Introduction

Faith and reason are the two pillars of human thought. They compliment each other. There is no conflict between religion and science, nor between Jesus and Darwin. Evolution theory enriches faith as well as science. A proper balance of faith and reason provides insights that resolve many of the polarizing issues of our day. Science is trapped in the universe and has nothing whatever to say about what is outside the universe. It neither supports nor opposes a supernatural creator. Faith is what one needs to believe in theism or atheism. A purely scientific view would simply not take a position since there is no scientific evidence. The universe could have been created two minutes ago, complete with memories and fossils, and science would not be able to tell.

Does God intervene in history? We cannot know for sure. Since we can only know when a radioactive particle will decay to a probability, any intervention would be scientifically undetectable. Science can determine neither truth nor falsity regarding the meta universe. However, God could reveal himself through prophecy or by purposefully violating the laws of physics.

Evolution in a Nutshell

Evolution is a random search technique that incrementally searches for improvements in fitness. The primary driving force for evolution is self reproduction. Self reproduction must have errors such that the offspring have at least occasional differences from their parents called mutations. Sexual reproduction enhances the search technique through crossover which generates offspring by some combination of the features of the parents. This accelerates the search by trying different combinations of previously successful characteristics. There must also be information input and a way of directing the search. This is where fitness comes in. All the individuals are tested for fitness. They reproduce in proportion to their fitness. This fitness test, for biological systems, is the survival struggle against the environment and other individuals. Information is added, and the search is directed, by this fitness test. The more fit individuals will produce more copies of themselves with mutation and crossover. And this is repeated for subsequent generations. This search technique randomly probes nearby regions of structure and function space and preserves those variations that demonstrate fitness.

This is a very simple method but it has some important subtleties. First, evolution proceeds in tiny steps. The reason for this is that a large mutation or crossover modification has a near zero chance of producing a fit individual. Complex organisms subjected to random changes are almost certain to be non-viable unless the change is very slight. Second, the fitness function is continually changing. Each individual organism plays a part in the fitness function for other individuals. The environment which effects the fitness function is made up of myriad other individuals who are all being fitness tested. There is no fixed environment within which organisms struggle for survival. The environment, made up of large numbers of organisms, is constantly changing. Each variation in structure or function brought about by mutation or crossover constitutes a change in the fitness function. The fitness function is the most difficult part of evolution to understand or to model. In particular, human evolution proceeds within a fitness function that is significantly affected by human thought, inventions, and constructions. We are constantly changing our own fitness function and it seems to be changing much faster than evolution can respond. Third, the fitness function is recursive. The definition of fitness for, say humans, might be stated as "an individual is fit if it produces offspring that are fit and helps modify the fitness function to enhance the fitness of its offspring". This recursive definition means that the actions of a fit individual ripple down several generations. It is not enough just to produce offspring. Fourth, the genetic code specifies a process, not an organism. For biological organisms the DNA, or genotype, should be thought of as the program for developing the individual, or phenotype, rather than as a blueprint for the adult individual. It specifies the proteins and chemical engines that generate an individual within a favorable environment. Fifth, evolution is not necessarily a slow process. In general it seems a very slow process, but in certain cases of fitness function it can move with lightning speed. The selection of dairy cattle for milk production has dramatically changed cows in a relatively short time.

Computer models of the evolutionary process use genetic algorithms. For these algorithms the genotype might be a tree structure representing a LISP program (a la Koza) that performs a task judged by a fitness test. Mutation clips a subtree of the tree and randomly generates a replacement subtree. Crossover randomly selects a subtree from the mother and a subtree from the father and swaps them. This LISP program could, for example, specify how to generate the structure as well as the function of the new organism.

Many successful examples of evolutionary algorithms have been produced. The most amazing example to me is the work of Karl Sims. He evolved virtual creatures that could walk in many strange ways, swim, and even compete in a struggle for possession of an object. His SIGGRAPH 94 paper, "Evolving Virtual Creatures" is a milestone in this field.

Creation and Evolution

The current controversy over whether to teach evolution or creation or both in school science courses, has become unreasonably polarized. Those who claim science negates creation do not understand the limits of science and those who deny the evidence for evolution become increasingly irrational.

