Atheism and Theism JJ Haldane - Common Sense Atheism
Atheism and Theism JJ Haldane - Common Sense Atheism
Atheism and Theism JJ Haldane - Common Sense Atheism
You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles
YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.
<strong>Atheism</strong> <strong>and</strong> <strong>Theism</strong> 95<br />
the failure of mechanistic evolutionary theory. However, to say that it does<br />
not leaves it unexplained how reproduction could emerge out of successive<br />
non-reproductive events.<br />
Admittedly, there are many conceivable circumstances in which chance<br />
forces act upon something in such a way that the effect is the production of<br />
things like the first. Imagine, for example, the improbable but not impossible<br />
situation in which three pieces of slate fall in succession <strong>and</strong> at different<br />
angles on to a cube of clay cutting it into eight smaller cubes. Interesting as<br />
this might be, it is not the exercise by the cube of a power of reproduction.<br />
Similarly, the mere sundering of organic matter into several pieces is not<br />
a form of asexual reproduction, <strong>and</strong> nor is it made such by repetition. Certainly,<br />
if a number of distinct individuals of relevantly similar sorts participate<br />
in processes that systematically give rise to the existence of further individuals<br />
of the same sorts, which in turn lead to more of the same or similar <strong>and</strong> so<br />
on, then it becomes reasonable to attribute powers of replication. But this is<br />
not an explanation of reproduction; it is a description of it. And if to avoid<br />
this conclusion one says that each successive stage is really like the first, not<br />
reproductive but ‘reproductive’ or ‘protoreplicative’, i.e. the product of chance,<br />
then not only does evolutionary biology have no account of systematic reproduction,<br />
which is the basis of its theory of speciation, but what was an initial<br />
improbability is now multiplied unimaginably many millions of times over.<br />
On this account anything could result from anything at any time. It is not<br />
even that one would be saying that the reproductive process can sometimes<br />
go wildly wrong. The idea of ‘going wrong’ presupposes a background of<br />
operational normality, <strong>and</strong> the idea of a reproductive process is that of something<br />
different in kind from a mere statistical pattern. Certainly, it is not<br />
logically impossible that every single step of evolutionary history should have<br />
been a biological accident in the radical sense now envisaged, as if falling<br />
slates kept quartering cubes here, there <strong>and</strong> everywhere, many millions of<br />
times. No contradiction is involved in this supposition. Nonetheless it is<br />
incompatible with a realist interpretation of general biology, let alone special<br />
evolutionary theory; <strong>and</strong> to borrow a delightfully low-key phrase from Richard<br />
Swinburne it is ‘not much to be expected’; or as a Scot might say (with greater<br />
effect, if perhaps less accuracy) ‘nae chance’.<br />
I am not arguing the case for ‘creationist science’, the not logically impossible<br />
but foolish view that there is nothing to evolution; that God made the<br />
world as we find it today, a few thous<strong>and</strong> or a few hundred thous<strong>and</strong> years<br />
ago, complete with the fossil record. Early in chapter 1 Jack Smart writes of<br />
how his beliefs about reality are formed in the light of total science. As would<br />
be expected, I cannot agree that this is a wholly adequate methodological<br />
principle (at least as he interprets it). Yet I certainly think that reason supports<br />
the claim of the empirical sciences to be a major source of our knowledge