Refined Creationism

In the course of my debates on evolution, I have discovered that creationism is not a monolithic theory. Of course, I strongly feel creationism is not a theory in the first place in the scientific sense of the term. However, creationism isn’t just about a hypothetical supernatural creator dropping Adam and Eve down from the garden of Eden.

A more refined form of creationism that I have encountered seeks to achieve a marriage of sorts between creationism and evolution. Though the details are quite nebulous and vague, the gist of the theory is that while humans and all other organisms have indeed evolved from single-celled ancestors, those single-celled ancestors had been created by a Creator. Another version of the theory, which is called “theistic evolution”, says that evolution was ‘helped’ along the way by a Creator.

"Refined", here means just that the theory is a more nuanced version of creationism, an attempt to bring it in tune with actual science. However, something that is founded on shaky ground can never be a profound idea.

As an agnostic atheist, I am naturally wary of both the above theories. However, it would be unscientific to let my personal prejudices influence a sane evaluation of the two theories. I shall try to stick to the logical problems that the above two theories create.

The problem with both the above theories is that they invoke a god (repackaged as a “creator”). But the trouble is, the existence of god has never been proven. Also, the question arises why god is required at all to explain evolution.

Theistic evolution actually goes against the very essentials of evolution. Evolution, in a nutshell, involves genes which mutate randomly. Some genes have a positive effect on survival and reproductive chances; some have a negative impact and some have no impact. Natural selection simply is the process by which the mutations which help an animal survive and reproduce better, get propagated more to future generations. Mutations that have a detrimental impact reduce in frequency because their “carriers”, the organisms, survive and/or reproduce less.

Now if you bring in an invisible hand “guiding” evolution, the question arises: how exactly does it guide evolution? Mutations are by definition random, which is why some of them are harmful and some of them useless. Clearly, if the hand is guiding mutations, then mutations should have been only beneficial and the component of natural selection would not be needed at all. On the other hand, making the hand guide natural selection is even more absurd.

Natural selection is not a guided process any more than gravitation is. How absurd would it be to claim that an invisible hand “guides” an apple to fall to the earth?

Incidentally, this part has been parodied well by Uncyclopedia here. It’s of course not a serious site, but it shows the problems with the Intelligent Design and creationism theory quite well. The same parody can be applied to theistic evolution too.

Also, we would question the necessity of the invisible hand to guide gravity. The theory of gravity explains everything quite well without the assumption of a god; bringing god into the theory would require an explanation of why he is required in the theory. The situation in evolution is pretty similar - it can be equally well explained without god; god certainly adds nothing to our understanding of the process.

Theistic evolution, thus is essentially an attempt to force god into something that never really requires the presence of any supernatural entity. A very special explanation is required to justify bringing god into the picture here, and that justification is not forthcoming.

Coming to the other form of refined creationism, the one which says god created the first life, and then allowed it to evolve. I call this “creation + evolution”.

The more you think about it, the more you realize that “creation + evolution” is pretty well covered-up non-theistic evolution. It must be a very lazy god who created the first single-celled organism and left it to its devices ever since. The question naturally arises, what has he been doing ever since?

And of course, the same question of the need for god in this theory, arises. Why at all do we need god to create the first life? Research is progressing in the field of abiogenesis, which seeks to explain the emergence of life from non-living substances. Miller and Urey demonstrated that complex organic molecules could have come about from simpler chemicals, which means that the possibility of life originating from non-living substances is quite real.

Of course, the probability of abiogenesis is quite low. But consider this: there are an estimated 100 billion billion planets in universe¹. Even if the probability of abiogenesis were one in a billion billion, we could still expect 100 planets in the universe to have had life.

Of course, on earth itself, life is thought to have originated between 4.4 billion years ago to 2.7 billion years ago, which means that we may actually consider abiognesis to have much lower probability than even one in a billion billion. In fact, as Richard Dawkins explains in The Blind Watchmaker, we should be concerned if the probability was not extremely low, because then it would be unusual that the whole universe wasn’t teeming with life.

Evolution has been proved and requires the presence of no creator at all. Of course, one may introduce a creator. But bringing in a creator is neither required, nor does it enhance our understanding of the theory in any way whatsoever. Abiogenesis offers an interesting possibility of life arising without a god’s intervention, as a purely random process.

God, thus, remains an unnecessary, redundant and superfluous explanation forced upon perfectly natural theories that are no poorer without the imposition of the supernatural.

1. The Blind Watchmaker, Richard Dawkins.

Sitting on a powder keg?

The recent Gujjar protests in Rajasthan, which have now spread to Delhi, Haryana and Madhya Pradesh, are assuming alarming proportions. It began with Gujjars (who are officially designated as OBCs in the state) demanding that they be included under the Scheduled Tribes category. This would entitle them to a better quota in jobs and education.

This was opposed by the Meenas, who are the only Scheduled Tribe in Rajasthan at present. Granting the ST status to the Gujjars will, but obviously, eat into the Meenas' share. While earlier they would have to compete only against fellow Meenas, they will need to compete with Gujjars too for the same opportunities. As a result, the Meenas have opposed this demand and there have been violent clashes. There is also hectic political lobbying by both sides.

I will not go into whether or not the Rajasthan government bungled, or whether the demand by the Gujjars is justified or not. The question here is about the explosive scenario we seem to be moving towards.

However you look at it, it seems difficult for any govt to please both factions - the Meenas and the Gujjars. If the Govt of Rajasthan rejects the Gujjars demands, it will precipitate a further caste war between the Meenas, who will be seen as the saboteurs, and the Gujjars. There is bound to be a lot of bad blood there.

But it would be far worse if the government were to accede to the demands of the Gujjars. Consider for a moment the implications of such a move. It would signal that violence pays. Armtwisting the government through rioting is a feasible way to get your demands met. It will also send the message that all a caste needs to do to get into an SC/ST bracket would be to indulge in violent protests.

While the Gujjars and the Meenas may have a lot of antagonism for each other as a result of this issue, they would both unite if a third caste were to agitate for the granting of ST status to it. We would see bigger caste clashes.

There may be possible workarounds like giving the ST status to Gujjars, but making the Meenas a special sub-category of STs, like a quota within a quota. I'm not sure of the constitutional validity of this, but such a workaround too is bound to fail, since it will soon be questioned why Meenas are given this special treatment, and worse, other castes will demand the same "special" treatment.

It is becoming clear now that there is unlikely to be any easy, mutually acceptable solution. A solution that pleases the Gujjars will anger the Meenas and vice versa.

It is not inconceivable or even improbable, that soon other castes with adequate muscle power will protest for an SC/ST status, even if they really are not backward in any sense. With each demand, it will become increasingly harder to justify one caste having reservations, while the other doesnt. And when the stick, the gun and fire are the preferred means of negotiation, justifications, whether they make sense or not, are bound to go unheard. We seem to be now sitting on a powder keg which may blast at any given moment. What the anti-reservationists have been crying themselves hoarse over, about the divisive power of reservations, seems to ring true.

"I told you so" is sometimes called the most painful sentence in English. But it seems the most apt in this scenario - tragically so.