nutrients. It is made of about 50 different proteins – the genes for which have all been discovered. The step by step construction of it is a stunning process. Here is a link to a short video about the flagellum: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cwDRZGj2nnY
If you remove any one protein, the flagellum does not work. It is in fact not possible for this to have evolved incrementally. The main Darwinian contender for an intermediate structure in the evolution of the flagellum is called the Type 3 secretary apparatus. It is similar to the base part of the flagellum and is made of 10 proteins. It has an entirely different function (injecting toxin into host cells). This 10 protein structure is the only argument that Darwinists have to give for some sort of evolutionary scenario. But knowing another structure that is entirely different in function and has only 10 of the flagellar proteins is no argument at all. In fact the type 3 secretary apparatus apparently appeared later in bacteria - in other words it could not have been intermediary.
We now know so much more about the cell and we find that irreducible complexity is everywhere. Let me quote James Shapiro, Professor of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology at the University of Chicago: “There are no detailed Darwinian accounts for the evolution for any fundamental biochemical or cellular system, only a variety of wishful speculations”.
One of my own favourite macro examples of irreducible complexity is the superior oblique muscle in our eyes. Here is a link to an article that I have written on this subject: https://c4id.org.uk/Articles/487300/The_superior_oblique.aspx
None of this is ‘God of the gaps’ thinking; on the contrary it is simply common sense. You write: “It is hard to avoid the conclusion that what an ID enthusiast identifies as defying explanation in terms of known physical properties is nothing more than a gap in his own understanding.” I personally find that a very dismissive statement. It is also deism – are you saying that only known physical properties (which boil down to matter and energy) account for life? What is ‘known’ about the Word of God creating all things?
Alan, let us agree to differ on the meaning of random. I acknowledge that to you nothing is ‘random’ and that, as God is sovereign, we assume he is overall in control of even what seems ‘random’. My only point here is, that if he is indeed sovereign, we would expect see evidence of this in his design of the universe and living things. That is what ID claims. It is a wonderful truth that this world badly needs to know.
In response to your comments in your last post I offer a few quick answers first then I’ll try to get to the core of our differences.
On the question of miracles I do not “confine the miraculous to special events in the bible such as the parting of the Red Sea.” I fear you are misrepresenting my comments. I believe in miracles as signs and wonders. They would not be that if they were no different from our normal experience of Providence. To call everything miracle is to debase the term. A theist sees evidence in all of Creation to evoke worship of the Creator. He also sees evidence of answered prayer and lives transformed as well as reading the Biblical records of extraordinary events such as Jesus’ resurrection and his turning water into wine.
I am wary of the microevolution and macro evolution distinction, not because I don’t recognise it, but rather because it seems to cloud the issue. Where we differ, Antony is in the area of macro evolution, the idea that there is common descent for all living things largely driven by mutation induced change, sifted by Natural Selection. Microevolution is a red herring in our current dialogue.
Whatever else you believe about macroevolution it is clear you see some parts of the evolutionary development as completely out with the scope of mutation plus natural selection. You see these as irreducibly complex and so incapable of coming into being by incremental steps such as are assumed for the normal mechanisms of evolution. To avoid misunderstanding I would repeat that such “normal mechanisms” are God’s way of doing things with his matter, not a reference to an autonomous nature nor some idea of the workings of a universe wound up like a clock. These normal mechanisms are the Creator’s chosen means of sustaining the universe he brought into existence. I would be grateful if you would desist from attributing to me beliefs with naturalistic tendencies.
I am a firm believer in seeing the hand of God in his material creation. However, I reject the ID claim to find irreducible complexity in certain living entities, making their origin impossible to explain by a series of small steps. I do so for two main reasons.
The first is theological. The beauty of the mathematical precision seen in every part of the universe, in living or non-living things, to me is clear evidence for a divine Creator. This order with its amazing fine tuning and exquisite harmony is God’s doing, and is wondrous in our eyes, It makes science possible and is God’s gracious gift to mankind. It resonates well with the Biblical revelation of the living and true God. Please note, I do not prove the existence of God, the triune God of the Bible, from these observations. Rather these observations are consonant with what we learn from God’s Word. To suggest that there are certain entities in nature that cannot be encompassed by his normal way of working, casts aspersions on the wisdom and power of the Creator. That is what I find distasteful. That is one of the main reasons why I reject ID.
