Faith and Science – Part 5

With God’s help

The place of evolution in the theological debate

introduction

So far, I have discussed various aspects of faith-science relations through the physico-theological perspective and various objections to it. In the current column, I will discuss the objection from evolution.

The Neo-Darwinian Picture in a Nutshell

In the beginning there was the Big Bang, from which the matter in the universe emerged (with the kind help of the breaking of the 'divine' Higgs symmetry). Then the expansion creates stars and galaxies (the force of gravity overcomes the other fundamental forces). This is accompanied by cooling to a temperature that allows our existence. In the next stage, either randomly (a lucky chance, in Dawkins' opinion), or following abiogenesis (the deterministic formation of life), the initial protein chains were formed. From here on out, the name of the game is evolution.

This is a system in which three mechanisms play a role: 1. Mutation. Changes in the genetic protein chains (usually perceived as random). 2. Natural selection. The struggle for survival of each mutation, and the survival of the fittest within it. 3. Genetics. The transmission of the traits of the surviving mutations to future generations.

The logical place of evolution in the debate

Evolution does not prove that there is no God, nor does it prove that He exists. It does not deal with Him at all. Evolution is a scientific field, and its concern is with physical-biological reality.

Some argue that evolution presents a contradiction to the physico-theological evidence. That is its entire function in the discussion. This is another objection in the list that this series deals with. What this means is that even if this contradiction is indeed true (and it is not), it only means that one of the evidences for the existence of God has fallen.

methodology

The methodology by which this issue should be addressed is built on three layers: A. The philosophical validity of the physico-theological evidence itself. B. The scientific validity of evolution (the scope of most creationist claims). C. Returning to philosophy: Even if evolution is true, does it contradict the evidence?

If the evidence itself is not good, then there is certainly no point in engaging with evolution in this context. If the evidence is plausible a priori, we must discuss whether evolution is scientifically valid (if not, there is again no point in reaching stage c). And if both of these hold, we can discuss whether even after evolution the evidence remains on a machine.

I will preface this by saying that there is a consensus among creationists and neo-Darwinists that evolution is a critical touchstone of theological debate. Some support it and reject the faith, and some reject it in order to hold the faith. All agree that there is a contradiction, and thus both sides are wrong (such a rare and pastoral consensus, based on an error). I intend to show that evolution is not at all relevant to our discussion.

The previous columns dealt with Layer A (and we will return to it later). I will leave Layer B here, since for the sake of the discussion I assume that the neo-Darwinian picture described above is true. I have no better scientific theory, and below I will show that it does not matter. Now we have come directly to the discussion of Layer C.

The appeal from evolution

Evolution offers a scientific explanation for the formation of a complex thing without a guiding hand. It follows from this that something that is not coordinated and planned can evoke a physico-theological 'illusion' about the necessity of the existence of a guiding hand.

Several of the respondents to the previous columns addressed this point. Some demanded a definition of the concept of 'complex' or 'planned'. Others argued that the existence of something complex and planned does not mean that there is a planner (the desired assumption). In the next column I will return to address these claims.

Shakespeare and other animals

I will deal with this whole complex without going into the scientific details. I will not even distinguish between the different scientific stages (big bang, abiogenesis, and evolution). My argument is this: every scientific explanation of the development of the world is given to us within the framework of a system of natural laws. But such explanations are irrelevant to the theological discussion. An explanation could have theological significance only if it did not require natural laws, which is of course impossible (if this were possible, it would mean that physics and biology are branches of mathematics, or of logic).

I will clarify this through a common example. Creationists ask, what is the chance that a transparent person jumping on a keyboard will randomly produce the phrase "to be or not to be" from under his feet? And if we talk about a complete Shakespeare sonnet - the chance of course drops dramatically. And as for the complexity of the world and all of it, the chance of accidental formation is zero.

And now, in an article published in the 1980s in Scientific American, a 'winning' answer to this claim was published. Someone (the argument is so stupid that mentioning his name is a blasphemy offense. You can find it on any atheist website) reported the results of the following experiment. They cast the 14-letter combination "to be allah". The chance that a random draw of chains of this length would produce this combination is zero, since there are 22¹⁴ Possible combinations. At the rate of his computer, such a chain is expected to emerge after about 200,000 years.

But that same clever stranger did another experiment: he drew the letters one by one, and every time he reached the correct letter, he 'froze' it. The computer starts drawing individual letters (not chains). When it reaches the letter "l", it is immediately frozen, and then the computer continues drawing another letter. When it reaches the letter "e", it is also 'frozen', and it continues on. It does this until it reaches the complete chain. Guess how long it took the computer to finish in this way? 90 seconds. An entire Shakespeare play was published in four and a half days. The Spaghetti Monster performed a miracle, and atheists had light and joy and precious joy.

I assume that the physicists and mathematicians among us are rubbing their eyes in amazement, not at the results, but at the sight of this folly. It was possible to reach this result in a few minutes with a pen and paper in a simple probabilistic calculation, saving the readers' time and the ecological damage to the Brazilian forests. This simulation revealed to us the amazing discovery that if there is an external factor that ensures that the correct results are obtained, the chance of their formation increases dramatically. A more sophisticated experiment would have done it better: write a program that would make sure that the computer would immediately output the correct chain. A not very complicated calculation would show us that within one round we would have obtained the desired result (if not, the unreasonable programmer should be fired). And in general, if there had been computers in Shakespeare's time, he would have saved quite a bit of time...

Implication for the theological debate

Ironically, this silly experiment also illustrates the real problem, and is actually a demonstration of in favor of The physico-theological argument. The creationist claim is that the chance of a complex thing coming together by chance is zero. Neo-Darwinists respond that the process is not random. There are factors that miraculously improve the chance of random formation (the laws of evolution: feedback, natural selection, etc.), and in Dawkins's words: moderate the slope of the improbable mountain.

