Neither ‘Chance or Design’

Professor Arjuna De Zoysa, Dept of Mathematics and Philosophy of Engineering,

 Open University of Sri Lanka.

e-mail: apdez@ou.ac.lk

In this paper I will briefly elucidate the view that Darwinism was developed as an anti-thesis to creationism, that is the creator God ‘theory of life’ on this planet as explicitly stated in the Genesis narrative (King James Version of the Bible) and accepted as accounts of origins, in Islam and Judaism.  I contend that neither a strict Design theory of origins nor a pure ‘randomness and necessity’ (Chance & Necessity, Jacques Monod) is plausible, and the need today is to transcend both these accounts, whose stand points are at extreme ends of a spectrum. 

In transcending these narratives, I begin with a Buddhist account of origins as given in the Brahmajala Sutra, (Bodhi Ven. Bhikku) and the Aga na Sutra (Digha Nikaya, Walshe).  These particular sutras (discourse) were written down supposedly on a account given by Gautama Buddha himself (circa 500 b.c.).  The aim of the particular discourse, the Aga na Sutra account was given to counter the caste system prevalent in India at the time (in Brahmanism), which in turn based its account of social classes on a particular theistic story of ‘origins’.  The Brahmajala Sutra was written down to counter the sixty two supposedly erroneous views which were prevalent at the time. The erroneous views range from the extremes of Idealism (as in religious philosophy) to Materialism (as in the sciences).  The Buddha however did not draw on randomness to drive the ‘ghost from the designed machine’. In the Aga na Sutra the will (desire) to ‘Be’ is taken as a fundamental causative factor in the evolution of life on this planet.  The account is written as a descent of consciousness, rather than as an ascent of materialism as in the Darwinian evolutionary scheme.  This has echoes of the fall in Genesis II (Bible), but the ‘blame’ is not placed on Woman, Man’s companion; some parallels are made here with Lamarckism where, genetic mutations could be driven by an imperative (‘desire’) to harmonize and grow in a material environment.  The parallel is drawn to highlight the lack of contradiction between the accounts, and its concluded that a new science of evolution be developed as indicated by these accounts, i.e. the Buddhist theory of origins, and Lamarckism.  The term Neo-Darwinism may be retained if necessary, but this terminology, I reckon has more to do with the fact that the history of science is more English than French. After all Wellington and not Napoleon was the victor at Waterloo!

The Genesis story and the Power of Design

The power of the creation narrative in the Bible lies not so much in the power of the Church, but on several other factors.  The somewhat universal desire in humans to believe in something more than their narrow selves, with the comfort of predetermined futures. Finally in the fact that the sequence of events in the Biblical account of origins agrees well with fossil records (see Appendix I).  The King James’s Version of the Bible was written about 400 years before Darwin or even earlier.  Its agreement with fossil findings is thereby impressive.  Darwin had access to fossils and King James’s writers did not.  Creationism, in societies with theistic beliefs will not go away, and it is simply not only for psychological reasons, or that of the power of political relations (Church).  It has an impressive agreement with the suggested evolutionary sequence as indicated by fossil records (see appendix I). 

Lamarckism and the ‘Need to Be’ 

A central tenet of Darwinism is that variations which form the ‘raw material’ for natural selection, occurs randomly; alternatively, Henri Lamar (1809) proposed that the need for a particular life structure, induces the appearance of that structure.  The ‘raw material’ for natural selection is not as in Darwinism randomly arisen, but driven by the formation of a particular structure likely to succeed (Roberts, et.al.1993).  Or in Buddhistic terms the ‘Desire to Be’.

Let us illustrate this difference by a now famous evolutionary example.  We know that giraffes have long necks and thereby they are able to pluck and eat foliage from tall trees, while other shorter animals cannot do so.  How did this long neck develop?  Darwinism says that random mutations produced giraffes with long and short necks; the longer ones had a better chance of survival and prospered.  Lamar would say the need to survive (to Be), caused the necessary mutations.  The long necks were thus more liable to occur than shorter necks, in an evolutionary process. 

