Chance v. Design (Evolution)

by dhw, Saturday, May 02, 2009, 11:38 (5482 days ago)

David has referred us in several posts to the latest research on DNA and RNA, and the two most recent concern the mammalian retina and replication. He asks the million-dollar question (I remember the days when it was only $64,000!) which I would like to use in order to summarize some agnostic viewpoints: "Is this the result of blind luck (Chance mutation and Natural Selection) or could this be a planned design?" - Chance: somehow various bits and pieces assembled themselves accidentally into the first replicating molecule. This was so complex that not only could it reproduce itself, but it was also capable of infinite variations triggered by more chance events such as mutations, collisions and environmental changes. Thus after billions of years a mindless, limbless, heartless, sexless blob unconsciously evolved into us. - Design: a) the same as above, but the molecule was assembled by an intelligence.
 b) the same as a) but the intelligence carried on messing about with its design. - You need great faith to imagine unconscious chance being scientifically capable of assembling such a complex piece of machinery, but the theory has its attractions. Once you've taken that leap of faith, the ceaseless free-for-all follows quite naturally: no problem explaining the origin of selfishness and evil (part of the survival system) or diseases and other natural indiscriminate catastrophes, no need to bother about experiences of the paranormal or for any further speculation beyond research into the material world. Science will explain everything eventually, but meanwhile just get on with the here and now. (However, you are a member of society, and are just as concerned with ethics, love, art etc. as the Designer Supporters' Club.) - Design, on the other hand, raises huge problems.
1) Where did the designer come from? Don't know, can't know. Belief in an eternal spirit demands the same sort of blind faith as belief in chance. - 2) Where is it now? Don't know. The free-for-all is so obvious that either it's not there, or it's simply watching and not interfering. - 3) What is its form? If it is/was a physical being, we're still stuck with the problem of origin. If it's some other form of existence (see 1) origin is still a problem, but the extraordinary capacities of the human mind come into serious reckoning, as do the more credible tales of the paranormal. Could there be another level of being? - 4) What is its nature? The free-for-all of the survival system suggests at best indifference to cruelty, but the human capacity for love and altruism and beauty suggest the same qualities in the designer, so maybe humans are an accurate reflection of their creator's mixed nature. (See 5) This also gets rid of the argument about "terrible design if an intelligent force is in charge". Intelligence does not = perfection. How many human designs have been so perfect that they couldn't be improved? - 5) Why did it create life? It must have had a reason. Boredom, perhaps? Loneliness? "Don't anthropomorphize the designer!" you might cry ... but why not? Designs often reflect their designers, and besides, what other basis can there be for our speculations? The product (the world itself) seems to me a far more convincing piece of evidence than wishful thinking based on dubious interpretations of dubious manuscripts. And a god without qualities might just as well not be there (see 6). - 6) Not the least consideration: what's in it for me? Well, if there's no afterlife, nothing. In this life, most of what happens to me is my responsibility or the result of luck, and that's OK with me. However, many people have been infinitely less lucky than me, so if there's no afterlife in which they'll get compensation (or I can continue enjoying some form of existence), it doesn't matter two hoots whether we were designed or not. - What we would like has no bearing on the truth, of course, which is either chance or design. David says: "Take your choice". Whichever of the two you choose requires that almighty leap of faith, but there is a third option: the agnostic one of not making a choice. Here endeth the summary.