(I actually posted this on the Connect2Edmonton (C2E) forums, but I rather liked how it read and so decided to make an article of it. This interrupts the series I've been slowly working on, but I'll resume that shortly.)
Can we all step back from the "evolution vs. creation" dichotomy, please? It's fallacious to assume that the two ideals are intrinsically in conflict.
That said, YES, "intelligent design" (a la Behe et. al.) is kind of foolish, and "irreducible complexity" is bollocks. And YES, the Earth (and the Universe that contains it) is in fact billions of years old, not mere thousands. And YES, humanity and all other creatures did come to be by an evolutionary process. We know all this to be true from the vast body of evidence that such disparate fields as astronomy, geology, biology, paleontology, and a vast host of others have furnished us with.
And not for one second does any of that mean that we are not, or could not also be, created. There's absolutely nothing incorrect in postulating that mankind might just be a created being who was brought about in an ordained, sustained, design-reflecting evolutionary process.
Occam's Razor, you say? As a commenter at my blog once noted, "Occam’s Razor is not some kind of universal law; it’s a rule of thumb, nothing more. You can’t prove anything using Occam’s Razor.
For one thing, it’s often wrong. Newtonian mechanics is a whole lot simpler than Einsteinian relativity, but look which one is right! This happens all the time. (And I don’t think most microbiologists even know what it is. Simplest is right? Ha!)
For another thing, it relies on some definition of 'simple'. As soon as the definition gets at all questionable or subjective -- as soon as it’s not obvious -- Occam’s Razor becomes utterly useless. Go with whichever model works better for you; Occam’s Razor has nothing more to say on the subject.
Is it simpler that somebody created the Universe -- hence requiring a Somebody - or that nobody created the Universe -- requiring a mechanism for it to spontaneously exist? Answer: what difference does it make? Whether or not God exists doesn’t depend on whether or not it would be simpler if he did.
Here is a good statement of Occam’s Razor to go by: When presented with two models which fit the known data equally well, the simpler model is often correct, and makes a good working model. That doesn’t mean the other model isn’t correct, or that it doesn’t make a good working model. It’s just that simpler models are generally a lot easier to work with, so as scientists we usually run with them unless data forces us to modify them (and sometimes not even then, if we can use the simpler model as a good approximation). But we still test both models in an effort to find some evidence to distinguish them.
I very much doubt anybody is either theist or atheist because they see it as a 'simpler' view of the universe. So arguing simplicity isn’t likely to change anybody’s mind, I think; it’s certainly not a proof of anything, even if you can define 'simple'."
So...how do we define "simple" here?
One of the other C2E forum members made the following remark: "...an omniscient being capable of Creation is by its very definition infinitely complicated." In this, he is simply incorrect.
In the philosophy of causality, the First Cause possesses certain key criteria, which include simplicity and immutability. We can get into a lengthy discussion of what those criteria mean, but they basically distill to this: the First Cause is not an interconnected assembly of sub-systems that inter-relate based on extrinsic forces or principles, nor is it changing or changeable.
Reason itself shows us that this must be so: if what we call the First Cause is in fact shown to be an interconnected assembly of sub-systems bound together by some external force or means, then what we call the First Cause is actually the Penultimate Cause. The actual First Cause is the force or means that allows the sub-systems to interrelate. If the First Cause is in fact composed of sub-systems, they must interrelate according to intrinsic/internal forces only.
Likewise, if what we call the First Cause is in fact shown to be changing or changeable by some force or means, then what we call the First Cause is actually the Penultimate Cause. The actual First Cause is the force or means that motivates the change.
It is possible that we could continue to regress through causes (looking at the cause of the forces and means, and the forces and means which act on them)…but let us be clear of what we are speaking, for we are still nevertheless speaking of something which exists extrinsic to nature. There might be an infinite number of causes outside of nature…but the fact that even one cause exists outside of nature means that while I (the Christian) may ultimately still be wrong, somone like Dawkins (the atheist) is assuredly wrong.
But as it turns out, infinite regress in regard to the First Cause is in fact impossible; we’ve already established, from reason, that the First Cause must be simple and immutable. Eventually, we will arrive at a kind of primordial (a poor term for it) force or means which is self-existent and uncaused, thus satisfying those criteria. Reason alone also precludes the non-existence of a First Cause, but that's a separate discussion.
Here’s the kicker: I don’t need an argument to explain where this self-arisen, uncaused cause comes from, because…well…because it would be irrational to suppose that such an argument can be made. (It is also irrational to request that one be made.)
Now, does that mean that evolution is NOT, in fact, the "simpler" explanation for things than one of the various creationist conjectures, per Occam's Razor? It might be, it might not be...but it also doesn't matter. The Razor is not the be-all and end-all that too many people make it out to be; it is not even a good arbiter of what is true and what is not. It's an occasionally useful analytical tool, and nothing more.
Nor is the "evolution vs. creation" dichotomy a particularly useful framework for the discussion of the interrelationship of science and faith; it's not even true, to begin with.
So why not ditch the dichotomy?
Comments