Monday, January 28, 2013

More Complexity Doesn't Mean Evolution is Wrong

In recent arguments in ID blogs, ID proponents have used the immense complexity that is being discovered in the control and expression of the genome (epigenetics) as proof that evolution is wrong and that all of this complexity could not have happened without a designer.

Darwin's God: Evolution is Getting Slammed Again in This Transcription Factor Research

My comment posted on that blog speaks for itself and I will add it here.

"It is amazing to me that in the 21st century some are still using the ancient mechanism of deus ex machina. For those ignorant of Greek drama, deus ex machina was literally a mechanism made of pulleys by which a god was brought down on stage in order to solve a particularly difficult plot issue. If you didn't know how to fix a plot problem, you just brought down Ares or Zeus who decreed what would happen next and that was that.

"The same mentality is unfortunately being used in ID. We don't yet have the full understanding of evolution, I grant you, but that doesn't mean we have to immediately jump to God or a designer for the answer. And for those hypocrites out there who insist that the designer isn't God, well, who is it then? An alien? Then who designed him? In the end it is a deceptive argument to make that we aren't talking about God. We are, and ID people should simply admit it. There is nothing to be ashamed of.

"The problem with ID is that it has only one answer for everything. If you can't explain it, you just say "the designer did it." That's the answer. But there are other less supernatural answers that are possible. The fact that Cornelius makes fun of quantum physics and multiple universes is emblematic of the narrow focus of both ID and pure Neo-Darwinism proponents. Quantum mechanics, fractals and chaos theory, information theory, all are converging toward a more complex vision of evolution. (See Bill Maz Blog). I believe we will find that evolution is not purely "random" in the sense we now understand it, but it is also not "directed" by constant adjustments by a designer that ID proponents envision. The answer will turn out to be a grander vision of how the universe works. The universe will, I believe, be seen to be an unfolding, self-assembly mechanism that provides not only the possibility of life but the active physical laws to create intelligent life.

"Now, ID proponents and Creationists should be satisfied with that. After all, God would still have to exist in order for that universe to have been created. Even if you believe what quantum physicists say that the universe could have arisen out of nothing through quantum fluctuations, they all agree that those mathematical equations of quantum physics had to exist before the universe could arise. So who created those math equations?

"Instead of getting bogged down in losing arguments over details of evolution, most of which will be resolved at some point in the future, ID/Creationists should simply say "God created the universe with all its laws, including the laws governing evolution," and call it a day.

"After all, most scientists believe in God. Certainly Einstein did. The two are not contradictory. In fact, the most a true scientist can say is that he doesn't have evidence to prove either that God exists or not. So Dawkins is being very unscientific when he lists himself as an atheist. He can't prove there is no God. He can only shrug his shoulders and say he has no proof either way. "