The second is scientific. The assertion that something is so complex it cannot be explained in terms of natural processes, and therefore must be the direct product of a specific design brief, has not been demonstrated logically and tends to put a brake on scientific research. I stand by my assertion that a stepwise explanation for the development of the bacterial flagellum is possible. Denis Alexander in his excellent book, “Creation or Evolution Do We Have to Choose?” makes the following comments. “Indeed most of the components of the flagellum have roles and functions that are already known and are widely spread through living orhanisms.”p299 “… by considering the 24 ‘core’ proteins considered to be ancestral for all bacteria with flagella, a detailed suggestion describing the evolutionary history of the flagellum has been published. This is definitely not the last word on the matter, and represents work in progress: but there is no need not to think that the detailed evolutionary pathway of bacterial flagella will eventually be worked out to everyone’s satisfaction.” P300
The origin of life conundrum is not so easily resolved. Science knows very little of the mechanisms that brought living systems into existence. This does not mean that it never will be sorted out. Interestingly in Genesis 1 the Creator says, “let the land produce living creatures.” God is the author of life. How he went about bringing life into existence is not told us, but we have every encouragement to research possible mechanisms. There is no reason at this stage to say such research is bound to fail.
I believe ID has failed to make a convincing case for irreducible complexity.
Looking for evidence of divine design in what we don’t understand is dangerous. It is an argument from ignorance and essentially a design of the gaps theory. I recognise that ID has a problem in proving its case since it must prove a negative, which is always difficult. In order to prove that something is the clear result of a divine design brief, it must prove there is no possible natural mechanism in God’s creation capable of explaining it. It has signally failed to do so in the case of the bacterial flagellum. It is misguided in attempting to do so because it underestimates the power of God devised and God sustained natural mechanisms. I freely acknowledge that in evolution there may yet be discovered some significant mechanism hitherto hidden from our eyes, something akin to the discovery of nuclear fusion that radically altered the understanding of solar thermodynamics. In the meantime the study of random (using the word as we use it in computer Random Access Memory) mutation at macromolecular level is doing a great job in filling in the real gaps in our knowledge of how evolution progresses.
Thanks again Alan for your thoughts. Whatever I write here in no way judges your integrity or sincerity.
Regarding miracles: yes, they may be signs and wonders, such as raising Lazarus from the dead. They may also be subtle and less noticeable, such as when in answer to prayer you bump into a friend that you are praying for. The very fabric of the universe is held by miracle in the hand of God. In this sense the miraculous is in everything. I would also maintain that human consciousness is a constant miracle that will never be unpacked by scientific discovery. The way in which each of us is made in the image of God is also miraculous. This is not debasing the term miracle. It is celebrating the wonder of creation and humanity. Therefore, to assign the term miracle to the appearance and development of life is perfectly valid: which is why neither of us is ‘naturalistic’.
I am sorry but your dismissal of micro-evolution as irrelevant to our discussion does not make sense. Why are our children told that there is some seamless progression from micro to macro when micro simply cannot lead to macro? Why is the case of Darwin’s Finches held up as evidence for macro evolution? The same can be said for the Peppered Moth. It is actually scandalous that known mechanisms with no new genomic information can be held as examples of evolution leading to you and I. It betrays the poverty of evidence for mechanisms leading to macro changes.
Mutations have never been observed to bring about any macro change in life. Mutations are severely limited in what they can achieve – the evidence for this is overwhelming now and it is the trade secret of molecular biology.
Natural selection is held up as the answer to how random mutations can achieve immense complexity. But what is natural selection? It is a sieve for culling the unfit individuals. It is a negative force. It has nothing to do with the varieties that enter the sieve – merely allowing the fitter ones through. There is nothing constructive or creative in natural selection. So, we are left with random mistakes in the DNA to account for mankind.
