NON-RANDOM EVOLUTION

 Some time ago I wrote a blog post which questioned the Darwinian article of faith--Evolution by Natural Selection. As I understood Natural Selection, It was a process of random selection of random mutations to the genetic structure of DNA. My questioning such an article of faith quite naturally caused some kickback from neo-Darwinists. 

One critiquer of my position argued that evolution was not random--that it was a non-random selection from a variety of random mutations. I see two problems with this thesis. First, it says that evolution is both non-random and random at the same time. This, of course, violates the logical rule of non-contradiction. As Aristotle put it, a thing cannot be and not be at the same time. Second, the way out of this logical contradiction is to recognize that if there is a non-random selection from random mutations, then the process of evolution is not random at all. In other words, an intelligence of some sort drives evolution.

To use the "intelligent design" escape from the neo-Darwinian self-contradiction is not to buy into the belief that the "intelligent designer" is God. Here is a theory of evolution which should be congenial to both theists and atheists--a "self-organization" theory. 

Science teaches that there are four fundamental forces of nature--the strong force, the weak force, electromagnetism, and gravity. I theorize a fifth force--the self-organizing force. The phenomenon of self-organization has been identified on all levels of physical science and biology. From the organization of subatomic particles into atoms to the organization of galaxies into clusters and superclusters, the clues of self-organization are everywhere. So how would a self-organization theory of evolution work?

To grossly oversimplify: 

Natural Selection posits that when the asteroid hit Mexico 66,000,000 years ago, the big, lumbering behemoth dinosaurs went extinct, but some dinosaurs accidentally evolved into birds and continue living to this day. This certainly was a fortuitous accident. Out of a near-infinity of possible random mutations (most of which would have been harmful), a mutation occurred which saved the descendants of the dinosaurs.

According to the Self-Organization Theory of evolution, when the asteroid struck, some dinosaur DNA reacted to the fact that its current structure was no longer working and reprogrammed itself to eventually become birds. It will be easy to say, "Self-organization is a godless process like the other four fundamental forces of Nature," and look no farther. But there is a new scientific theory floating around which is suggestive of an Intelligent Designer.

According to this theory, the Universe is actually a virtual reality simulation. Partial evidence of this theory is found in the fact that every aspect of the Universe is so well-organized. 

If we live in a virtual reality Universe, then it stands to reason that somewhere outside the Universe is a Virtual Reality Simulator. One atheistic view of the virtual reality simulator is to imagine the Universe as a computer simulation on somebody's laptop. A theistic view might be that the Virtual Reality Simulator is God. 

Regardless of which theory suits your fancy, or even if neither does, evolution by self-organization makes more sense than evolution by random accident aka Natural Selection.

ACCIDENTAL ADAPTATION?

Darwinians are celebrating the adaptation of a Puerto Rican forest lizard to urban life. In an article entitled Forest Lizards Genetically Morph to Survive Life in the City, the adaptation is ballyhooed as proof of Darwin's theory of evolution. This may be a fine example of evolution, but I don't think it supports the neo-Darwinist theory of Natural Selection. According to that theory, random mutations of the DNA molecule are selected to survive because they give the DNA an advantage in the struggle for survival. "Random mutation" equals "Accidental change." Accidents are more often disastrous than serendipitous. 

Which is more reasonable? That when the lizards moved into the city, their genes were randomly modified and the modifications gave the lizards longer legs and modified scales which helped them to better survive in the city? Or that when the lizards came into the city, their DNA recognized the need for longer legs and modified scales and reprogrammed itself to make city life easier?

If evolution is random, why does DNA keep coming up with the same solutions to the same problems? This phenomenon is called "convergent evolution," and convergent evolution has given us the Ichthyosaurus, the Shark, and the Killer Whale, all of which are basically the same. It has also given us Hyenas and Wolves--two very different genera which survive in much the same way. Then we can look at Ants and Termites; pterodactyls, bats, and birds; and myriads of other unrelated species which have "convergently evolved" the same sort of solutions to the same problems.

One of my favorite examples of convergent evolution is the Panda's thumb. The Panda, like primates and people, needed an opposable thumb for grasping things (in the Panda's case it was bamboo shoots). To meet this need the Panda evolved a thumb. It's a very different thumb than the human thumb, but it still is a thumb.

I once read a joke that claimed DNA invented human beings because it wanted to explore extraterrestrial opportunities for replication. The joke was funny because it advanced the "ridiculous" theory that DNA had some form of intelligence, and that evolution was purposeful.

I think Darwinists are allergic to the idea that some sort of intelligence drives evolution because they see the term "Intelligent Design" as a code word for God. If they could remove God from the process of evolution and retain some sort of directing force, they would probably drop Natural Selection like a hot potato.

Henri Bergson, the atheist French philosopher, could accept neither the theory that accident drove  evolution nor the theory that God controlled it. He posited a theory that there was some sort of "elan vital," or "life force," which drove evolution by seeing needs and opportunities and modifying life to meet those needs and opportunities.

I'm not a scientist, a philosopher, or a theologian, but I think I can see a theory of evolution which can satisfy both the proponents of materialistic evolution and theistic evolution. I'll discuss it in my next post.