Randomness in Nature
Here is another reader question that was submitted through my website:
“You seem to argue against I.D. and other notions of special creation based on what appears to be randomness in evolution. so, if randomness argues against special creation, wouldn’t it also argue against providentially guided evolution?”
Wow! Another great question. First I have to clarify my position on Intelligent Design (ID), because I do not reject the idea that all things in nature happen according to God’s plan (ie: design). In fact, that is the definition of providence, so ID is nothing new. In the book however, I do argue against ID as science, simply because the purpose of science is not to assign ultimate meaning and purpose to nature, but rather to understand the material cause-and-effect relationships of creation apart from any supernatural influence. Of course, this doesn’t mean that supernatural influence is wrong. As Christians, we believe in miracles, God, prayer, and all sorts of supernatural phenomena. But teleological arguments (such as who or what is behind the laws of nature) are not testable, quantifiable, or repeatable - and so they can not be considered scientific.
If you have any doubt about this, just consider the nature of the ID movement. Does it look more like a political movement or a potential scientific revolution? Political movements fight legal battles in courtrooms using lawyers and public relations firms. Scientific revolutions involve collecting data, making falsifiable predictions, testing them in the laboratory, arguing your case at scientific conferences and submitting publications for peer-review. Political movements fight their battles in court. Scientific revolutions fight their battle in the laboratory. Political manifestos are written directly to the layman. Scientific papers are submitted to a grueling peer-review process where they can vetted by other subject matter experts. If there were ever an indication that ID is not science, this alone should suffice.
Now, back to your question. If we start with the belief that God created the universe from nothing, and sustains its very existence by his hand of providence, then what is “randomness” anyway? If I roll the dice once, I don’t know what the particular outcome will be. I can predict the likelihood of certain outcomes based on the laws of probability and statistics, but for any single cast of the lot, there is a certain amount of randomness that prevents anybody from accurately predicting the outcome. However, the laws of nature that govern the behavior of the dice are not uncertain. So how can the outcome be uncertain if the laws that govern it are universal and absolute?
The answer to this question involves the emerging fields of complex dynamics, chaos, non-linear systems, etc… But it can be summarized by simply acknowledging that the outcome of some events is only uncertain to us, because we lack the ability to solve the problem. Something as simple as rolling a pair of dice depends on an enormous set of complex physical variables that are highly sensitive to even the smallest perturbations. Even the slightest change in temperature or the opening of a window or the oil on your fingers can change the outcome.
While I do not believe God rules the material universe in an arbitrary and capricious manner (theological claim), the outcome of complex systems remains hidden from us, since we lack the computational ability to account for all of the variables that influence the outcome. We have a name for this type of behavior: we call it randomness, but I don’t think God quite sees it that way. In fact, his Word tells us that “the lot is cast into the lap, but it’s outcome is of the Lord”.
-GJG