Survive or be Useful?
Last week I saw the movie Expelled, and I just saw it again this evening. That movie has made a big impact on me. In a later post I might go into more detail on that, but for now I want to focus on relating software design to the theory of biological evolution.
I do not know much about biology. But I do know a lot about system design, and the rules of system design are as universal as the rules of logic. Humans are systems. Dogs are systems. Cells are systems. Molecules are systems. Everything in life can be broken down into systems and systems within systems.
Here are some examples of system philosophy:
A system cannot produce a system more advanced than itself.
Mankind has never yet been able to design a system that improves itself, and there is no evidence to suggest that such a feat is possible.
Hierarchy is the best organization of systems, and all of life can be neatly conceptualized into hierarchies.
Modularity is an essential property of a good system.
Those are just some examples of the abstract world I love to study.
From a systematic point of view, evolution is illogical in multiple ways. Many scientists claim that all the evidence points to evolution, but that is simply not true. They are only referring to specific evidence. I am talking about general evidence which, if they wish to maintain rationality, they must be accountable to.
Like I said, there are multiple ways in which evolution is systematically illogical, but to apply modularity I will only address one of them in this post. And the first is this: evolution, or at the least the most popular interpretations of evolution, are intrinsically based upon natural selection. I would argue that, from a systematic point of view, natural selection could never account for the current state of the universe.
To begin, I need a definition of natural selection. Unfortunately, I've had a hard time finding a definition of natural selection. It seems that much of the people in this world do not understand what a definition is anymore and are busy defining the class that natural selection is inside instead of the attributes of natural selection that distinguish it from everything else. Both of the terms "evolution" and "natural selection" are so ambiguous that it makes it very challenging to argue against evolution.
Whatever the case, the common trend I've seen in most explanations of natural selection is "survival of the fittest"; the idea that the organism with the best ability to survive in it's present environment will continue to exist after the weaker organisms go extinct.
And therein lies the rub. The driving factor within natural selection is survivability. To an evolutionist, the most important value an organism can have is how well it can maintain its existence and propagate. That sounds nice in theory, but in the real world good systems do not work like that. In the study of systems, it quickly becomes evident that the best systems are when the existence of organisms is maintained based upon functionality, not how well that organism can survive over its fellow organisms. Natural selection leads to anarchy. Good system design leads to community.
Functionality does play a role in the theory of evolution through symbiotic relationships, but that is still only a fraction of what is needed to produce a good system. Within natural selection collective functionality is subservient to individual survivability. How often will an employer hire people based upon how well that person will outlast his fellow employees? I've never seen it. An employer hires people based upon their usefulness to the company. Now, a useful employee will last longer in that company than a useless employee will, but notice that in that scenario the survivability is derived from the functionality, which is the reverse of natural selection. Throughout the bulk of existence functionality reigns. However, there are places in human experience where survivability is prioritized over communal usefulness. Some examples are: Slums, prisons, mafias, orphanages, beaucracies, etc.
A system is a collection of organisms working together to accomplish a common goal. If at least some part of that goal is not beyond the scope of that system, then that system is useless. In programming terms, it is a node with inputs but no outputs. It takes but doesn't give. Natural selection does not care if a system is useful or not. In a world of natural selection, it would be perfectly plausable to have useless systems thrive while useful systems vanish.
There is a funny sense in which evolutionists are like lukewarm Christians. It is a common trap for Christians to fall into thinking that being a Christian only matters on Sundays, and the rest of the week they live a life largely disconnected from the religious beliefs they claim to hold. Many Christians have a sense that God was sort of a thing of the past; that he was more real in ancient times than at present.
Evolutionists in general are the same way with their beliefs. They believe the laws of evolution applied to the "millions and millions of years" that led up to the present, but don't really consider those laws to be in effect within their moment to moment lives. "The world was developed by organisms fighting against each other, but now all those organisms are working together." Evolutionists put so much effort into justifying how evolution can explain the way things came to be that they don't put any effort into justifying how evolution can explain how things maintain their operation now.