In strict mathematical terms if ‘P_l’ was the probability of mutation  of a long neck, and ‘P_s’ the chance of mutation of a short neck from the average at a time of ‘normal’ neck lengths.  Then, ‘P_l’ is much greater than ‘P_s’ or P_l >> P_s.  Darwin would say that P_l = P_s. This makes an enormous difference, the Lamarckian scheme (P_l >> P_s) drives evolution, while (P_l = P_s) is random and utterly ‘neutral’.  I reckon the latter thesis of Darwin was more driven by the desire to drive out the role of ‘God’ in science and the possibility of life on earth being created; but by this he denied the role of external factors through which ‘consciousness’ could ‘influence’ the material world.  By ‘consciousness’ (Vinnana) I mean non-material factors, which influence life.  Even the material world which is external can effect the internal being thru’ such a mechanism rather directly.  Darwinism proposes, an indirect, random process thru’ which the external world would effect the ‘internal’.  There is no need for an independent ‘consciousness’ (or any other non-material factor) in any mechanism for evolution in the Darwinian scheme. Computer simulations suggest that evolutionary processes may take trillions of years to evolve such a complex being as the human, rather than the rather short period of a mere 3000 million years, if one assumes random selection as the mechanic of evolution ( Dembski A.W.,1994, Forder Jerry 1998).

Buddhist Theory of Origins

The Buddha it is reported, had to comment on origins of the human race; to counter the Brahmanistic theories which were designed to justify the caste systems as prevalent at the time.  Brahmin’s occupied an apex position, and justified it on the basis that the Brahmins were born directly from the mouth of Brahman (parallels with Man being created in the image of god). In this case the Buddha had supposedly inquired from the inquirer as to whether Brahmin women do not menstruate (sarcasm). In Buddhism ‘Vin ana’  or that which becomes conscious in material form is independent of the experience of materiality (appendix II), but becomes conscious only with linkages to materiality. Vin ana desires to ‘Be’ and is capable of motivating material form in such a manner. In the Buddhist scheme of re-becoming the ‘Will to Be’ is fundamental and present at death and living. Such a process could drive a Lamarckian Process of evolution.  The long neck of the giraffe arises from the desire to eat foliage at a strategically located height. 

The parallel that I draw is striking and cannot be ignored.  A simple formular that Darwinism is anti-creationist and so is Buddhism and therefore a parallel exists is simplistic; and fit only for a non-scholastic audience, ‘Truth’ or ‘Reality’ is always, one step beyond such a logic.

Concluding Remarks

The other day I was swimming in shallow seas and was amazed to observe fish swimming close to the sandy bottom, having exactly the same colour as the bottom. They would have been virtually invisible if not for their rapid motions. How did they emerge in such a manner and place? One answer is that a creator God had created such a well adapted being with or without an evolutionary process. The question then arises as to who created the creator? The chain of questioning thus becomes endless. This fallacy was well known to the evolutionist and they tried to solve it by eliminating God and by that any role that non-material factors could have played. ‘Throwing the baby with the bath water’ I call it.

   Darwinism as an evolutionary theory emerged and caused a furor. The discovery of fossil remains was credited solely to an expedition undertaken by Charles Darwin. The mechanism of evolution he proposed was random mutations and survival of the fittest. It is suggested here that such a mechanism is erroneous. The will to ‘Be’, guided by a ‘consciousness’ not restricted to an individual is suggested here as driving the mutations necessary for evolutionary development, as in Lamarckism. I draw from Buddhist philosophy to postulate both an ‘external’ non-material factor given as Vina na, a subconscious process which becomes conscious within material form. This process desires to ‘Be’, and this thereby becomes the motivational factor in evolution.

Darwinism rests on a poor hypothesis which can never be falsified, in a sense as understood by Popper. Any new evidence could easily be accommodated with a slight change in theory, hence the number of Neo-Darwin-isms that profligate the modern discourse on evolution. One can only undermine the confidence of such theory building as I have attempted to do. Finally I will leave you with a quotation by Ehrlich and Birch, which is telling;

“Our theory of evolution has become one which cannot be refuted by any possible observations. Every conceivable observation can be fitted into it. No one can think of ways in which to test it.

Ideas either without basis or based on a few laboratory experiments carried out in extremely simplified systems, have attained currency far beyond their validity.

They have become part of an evolutionary dogma accepted by most of us as part of our training.”

(L.C.Birch, P.Ehrlich , Nature, April 22 1967).

References

Bhiikhu Bodhi, “Discourse on the All Embracing Views”, ‘Brahmajala Sutra’, Buddhist Publication Society, Kandy, Sri Lanka, 1992,  trn. From Pali and comments by Ven. Bhikkhu Bodhi.