Creationists have too little faith in God. They take God's place themselves and tell God what he must have meant. They should observe Ecclesiastes 7:13 "Don't fight the facts of nature". Here are some of the spurious arguments against evolution.
1. Evolution does not explain the origin of life.
True, science doesn't know how self reproduction first began. We should be more willing to admit the things we don't know. Nor has anyone established the origin of existence. Faith in God doesn't explain existence any more than just believing that the universe always was. Believing that God always was is not so different.
2. All fossils appear in the Cambrian period
All major phyla seem to appear in the Cambrian layers. There are very few fossils of prior forms. This is what one would expect of evolution. Body armor is not needed until a huge amount of evolution has taken place. Protoplasmic blobs leave little trace. Once predation starts in a huge population of variations, evolution would be extremely rapid. Since evolution proceeds in tiny steps, it is expected that very early fossil evidence would have the main phyla since subsequent millions of years are required to add the modifications for the class and order variations. A key question to ask is why is there only one evolutionary tree. Perhaps, once self reproduction starts, it fills the environment so rapidly that later schemes for self reproduction simply can't get started for lack of resources. However, paleontology, at this point cannot disprove the possibility that God may have produced the plethora of life forms that appear in Cambrian layers independantly of, or with an augmented version of, evolution.
3. Homologous genetic sequences don't give rise to homologous structures
Again, this is just what you expect of evolution. Evolution produces indecipherable code. A bit of code in one place may cooperate with a totally disconnected piece to generate fitness. It is notoriously hard to figure out how evolved programs work. They are conglomerates of junk code. Clearly, knowing the human genome is just the beginning. Trying to figure out how this scrambled code works will be much harder.
4. Mutation is random and cannot add information.
Yes, of course, but the fitness test does add information. It is the fitness function that directs this brute force search. The variations due to mutation and crossover simply provide a random sampling of (usually) nearby function space. The fitness test decides which of these sample points deserve further search. The fitness test adds information.
5. Some objects appear to have irreducible complexity.
Often, physiological structures work together to accomplish a goal. It is difficult to see how incremental changes could produce such a cooperative symphony of parts. The answer to this is that structures continually change their functions. A bony plate that evolved to protect an organ, might find new use as part of another mechanism. Structures adapt from one use to another, finding contorted evolutionary paths to the final mechanism. Also, evolution can simplify an inefficient complex mechanism to gradually produce an elegant mechanism of irreducible complexity such as the motor than propells a flagellated bacterium.

So what should schools teach? First they must teach the limitations of science, that science is limited within the universe and that it says nothing about what is outside the universe. Science does not preclude a creator. Furthermore, as computer simulations of evolving creatures have shown, in principle, a human in this universe could with current technology become a creator of a sub-universe. We know how to build computer simulations that support evolution in a virtual environment. Science should tell the truth, that science and faith are compatible.

Morality and Fitness

The current popular culture has replaced the traditional moral framework with the cult of tolerance and political correctness. These are particularly evident as they relate to sex, reproduction and homosexuality. The traditional moral values of most religions are surprisingly compatible with Darwinian fitness. Many of these morals deal with the fitness issue of short term pleasure versus long term pain. Fitness is enhanced by impressing upon individuals the importance of foregoing immediate gratification in the longer term interests of the individual and especially of the long term interests of the group. Many aspects of the popular culture are both immoral and lacking in Darwinian fitness.

Homosexuality is a genetically suicidal lifestyle. Not only do they not reproduce to any great extent but the high degree of promiscuity sacrifices long term health for short term pleasure. Even before the AIDS epidemic they suffered epidemic levels of hepatitis and other sexually transmitted diseases. It was remarkable to see the activists accuse Reagan and Bush of genocide for not somehow hastening a cure for AIDS. Let us assume for a moment that this were true. Perhaps Reagan asked his advisors how to exterminate gays. First they decided homosexuality was genetically predisposed. Then they decided that the only reason these genes get replicated is that so many gays are in the closet that the genotype is not reflected in the phenotype. So they came to the brilliant conclusion that gay genes propagate only because of discrimination and repression. Genetic gays were marrying and having kids in order to avoid persecution. So Reagan decided to form a secret movement to remove all discrimination, glorify the gay lifestyle, and push gays out of the closet, so that all homosexual genotypes would give rise to homosexual phenotypes ie. gay lifestyles. This would eliminate the reproduction of gay genes and genetically exterminate homosexuals. The genetic suicide of the homosexuals would be hastened by validation of disease spreading promiscuous behaviors. He called his secret movement "Act Up". The final touch was to eliminate suspicion by having Act Up accuse him of genocide. Perhaps this hypothetical raises a valid question, is the homosexual fraction of the population less in countries traditionally lenient toward homosexuals?

The popular culture has also jettisoned the morals around premarital sex, infidelity, single motherhood, and promiscuity. One need only listen to Dr. Laura to get a glimpse of the profound pain this has caused in society. Studies show that children raised without fathers are less successful. Single parenthood is a major contributor to child poverty. Infidelity tears families apart. It is abundantly clear that those who abandon these moral values are failing the Darwinian fitness test. They are committing genetic suicide. The promiscuity pushers of society such as Hollywood, pornographers, and liberals in general are contributing significantly to the 10s of millions of deaths due to AIDS and other STDs. Promiscuity spreads disease, it wrecks marital relationships, and it is particularly cruel to children.