But the physico-theologist, as we recall, assumes the principle of sufficient reason. So now he asks again: What is the sufficient reason for the constraints that improved the process? Who is the programmer who intervened in the random process and ensured that it safely reached its goal? The laws of nature are the analogue of the constraints that improved the performance of the computer program described above. Therefore, any explanation using natural laws that explains why an extremely rare process is actually reasonably likely is irrelevant to our discussion. The physico-theological question will remain, except that it will be directed not towards the origin of life but towards the laws that govern it.

We will continue the analogy, and take a short protein chain, about 300 codons. The number of possible combinations of such chains is 20.³⁰⁰, a huge number by all accounts. Now the question arises as to how the 'living' and replicating chains were created by a random process? And the answer is: because of the laws of nature (these are the 'constraints' on the lottery). But now we will return and ask: what is the sufficient reason for the existence of these laws? How were they created? And again we will come to an intelligent agent, or a guiding hand.

Within and outside the rules

The critical point here is the distinction between an argument within the laws and an argument outside them. There is a process that a priori has zero chance of occurring. Now we find laws, or constraints, that significantly improve this chance (freezing the correct letters, or the laws of nature). The argument within the laws says that now the process is reasonable because the laws allow for the spontaneous formation of life. But the argument outside the laws says that it is the laws themselves that force us to assume the intervention of an intelligent agent.

Those who accept the principle of sufficient reason (and therefore make the physico-theological argument) are not satisfied with an explanation according to laws. And those who do not accept the principle of sufficient reason have no need at all to appeal to evolution (i.e., an explanation according to laws), since the argument does not convince them in the first place. The conclusion is that evolution is not relevant to the discussion in any way.

Back to Paley's watch

Paley's clock argument operates on the same logical basis. The chance that something as complex as a clock could have come into being by chance is zero. The world and life are much more complex, so the chance of their spontaneous formation must be zero. The common rejection of this argument is that our world is not like a clock (because living things evolve, unlike clocks).

Beyond other shortcomings of this rejection (it assumes that a replicating chain already exists, and ignores the necessity of previous steps), there is essentially an argument here that the laws of nature work to increase the chance of the 'spontaneous' formation of life (like the computer program that ensured the formation of the desired chain). But this is an argument within the laws. If there were other laws, or no laws at all, life would not have arisen. If so, now the question of sufficient reason outside the laws arises: Can these constraints themselves (= the laws of nature) be understood without a guiding hand? And if we return to Dawkins, the question is: Who is the watchmaker, and can he be blind?

Hoyle's Airplane and Gould's Parable

The same is true of "Hoyle's fallacy." Hoyle likened the chance of life's accidental formation to the chance that a storm passing over a junkyard would create an entire Boeing aircraft. He was accused of not understanding the laws of evolution and their meaning, since they ensure that the process is not directionless, thereby greatly improving the chances of its occurrence. The astute reader will surely notice that the logic of the argument is the same. Within the laws, the detractors are right, but Hoyle's argument is correct outside the laws.

A few weeks ago, a passage from my book was published here, in which I brought Gold's parable, which demonstrated how a random process may lead to a special result. A drunkard leaves a tavern and begins to sway randomly on the sidewalk. To his right is a wall and to his left is a ditch. Despite the randomness, Gold claims, at the end of the process the drunkard will be thrown into the ditch. After all, we have a random process that leads to a special and predetermined result, without a guiding hand.

The reactions were stormy, as always, but the storms reflected a misunderstanding. I'm not asking within the rules, but outside the rules: How was this result really obtained? Thanks to the constraints of the environment (the wall and the canal). In a random environment, the chance of this would have been zero. So, who created the forcing environment (=the rules) that dictated this result? This example is just as stupid as the above experiment, and in fact it well demonstrates the need for a deliberate hand.

Summary: Philosophy and Science

Science has taught us that in the beginning there was a singular point, and from it the universe and everything in it spontaneously emerged: countries and cities, seas and mountains, animals of all kinds, humans, trees, plants, galaxies and stars, suns and moons. Each of these is complex, and many are coordinated and refined down to the smallest detail. For some reason (some sufficient reason), there is a system of four precise laws (the fundamental forces of physics) in the background that ensure that all of this happens. Common sense suggests that there is a guiding hand here.

This is a philosophical, not a scientific consideration. Science and philosophy operate in two separate spheres. Our attitude to the physico-theological argument is determined by philosophical considerations (the principle of sufficient reason and its applicability). Our attitude to evolution is a matter for scientific examination. There is no connection between these two planes of reference. Criticizing evolution does not strengthen faith (as creationists think), and validating evolution does not weaken it (as atheists think). For those who believe that the physico-theological argument is reasonable – evolution does not undermine this (it only shifts the discussion from looking within the laws to looking outside them, and from searching for sufficient reason for evolution to searching for sufficient reason for the laws that govern it). And if someone thinks this is an unreasonable argument – then they do not need evolution either. In conclusion, science has no role in the physico-theological discussion.

Questions of implausibility within the laws (as asked by creationists who seek God in the scientific gaps, god of the gaps) are questions from the realm of science. But if a theory is scientifically inadequate, another must be sought (other laws), and this must be done with scientific tools. The questions outside the laws are philosophical questions, and they are only relevant to theological discussion.

For the sake of clarity, I have presented a somewhat simplistic picture. In the following columns, I will (with God's help) elaborate on some of the finer points that arise from it (the anthropic argument, quantum mechanics, the meaning of randomness, sufficient reason for laws and objects, what complexity is, and more).