Chance Versus Intelligent Design—Which Is It?
WHAT IS THE GREAT G.O.D. DEBATE, AND HOW CAN IT BE RESOLVED?
Okay—up to now I’ve presented exemplary evidence as well as compelling theory pointing to the conclusion that some sort of a Guiding-Organizing-Designing process is playing a fundamental role in the origin and evolution of the universe—as well as in you and me. At this point I want to step back and consider the question of chance versus intelligent design in more detail. I ask you to follow this in the spirit of the distinguished neuroscientist Warren McCulloch, who said with great fondness, “Do not bite my finger, look where I am pointing.”
There are basically two schools of thought—what scientists label as two foundational hypotheses—about the origin of the universe. One can be called the “chance universe”; the other, the “intelligent design universe.” Though there are many variations and possible combinations of these two broad classes of theories, the complexities boil down to two simple hypotheses.
The chance universe is the current interpretation generally accepted by mainstream science in the fields of statistics, quantum physics, and evolutionary biology. It suggests that the growth and evolution of all things, from the subatomic to the galactic—and everything in between—reflects a version of natural selection and survival of the fittest as elegantly proposed by Charles Darwin. At its core, the idea of survival of the fittest is presumed to be possible due to the existence of random mutation and chance in biological systems, driven by physical laws, as they interact with the environment.
Highly regarded twentieth-century scientists—ranging from the late Richard Feynman and Carl Sagan in physics and astrophysics to Stephen Dawkins and the late Stephen J. Gould in evolution and biology—are often associated with some version of this randomness interpretation of the origin of order, life, and evolution in the universe.
It is important to pay close attention to the wording here—we are speaking about the origin of order, life, and evolution in the universe. Generally speaking, mainstream scientists tend to ignore the “origins” question because they cannot address it. Explaining the evolution of biological life in terms of existing laws of physics, chemistry, and biochemistry ignores the fundamental question: what explains the origin and organization of the laws that are presumed to be the building blocks of higher-order biological systems, including the appearance and evolution of intelligence in life? If the explanation for the origin and organization of natural laws is not chance and randomness, then what is it?
Other distinguished twentieth-century scientists—ranging from the late Albert Einstein and David Bohm in physics to Rupert Sheldrake and the late Willis Harman in evolution and biology—are often associated with some version of an intelligent design interpretation. A more apt term, one that is consistent with the evidence from evolution as well as from statistics, is “creative intelligent design.” This intelligent trial and error or “experimenting intelligence” integrates intelligence as expressed in both art and science.
The proponents of the chance universe hypothesis cite veritable mountains of data that seem to be consistent with the existence of randomness in the evolution of the universe. I emphasize the word “seem” because to accept the chance hypothesis requires that one assume that if something appears random—like the sequence of numbers in pi—then the order must be random (a very shaky assumption). It also requires the assumption that the overabundance of order seen in the universe (for example, spiraling galaxies) can be explained as random combinations of laws and processes—yet this is inconsistent with everyday experience revealed through sand paintings or watchmaking.
The most vocal advocates claim—with complete conviction—that randomness essentially rules the universe. They presume that the universe began in a state of true chaos (disorder), and that it is basically running down (again, this is the Second Law of Thermodynamics). The seeming exception to this overall picture of increasing entropy and disorder in the universe is the existence of small pockets or areas of evolving order—such as witnessed on the planet Earth.
To the chance advocates, if such a thing as “God” exists, there would be no question that such a God plays dice with the universe. In fact, according to some interpretations of probability theory, you can literally bet your life that the chance universe hypothesis is true.
However, before we can address the playing dice explanation, we must consider the distinction between observation and interpretation, between the facts and our stories about them. Remember we observe that pi produces a precise sequence of numbers that defies our current understanding, and yet this sequence is replicated 100 percent of the time. What is our interpretation of these observations? Randomness? Complex order? Expression of intelligent design? How do we decide among these potential interpretations?
