The natural selection

Jewish columnist Jay D. Homnick analyzes the bizarre and wholly unbelievable universe in which one is forced to live by believing in evolution guided only by random chance.

I've observed before in my blog how amusing those with an animus toward Christianity (or even theism) tend to be when they carry that bias into the public square. Few of them are informed enough about their subject matter to discuss it intelligently (for that matter, few Christian laypeople these days are informed enough about their faith to discuss it intelligently, but that's another issue). They tend to wind up like the movie critic who concluded that Aslan in The Lion, The Witch, and The Wardrobe can't truly be a Christ figure because he starts out on top, whereas Jesus had to work his way up from the bottom (huh?). Almighty God- begotten of the Father from eternity- is the bottom?

I would have compared them to a Reformed or Mennonite theologian discussing Luther's doctrine of the Two Kingdoms, but that would be too big a digression ;).

They tend to fixate on the odd and the unserviceable in the natural order, on minor mechanical inefficiencies in the human body- or, demonstrating that total incomprehension of the other side in the debate in which they're engaging, the presence of disease in the world (the notion that a universe, like a computer program, can become corrupted seems to escape them- as does any awareness of the Christian concept of fallenness).

But Homnick does us all the service of pointing out the obvious: that for every apparent (or alleged) glitch in the created order, we are surrounded by thousands of things which simply cannot be coincidences. As he points out, there is no evolutionary purpose served by the fact that decomposing corpses and decaying food, for example, smell bad; while it is true that we benefit from the help this gives us in avoiding them (and thus in preserving our own health), the potential of a dead body or a decaying pork chop for surviving and passing on its genes is in no way enhanced by its stinking. Nor, as far as we can tell, do antibiotics gain any evolutionary advantage by curing infections, asprin benefit in any discernable way by curing headaches, or Fluoxetine or Citalopram (Prozac and Celexa) profit from easing depression, Obsessive Compulsive Disorder, or several other health problems for which- we've only recently discovered- a deficiency of a specific neurotransmitter- seratonin- is at least a partial cause.

Smart little sonuvagun that Prozac molecule is, isn't it, to have decided all on its own to be good for a purpose that medical science itself has only discovered fairly recently! And to think it does it all by accident!

In an few weeks, I'll engage in one of my favorite January activities, and once again be spending my Saturday mornings teaching a class on science fiction, space travel, and astronomy for the Des Moines Public Schools Talented and Gifted Program. It's a public school program, so I'll have to mind my "p's and q's." But I see no church/state issue raised by my pointing out the undeniable facts that if, in cosmic terms, Earth's orbit were either much closer or much farther from the Sun than it happens to be, life on Earth would not be possible; that without a moon of approximately the size of ours, Earth would wobble on its axis to a degree which would make climates fluctate so wildly that life would likely be impossible; that without a gas giant like Jupiter with a massive gravatational field to attract them (thus, in effect, "playing goalie" for us), comets coming from the outer reaches of the solar system would collide with Earth so frequently that life on Earth would be impossible...

Well, you get the picture. You don't have to be Jewish to love Levy's- and, despite what the rationalists (rationalists?) imply, Homnick's example illustrates the obvious point that you don't have to be Christian to see the utter absurdity in the notion that the universe in which we live is not the result of intelligent design. Theists of any variety- Christian, Jew, Moslem, or even Deist- would consider that absurdity self-evident.

And so, we theists argue (or at least the ones outside "mainline" Protestantism, which will believe just about anything incompatible with the Faith, and often believe a dozen such things before breakfast), would anybody else not determined in advance to think otherwise.

Granted, the people on the other side of this debate will point out that in all the vastness of the universe, it is hardly remarkable that so many coincidences should make life such as exists on Earth possible on some planet, somewhere- and why not here? Essentially, they're arguing that enough monkeys banging away at enough keyboards eventually would, by sheer coincidence, produce the complete works of William Shakespeare. Now, as a counter-argument in formal debate, it's an admissible proposition. But I have to wonder whether even they really believe that, in the real world, it's anything like an adequate reply to the myriad rebuttals they live with every day.

There are compelling theological reasons for rejecting evolution. But it is quite possible for me to intellectually respect an evolutionist who does not insist on random chance as the mechanism for evolution. Not otherwise, however. Given a choice between chaotic coincidence and intelligent design, it requires a suspension of the intellect and an act of the will to choose coincidence. It's simply not, to coin a phrase, the natural selection- at least to a mind not determined in advance to make it.

HT: Rev. Mike Zamzow