Pure Chance Is a Critical Factor in Darwinism
in Spite of Evolutionists' Denials
Dr Jerry Bergman — Author, Speaker, Professor
(Investigator 209, 2023 March)
French-American
biochemist Jacques Monod (1910-1976) opines that mutations (damage to
the genomic code) are the source of variety that is the engine of
evolution. Monod adds that mutations are "accidental … random
occurrences" which
constitute
the only possible source of modifications in the genome text, itself
the sole repository of the organism's hereditary structures,
[therefore] it necessarily follows that chance alone is at the source
of every innovation, of all creation in the biosphere. Pure chance,
absolutely free but blind, at the very root of the stupendous edifice
of evolution: this central concept of modern biology is no longer one
among other possible or even conceivable hypotheses. It is today the
sole conceivable hypothesis, the only one that squares with observable
and tested fact. And nothing warrants the supposition—or the hope—that
on this score our position is likely to be revised.1
The
problem is that the vast majority of mutations are either near-neutral,
meaning slightly harmful, or are deleteriously harmful, often lethal.
Monod also wrote, to emphasize his point, that “man knows at last that
he is alone in the universe's unfeeling immensity, out of which he
emerged only by chance.”2 Monod was not a minor fringe player in
science, but one of the world's leading scientists. As evidence of his
stature he was awarded the 1965 Nobel Prize in Physiology. The quote
above is from the English translation of his book Chance and Necessity,
described as a short, but very influential, examination of the
philosophical implications of modern biology.
Furthermore, the belief
that humans emerged “by pure chance … [was] an opinion echoed by many
other leading scientists.”3 An attempt to explain away this chance
problem for evolution is given by science-writer Dr. Christie Wilcox
who explained that
One
of the toughest concepts to grasp about evolution is its lack of
direction. Take the classic image of the evolution of man, from
knuckle-walking ape to strong, smart hunter:
We
view this as the natural progression of life. Truth is, there was no
guarantee that some big-brained primates in Africa would end up like we
are now. It wasn't inevitable that we grew taller, less hairy, and
smarter than our relatives. And it certainly wasn't guaranteed that
single celled bacteria-like critters ended up joining forces into
multicellular organisms, eventually leading to big-brained primates!4
She added that
Evolution
isn't predictable, and randomness is key in determining how things
change. But that's not the same as saying life evolves by chance.
That's because while the cause of evolution is random (mutations in our
genes), the processes of evolution (selection) is not. … So while
evolution isn't random, it is a game of chance. … mutations themselves
are random, and the odds of the same mutations occurring in the same
order are slim.5
In
short, the source of genetic variety is chance mutations, but natural
selection, she claims, is not due to chance but selective. The problem
with this claim is that one of the world's leading paleontologists,
University of Chicago's David Raup, concluded that natural selection is
actually less important than chance. He reasoned in his book,
Extinction: Bad Genes or Bad Luck6, that many, or most, species
became extinct in the geologic past not because they were less-fit
(meaning bad genes) but because they were in the wrong place at the
wrong time (bad luck). Survival of the fittest is most often survival
of the luckiest, or, as author John Whitfield puts it, survival of the
likeliest.7
A Summary of Raup's Argument
In
other words, the evolution of life is not the result of a fair system
of natural selection, as the survival-of-the-fittest doctrine teaches.
Rather, most species die out because of bad luck, living in the wrong
place at the wrong time, not because they are less-fit. In short,
Raup's main thesis is that extinction is mostly due to random events
caused by major catastrophes, such as floods, earthquakes, and severe
droughts that cause extinction of most every animal in the area. This
includes the most-fit, and is not related to the process of evolution
that is part and parcel of the Darwinian natural selection concept.
The Chance Concept Fails
The problem with the chance concept conclusion of Monod and Wilcox is that
Life
is ultimately about complex information processing, so it makes sense
to seek a solution in the realm of information theory and complexity.
