>The quotations are not irrelevant. This claim not just a
>philosphically-based claim. It is also a scientifically justifiable one. If
>natural selection is demonstrated empirically only to enhance immediate
>adaptation to the environment, as it is, then it is a necessary inference
>that it has no long range direction as to where this immediate adaptation
>will eventually lead. Thus directionless. This is a scientific inference,
>not just a philosophical or theological one.
The philosophical claim cannot be justified scientifically. It is true
that several aspects of biological evolution do not have any evident
inherent direction or goal, any more than E equals mcc has any particular
inherent direction or goal. Some aspects of evolution appear to be
mathematically random; that is, described by the laws of probability. Dan
Miller at Chicago has studied the evolution of muricid snails. Today,
there are lots of big ones with lots of spines. When they first appeared
in the Cretaceous, they were little, without spines. However, there are
also little, spineless ones today. Over certain time intervals, the
maximum size and maximum number of spines increased, but this
mathemetically turns out to be a random increase in variation. Starting
with zero spines and rather small, there is much more room for increase
than decrease, and so the random variation superficially looks directional
even when it is not. At other points in the evolution of the group, there
is a significant shift in the average condition, not just an increase in
the range of variation. This reflects direction imposed by natural
selection (big spiny shells are harder to eat than little smooth ones).
Although it is not well-established mathematically, there are also aspects
of evolution that appear chaotic in the mathematical sense. I.e., there is
a precisely determinable mathematical formula, but the solution is too
sensitive to the exact initial conditions to allow long-term human
prediction. Both random and chaotic events are asserted to be under God's
control in the Bible (casting lots, weather, etc.). Likewise, anyone who
believes in luck, most popular forms of divination, or various other
superstitions is asserting the existence of supernatural influence on
random events. Thus, the claim that mathematically random or chaotic
events shows the absence of the supernaturally is grossly misrepresenting
most religions.
There is another colloquial use of random that applies to biological
evolution. Random can mean no apparent direction. For example, why one
kind of organism is successful and another is not, especially over the long
term, is often not obvious, and sometimes seems entirely random such as in
the case of an asteroid hitting one side of the earth versus the other.
Hindsight is the only certain scientific way to tell who will survive when.
Again, this is not theologically informative. History seems random in this
sense, too. Yet the Bible is clear that God is sovereign over history and
working out His plans. From this revelation, we can then see the purpose
in it. Likewise, knowing that God was ultimately planning on creating us,
we can trace back the survival of our ancestors and recognize it as God's
handiwork. As One Who makes the wisdom of this world foolish and Whose
thoughts are far above ours, He does not work in a way such that His plan
is patently obvious to anyone. Rather, it is discerned spiritually.
Random, chaotic, chance, and the like can also be used in a philosophical
sense to mean the absence of direction. However, to detect this, we must
know what sort of direction to look for. A God who directs things
Biblically has a lots of flexibility in His methods, and the physical
evidence cannot prove His absence. Conversely, there is very little that
cannot be dismissed as coincidence, if one tries hard enough to dismiss
everything. Metaphysical, not scientific evidence, is needed to assess
such claims.
David C.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Jul 03 2000 - 13:59:40 EDT