Re: [asa] Origins: Francis Collins and ID

Hi, Bernie!

To Francis Collins', "to appreciate the vast amounts of time", I might
be inclined to add the need to appreciate the immensity of the universe
and the stunning resourcefulness of its functioning. It would, of
course, help to come to an appreciation of the tremendous creative power
embodied in the simply stated but profound evolutionary process. But as
evident in some of my postings, including this one, I am inclined to a
lot of words! :-)

You know, it probably is impossible for an undirected evolution to
create something as complex as the human eye. The thing is, evolution is
not really undirected, though that unfortunately seems to be a fairly
widespread and persistent notion.

I've waited a bit to see what other folks might have to say. But since
it has been sort of quiet, I'll just go ahead and jump in to offer my
take on your question. I hope I do not underwhelm you in this response,
but if so, chalk it up to my need to articulate some of these perspectives.

First, let's pursue your programming code model for a moment. I like
that as a starting point.

I've done some higher level programming, starting in early Fortran
(gasp!), and later even writing a text adventure program for my kids
when they were young. I also had a career which placed me in constant
proximity to guys developing marvelously capable avionic software and
hardware for military and commercial aircraft. So I can appreciate the
model.

Let's first assume the case that evolution is really something like
computer code which is (usually by design) very deterministic, spelling
out the exact algorithmic path(s) to one or more desired results. There
are at least a couple of ways that God could have done such programming.
One is to proceed some basic starting code, as I think you suggest, with
God subsequently manipulating some portions of the code from time to
time - over time - in order to achieve the desired evolved result. That
might even take a less invasive form of influencing the decisions of
random or probability-determined branching. It's not a bad notion,
particularly in light of the enormous similarities in large chunks of
DNA code of distinctly different living things. It is speculated that
God exists outside of our time constraints, and as such could reasonably
"reach into" our existence at any time frame to alter it as He pleases.
In this case, God's "mental model" is the full measure of the desired
evolutionary outcome. He makes such changes to direct the program's
trajectory arrive at his ultimate target.

But the need for such God-made midcourse "corrections" troubles a lot of
folks, for instance those that are particularly mindful of God's
declaration of His Creation as being "good". Perhaps God might be
creative enough to fully embody His intent in the starting code, so that
the algorithms are adequate to do His bidding without further intrusion.
But now that would seem to be even more deterministic (less change over
time; less evolutionary), unless you do something specific to keep it
from being so. One can always introduce probabilities to spice up the
works a bit, but that is fundamentally just increasing the number of
achievable states. These days, there are even those who create more
sophisticated programs that contain algorithms that in fact are capable
of modifying the program's internal code to affect the result. But now
a couple of additional functions are necessary. The first is to somehow
ensure that the code alternations do not "break" the program. One way to
sidestep this "fatality" is for the program to periodically spawn copies
of itself so that if a subsequent modification of the code "breaks" one
copy of the program, the ultimate programs' processing and objective(s)
are not compromised by the loss. [This is hinting at a possible reason
for the immensity of the universe.]

Also, in order to make such modifications meaningful, you now need some
sort of result assessment and feedback provision. God did this in the
earlier example. But in this version, some "measure" of success now
needs to be incorporated into the program, along with a "success
assessment" tool. Not impossible, but it's getting more complicated to
do. Moreover, it's beginning to look like the size and complexity of the
code is getting way out of proportion with the desired result.

Many folks understand that man as we know him is the specific form and
function outcome that God desired of His Creation. But it might also be
the case that a range of outcomes (perhaps quite dissimilar) would
satisfy God's creative intent equally well. Who knows, but that might
further complicate the coding issues touched on in this paragraph!

Before leaving the code model, let's just touch on complexity itself for
a moment in the simplest of ways. First of all, just recall to mind the
ubiquitous "flap of a butterfly wing" example that has been used to
illustrate that the smallest of variations in the state of our world can
have large consequences. Second, perhaps you are acquainted with the
algorithmic example of Sierpinski's gasket (the "fractal game"
<http://www.article19.com/shockwave/fractal.htm>) [or indeed the whole
fractal thing] in which a very simple instruction set and equally
spartan initial conditions produce a surprisingly complex and orderly
(sometimes even beautiful) graphic result. One of the findings of the
chaos/complexity studies is that very complex results can arise from
surprisingly simple starting conditions. That seems to be one aspect of
the remarkably discoverable universe we live in that allows to
understand ANYTHING about it!

But to hasten on toward the biological reality, the biological
evolutionary process has some of the characteristics touched on above.
There include a fairly robust starting structure, mechanisms for change,
and for replication, and feedback which can influence both form and
function. This feedback, as embodied in the natural selection process,
is essentially selective attrition. In concert, this is neither random
nor undirected (if "undirected" is understood to be without direction,
as opposed to an imposition of direction by some external force). In the
creation of topiary art, the shrubbery is repeatedly trimmed and shaped
as it grows, whacking away everything that does not look like the
desired final shape (dancing bear?). This is analogous to earlier
God-interactive evolution concept. But this may be contrasted with the
normal growth of the shrub wherein all the information about how to grow
into a mature shrub is contained in the initial programming (in the
seed). The results may vary from plant to plant, but a recognizable
shrub is the outcome each time. This is more like the pre-programmed
notion of creation.

One of the key components in the evolutionary process is an intriguing
and almost paradoxical (but necessary) coexistence of strength and
weakness. Fortunately for us, the granite which forms a mountain, in
time surrenders to small but relentless effects of rain, wind, and
temperature variations to break down into sand and eventually into the
constituents needed to (in part) sustain growth of living plant
material. In DNA, there is a structural robustness that allows faithful
maintenance and replication of the complicated structure nearly all the
time. And yet, there is a slight susceptibility (weakness, if you will)
in the structure that allows it from time to suffer modification
(mutation) in a variety of ways under the influence of any of a great
number of influences.