Dembski A.W., “Darwinism: Science and Philosophy”, Ch:7, ‘The Incompleteness of Scientific Naturalism’, 1994, Foundation for thought and ethics, Texas.

De Zoysa, “Lecture notes from a postgraduate course on ‘Buddhism and Science’, at the Postgraduate Insititute in Pali and Buddhist Studies”, 2002.

Fodor Jerry, “The trouble with Psychological Darwinism”, London Review of Books, 1998, v. 20 : n 2.

Jacques Monod, tran. ,‘Chance and Necessity’,   An Essay on the Natural Philosophy of Modern Biology -  Austin Wainhouse, Vintage, 1971

New Scientist, “Heart of Darkness”, p.28-33, 17 Feb. 2007.

Roberts M., Reiss M, Monger G, ‘Biology, Principles and Processes’, 1993, Nelson International

Ibid, ‘Advanced Biology’

Sheldrake Rupert, “Presence of the Past”,

Walshe Maurice (trn.), ‘Agga na Sutra, On knowledge of Beginnings’?

p.407, 1995, BPS, Kandy

Author : Professor Arjuna De Zoysa, Dept of Mathematics and Philosophy of Engineering, Open University of Sri Lanka.

Appendix I

Sequence of Events in the Bible

Genesis: chapters 1 & 2 (king James Version)

1.                 The earth was without form, and void, and darkness was upon the face of the Deep

-         Beautiful description of a Dark nebular.

2.  Formation of Stars and Sun is then described as,

And God said let there be light and there was light

-         End of First Day

3.  Formation of a dense atmosphere between Clouds and the Seas

‘Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters’.

-         End of Second Day (v. 6-8)

4.  Formation of Dry land and the Seas – separation, could represent geological pricesses.

Appearance of Vegetation on Dry Land.

-         End of Third Day (V. 9-13)

Clearing of a dense cloud cover, (giving light to the earth)

‘Let there be lights in the firmament (Dense atmosphere & ground) of the heaven to divide day from the night; and let them be for signs for seasons, and for days and years’?

…….. ‘Two great lights; the greater light to rule the day (Sun), and the lesser light to rule the night (moon); he made the stars also’. 

-         Fourth Day (v. 14 – 19).

And God said, ‘let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature which has life (fish), and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament’.  ‘Great whales & every living creature in the waters and fowls multiplied abundantly’

-         Fifth Day (V. 20 – 23)

Beasts that walk the earth,

And afterwards he created Man and Woman as Vegetarians

-         Sixth Day (v. 224 – 30)

Rests on Seventh Day (2: 2). The whole world is created and subsequently god rests on the seventh day!

The above events can be interpreted differently, however the sequence stands and does not contradict a sequence which could be built up from fossil records.

Appendix II

Buddhist Theory of Origins

In the Brahmajala Sutra (B-S) (Bodhi, 1992), the passing away and origins of the Cosmos are described in the following manner,

‘There comes a time, bhikkhus, when after the lapse of a long period this world contracts. While the world is contracting, beings for the most part are reborn in the Ab hasara Brahma-world…………

But sooner or later, bhikkhus, after the lapse of a long period, there comes a time when this world begins to expand once again. While the world is expanding, an empty palace of Brahma appears. Then a certain being, due to the exhaustion of his life span or of his merit, passes away from the Ab hassara plane and re-arises in the empty palace of Brahma (p 65, BS).’

The above description is that of an expanding and contracting universe, where beings during contraction (destruction of the universe) are reborn in one of two states, in an exhalted state akin to a heavenly world (Ab hassara Brahma realms) or as the Brahmajala Sutra implies in its commentaries;

‘one with wrong views fixed in their consequence will not be released from niraya (hellish worlds) when the world system contracts. It is said that he is born on the other side of the world sphere’ (p.153, BS).

Later on in the same text it is explained as to how the idea of a creator God arises during a period of expansion. Eternity is denied, merely a long period in earthly terms. The experience of time in Buddhism is relative to a particular state of being, similar to relativistic time.

     We are living in a period of expansion. The question that modern scientist would like an answer for, is whether this expansion will slow down and go into a period of contraction? The presence or absence of ‘Dark matter’ is a crucial factor (New Scientist, 2007).