Monday, October 31, 2005

Paulos on ID

Last week I mentioned meeting John Allen Paulos when he spoke at the University of Virginia. Now he weighs in on ID with this excellent column from the British newspaper The Guardian.


But the theory of evolution does explain the evolution of complex biological organisms and phenomena, and the argument from design, which dates from the 18th century, has been decisively refuted. Rehashing the refutation is not my goal. Those who reject evolution are usually immune to such arguments.

Rather, my intention here is to develop some loose analogies between these biological issues and related economic ones and to show that these analogies point to a surprising crossing of political lines. Let me begin by asking how it is that modern free market economies are as complex as they are, boasting amazingly elaborate production, distribution and communication systems? Go into almost any drug store and you can find your favourite candy bar. And what's true at the personal level is true at the industrial level. Somehow there are enough ball bearings and computer chips in just the right places in factories all over the country. The physical infrastructure and communication networks are also marvels of integrated complexity. Fuel supplies are, by and large, where they're needed. Email reaches you in Miami as well as in Milwaukee, not to mention Barcelona and Bangkok.

The natural question, discussed first by Adam Smith and later by Friedrich Hayek and Karl Popper among others, is who designed this marvel of complexity? Which commissar decreed the number of packets of dental floss for each retail outlet? The answer, of course, is that no economic god designed this system. It emerged and grew by itself. No one argues that all the components of the candy bar distribution system must have been put into place at once, or else there would be no Snickers at the corner store.

So far, so good. What is more than a bit odd, however, is that some of the most ardent opponents of Darwinian evolution - for example, many fundamentalist Christians - are among the most ardent supporters of the free market. They accept the market's complexity without qualm, yet insist the complexity of biological phenomena requires a designer.


And later


These analogies prompt two final questions. What would you think of someone who studied economic entities and their interactions in a modern free market economy and insisted that they were, despite a perfectly reasonable and empirically supported Smithian account of their development, the consequence of some all-powerful, detail-obsessed economic law-giver? You might deem such a person a conspiracy theorist.

And what would you think of someone who studied biological processes and organisms and insisted that they were, despite an perfectly reasonable and empirically supported Darwinian account of their development, the consequence of some all-powerful, detail-obsessed biological law-giver?


Exactly right, and there's an important theological point in that last paragraph. The scientific fallacies of ID are enough to reject it, but the theological problems are even worse. Portraying God as a micromanager constantly fiddling with his creation to bring abou His desired ends is not a view of the Almighty that fits comfortably within a Christian worldview.

2 Comments:

At 5:59 PM, Anonymous Jim Ruwaldt said...

"Portraying God as a micromanager constantly fiddling with his creation to bring abou His desired ends is not a view of the Almighty that fits comfortably within a Christian worldview."

Isn't that sort of what theistic evolution is all about? One can acknowledge every single scientific explanation for everything and say in the end that it happened that way, because God chose it to be that way. It isn't scientific, and, therefore, it also won't appear in a scientific journal, but Ken Miller and others like him probably consider it to be their religious beliefs.

 
At 12:56 PM, Anonymous OHenry said...

At one time communities would seek counsel from the elders on matters of import. More experience usually translated into lessons learned. Having survived my share of crises, I am still around to share a thought or two. The main lesson is to never stop learning. Reading is good as is seeking other points of view and new ideas like visiting your blog. Finding what is ultimately important leads one to appreciate actuality, efficiency and mindfulness. Helping others to see some of the forest through the trees is another. happy thought

 

Post a Comment

<< Home