![\"\"](\"https:\/\/wp-media.patheos.com\/blogs\/sites\/572\/2019\/06\/Einstein1921-2-2.jpg\")
<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
This is a follow-up dialogue and discussion of my paper,\u00a0Catholics & Origins: Irreducible Complexity or Theistic Evolution?\u00a0<\/a>VicqRuiz<\/a>\u00a0is a self-described deist who has been a very congenial dialogue \/ sparring partner for some time now on my blog. His words will be in blue<\/span>. My position on evolution \/ creation issues has actually significantly shifted today (I love when that happens!), after listening to the podcast dialogue mentioned in the above paper.<\/p>\n *****<\/p>\n Suppose that a creator built a perfect 1\/12 scale model of Victorian London using Legos. Every business, church, and home in exact detail. Every curb and gaslight, every mail box and trash bin.<\/span><\/p>\n Now suppose that another creator built just a single Lego. One that could replicate itself, and in such a way that each replicated piece would differ from its parent in just such a way as to be located and shaped so that all the replicated pieces would form the exact same model of London.<\/span><\/p>\n Which of the two do you think would be the more impressive, the more praiseworthy work of creation?<\/span><\/p>\n If I believed that science had satisfactorily explained the mechanism of evolution:\u00a0really<\/i>\u00a0explained it, as opposed to all the mind games and foolish rationalizations routinely made in almost blind faith, I would say that evolution creating everything (i.e., strictly by evolutionary natural \/ purely materialistic laws would be the more plausible option.<\/p>\n But because I don\u2019t believe that to be the case at all, I think that Intelligent Design is necessary as a \u201csupplement\u201d so to speak. I refuse to accept a purported \u201cscientific\u201d view that can\u2019t pass muster according to those same rules of science (that it has irrationally given God-like qualities). Materialistic evolution by itself simply can\u2019t explain the origin of either fundamental building-block structures or higher biological structures and organisms.<\/p>\n I was trying to posit a long-term development of life in which God is tweaking genes over the thousands of millennia to produce all the forms of past and present living things.<\/span><\/p>\n Because it seems to me that if mutation and natural selection are completely false hypotheses, then in fact God is specifically creating every species that has ever existed, including such apparent dead ends as\u00a0Hallucigenia<\/i>,\u00a0T.rex<\/i>, and\u00a0Homo habilis<\/i>.<\/span><\/p>\n I only know that science hasn\u2019t adequately explained the processes, and that a Designer is needed for it to be possible at all. The great philosopher\u00a0David Hume<\/a> (yes, you read that right) and Albert Einstein basically argued the same (Hume literally and Einstein in a more vague, pantheistic sense). In other words, it might be very broadly construed as a form of the teleological (design) argument<\/a>: one of the \u201cclassic\u201d theistic proofs.<\/p>\n I think that is the gist of what Dr. Behe is saying:<\/p>\n 1. Admit that science cannot explain everything, and has\u00a0not\u00a0<\/i>explained the mechanism and exact process of evolutionary change.<\/p>\n 2. Admit that it is not absolutely impermissible to dare to mention God as a necessary Designer of natural phenomena that are irreducibly complex. This was common practice before Darwin, and Darwin himself did not exclude God from all consideration with regard to evolution (as I have documented elsewhere). In fact, he was a theist when he wrote\u00a0Origin of Species<\/i>.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n Your (1) \u2013 I don\u2019t have any problem at all admitting that.<\/span><\/p>\n Your (2) \u2013 It seems to me that the millions of false starts and dead ends, in the history of life from (now \u2013 1 billion) to now, argue at least for a whole lot of randomness if not complete randomness. So if lots of randomness, why not total randomness, at least after the first deistic \u201cwinding of the key\u201d.<\/span><\/p>\n It seems peculiar that God would create and destroy all those non-sentient species over all that time before finally getting around to the one species made in his own image. Certainly the designer would have put as much effort into such a beautifully engineered package as\u00a0Velociraptor<\/i>\u00a0as he did into the bacterial flagellum \u2013 why did he let the former go?