I am trying to get behind your feeling of distaste for any suggestion of actual scientific evidence for design in living things (though, oddly, you claim to find it in the fine tuning of the universe, as if this were a separate realm of nature). It is as if you do not want to accept anything miraculous; all in your view, has to have appeared by known physical mechanisms. There is a term for this: scientism. I find this unacceptable theologically. It is also at odds with your statement that you are not naturalistic when it come to evolution. I know and accept that you are a theist and not ‘naturalistic’ but everything you say about evolution is just that. You insist that science will potentially one day uncover known physical mechanisms for every single wonder of life. You assert that everything about life is theoretically understandable by physical properties and laws. A total belief in the power of science to discover and understand everything about life appearing is not a biblical position to be in.
cont/...
.../cont
I have read Denis Alexander on the flagellum and many others. Alexander is entirely wedded to a scientistic view of life and will not tolerate any hint of design or miracle. I have already discussed the reasons why the flagellum is irreducibly complex, just as my car is. Perhaps there are some people who say cars could have come about by known physical laws, because there are parts of cars in the environment that may have come together. That is not as facile an illustration as you may think it is. If you knock out any one of the genes for the proteins of the flagellum, it fails to work at all. It is not a question of bits and pieces randomly coming together.
You also say that ID can put a break on scientific research. What evidence is there for this? I would have to assume then that your belief in the fine tuning of the universe puts a break on cosmology. You would also have to say that James Clerk Maxwell had breaks put on his science when he proclaimed the evidence for design in molecules. Finding evidence for design in living things has no bearing at all on doing science, as long as we recognise the limitations of science in explaining everything. In the same way, I can take apart my car and study how it works and the wonderful mechanisms that keep it going – while still believing it is designed.
You continue to use the gaps accusation for ID theory. Detection of design is a valid and logical positive pursuit. Otherwise you would have to condemn all the reasoning of forensics and archaeology in inferring design. SETI scientists would be sent packing. It is why when I see Michelangelo’s ‘David’ I do not think that the lump of marble was shaped by natural forces. Saying that it was designed by an artist is entirely logical. This is not negative (we are going over old ground here!) but positive evidence from the facts. It is complex specified information.
There are clear apologetic implications here. It is why I am passionate about the subject. One of the reasons why the ‘West’ has become so secular, is the very real sense that science has done away with God. People then have an excuse for going on their own way without reference to Him. I was one of those. No one is converted by any of our reasoning; it is the work of God to bring someone to Christ. But there is a foundation that has been laid in society of everything being explicable in scientific terms. It runs subliminally through the minds of many. It is a world view. If ID is valid (and this is of course disputed by you and others) then we have a wonderful truth to proclaim to bring folk back to the knowledge of God and his marvellous works. Romans 1:19-20.
Alan, I have really valued discussing all this with you. I am not going to change your mind, but I do hope that our contributions to this forum have helped some others to see our different perspectives in clearer terms, and to respect them. We have more in common than it may seem at first. We are both Christian theists and we believe in ‘design’ and a wonderful Creator who made all things well. We disagree on the mechanisms of how life appeared and on the way in which God in his wisdom works in nature, but we share far more than this. I suspect we will call it a day now. I will follow Iain’s advice on this, and I do not want to have the last word.
Like yourself, Antony, I was thinking that our dialogue has gone as far as is useful. However, your last charge of “scientism” invites a reply.
Scientism revels in a material world that creates itself and is capable of being fully understood by beings that are themselves products of blind materialistic process. It believes that science will unlock all the mysteries of the physical universe. I do not envisage the day when the physical world has no challenges left for science. God’s creation is too wonderful for that. I look forward to new heavens and a new Earth where I will still be learning. I cannot see how you can be serious about charging me or Denis Alexander with scientism. Perhaps it’s another example of meaning different things with the same word.
ID, in its current varieties, revels in apparent exceptions to the scientific order of cause and effect. In these exceptions it finds evidence for an intelligent designer bringing them into being without any scientifically possible mechanisms. I am disturbed that you say you have read the evidence so compellingly put forward by Denis Alexander and then dismiss it as scientism.
Evolutionary Creation revels in the awesome of the workings of the material world – God’s matter and God’s working. It sees that awesome harmony offering powerful support for belief in an intelligent Creator, who has made us in his image and revealed himself in Christ. It sees that harmony, visible in the mathematical precision of both the fine tuning of the cosmos and of the exquisite world of microbiology, as a powerful incentive to keep on researching and to keep on ascribing glory, honour and power to the One who has created all things and by whose will they were created and have their existence. See Revelation 4:11.
