A Fine Tuned Universe? 8 (RJS)

RJS:

I'm way out of my depth here. If I understand, there is directionality to evolution. It seems to be headed somewhere, to a limited set of endpoints. You say this does not necessarily indicate a designer guiding the process but allows for it.

Then you say, "it is a property of the universe."

It seems such statements betray a problem. In order to avoid God language, is it common to say of things like, "the universe works this way"? How about "the universe works in mysterious ways" or "may the goodness of the universe protect you"?

I'm not criticizing you. I'm just playing with the idea that existence and order are hard for me to imagine as purposeless.

The Christian view is a teleological one, postulating or inferring design and purpose. On the other hand, a materialist of naturalist view postulates and infers no such design or purpose. Both admit that outcomes are constrained by physics, chemistry, biology: the nature of the universe. If one believes that the nature of the universe is an attribute of God or a "let there be..." decision of God, then I see no real conflict, certainly nothing amenable to logic, science, or "facts." Rather than taking sides, I would hope that both sides are generous in their approach and reaction to the other. Am I missing something?
Doug

We are the accidental result of an unplanned process.... the fragile result of an enormous concatenation of improbabilities, not the predictable product of any definite process.

This is, of course, a statement of faith, I can't imagine any kind of empirical experience that would falsify it. At least not in the lifetimes of anybody reading this post.

Travis #4-

"...that would bolster the view that, given life's existence, certain creatures (humanity?) are actually inevitable."

Interesting thought/twist on that potential situation. I had always expected the response to be just the "Aha! Life on earth is nothing special", but you are right, and especially in lieu of McGrath's thoughts- there is another way to look at that.

peelingdragonskin.wordpress.com

RJS- You said,

"This does not deny the basic facts of evolution - as an explanatory tool evolution is essentially proven."

We need to be clear what is "proven" and what is not. Darwin's theory explains some things, but not others (origin of life, origin of DNA, origin of Cambrian animals).

You said,

"A directionality to evolution, the presence of islands of stability, is not empirical evidence of design - it is a property of the universe, a nature of the evolutionary algorithm."

RJS- It seems like you are bending over backwards to avoid acknowledging "empirical evidence of design." Is that what we should be doing? How are you defining "directionality"? One definition is "relating to guidance in effort, behavior, or thought." Another is "relating to direction or guidance especially of thought or effort." (m-w.com) In these, design seems to be inherent in the meaning of "directionality." What is your definition?

I think what McGrath is getting at here is nothing less than the traditional Christian notion of "providence." And this is why I think McGrath's approach is basically correct. Using the "spectacles of faith" (to use Calvin's phrase), Christians can begin to discern God's providential ordering where those who lack faith will miss it.

pds,

I agree that Darwinian evolution does not explain the origin of life or the origin of DNA. I am not convinced that it cannot explain the origin of Cambrian animals. While aspects of the evolutionary theory are mature other aspects are undergoing development, refinement, and maturation (i.e. we do not understand everything yet).

Directionality simply means that there is a structure to the fitness landscape explored by evolutionary processes. Evolution is not a highly contingent process operating on a flat surface. Many paths will wind up at the same basic result or set of results.

I find it interesting that technotheology discussions, especially relating to evolutionary scientheology concerns, evoke more response than hunger or forgiveness issues. Not to say they are not necessary, whatsoever.
It just strikes me a tad oblique - like when I am in a restaurant and hear a person ask a waitress, "So, you seem like an intelligent person, do you believe in evolution?" And then wander on and about a tense interaction without ever touching upon the "flesh" of God.
Just an observation, I do not mean to imply anything negative.
We are a curious lot.

AHH (#12)

You are right - this use of "neo-Darwinian" is somewhat misleading. But in the science/religion discussion metaphysics often creeps in and this definition is not something that I made up - or that McGrath made up (and he uses it in the book, I did not impose it on the discussion).

In fact several years ago a biology teachers organization tried to define evolution with the metaphysical insistence on blind undirected purposeless random chance embedded in the definition. Even the National Center for Science Education tried to get the language tamed a bit - but it was like pulling teeth to do so. (I read about this in the book Darwin and the Bible I posted on earlier in the summer. I am relating from memory here.)

