Those who believe in a God of chance may still maintain that given enough time, anything can happen by chance. The so-called ‘Infinite Monkey Theorem’[1] is frequently invoked in support of such a claim. However, this theorem hinges on the assumption of true randomness, meaning that the monkey does not repeat the same sequences. And yet, it is perfectly plausible that it can keep typing letters g and p, for example, or any other more complex pattern for ever, and never come around to accidentally complete the work of Shakespeare – in fact, the probability that it will end up in one of such loops is far greater than getting to write something meaningful. Lasting true randomness is a hard call in the physical world. Besides, the time available on this planet has been huge but not infinite. Considering these limitations, the challenge is to provide an interpretation that would give the evolutionary process a fair chance, rather than an astronomically small one.

We don’t think though that falling back onto a God the Watchmaker is a viable option. Let’s just bring here one reason among many for that. As already discussed, evolution does not happen gradually, but in leaps (rapid transformations) followed by long periods of relative equilibrium. If this has been God’s job, rather than creating for six days and resting for one, it seems that God has created for one day, and rested for six – or even longer. This is rather inefficient for an omnipotent entity. If an intelligence is involved at every evolutionary step, one would expect a steady progress – there would have been no need for the long periods of stagnation. So, what else?

However, Creationist and other literal interpretations of the scriptures are hard to reconcile with facts. The Old Testament account contains a number of incongruent and inconsistent statements. For instance, according to Genesis, fruit-bearing trees were created on the third day, while fish and other marine creatures were created two days later. Whatever ‘day’ is supposed to mean, the fossil record shows clearly that fish pre-dated trees by hundreds of millions of years. The existence of redundant organs and other imperfections (e.g. the position of optic nerves in the human eye) is another reason why the creation of species by an outside agency is extremely implausible. An omnipotent designer should do better. The offshoot of Creationism, Intelligent Design, is good in picking shortcomings of evolutionary theory, but it falls short in offering a plausible alternative.

There have been many theologians (notably from the Jesuit breed) who have not interpreted the Bible literally and have attempted to incorporate the theory of evolution within a religious framework. A prominent, relatively recent example is Pierre Teilhard de Chardin, who took evolution as a central tenet of his theology. His essentially Hegelian vision (see p.69-70), but extended beyond historical time, is far removed though from conventional religious views. The other, more traditional position that can be traced back to St Augustine emphasises God’s transcendence, insisting that God only sets the starting parameters, after which nature

The dynamic of evolution is based on struggle and competition within and between species for limited resources. Although this process is considered directionless, it is responsible for bringing forth the successive forms of life from single cell organisms to human beings.

This interpretation of evolution has many merits and its simplicity is seductive. However, Neo-Darwinism also has some flaws. It was widely accepted in the 20^th century not because it explained everything perfectly, but because it accounted for the facts better than any alternative, and because it fitted well with the prevailing ideology of materialism in scientific circles. The purpose of what follows is not an attempt to disprove Neo-Darwinism, but rather to show that it is incomplete. Because of this incompleteness, it cannot provide plausible explanations for all the characteristics of evolution and for all the salient paleontological and biological facts. We will argue that, for the same reason, the key terms associated with this view – chance, natural selection, competition, and gradualism – do not appear fully adequate, especially if taken dogmatically, as it has often been the case[2].

Chance

The materialist view is that all the changes in living organisms, from the original single cell to a great variety of species that have existed and currently exist, are the result of accidental genetic mutations[3]. Sure enough, some mutations may be accidental, but the claim that all mutations in all organisms have been random seems improbable for several reasons.

The effects of random mutations may be harmless only in extremely rare cases. They are almost always harmful and incur a loss, not a gain of information and complexity:

The fact that the vast majority of all mutations which have some detectable influence on the functioning of the organism are deleterious suggests that each functional living system is indeed enormously constrained to adaptive changes along only a tiny fraction of all the possible evolutionary trajectories available to it. (Denton, 1998, p.341).