These questions were directed specifically to Glenn Morton, but since I am
also a fundamentalist, evangelical Christian who accepts evolution and
believes that God uses "random mutation and natural selection" to create and
diversify life, I hope nobody minds if I offer my answers as well.
>
> Do you believe the laws of nature were designed--or came into existence by
> accident?
>
I believe they were designed to be tools by which God would create the
universe, just as humans designed hammers and saws so they could create
buildings.
>
> If you believe the laws of nature were designed by God, do you
> believe he did so for any purpose?
>
Yes. I believe that space-time is analogous to computer hardware, whereas
the laws of nature are analogous to software. I believe in essence that God
programmed space-time with the natural laws the same way a human programs a
computer with a piece of software. This implies a specific purpose, but it
cannot tell us what that purpose was.
>
> Do you believe the universe is the
> result of accidental processes? The result of random, chance events?
>
Yes and no. The "baby universe" hypothesis suggests that universes pop into
and out off existence in space-time as readily as virtual particles, but just
as occassionally virtual particles can become real, so too can a virtual
universe become real. However, what determines when and if a virtual
universe does become real appears to be controled by chance. Therefore, it
is entirely possible that space-time can be programmed by the laws of nature
to produce virtual universes, but which become real is itself most likely a
chance event.
>
> If everything is the result of chance, what part, if any, could God have
played?
>
God created and programmed space-time to produce virtual universes. Also, I
do not rule out the possibility that God deliberately fixed the odds so that
our universe would be one of the lucky ones. And once our universe became
real, God could of course interact with it if He chose to.
>
> Do you have any objection to the concept of design?
>
I don't; in fact, design is a useful concept in biochemistry, except of
course what we mean by that is molecular engineering design, not design in
the sense of conceptualizing and creating the molecular machinery. However,
biochemistry also shows that design of this type can be created by the
physiochemical laws without the interference of an external intelligence.
>
> Most advocates of "random mutation and natural selection" believe such
> things as altruism, love and emotions are also the result of "random
> mutation and natural selection". Is that part of your belief?
>
I believe that mind is an emergent quality; that is, it is based on
neurochemistry, but it is a direct result of the complexity of the neural
pathways in the brain. I believe therefore that it is at least conceivable
that mind evolved. Now, whether it actually did is a question we may never
be able to answer. Also, "random mutation and natural selection" alone may
not be able to account for it.
>
> I admit that
> evolution is probably the result of mutations, but why do you insist they
> must be random?
>
Not must be, but mutations are generally considered to be random for three
reasons: 1. There is no evidence to suggest that mutations occur as the
result of any cause other than replication errors or the actions of certain
chemical substances; 2. There is no evidence that mutations occur only when
needed; and 3. There is evidence to show that mutations which are not caused
by chemical agents occur randomly, as in the case of radioactive decay. Just
as when a specific atom undergoes decay is a chance event (even though for a
large enough group of atoms one can statistically predict what proportion
will decay in a specific length of time), when a specific site on the genome
undergoes a mutation is also a chance event (even though for a long enough
period of time one can statistically predict the likelihood that a specific
site will undergo a specific mutation).
>
> And if mutations aren't random, but occur according to some
> rational plan or design, natural selection wouldn't necessarily be
important
> to the process--except to eliminate mistakes, would it?
>
Not necessarily. Whether a mutation is helpful or harmful is determined by
how it interacts with the environment. As such, there really are no
"mistakes" to be eliminated, just mutations that interact in harmful ways.
Now, here is the kicker: a mutation that is harmful under one set of
environmental conditions may be helpful in another, and vice versa. And
since the environment tends to change, so does the ability of a species to
survive. Natural selection acts as a filter, preserving those combinations
of mutations that are more beneficial than other combinations, and when the
environment changes so does the combination of mutations that are optimal for
survival. So, unless the rational plan or design can control the environment
as well as mutational events, mutations that are deliberately selected
because they are beneficial under one set of environmental conditions may
prove to be detrimental under a different set. And combinations of mutations
that are too optimal for one set of environmental conditions are less likely
to be even marginally optimal in a different set of conditions. In my
opinion, if God were smart, He would let "random mutation and natural
selection" do His evolving for Him rather than try to direct it without
knowing how the environment will change.
>
> Natural selection
> would not be a creative force in that case, but merely a force for stasis,
> wouldn't it?
>
Again, unless the rational plan or design can control the environment as
well, an environment that steadily shifts in a specific direction rather then
simply oscillates will tend, through natural selection, to create organisms
with traits that are optimal for that direction of change as the mutations
that increase that optimality are retained and those that do not are
discarded. So even if the mutations are deliberately induced, there would be
no guarantee that they would be retained if they are not optimal for the
shifting environment.
>
> As a Christian, you must surely believe free will plays a part
> in the evolution of human thought and culture.
>
Yes, but as James Burke, Jacob Bronowski and Stephen Gould (among others)
have demonstrated, human thought and culture has also been heavily influenced
by contingency. What if the Greeks had been conquered by the Persians? What
if Mithralism had become the official religion of the Roman Empire instead of
Christianity? What if the Mongels had not abandoned their invasion of
Europe? What if the Normans had lost the Battle of Hastings? What if
Protestantism had been stamped out? Any one of these events would have
produced a significant change in human thought and culture had the outcome
been different than it was. What if Nazi Germany had developed nuclear
weapons first and won WW2?
>
> Do you eliminate will as
> playing any part in biological evolution?
>
Since there is no evidence of will playing any part in biological evolution,
I would say yes. Now, that does not mean that will is not playing some role,
but it does mean that so far we do not recognize it.
>
> Isn't symbiosis a collection of individual events involving will?
>
No, because in virtually all cases the organisms involved do not have wills.
Symbiosis is like irreducible complexity; the final results look impressive,
but if we understood the events that produced the results it would all appear
to be (to quote Sherlock Holmes) "absurdly simple".
>
> Do you rule out any form of Lamarckism--mutations influenced by use?
>
Yes, but only because once again there is no evidence to demonstrate that
using a mutation makes it more likely it will appear in your offspring, and
plenty of evidence to show that it has no influence whatsoever.
>
> Do you think biologists' insistence
> on randomness might have kept anyone from even investigating an
> environmental component of mutation?
>
No, because there have always been mavericks in the scientific community that
insist upon bucking the establishment and striking out on their own. And
contrary to popular belief, journals are more likely to publish and
institutions more likely to fund research that is innovative and daring over
the same old rehash of someone else's work. It should also be pointed out
that French science has been heavily Lamarckian, because Lamarck was French
and Darwin was English. Yet despite all this, there is still no evidence to
show that environment can cause or even influence the occurance of mutational
events. All it appears to do is determine which mutations are retained from
one generation to the next.
Kevin L. O'Brien