Synthesis between neo-Darwinism and intelligent
design (ID)
Darwin’s theory of natural selection has three
ingredients:
1. Each living entity has a genetic memory that contains a blueprint
of the organism that is manifested by its phenotype. The genetic memory
and blueprint may change randomly in an unpredictable way, leading to
a change of the phenotype.
2. Genetic memory is inherited.
3. Blueprint changes affect the chances of the individual to survive
in the hostile environment. Actually the environment "selects"
the best fitting individuals.
More concisely: Evolution consists of two basic
types of processes: Those that introduce random genetic variation
into a population, and those that affect the frequencies of existing
variation. We have seen previously that randomness
does not exist in nature, it is a concept to describe nature.
The following thought experiment ought to highlight
the shortcoming of random variation. First we ought to examine the
notion of pseudo-randomness. Pseudo-random numbers
are derived from a known starting point (seed) by repeated iteration,
while “truly” random numbers are generated by radioactive decay. All
known statistical tests for randomness cannot distinguish between the
two. Even a rule 30 cellular automaton may serve as an efficient pseudo
random generator (NKS p.315)
Now assume that genetic variation is not random but pseudo-random.
You would not know the difference, since no statistical test can distinguish
between them. Natural selection would have been driven by a deterministic
process like rule 30 CA. The initial condition might be set by the Creator,
thus taming the somewhat heretic theory of evolution.
Why stop here? Apparently other kinds of pseudo-random processes
might drive variation as well. It seems to me pathetic that
genetic algorithms (GA) still rely on traditional pseudo-random generators
which drive the program to an inconclusive local maximum. They were
led astray by the simplistic and naïve assumptions of the theory of
natural selection.
Finally let’s turn to Cardinal Ratzinger (now Pope
Benedict XVI). After describing the scientific elements of neo-Darwinian
theory, then-Cardinal Ratzinger asked: "What response shall
we make to this view [evolution]? It is the affair of the natural sciences
to explain how the tree of life in particular continues to grow and
how new branches shoot out from it. This is not a matter for faith.
But we must have the audacity to say that the great projects of the
living creation are not the products of chance and error."
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/1527751/posts
Shouldn’t we embrace deterministic pseudo-randomness for unraveling
the mystery of life?
Back to complexity index