God: The Failed Hypothesis (8 page)

Photograph by John Stone.

Fig. 2.2.

The distribution of charged particles that minimizes potential energy.

The double spiral pattern commonly seen in plants is reproduced.

With this simple computer program, I have demonstrated the process called
spontaneous symmetry breaking,
whereby the symmetry of a system is broken naturally, that is, without being forced on the system by some asymmetric mechanism. We will see the importance of spontaneous symmetry breaking when we talk about the formation of structure in the universe in the absence of design.

Biologist Stuart Kauffman has long argued that self-organization plays a larger role in the evolution of life than previously thought, that blind natural selection is not sufficient
⁴⁰
. He proposes that life originated by a chemical process known as
catalytic closure
and visualizes a network of interlinked chemical reactions becoming self-sustaining. Although Kauffman seems to imply that selforganization is some new, holistic law of nature, in fact nothing is needed besides basic, purely reductionistic physics and chemistry.

The origin of life itself is not accounted for by the theory of evolution. Some prebiological process such as self-organization must have been involved. This is a current gap in scientific knowledge, but plausible natural mechanisms such as Kauffman’s are sufficient to keep God out of the picture.

Simple Rules

In recent years, with the aid of computer simulations, we have begun to understand how simple systems can self-organize themselves into highly complex patterns that, at least superficially, resemble those seen in the world around us
⁴¹
. Usually these demonstrations start by assuming a few simple rules and then programming a computer to follow those rules. Some imagine they see a “law of increasing complexity” in which simple material systems become complex by self-organization
⁴²
. I see no evidence for this, just the workings of well-known laws of particle mechanics applied to systems of many particles. In any case, such a law, if it exists, has nothing to do with whether the systems are living or nonliving.

The computer has made it possible for scientists to study many examples of complexity arising from simplicity. These are perhaps most easily demonstrated in what are called
cellular automata,
which were used by mathematician John von Neumann as an example of systems that can reproduce themselves. While cellular automata can be studied in any number of dimensions, they are easiest to understand in terms of a two-dimensional grid such as a piece of graph paper. You basically fill in a square on the grid based on a rule that asks whether or not certain of its adjoining squares are filled in. Note again that this is a purely “local” process, with no reference to cells that do not touch the cell in question.

Self-reproduction with cellular automata can be illustrated by a simple rule introduced by physicist Edward Fredkin in the 1960s
⁴³
. Fill in a cell, that is, turn it “on,” if and only if an odd number of the four nondiagonal neighbors (top, bottom, left, right) are on. Repeat this process on any initial pattern of cells, and that pattern will produce four copies of itself every four cycles (see fig. 2.3).

In a recently published, controversial tome called
A New Kind of Science,
physicist Stephen Wolfram has produced an enormous compilation of cellular automata
⁴⁴
. Beyond these examples, Wolfram claims he has uncovered a “new kind of science” in which the universe itself operates like a digital computer. While he has presented some new proposals and numerous new examples, the original idea of a digital universe is usually attributed to Fredkin
⁴⁵
.

Whoever deserves the credit, it remains to be seen if this is a new science, since all that has been done so far are computer explorations of cellular automata with no connection to the real world yet established by predictions that can be tested empirically.

For my purposes here, suffice it to say that complex systems do not need complex rules in order to evolve from simple origins.

They can do so with simple rules and no new physics. The grandiose claims one often hears in the literature about new holistic principles emerging from these processes are without foundation. It follows that no complex rule maker of infinite intelligence is implied by the existence of complex systems in nature. Since all we need are simple rules, then, at most, a simple rule maker of limited intelligence is required.

Fig. 2.3.

Fredkin’s self-reproducing cellular automaton.

The pattern at 0 produces four copies of itself in four steps.

Defining Design

Note that to make an argument
from
design assumes a priori that design exists. Philosopher Nicholas Everitt suggests that better terms might be the argument
from
order, or, the argument
to
design
⁴⁶
. We will see that the evidence points firmly to the absence of design. And, if one of the attributes of God is that he designed the universe with at least one of his purposes being the existence of the complex structures we identify as life, with a special role for human life, then the failure to observe such design provides us with empirical grounds for concluding that a God with this attribute does not exist.

Some authors use the term “design” to refer to any structure of atoms and molecules that exhibits some pattern or purpose.

Indeed, many are inconsistent in their usage and definition of the term “design
⁴⁷
.” In order to avoid any confusion on this matter, we will use
design
to refer to the act of an agent, be she divine or human, stupid or intelligent, to draw a blueprint—so to speak—of some artifact that is later assembled from that plan.

The assembly process in some cases might require high intelligence, as the Wright brothers demonstrated at every step when they built a flying machine in their bicycle shop. Or, the assembly can be relatively mindless, as on a modern automated production line—unless you want to argue that the computers running the process are pretty smart themselves. Indeed, many use the methods of “artificial intelligence.” In any case, the assembly is unimportant unless the claim is being made that the assembly itself is a miracle. Since that is not normally an issue, what matters is the initial plan—a purpose that is either built into the contrivance from the beginning or not. In the example of the spiral discussed above, the broken symmetry of the spiral was not introduced by the programmer, me, on purpose.