Einstein said, ‘The most incomprehensible thing about the world is that it is at all comprehensible.’
Evolutionary Creation would say amen to that.
The power of random mutations
Evolutionary Creation believes that all living organisms have descended from simple forms by means of mutations, which generate change in the chromosomes in germ cells, the cells which come from each parent and merge together to form the first cell of the new organism. These changes alter the genetic code which determines a large part of the characteristics of a living organism. (Factors other than the genes themselves also play a part by altering the way the genes are read and transmitted, but these epigenetic factors are another though important story.) A chromosome is composed of large molecules of DNA along with some proteins. The arrangement of discrete molecular segments, called genes, on this DNA, acts like a code with the instructions for the lifelong development of an organism. A gene typically controls the production of proteins that determine the structure of an organism. Each gene may be responsible for a variety of different proteins.
Mutations are caused by chemicals, radiation, and inaccuracies in the copying procedures whereby new DNA is made. These mutations are subject to the orderly functioning of matter and energy. They occur within a matrix that constrains what can happen. Increasingly the evidence of science points to there being a purposeful drift in the outworking of these apparently random mutations.
Mutations act in a variety of ways.
-- One letter of the genetic code is changed. Even a simple mutation of this kind can switch on or switch off a gene.
-- Whole sections of DNA are copied on to mRNA (messenger RNA that copies sections of the DNA and transports them to other parts of the cell where they make proteins). Some proteins can cause mRNA to be reincorporated into the DNA sequence, thus altering the DNA and the genetic information it contains.
-- Segments of a chromosome may be inadvertently duplicated.
-- A whole chromosome may be inadvertently duplicated or two chromosomes swapped over or two chromosomes fuse together.
-- Retroviruses invading an organism may incorporate their genetic information into the DNA of host genomes.
-- Bacteria may enter a cell and exist in a symbiotic arrangement. Chloroplasts, which give plants their green colour and drive the photosynthesis that enables plants to grow, are like little cells within a cell and probably originated when a bacterium invaded a plant cell.
Because mutations interfere with the complex command chain that determines the functioning of every part of the organism, most of them prove fatal, but some are neutral or useful. Natural selection will ensure that only the neutral or useful gets transmitted to future generations. In this way changes accumulate and life evolves.
The generation of change via mutations is thus not a simple matter of changing a letter here and there in the DNA instructions for life. It is an impressive toolkit of different mechanisms. It allows for cumulative changes that make a real difference to a population. It allows a gene that has lain dormant for many generations to become active. In this process genes mutate, individuals are selected and populations evolve. It seems as if genomes were designed to change.
The sum total of the DNA sequence in an organism is known as its genome. The record of our ancestry is written in our genome. It is a veritable museum of genetic fossils. Our genomes are littered with “pseudogenes” which may determine the way our DNA is packaged and so be useful, but it is intriguing that they are very close to actual functioning genes in related species. The evolutionary understanding of common descent provides a plausible explanation for this phenomenon. It is even more impressive when we see these genetic fossils spelling out the same story as the sequence of fossils in rocks.
Macroevolution happened. Mutation plus natural selection is a very good explanation at the scientific level for this story.
I believe Evolutionary Creation is consistent with the evidence uncovered by science and with the Biblical teaching on Creation. In this respect it is no different from other scientific theories, gravity, meteorology, etc., where we, as Christians, use our God given faculties to study God’s order and discover things that satisfy our curiosity, that are useful for our wellbeing and lead us to praise the Creator whose wisdom and power lies behind it all.
It is far too late in our discussion to raise the issue of the origin of DNA and the genetic code of life. Here the evidence for how this came about, at the level of a scientific explanation, is still speculative. Personally I believe the Creator’s normal, orderly way of working would have been sufficient for life to arise from non-living matter. Perhaps some day we will be granted the privilege of understanding at a scientific level how that too, happened. The most important thing is that we believe that behind all these issues lies the all wise mind of our Creator and Redeemer, our Lord, Jesus Christ.
