Re: Early humans swapped bite for brain

On 3/26/04 4:08 PM, "Gary Collins" <gwcollins@algol.co.uk> wrote:
>
> Howard,
> It certainly is amazing what can be achieved through a mutation.
> I remember a few years back there was a post in which someone
> stated that a frame-shift mutation in some-or-other bacterium
> gave it the ability to produce an enzyme which could digest
> polythene. One would think that the odds against that happening
> would be enormous (and perhaps they are) but it happened, all the
> same.

Yes, the probability of any one particular mutation occurring may be
extremely small.

Many critics of biotic evolution, including some on this list, have used
this to argue for the need for some supplemental non-natural action to
compensate for what the universe was inadequately equipped (perhaps as a
consequence of low probability values) to do.

However, it seems to me that this kind of probability computation is totally
irrelevant. What is relevant is not the probability of one particular
mutation occurring, but rather the probability that -- of all of the
numerous mutations that happen to occur -- one or more will initiate a
positive feedback process toward some interesting and fruitful outcome. (The
particular outcomes that occurred are only a small sampling of numerous
possible outcomes.) Can we compute that probability? No, I suspect that we
lack both the knowledge and the creativity to do so.

> I'd say my views are broadly similar to yours. I view God as not only
> the Creator but also as the Sustainer of all things, and the creation as
> having
> such properties as RFEP because God continuously acts to sustain His
> creation, and that He does so (most of the time) in such a way that enables
> us to see predictability in the creation's behaviour.

In the case of formational histories of biotic systems, predictability is
limited. There are simply too many contingencies to predict the
actualization of any particular species from first principles. On a smaller
(short-term) scale, of course, lots of predictions can be made and tested,
as evolutionary biologists routinely do.

> Like yourself, I think it highly unlikely (though not impossible) that God
> would act in an 'out-of-the-ordinary' way in order to actualize some
> particular biological structure or feature such as the flagellum (as ID
> would suggest).

Agreed, with one caveat. I long argued that supernatural intervention was
unnecessary for the formational history of living things, but did not
categorically close the door to the possibility of supernatural action in
general. In his book, Religion and Scientific Naturalism, David Ray Griffin
criticized that approach as suffering from a serious inconsistency and
challenged me to consider the possibility that supernatural (coercive,
overpowering) intervention was excluded by the very nature of God and the
God/World relationship. I found that criticism and challenge valuable.

> But like some other people on the list, I don't think it nearly so unlikely
> that God intervened in such a way in order to produce the first life from
> non-life. My reasons for believing this are 1) the sheer improbability of
> having the right things come together in the right way at the right time
> (this may subsequently be shown to be an unreasonable objection, but
> for now I think it is valid;

But we simply do not know enough to do the relevant probability computation.
Consequently, your belief will flow from other, non-scientific,
considerations.

> ..... and 2) in my interpretation of Genesis I
> understand three 'fiats' from God, which (I believe) indicate the bringing
> into existence of something fundamentally new, that wasn't in existence
> before. Effectively, these are matter, life and man. If this interpretation
> is reasonable (I'm no great theologian any more than I am a great scientist!)
> this would give sufficient theological ground for God 'doing something
> special' in the origin of life, consistent with the scientific/mathematical
> ground).

I take a quite different approach here. For myself, I find no warrant in
expecting Genesis 1 or any other sample of biblical text to provide me with
any privileged information that is directly relevant to the details of
contemporary scientific theorizing. The biblical text provides me with
valuable insights into the way in which the ancient Hebrew and early
Christian communities experienced the Sacred and how they lived in response
to that authentic human experience, but I do not count that as binding ‹ not
on my experience of the Sacred, and not on my scientific theorizing. These
are things I will have to figure out for myself.

> (I must be careful, as if I'm not mistaken the 'bara' actually refers to
> animal life rather than life in general; but as I'm not a strict concordist
> maybe I can live with this, at least for the time being. Others, such as
> perhaps yourself, might require something a bit stronger here :-))

Thanks for the conversation.

Howard
Received on Fri Mar 26 12:29:46 2004