Now, we must be careful not to confuse a preexisting purpose with mere utility or function. A stone can be used to break a window; however, the stone was not designed for that purpose. A salt crystal has a structure. But that structure was not contrived so that food would taste better when sprinkled with salt.

Similarly, all living organisms have many parts serving functions that are crucial for the survival of the organism. The question is: did an intelligent agent design that part for its present purpose, or did that function evolve by a combination of accident and the mechanisms of natural selection? In examining evidence for or against design in the world, we should look at whether the system being studied shows any sign of preexisting purpose or plan, or whether it can be seen to have evolved mindlessly by natural selection in response to the needs of survival or other purely physical mechanisms such as self-organization.

Bad Design

As mentioned, Paley drew an analogy between different parts of the human body and an exquisitely designed watch. In such a watch, every part—the balance, escape wheel, jewel, mainspring, and the rest—is carefully constructed to serve its specific functions as efficiently as possible. The parts can always be improved upon, but not by much if the original work was by an expert craftsperson. Watches and all the many devices of human design have very few wasted parts.

Some evolutionists have tried to counter the Paley claim with what might be called the
argument from bad design,
pointing out all the ways that a competent engineer could improve upon what nature has given us.

The parts of the human body hardly resemble a watch. In an article in
Scientific American
titled “If Humans Were Built to Last,” S. Jay Olshansky, Bruce Carnes, and Robert N. Butler have looked at flaws in the human body and shown how an engineer might have fixed them to enable us to live a hundred years or more in better health
⁴⁸
. They trace our physical defects to the Rube Goldberg way evolution cobbles together new features by tinkering with existing ones. Natural selection does not seek out perfection or endless good health. The body has to live only long enough to reproduce and raise young. Species survival does not require that individuals survive long after reproducing. We humans do, albeit with decreasing vitality, because human evolution resulted in off-spring that require years to mature and grandparents with enough years remaining to help in their upbringing. Speaking as a grandfather, thank you, evolution!

Let me list some of the flaws the
Scientific American
authors detect in the human machine that point away from any kind of near-perfection in design. Our bones lose minerals after age thirty, making them susceptible to fracture and osteoporosis. Our rib cage does not fully enclose and protect most internal organs.

Our muscles atrophy. Our leg veins become enlarged and twisted, leading to varicose veins. Our joints wear out as their lubricants thin. Our retinas are prone to detachment. The male prostate enlarges, squeezing and obstructing urine flow.

Olshansky, Carnes, and Butler show what a properly designed human would be like. She would have bigger ears, rewired eyes, a curved neck, a forward-tilting torso, shorter limbs and stature, extra padding around joints, extra muscles and fat, thicker spinal disks, a reversed knee joint, and more. But she would not be very pretty by our present standards.

Despite their shortcomings, the various parts of the human body and those of other species do their jobs—even if those jobs were not part of any original plan. As discussed earlier, biologist Kenneth Miller argues persuasively that the eye serves us well and the inside-out nature of the vertebrate eye is nicely described by evolution.

Nowhere Evident

Richard Dawkins subtitled
The Blind Watchmaker
“Why the Evidence of Evolution Reveals a Universe without Design
⁴⁹
.” However, not just biological data but, as we will see in future chapters, the whole realm of scientific observations lead to the same conclusion: the universe does not look designed.

Estimates of the number of biological species on Earth range as high as one hundred million. Species on the order of ten or a hundred times this number once lived and have become extinct.

Without getting into the current situation, where scientists and envi-ronmentalists fret that an increasing number of species may become extinct because of the degradation of the environment by humanity, these data can be best understood in terms of mindless natural selection. The large number of species results from the many, largely random attempts that evolution makes to produce a solution to the survival problem; many failures are to be expected as the bulk of these solutions fail. Many successes are marginal, leaving the species open to eventual extinction. We also now know that mass extinc-tions have occurred several times as the result of natural catastrophes, such as meteorite strikes or geologic disruptions.

The other place where evidence for the absence of beneficent design can be found is in the short, brutal existences of most life-forms. A common misunderstanding holds that Darwin’s discovery of evolution led to his loss of faith. Actually, it wasn’t theoretical musings but his lifetime of careful observations of nature. On May 22, 1860, Darwin wrote to American botanist Asa Gray (d. 1888): “I cannot see as plainly as others do, and as I should wish to do, evidence of design and beneficence on all sides of us. There seems to me too much misery in the world. I cannot persuade myself that a beneficent and omnipotent God would have designedly created the Ichneumonidae [wasps] with the express intention of their [larva] feeding within the living bodies of Caterpillars, or that a cat should play with mice
⁵⁰
.”