If the laws of natural selection suddenly came into effect to the degree that evolutionists claim that they are, the human body would tear itself apart in competition. My heart and my lungs have a symbiotic relationship, but do they know that? My heart does not need my hand in order to function, so why doesn't it just stop pumping blood to my hand? But of course that is absurd. The organs of the body work in harmony. They are not competing with each other and no one except perhaps some biologists question that. But if natural selection is true, then they should be competing with each other. If you believe in natural selection than you should be afraid that your stomach would quit passing nutrients to your intestines because food passes through the stomach first, making the stomach the more powerful of the two organisms. If you say that is absurd, I agree with you, natural selection to that degree is absurd. If you say that natural selection does not work that way, then I will point out that if natural selection is not a universal law then there is no way it can account for every step of biological development.
As another example, take green evolutionists. I have heard many say that man has upset the balance of the ecosystem. But if they believe in evolution then there is no such thing as a balance of the ecosystem. To say such a thing is to suggest that all of these animals killing and devouring each other actually results not in a system of natural selection but in a system of natural harmony. That if humans had not come along there would actually be some state of status quo.
To further explore that, let's say there were only two species on the planet, the eaters and the eatens. Since the eaters live off of the eatens, the eaters are the more powerful of the two species, and yet they need the eatens to survive. Now, what would happen if the eaters wiped out the entire species of eatens? They too would go extinct. Thus it would be in the best interest of the eaters to keep the eatens alive.
And yet that is not natural selection. To keep the eatens alive would be to value their functionality over their survivability. They are more useful than they can survive. But if what evolutionists say is true and nature is in fact blind then in such a case both species would be wiped out. For the eaters not to wipe out the eatens would require an assessment of the larger picture. In short, it would require intelligence.
I think I'll stop for now. This isn't even touching the tip of the iceberg, but it's enough to start. As a quick closing point, natural selection is an inherently selfish theory. It proposes that the development of life as we know it was driven by exclusive selfishness (not simply thinking about yourself, but only thinking about yourself.) I believe in the Bible, and it teaches that our selfishness is not exclusive, but is derived from our functionality. As John Piper would say, "God is most glorified in us when we are most satisfied in him" and "God is the only route to final and lasting happiness". While evolution does not line up with systematic evidence, God does.
I do not know much about biology. But I do know a lot about system design, and the rules of system design are as universal as the rules of logic. Humans are systems. Dogs are systems. Cells are systems. Molecules are systems. Everything in life can be broken down into systems and systems within systems.
Here are some examples of system philosophy:
A system cannot produce a system more advanced than itself.
Mankind has never yet been able to design a system that improves itself, and there is no evidence to suggest that such a feat is possible.
Hierarchy is the best organization of systems, and all of life can be neatly conceptualized into hierarchies.
Modularity is an essential property of a good system.
Those are just some examples of the abstract world I love to study.
From a systematic point of view, evolution is illogical in multiple ways. Many scientists claim that all the evidence points to evolution, but that is simply not true. They are only referring to specific evidence. I am talking about general evidence which, if they wish to maintain rationality, they must be accountable to.
Like I said, there are multiple ways in which evolution is systematically illogical, but to apply modularity I will only address one of them in this post. And the first is this: evolution, or at the least the most popular interpretations of evolution, are intrinsically based upon natural selection. I would argue that, from a systematic point of view, natural selection could never account for the current state of the universe.
To begin, I need a definition of natural selection. Unfortunately, I've had a hard time finding a definition of natural selection. It seems that much of the people in this world do not understand what a definition is anymore and are busy defining the class that natural selection is inside instead of the attributes of natural selection that distinguish it from everything else. Both of the terms "evolution" and "natural selection" are so ambiguous that it makes it very challenging to argue against evolution.
Whatever the case, the common trend I've seen in most explanations of natural selection is "survival of the fittest"; the idea that the organism with the best ability to survive in it's present environment will continue to exist after the weaker organisms go extinct.
And therein lies the rub. The driving factor within natural selection is survivability. To an evolutionist, the most important value an organism can have is how well it can maintain its existence and propagate. That sounds nice in theory, but in the real world good systems do not work like that. In the study of systems, it quickly becomes evident that the best systems are when the existence of organisms is maintained based upon functionality, not how well that organism can survive over its fellow organisms. Natural selection leads to anarchy. Good system design leads to community.