I think that we need to draw a line when people start to insert the metaphysical assumption of no purpose into the scientific discussion.

pds,

A ball will roll down hill - different initial conditions and trajectories will lead to the same result. Is this the basis for a design inference?

RJS (#19)

"Same result"? It depends.

A ball on a normal hill will not follow the same path each time and will not end up in exactly the same place each time. So there is no design inference.

A ball rolling on a well-designed track will follow the same path each time. So there is a design inference.

pds,

I think that evolution is more like your first example of a ball on a normal hill. The general trajectory will be similar every time - but it will not be identical. These are the islands of stability that Conway Morris talks about.

From the data I make an inference of design, but my neighbor in the next office sees only natural process. However, we view science in the same way and practice it in the same way.

Does design require a deterministic process (like your ball on a well designed track)?

I think that there is an element of choice and chance in creation - but on a landscape (designed by God) such that God does/did know how it would turn out in a global sense. I think that the fact that we have five fingers rather than six is an unimportant detail and may be an "accident", a random occurrence that was passed along - but the fact that we are sentient creative beings capable of abstract thought and capable of relationship with the creator is not an accident, but part of the design.

I read that NY Times Op-Ed piece - and had a reader send me a link. I was (am) considering putting a post on it up ...

pds #18,

I would agree with those who say that concluding that evolution is "directed" puts one outside the realm of science. Just like a conclusion that it is "undirected" would be outside science. Of course science is not the only path to truth.

But we need to clarify what we mean by directed. In my paragraph just above, I was referring to statements of metaphysical purpose (something being directed or not in an ultimate metaphysical sense) as being outside science. Within science one might talk about a particular event as being random or undirected at the physical level, but that should not be extrapolated to the metaphysical level. Somebody has suggested "without apparent direction" as a qualifier for describing aspects of evolution, and I think the "apparent" helps a lot.

But when Conway Morris talks about direction in evolution (if he uses that word) it is not really the metaphysical concept. So when you say "direction to a target result" your insertion of "target" adds a meaning that was not meant. It is more like the fact that the landscape of North America "directs" water from my home near Denver to the Gulf of Mexico near New Orleans, and if water starts in Iowa it ends up at about the same place. This cannot be used to prove that North America was designed to have an outflow of water at New Orleans (although it is not inconsistent with such an assertion).

This is like what Conway Morris says in terms of the landscape of life that gets explored by evolutionary processes. He says the landscape is such that the life we see today (including humans), or something similar, is almost inevitable. This is consistent with the idea that God has designed the landscape to bring about this result (which is part of McGrath's point), but isn't scientific proof of such.
I like dopderbeck's assessment at #11 -- with eyes of faith we can see God's design but those outside can't be expected to recognize it.

Has anyone else seen the video where he is interviewed by Richard Dawkins?

http://orant.blogspot.com/2009/07/dawkins-talks-to-mcgrath.html

Here

Unapologetic Catholic (#26)

I probably won't post on either. I admire Collins, but I don't envy him.

"evolution is an undirected, highly contingent, random process". It may well be but it does not rely on a random process. The process would go much faster if there were no random elements but, as there is no guiding hand, it has to cope with chance elements. It is this fact that tells us that there is no god involved in the evolution of life.

There is no need for a god to create anything - it has always been there. God is just a fairy tale character so stop making up all this nonsense.

I may be distancing myself a lot from the majority (almost all) of Evangelicals, but does anyone feel that the picture of God given by Process Theology helps a lot more in picturing a process which is similar to the one of the ball rolling down a hill, without prescribed - yet similar and directional - ends?

Thanks John Sutton #33,

It's comments like this, thoughtless, unsupported, and philosophically absurd in contrast with some fairly robust discussion and give-and-take that helps people come to the realization that atheism just isn't a tenable position.

Religion is a reflection of the human capacity to believe in the impossible and ridiculous.

The aim of education should be to help all members of a society move toward a frame of mind by which it is clear that the above statement is correct and self evident. Until then human society is going to be struggling against the negative impact of irrational and even insane socially accepted views. Most importantly we will not clearly recognize that there is no god to save us from our own destructive thinking and behavior and therefore we will not accept our responsibility to take good care of ourselves and this planet that supports us.