Since biological information is not encoded in the laws of physics and
chemistry … where does it come from? …. Information cannot come
into existence spontaneously … [and] there is no law of physics able to
create information from nothing.8
Science
and observable fact have driven objective scientists to the obvious
conclusion that the only possible source of information is
intelligence. The human genome contains the amount of information equal
to four complete sets of the 26-volume Encyclopedia Britannica. The
people of the book (Christians, Jews, and Muslims) believe that the
superior intelligence responsible for the cosmos is the Being we call
God. This is the only possible source of the complex biological
information in the genome, not random chance.
Evolutionists Strike Back
The
evolutionists' response to the conclusion that chance and mutations
cannot create life, and the creation of intelligent life therefore
requires an intelligent cause, is that this idea is “intentionally
stupid.”9 Specifically Bolt opined that
Anyone—milkman
or zoologist—who does not accept in 2012 that the theory of evolution
is a correct scientific interpretation of the facts is being
intentionally stupid. Such people are not just ignorant, they are
deliberately ignorant. And they can be held accountable for that. An
example of those who fall into that category are the advocates of
‘intelligent design.'10
Bolt
claims that Michael Behe, Professor of Biochemistry and Biological
Sciences at Lehigh University, is an American supporter of
pseudo-science because he is part of
The
Center for Science and Culture at the Discovery Institute in Seattle
[which] plays a leading role in propagating this nonsense. This
misleadingly named ‘scientific' institute is an Astroturf body…
funded by fundamentalist Christians. Behe is a senior fellow of the
Institute and, as a prestigious professor of biochemistry, one of the
heroes of the intelligent design movement, which is delighted to
finally have a genuine professor among its members.11
Obviously
Bolt, a Dutch philosopher, knows very little about intelligent design,
and even less about the Discovery Institute. He did not do his
homework. Neither did the leading evolutionist of the last century,
Julian Huxley (1887-1975) grandson of T.H. Huxley, the first Director
of UNESCO, a founding member of the World Wildlife Fund, the president
of the British Eugenics Society (1959-1962). Huxley wrote
At
first sight the biological sector seems full of purpose. Organisms are
built as if purposely designed, and work as if in purposeful pursuit of
a conscious aim. But the truth lies in those two words “as if.” As the
genus of Darwin showed, the purpose is only an apparent one… But the
purpose, in the sense of the awareness of a goal. ... does not
enter into the basic machinery of the evolutionary process [which is
purely the result of ‘chance' genetic mistakes and natural selection.12
As
Dawkins notes, the problem in accepting evolution "is that of complex
design" which appears to prove intelligent design. This problem of what
is obvious to most people is solved by claiming that what is obvious is
wrong because it “is almost as if the human brain were specifically
designed to misunderstand Darwinism, and to find it hard to believe”
that chance ultimately turned nothing into everything.13
1
Pages 112 & 113 in Monod, J. Chance and Necessity, Alfred A. Knopf, New York, 1971.
2 Page 180 in Monod, J. Chance and Necessity, Alfred A. Knopf, 1971.
3 Page 27 in Davies, P. Life Force. New Scientist 163(2204):27-29, 18 September 1999.
4 Wilcox, C. Evolution: A Game of Chance. Scientific American, 11 January
2012,
https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/science-sushi/evolution-a-game-of-chance-observations/
5 Wilcox, 2012.
6 Raup, D. Extinction Bad Genes or Bad Luck. Introduction by Stephen Jay Gould. W.W. Norton & Company, New York, 1991
7 Whitfield, J. Survival of the Likeliest. PLOS Biology, 5(5):e142, May 2007.
8 Page 29 in Davies, P. Life Force. New Scientist 163(2204):27-29, 18 September 1999.
9 Page 16 in Bolt, R. The Encyclopedia of Liars and Deceivers, Reaction Books, London, 2014.
10 Bolt, 2014, p. 16
11 Page 177 in Bolt, 2014.
12 Page 7 in Huxley, J. Evolution in Action. Harper & Brothers, New York, 1953.
13 Pages ix & xi in Dawkins, R. The Blind Watchmaker: Why the Evidence
of Evolution Reveals a Universe Without Design. Norton, New York, 1986.