<\/span><\/p>\n Unless perhaps he was planning for some humans to become \u201cpaleontologists\u201d and did not want them sitting around bored stiff for lack of anything to do :-)<\/span><\/p>\n Because such randomness cannot explain the history of biological life and the wondrous diversity therein. If you concede that science (i.e., evolutionary biology) \u201chas not explained the mechanism and exact process of evolutionary change\u201d (as you just did), then how is it that you choose to believe with blind faith that these processes happened by purely natural and random processes anyway? You have no clue how or why, but you believe it. That\u2019s blind faith; the classic sociological \u201ctrue believer\u201d.<\/p>\n I think it is far more rational and consistent to admit that a Designer had some hand in it, or to remain utterly agnostic as to the whole thing. As a deist, you believe that God wound up the clock at the beginning. That\u2019s already vastly different from the dominant pure materialism of today\u2019s science. And it is at least some ground where we can meet and hold some premises in common.<\/p>\n As to the speculation of what God should and shouldn\u2019t have done (a la S. J. Gould), I think (always have) that it\u2019s just plain silly. If God exists and is omnipotent and omniscient, we would never in a million years figure out everything He does (let alone\u00a0why<\/i>\u00a0He does it). Christians believe that many things are revealed in revelation (so that we can know those to the extent of our limited abilities), but the processes and details of creation are not included in that.<\/p>\n Fair enough, see you next time round.<\/span><\/p>\n And here I thought the discussion was just starting and getting really interesting and constructive. :-) :-)<\/p>\n Well, I know what we agree on, and I\u2019m okay with what we don\u2019t agree on\u2026\u2026<\/span><\/p>\n *****<\/p>\n After the above exchange (which I have now edited slightly in my portion because of my change of mind), I listened to the friendly dialogue between Dr. Michae Behe and Dr. Stacy Trasancos<\/a> (both Catholics). I still agree with Dr. Behe, but I didn\u2019t feel that the two positions were all that far apart. In particular, Dr. Behe stated that Intelligent Design (ID) did not<\/em>\u00a0necessarily require additional \u201cintervention\u201d<\/em> by God after His initial act of creation. I found that interesting because I had thought that ID required that.<\/p>\n All Christians, it seems to me (who believe in the inspiration of revelation: the Bible), have to believe that 1) God created (Genesis, etc.), and 2) that God in some sense \u201csustains\u201d or \u201cupholds\u201d His creation, according to Hebrews 1:3 (\u201cupholding the universe by his word of power\u201d: RSV) and Acts 17:28 (\u201cIn him we\u00a0<\/b>live and move\u00a0and have our being\u201d).<\/p>\n I think this hypothesis of Intelligent Design (better understood by myself now) is more or less compatible with how Einstein described his own views (the main difference being that he was a pantheist, whereas I am a theist, and believe that a theistic God was the Designer). But the common ground is the belief in a non-material or immaterial force or power or spirit, if you will, that profoundly influences the material universe and its creative processes, and which itself seems ultimately beyond purely scientific or empirical analysis (precisely because it is non-material). Einstein expressed it in several interesting ways:<\/p>\n [for all sources, see my paper,\u00a0Albert Einstein\u2019s \u201cCosmic Religion\u201d: In His Own Words<\/a>]<\/p>\n My comprehension of\u00a0God\u00a0comes from the\u00a0deeply felt conviction\u00a0of a\u00a0superior intelligence\u00a0that reveals itself in the knowable world. (1923)<\/p>\n Try and penetrate with our limited means the secrets of nature and you will find that, behind all the discernible concatenations,\u00a0there remains something subtle, intangible and inexplicable.\u00a0Veneration for this force beyond anything that we can comprehend is my religion. To that extent I am, in point of fact, religious. (1927)<\/p>\n My\u00a0religiosity\u00a0consists of a\u00a0humble admiration\u00a0of the\u00a0infinitely superior spirit\u00a0that reveals itself in the little that we can comprehend about the knowable world. That\u00a0deeply emotional conviction\u00a0of the presence of a\u00a0superior reasoning power, which is revealed in the incomprehensible universe, forms my idea of\u00a0God. (1927)<\/p>\n I\u2019m\u00a0not an atheist\u00a0and I don\u2019t think I can call myself a\u00a0pantheist<\/a>. We are in the position of a little child entering a huge library filled with books in many different languages. The