Let me be clear from the start: I do not believe in creationism or intelligent design. The latter I think is a particularly deceptive doctrine and theologically both are deeply flawed. The problem is with the concept of design.
When Darwin developed his theory of evolution it was believed that Newton had pretty much described how the physical universe works. There was still some tidying up to do but many people thought it would take a matter of decades. Darwin knew nothing of Einstein or quantum theory or complexity theory.
This meant Darwin understood the universe as mechanical. It was standard practice to take a reductionist approach and that is what Darwin did. A popular model of the universe was the clock or watch, this was the cosmology of the time.
The first real Christian opposition to Darwin's theory was in the 1920s with the Scopes Trial. Quantum theory was being formulated around that time. One of the arguments was that if you are walking in the hills and pick up a watch, you would believe it had a designer. Similarly look at the complexity of life, eg the vertebrate eye, and you have to conclude there is a designer.
Today we associate these views with right wing fundamentalists. It is easy to forget that the creationists at the time were left wing people alarmed at certain interpretations of survival of the fittest.
The universe as we understand it today is a very different place. So, let's be clear, mechanical things, eg computers, are designed; the universe is not. Things designed by human beings cannot enter into conversations; natural things can.
Science has moved on. Take ecosystems for example, we no longer see them as mechanical closed systems with interchangeable parts but as open systems, similar to soft systems.
Natural systems are complex. Complexity is the name given to places where there is an interface between order and chaos. It is where creativity happens, where new patterns are generated.
My conclusion is that natural selection goes part way to explaining evolution but isunable to explain it fully. Indeed it seems likely that natural selection tends to keep things as they are rather than generate new things. But to say the big step changes of evolution are not explained by natural selection is not the same as saying they need a designer. I think the answer is something intrinsic to matter, a property that leads it to tend towards life and increasing complexity. The fact that I can't explain it fully does not mean it cannot be understood by scientists.
Comments