Deepak Chopra: Intelligent Design

Without the Bible

Deepak Chopra Wed Aug 24, 5:27 AM ET

I was asked to appear on the CNN Larry King Live Show Tuesday night to participate in
a debate on intelligent design versus evolution. Since television time is always limited, I
thought I would post my views on this topic on this blog. I will follow up with another
post on this subject tomorrow.

It is disturbing to see that the current debate over evolution has become us-versus-them.
To say that Nature displays intelligence doesn't make you a Christian fundamentalist.
Einstein said as much, and a fascinating theory called the anthropic principle has been
seriously considered by Stephen Hawking, among others. The anthropic principle tries to
understand how a random universe could evolve to produce DNA, and ultimately human
intelligence. To say the DNA happened randomly is like saying that a hurricane could
blow through a junk yard and produce a jet plane.

It's high time to rescue "intelligent design" from the politics of religion. There are too
many riddles not yet answered by either biology or the Bible, and by asking them
honestly, without foregone conclusions, science could take a huge leap forward.

If anyone here is interested in placing this debate on a higher plane than us-versus-them, I
think the main issues are these:

1. How does nature take creative leaps? In the fossil record there are repeated gaps that
no "missing link" can fill. The most glaring is the leap by which inorganic molecules
turned into DNA. For billions of years after the Big Bang, no other molecule replicated
itself. No other molecule was remotely as complicated. No other molecule has the
capacity to string billions of pieces of information that remain self-sustaining despite
countless transformations into all the life forms that DNA has produced.

2. If mutations are random, why does the fossil record demonstrate so many positive
mutations -- those that lead to new species -- and so few negative ones? Random chance
should produce useless mutations thousands of times more often than positive ones.

3. How does evolution know where to stop? The pressure to evolve is constant; therefore
it is hard to understand why evolution isn't a constant. Yet sharks and turtles and insects
have been around for hundreds of millions of years without apparent evolution except to
diversify among their kind. These species stopped in place while others, notably
hominids, kept evolving with tremendous speed, even though our primate ancestors didn't
have to. The many species of monkeys which persist in original form tell us that human
evolution, like the shark's, could have ended. Why didn't it?
4. Evolutionary biology is stuck with regard to simultaneous mutations. One kind of
primordial skin cell, for example, mutated into scales, fur, and feathers. These are hugely
different adaptations, and each is tremendously complex. How could one kind of cell take
three different routes purely at random?

5. If design doesn't imply intelligence, why are we so intelligent? The human body is
composed of cells that evolved from one-celled blue-green algae, yet that algae is still
around. Why did DNA pursue the path of greater and greater intelligence when it could
have perfectly survived in one-celled plants and animals, as in fact it did?

6. Why do forms replicate themselves without apparent need? The helix or spiral shape
found in the shell of the chambered nautilus, the center of sunflowers, spiral galaxies, and
DNA itself seems to be such a replication. It is mathematically elegant and appears to be
a design that was suited for hundreds of totally unrelated functions in nature.

7. What happens when simple molecules come into contact with life? Oxygen is a simple
molecule in the atmosphere, but once it enters our lungs, it becomes part of the cellular
machinery, and far from wandering about randomly, it precisely joins itself with other
simple molecules, and together they perform cellular tasks, such as protein-building,
whose precision is millions of times greater than anything else seen in nature. If the
oxygen doesn't change physically -- and it doesn't -- what invisible change causes it to
acquire intelligence the instant it contacts life?

8. How can whole systems appear all at once? The leap from reptile to bird is proven by
the fossil record. Yet this apparent step in evolution has many simultaneous parts. It
would seem that Nature, to our embarrassment, simply struck upon a good idea, not a
simple mutation. If you look at how a bird is constructed, with hollow bones, toes
elongated into wing bones, feet adapted to clutching branches instead of running, etc.,
none of the mutations by themselves give an advantage to survival, but taken altogether,
they are a brilliant creative leap. Nature takes such leaps all the time, and our attempt to
reduce them to bits of a jigsaw puzzle that just happened to fall into place to form a
beautifully designed picture seems faulty on the face of it. Why do we insist that we are
allowed to have brilliant ideas while Nature isn't?

9. Darwin's iron law was that evolution is linked to survival, but it was long ago pointed
out that "survival of the fittest" is a tautology. Some mutations survive, and therefore we
call them fittest. Yet there is no obvious reason why the dodo, kiwi, and other flightless
birds are more fit; they just survived for a while. DNA itself isn't fit at all; unlike a
molecule of iron or hydrogen, DNA will blow away into dust if left outside on a sunny
day or if attacked by pathogens, x-rays, solar radiation, and mutations like cancer. The
key to survival is more than fighting to see which organism is fittest.

10. Competition itself is suspect, for we see just as many examples in Nature of
cooperation. Bees cooperate, obviously, to the point that when a honey bee stings an
enemy, it acts to save the whole hive. At the moment of stinging, a honeybee dies. In
what way is this a survival mechanism, given that the bee doesn't survive at all? For that
matter, since a mutation can only survive by breeding -- "survival" is basically a
simplified term for passing along gene mutations from one generation to the next -- how
did bees develop drones in the hive, that is, bees who cannot and never do have sex?

11. How did symbiotic cooperation develop? Certain flowers, for example, require
exactly one kind of insect to pollinate them. A flower might have a very deep calyx, or
throat, for example than only an insect with a tremendously long tongue can reach. Both
these adaptations are very complex, and they serve no outside use. Nature was getting
along very well without this symbiosis, as evident in the thousands of flowers and insects
that persist without it. So how did numerous generations pass this symbiosis along if it is
so specialized?

12. Finally, why are life forms beautiful? Beauty is everywhere in Nature, yet it serves no
obvious purpose. Once a bird of paradise has evolved its incredibly gorgeous plumage,
we can say that it is useful to attract mates. But doesn't it also attract predators, for we
simultaneously say that camouflaged creatures like the chameleon survive by not being
conspicuous. In other words, exact opposites are rationalized by the same logic. This is
no logic at all. Non-beautiful creatures have survived for millions of years, so have
gorgeous ones. The notion that this is random seems weak on the face of it.

I don't know who will bother to read all these points, which I have had to truncate. But if
you think the answers are in safe hands among the ranks of evolutionary biologists, think
again. No credible scientific theory has answered these dilemmas, and progress is being
discouraged, I imagine, thanks to fundamentalist Christians. By hijacking the whole
notion of intelligent design, they have tarred genuine scientific issues with the stain of
religious prejudice.

In my next post I will offer a picture of how these questions might be answered.