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.
224 J.J. <strong>Haldane</strong><br />
<strong>and</strong> expansion. One such is my deployment of what were called ‘old-style’<br />
teleological arguments. It has long been supposed that any argument to<br />
design would have to look elsewhere than at the structure <strong>and</strong> activities of<br />
organisms; because it was assumed that Darwinian theory, or more broadly<br />
natural selection of r<strong>and</strong>omly produced adaptive features, provides a sufficient<br />
alternative hypothesis. The point is not that modern biology is incompatible<br />
with the design hypothesis but that it suggests an alternative naturalistic<br />
explanation, <strong>and</strong> so refutes the claim that the complexity of living things<br />
<strong>and</strong> their characteristic activities can only be the result of design. Those who<br />
believed that the universe was created, then looked elsewhere for signs of the<br />
divine mind <strong>and</strong> believed they saw them in the fine structure of the cosmos<br />
<strong>and</strong> in the causal regularities of nature, matters which evolutionary theory<br />
did not address.<br />
While agreeing that the latter features are significant <strong>and</strong> provide the basis<br />
for interesting arguments (see chapter 2, section 6), I am not of the view that<br />
evolutionary theory has put paid to arguments from biology, including its<br />
higher forms such as psychology. Scientific accounts of the origins <strong>and</strong> evolution<br />
of life leave scope for a design argument if only because mechanistic<br />
explanations do not exclude teleological ones. As reflection on artefacts clearly<br />
shows, the question of how something works is distinct from that of why it<br />
does so, i.e. of what purpose it serves. So if, as I argued, there is irreducible<br />
teleology in nature, <strong>and</strong> if that calls for some ultimate explanation, then the<br />
fact that natural systems implement their teleologies through mechanisms is<br />
beside the point so far as the truth of their being purpose-driven is concerned.<br />
Apart from that consideration, however, I also argued that theories of natural<br />
evolution do not provide sufficient explanation since they presuppose the<br />
existence at an early stage of self-reproduction, <strong>and</strong> it has not been shown<br />
that this can arise by natural means from a material base. Even the simplest<br />
of currently existing organisms are far removed from the sort of primitive<br />
forms with which life on earth is presumed to have originated. The question<br />
is how these latter arose. Setting aside theories of extra-terrestrial origins, the<br />
generally favoured view is that life emerged from a long process beginning<br />
with interactions between atmospheric gases, lightning <strong>and</strong> ultraviolet radiation.<br />
2 The biochemical hypothesis, of which the storm in the primordial soup<br />
forms a part, has been the subject of much research but it faces a number of<br />
difficulties.<br />
It envisages the primordial interactions producing amino acids which then<br />
gave rise to proteins out of which developed primitive, self-replicating cellular<br />
organisms. The steps would be many <strong>and</strong> every process would take long<br />
periods to establish itself. The problem, however, is not pace or time. It is<br />
rather that cells exhibit a kind of complexity <strong>and</strong> dependence that makes it<br />
hard to see how they could have evolved from inanimate material. The main