child knows\u00a0someone must have written those books. It does not know how. The child dimly suspects a\u00a0mysterious order\u00a0in the\u00a0arrangement\u00a0of the books but doesn\u2019t know what it is. That, it seems to me, is\u00a0the attitude of even the most intelligent human being\u00a0toward\u00a0God. We see a universe\u00a0marvelously arranged and obeying certain laws, but only dimly understand these laws. Our limited minds cannot grasp the\u00a0mysterious force\u00a0that moves the constellations. (1930)<\/p>\n [E]veryone who is seriously involved in the pursuit of science becomes convinced that\u00a0a spirit is manifest in the laws of the universe \u2014 a spirit vastly superior to that of man,\u00a0and one in the face of which we with our modest powers must\u00a0feel humble. In this way the pursuit of science leads to a\u00a0religious feeling of a special sort, . . . (1936)<\/p>\n In view of such\u00a0harmony in the cosmos\u00a0which I, with my limited human mind, am able to recognize, there are yet\u00a0people who say there is no God. But\u00a0what makes me really angry is that they quote me for support of such views. (1941)<\/p>\n Enough for me the\u00a0mystery of the eternity of life, and the inkling\u00a0of the\u00a0marvellous structure of reality, together with the\u00a0single-hearted endeavour to comprehend a portion, be it ever so tiny, of\u00a0the reason that manifests itself in nature. (1949)<\/p>\n My feeling is insofar religious as I am imbued with the consciousness of the insufficiency of the human mind to understand deeply\u00a0the harmony of the Universe which we try to formulate as \u201claws of nature.\u201d\u00a0It is this consciousness and humility I miss in the Freethinker mentality. (1954)<\/p><\/blockquote>\n Now, I would ask an atheist: whence comes Einstein\u2019s \u201cdeeply felt conviction\u201d? Is it a philosophical reason or the end result of a syllogism? He simply\u00a0has<\/i>\u00a0it. It is an intuitive or instinctive feeling or \u201cknowledge\u201d or \u201csense of wonder at the incredible, mind-boggling marvels of the universe\u201d. Atheists don\u2019t possess this intuition, but my point is that it is not utterly implausible or unable to be held by even the most rigorous, \u201cnon-dogmatic\u201d intellects, such as Einstein and David Hume. And the atheist has to\u00a0account\u00a0for that fact somehow, it seems to me.<\/p>\n But in this view, which can be synthesized with Intelligent Design (and is similar in many ways to theistic evolution), God designed or foreordained that complex structures would evolve, and life and consciousness, etc., by some unknown non-material, overarching, guiding principle that transcends science, or concerning which science can give us no clues or answers. He not only created scientific laws that work essentially on their own (hence can be observed and studied scientifically), but also \u201csupervises\u201d or ordains the entire \u201cproject\u201d: though not in an interventionist or supernatural \/ miraculous way. The processes and potentialities were there from the beginning<\/em>, as a manifestation of His omnipotence and omniscience. It\u2019s just that some of them are supra-scientific<\/em>.<\/p>\n Science never can and never will explain all of reality<\/em> to us, including the natural world in all of its complexity. Einstein understood this and expressed it. He (of all people) was intellectually humble and insightful enough to grasp it. Dr Trasancos, in the podcast debate, expressed (among many other things) a view that she later described on my Facebook page as \u201cbecause science is never complete, do not draw conclusions as if it were all done with discovery.\u201d<\/p>\n Dr. Behe maintained that present-day science is understanding more and more every day about the complexity of very small building-block structures, and that these things are becoming more<\/em> mysterious and less<\/em> understood all the time. The more we learn, the more we understand that we don\u2019t<\/em> know or fully comprehend, and likely won\u2019t figure all this out anytime soon, if ever. That\u2019s not a conclusion of despair; it\u2019s simply intellectual humility: an admission of our inherent limitations on many planes. The universe (so we hold in this view) comes from a Designer infinitely more intelligent than we are. To think that we can figure out every jot and tittle is sheer folly.