HOW LOOKING AT THE SUN HELPS US UNDERSTAND THE FUNDAMENTAL DISTINCTION BETWEEN OBSERVATION AND INTERPRETATION
Just because an observation is replicable does not mean that our interpretation of the observation is correct. And this deserves repeating because if there is one lesson we should all learn from the history of science, it is this: The fact that an observation is replicable does not mean that our interpretation of the observation is correct.
Unfortunately, even the best-trained scientists sometimes forget this core distinction. One of my favorite examples of the “interpretation is not the observation” principle involves commonplace observations of the sun that lead us to say the sun rises in the east and sets in the west.
For almost two decades I have lived in a beautiful desert where the sun shines almost every day. I have personally witnessed, and can easily document over three hundred times in a given year, the sun’s apparent rising and setting behavior. Just like flipping a coin or throwing dice, no expensive and complicated scientific devices are needed to make observations of the sun’s trustworthy behavior.
These completely replicable solar observations long ago led humans to the seemingly commonsense interpretation that the sun revolves around the earth. So the distinction between observation and interpretation is critical. Early humans witnessed the sun’s rising here and setting there, and inferred—that is, formulated the conclusion—that the sun “revolves” around us.
History teaches that for many thousands of years, this is exactly what humankind did. Early man confused the distinction between observation and interpretation and accepted the interpretation that the sun revolves around the earth as if it were an observed fact. We still retain that notion when we talk about the sun rising and setting, as if it were moving and the earth were still.
But the interpretation is not the observation. The conclusion is not the data. The map is not the territory. The explanation is not the evidence.
We now understand and accept that the most obvious interpretation of the sun’s rising and setting behavior turns out have an alternative explanation. But it’s well worth remembering that this interpretation not only challenged common sense, it challenged long-held religious beliefs based on the commonsense interpretation, as well.
We now understand that because the earth revolves on its axis, and because the earth revolves around the sun, it therefore appears to us on the earth as if the sun is revolving around the earth, when in fact something quite different is happening.
It’s also worth considering that any “alternative” interpretation was once extremely dangerous for the scientists who proposed it, because the establishment—in this case, the orthodox church—was committed to a different interpretation. In fact, in the course of human history, scientists have sometimes been silenced, tortured, and even executed for proposing interpretations that conflicted with accepted foundational interpretations of “the establishment.”
Informed people have come to know what the “alternative” interpretation is of the sun and earth. The names Copernicus and Galileo are connected to one of the greatest paradigm shifts in the history of science, a shift often referred to as the Copernican Revolution. And just for the record I will state what is obvious to most twenty-first-century adults, something contemporary science has convinced us to take for granted: that there is a logical, plausible, and convincing alternative explanation for our earthbound observations of the sun.
Note that the basic observations of the sun’s behavior—seen by our eyes when on earth—have not changed. What has changed is our intellectual interpretation of our earthbound, and hence earth-limited, observations of the sun. Unfortunately, when specific interpretations of observation become accepted dogma, the human mind typically closes shut, and creativity atrophies. Einstein put it this way: “Unthinking respect for authority is the greatest enemy of truth.”
A NEW, ALTERNATIVE INTERPRETATION OF RANDOMNESS
What you are about to read is an alternative interpretation of coin flips, dice, and so-called randomness that is parallel to the alternative interpretation of the sun revolving around the earth.
In a fundamental sense, our long-held interpretation of the observations of coin flips—as chance—is as primitive as man’s early interpretation of the observations of the sun. I’m volunteering to lead the charge and to put new interpretations onto old observations.
The alternative interpretation revealed in the next chapter resolves the apparent paradox between a young child seemingly throwing random dice and the Dream Detective (in Part One) seeing a clearly nonrandom future.
Can a simple change of concept that takes place in the mind transform our perception of virtually everything? The history of science says yes.
ALBERT EINSTEIN
My religion consists of a humble admiration of the illimitable superior spirit who reveals himself in the slight details we are able to perceive with our frail and feeble minds. That deeply emotional conviction of the presence of a superior reasoning power, which is revealed in the incomprehensible universe, forms my idea of God.