Functionality does play a role in the theory of evolution through symbiotic relationships, but that is still only a fraction of what is needed to produce a good system. Within natural selection collective functionality is subservient to individual survivability. How often will an employer hire people based upon how well that person will outlast his fellow employees? I've never seen it. An employer hires people based upon their usefulness to the company. Now, a useful employee will last longer in that company than a useless employee will, but notice that in that scenario the survivability is derived from the functionality, which is the reverse of natural selection. Throughout the bulk of existence functionality reigns. However, there are places in human experience where survivability is prioritized over communal usefulness. Some examples are: Slums, prisons, mafias, orphanages, beaucracies, etc.
A system is a collection of organisms working together to accomplish a common goal. If at least some part of that goal is not beyond the scope of that system, then that system is useless. In programming terms, it is a node with inputs but no outputs. It takes but doesn't give. Natural selection does not care if a system is useful or not. In a world of natural selection, it would be perfectly plausable to have useless systems thrive while useful systems vanish.
There is a funny sense in which evolutionists are like lukewarm Christians. It is a common trap for Christians to fall into thinking that being a Christian only matters on Sundays, and the rest of the week they live a life largely disconnected from the religious beliefs they claim to hold. Many Christians have a sense that God was sort of a thing of the past; that he was more real in ancient times than at present.
Evolutionists in general are the same way with their beliefs. They believe the laws of evolution applied to the "millions and millions of years" that led up to the present, but don't really consider those laws to be in effect within their moment to moment lives. "The world was developed by organisms fighting against each other, but now all those organisms are working together." Evolutionists put so much effort into justifying how evolution can explain the way things came to be that they don't put any effort into justifying how evolution can explain how things maintain their operation now.
If the laws of natural selection suddenly came into effect to the degree that evolutionists claim that they are, the human body would tear itself apart in competition. My heart and my lungs have a symbiotic relationship, but do they know that? My heart does not need my hand in order to function, so why doesn't it just stop pumping blood to my hand? But of course that is absurd. The organs of the body work in harmony. They are not competing with each other and no one except perhaps some biologists question that. But if natural selection is true, then they should be competing with each other. If you believe in natural selection than you should be afraid that your stomach would quit passing nutrients to your intestines because food passes through the stomach first, making the stomach the more powerful of the two organisms. If you say that is absurd, I agree with you, natural selection to that degree is absurd. If you say that natural selection does not work that way, then I will point out that if natural selection is not a universal law then there is no way it can account for every step of biological development.
As another example, take green evolutionists. I have heard many say that man has upset the balance of the ecosystem. But if they believe in evolution then there is no such thing as a balance of the ecosystem. To say such a thing is to suggest that all of these animals killing and devouring each other actually results not in a system of natural selection but in a system of natural harmony. That if humans had not come along there would actually be some state of status quo.
To further explore that, let's say there were only two species on the planet, the eaters and the eatens. Since the eaters live off of the eatens, the eaters are the more powerful of the two species, and yet they need the eatens to survive. Now, what would happen if the eaters wiped out the entire species of eatens? They too would go extinct. Thus it would be in the best interest of the eaters to keep the eatens alive.
And yet that is not natural selection. To keep the eatens alive would be to value their functionality over their survivability. They are more useful than they can survive. But if what evolutionists say is true and nature is in fact blind then in such a case both species would be wiped out. For the eaters not to wipe out the eatens would require an assessment of the larger picture. In short, it would require intelligence.
I think I'll stop for now. This isn't even touching the tip of the iceberg, but it's enough to start. As a quick closing point, natural selection is an inherently selfish theory. It proposes that the development of life as we know it was driven by exclusive selfishness (not simply thinking about yourself, but only thinking about yourself.) I believe in the Bible, and it teaches that our selfishness is not exclusive, but is derived from our functionality. As John Piper would say, "God is most glorified in us when we are most satisfied in him" and "God is the only route to final and lasting happiness". While evolution does not line up with systematic evidence, God does.
Labels: Evolution, God and Programming
Read more!
posted by Chris Johnson at
7:38 PM
8 Comments