<\/p>\n In an effort to tie all my newly adopted thinking together (and to form a suitable conclusion to this paper), I thought I\u2019d consult Dr. Michael Behe\u2019s 2007 book, The Edge of Evolution: The Search for the Limits of Darwinism<\/em><\/a>, which I had in my personal library but had not yet read. He offers many helpful thoughts in an eight-page summary of sorts (pp. 228-235; line gaps mean a gap in the text):<\/p>\n Like it or not, a raft of important distinctions intervene between a conclusion of design and identification of a designer.<\/p>\n [I]f one wishes to be academically rigorous, one can\u2019t leap directly from design to a transcendent God. To reach a transcendent God, other, nonscientific arguments have to be made \u2014 philosophical and theological arguments.<\/p>\n Here I\u2019m content to \u201ctake \u2018purposeful designer\u2019 in a very broad sense.\u201d<\/p>\n Darwin\u2019s main contribution to science was to posit a mechanism for the unfolding of life that required no input from any intelligence\u00a0 \u2014 random<\/em> variation and natural selection.<\/p>\n [T]he more science has discovered about the universe, the more deeply fine-tuning is seen to extend . . .<\/p>\n But the assumption that design unavoidably requires \u201cinterference\u201d rests mostly on a lack of imagination. There\u2019s no reason that the extended fine-tuning view I am presenting here necessarily requires active meddling with nature any more than the fine-tuning of theistic evolution does. One can think the universe is finely-tuned to any<\/em> degree and still conceive that \u201cthe universe [originated] by a single creative act\u201d and underwent \u201cits natural development by laws implanted in it.\u201d One simply has to envision that the agent who caused the universe was able to specify from the start not only laws, but much more.<\/p>\n [T]he designer took all necessary steps to ensure life. Those who worry about \u201cinterference\u201d should relax. The purposeful design of life to any degree is easily compatible with the idea that, after its initiation, the universe unfolded exclusively by the intended playing out of natural laws.\u00a0 The purposeful design of life is also fully compatible with the idea of universal common descent, one important facet of Darwin\u2019s theory. What the purposeful design of life\u00a0 is not<\/em> compatible with, however, is Darwin\u2019s proposed mechanism of evolution \u2014\u00a0random<\/em> variation and natural selection \u2014 which sought to explain the development of life explicitly without recourse to guidance or planning by anyone or anything at any time.<\/p>\n I regard design as a completely scientific conclusion.<\/p>\n I count as \u201cscientific\u201d any conclusion that relies heavily and exclusively on detailed physical evidence, plus standard logic.<\/p>\n Reviewing [my book] Darwin\u2019s Black Box<\/em> in 1996 for Nature<\/em>, University of Chicago evolutionary biologist Jerry Coyne wrote, \u201cThere is no doubt that the pathways described by Behe are dauntingly complex, and their evolution will be hard to unravel . . . We may forever be unable to envisage the first proto-pathways.\u201d If anyone thought it was hard to unravel ten years ago, it\u2019s far worse now.<\/p>\n Darwinism implicitly entails the strong, broad, basic claim that, given enough chances, random mutation and natural selection can build the sorts of complex machinery we see in the cell. Intelligent design implicitly entails an equally strong, broad, basic prediction that random mutation cannot<\/em> do so.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n ***<\/p>\n Photo credit:\u00a0<\/span><\/strong>janeb13\u00a0<\/a>\u00a0(uploaded on 1-29-16): Albert Einstein in 1921<\/span> [Pixabay<\/a> \/\u00a0Pixabay License<\/a>]<\/p>\n ***<\/p>\n<\/body><\/html>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" This is a follow-up dialogue and discussion of my paper,\u00a0Catholics & Origins: Irreducible Complexity or Theistic Evolution?\u00a0VicqRuiz\u00a0is a self-described deist who has been a very congenial dialogue \/ sparring partner for some time now on my blog. His words will be in blue. My position on evolution \/ creation issues has actually significantly shifted today […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2331,"featured_media":34404,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[112],"tags":[1048,8853,8850,8847,433,662,4144,4145,8859,8856,1047,253],"class_list":["post-34398","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-philosophy-science","tag-argument-from-design","tag-darwin","tag-darwin-devolves","tag-darwins-black-box","tag-evolution","tag-intelligent-design","tag-irreducible-complexity","tag-michael-behe","tag-natural-selection","tag-random-mutations","tag-teleological-argument","tag-theistic-arguments"],"yoast_head":"\n