So now we have the components for a powerful and creative [and
presumably God-authored] evolutionary process. We have the robust and
replicatable, but slightly alterable DNA structure (programming code).
Mutations can happen in whatever the structure of the DNA is at any
given time. They might or might not break the code, or the results might
or might not significantly influence the nature of the objective of the
code's execution.

Next comes the "success assessment" and "feedback" part of the process,
which basically asks the question, "did the mutation produce any
survival and/or replication benefit?". Enter the simple but powerful
"natural selection" process. It introduces selective attrition, which
"shapes" or "directs" the course of the evolution of the organism.
Intriguingly, and profoundly (perhaps even resonating with certain
Scripture passages), this attrition (death) becomes the enabler of
longer and more fruitful life in the organism's kind.

This selective process is somewhat akin to Michaelangelo's sculptural
task of simply chipping all the marble away that didn't look like the
Pieta! But here, the evolutionary shaping criterion is whether a
mutation provides any net benefit with respect to survival and
propagation of its kind (longer life, more immunity to damage, etc.,
more effective propagation/replication, and more sophisticated
behavior). More sophisticated behavior, for example, requires more
complex organization. If the mutation does not produce this sort of
advantage (or some other important benefit), then the natural selection
process will intrinsically (simply and elegantly) see to it that this
modified form of the entity falls by the wayside. The modification may
be lethal, in which the organism will not develop properly at all. If no
net benefit, or a slight disadvantage, then time becomes a factor, and
over time the organism will be out-competed for resources for living and
surviving, failing to thrive over the long haul.

Evolution is simple and elegant (and in my view, brilliantly conceived)
general-purpose process, pushing successive generations of the organisms
inexorably toward better survival in terms of robustness and propagation
and more sophisticated behavior. ANYTHING that better fits those
criteria will be selected for, over time, no matter what the particulars
of the selective attrition are, be they disease, natural conditions, or
man-made.

One other consideration (at least!) is important. This discussion has
focused (for description's sake) on the process for a single organism.
But the nature of the universe, in particular its immensity, is such
that the number of entities with a given DNA structure at any given time
is huge (like the number of similar bacteria in a single pond, for
example). But the DNA (or similar coding structures, whatever they might
be throughout the universe) is not limited to one DNA structure, or one
type of bacterium, or one pond, or one planet, or one solar system or
galaxy. So the "opportunities" available for this simple "algorithmic"
structure to bring about the Coder's result are unimaginable in scope.

At least that's the way I have come to envision a God-designed universe
which inextricably embodies the elegant and powerful processes of
natural evolution to creatively and continuously bring about that which
has never been before - including the remarkable eye which blesses our
lives. It definitely has the ingredient of trajectory, though the
specifics of the paths are innumerable, and the specifics of the
resultant possible outcomes - even at any given time - are similarly
beyond conception. And this dynamic and fruitful Creation in my view,
proceeds in orderly and awe-inspiring accordance with a foreordained
plan (coded program, if you will) that we can - even in the fullest
realization of our human potential - only grasp in the smallest measure.

As a final note, while natural selection fundamentally operates through
selective attrition, it is our remarkable opportunity as sentient
beings, God-aware and capable of critical and abstract thinking, to be
the stewards of fundamentally new and different selective "mechanism".
We have the capacity to observe desirable attributes among living kind
that bring great value (aesthetic, intellectual, creative, restorative,
charismatic, etc.), but which may not on any biological level commend
the survival or propagation of their kind. That would seem to me to
define one of the great tasks for us in our place in a God-deployed
evolutionary process, to be vigilant and pro-active imaginers of what
might be, and to be constant agents for redemption and transformation
for those among us who might otherwise succumb with great accompanying
loss to the sharp edges of raw nature. This creative and redemptive
mission, even in its placement in the context of evolution, would appear
to me to be perfectly consonant with and reflective of the nature and
intent of God as we are able to know and relate to the Author of all
Creation.

Or so it seemeth to me. JimA [Friend of ASA]

Dehler, Bernie wrote:

> Hi all, a question I have; maybe you can help me.
>
>
>
> Given that evolution actually happened because of evidence in
> biology (genome evidence), how can evolution explain the complexity of
> things like the eye?
>
>
>
> Francis Collins says the answer is to appreciate the vast amounts of
> time.
>
>
>
> This still bothers me.
>
>
>
> I'm perplexed because I see both sides. The genome shows proof that
> evolution happened. Yet, using reason, it seems impossible that an
> undirected evolution can create something as complex as the human eye
> (no matter how much time is involved). (I work at Intel in CPU
> design, and even though out CPU's are super complex, it is nothing
> near as complex as our body, DNA, etc.).
>
>
>
> I wonder if the solution is to see evolution as God-directed. DNA
> is like a programming code, God is the programmer, directly
> manipulating the code. It is like intelligently solving the rubic's
> cube (toy) by one turn at a time. Randomly, you could solve a rubic's
> cube given enough time, but intelligence would do it rather quickly.
> Is this solution contrary to science? Is this the point where
> naturalistic science and God meet? Or am I just putting God in there
> because I can't appreciate the time element of evolution? (Some think
> that nature alone can evolve, and that by God's design upfront with
> the anthropic principle... designing everything upfront so it would
> unravel correctly from a big bang.)
>
>
>
> I would like to know what the other theistic evolutionists have to
> say on this topic.
>

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Tue Dec 4 12:37:43 2007