Feminism has promoted some very good causes. Who now argues against equal pay for equal work? However, their tendencies to be anti-family, anti-child, and anti-male are obviously immoral and lacking in Darwinian fitness. Arguably the most important development of the twentieth century was the birth control pill. This was a major change in the Darwinian fitness function. Women, not men, now have the decision making power on reproduction in the western world. Societies where males dominate women (ie. where feminists have not reduced Darwinian fitness) have higher reproductive levels.
Birth control has vastly increased the selective pressure against selfishness. Europe, especially Italy, is committing demographic suicide. In fifty years, at current fertility rates, they will have halved their population. The major reasons given by women for not having children tend to be overwhelmingly selfish. "We want to travel", "we want two salaries", "we want freedom", are reasons given by the unfit. Isn't it wonderful that evolution now favors the unselfish and the religious. Religious people should celebrate Charles Darwin.

Many years ago I was impressed by a religion professor who said in passing that love is the opposite of selfishness. In trying to make this more formal, one can build a simple model of Good and Evil based on this notion and some simple definitions of helping and hindering others. Here is a paper that explores this from the point of view of behavioral modeling and animation. The resulting continuum ranges from suicidal altruism at one extreme, to selfishness in the center, to suicidal hatred at the other extreme. The paper was not accepted for publication.

One last comment about evil. Much of what we see as evil in human nature is behavioral adaptation that evolved much earlier in our evolution, when a different fitness function was in effect. When fitness depended less on cooperation with others and more on aggressive avarice.

Pro-Life and Pro-Choice

Abortion is another issue that has polarized America. Pro-lifers are champions of the single cell citizen. They think that a fertilized cell is a human with all the normal sacred rights. Pro-choice people push abortion to infanticide. You can legally kill it until its last digit has left the birth canal. Both of these positions are rediculous, immoral, and ignore science.

There are two issues. 1) When is it a "human being", and 2) when does it accrue the sacred rights normally given a human being such as the rights to life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness. One school, eg. the pope, contends that once the DNA for the new unique individual is constructed at fertilization, it is a human being. However, at this point only a program for generating a new human has been formed. This program has not been executed. None of the DNA sequences have been expressed, they have not formed any proteins. It seems totally arbitrary to designate this point of the zygote as a human being with the right to life. Once the DNA begins to be expressed in the generation of new proteins, the situation is more complex. Some of these early proteins are, in fact, unique to humans. But, in the early stages, the cell differentiation and development is similar in humans to that in lower life forms. Once again evolution sheds some light.
Once evolution finds a way to develop individuals of one species, it preserves as much as possible of this process for the next. It especially preserves the early developmental phases of the earlier species. The reason comes from information theory. The probability that changes to the early stages of development will prove unviable is large compared to the probability that changes to final stages will prove unviable. Evolution proceeds in small steps and keeps as much of its previous search results as possible. Thus early embryonic stages are very similar for sharks, chicks, and humans. However, since the entire process is evolving, modifications to early stages can occasionally succeed notwithstanding their unliklihood. Stephen Jay Gould's book "Ontogeny and Phylogeny" gives the history of the recapitulation controversy in excruciating detail.

How does all of this affect the abortion issue? It shows that the early developmental process for humans is very similar to that for lower animals. This is certainly a rationale, whether you accept it or not, for a claim that the embryo is less human early on than later on. Of course, the DNA is human but the chemical processes directed by the DNA develop the foundations of vertebrata and mammalia before primate and hominidae. This supports the general feeling in society that early abortions are less onerous than late term abortions. The obvious implication for abortion law would seem to be that RU486 and first trimester abortions should be legal and later abortions illegal. This is a rather arbitrary line but at least attempts to capture the scientific reality. It is not immoral to kill a "proto-human" but it is murder once the fetus has reached an arguably hominid stage. It also says that a women's right to choose comes with a responsibility to act promptly. Responsible choice and pro-life are not so far apart.

Clones & Stem Cells

When does a human being begin and when do various sacred rights accrue to the developing human? It is scientifically clear that the process of fertilization, whereby the sperm fertilizes the egg, produces a single cell zygote (one cell embryo) that has the DNA from the two parents combined into the unique DNA or "genotype" of the offspring. This is the point of conception. Many people would say that this human zygote is now a "human being" and is thus endowed with the associated inalienable rights to, for example, life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. The genotype then begins to direct the development of the embryo to produce the "phenotype" or resulting individual. The zygote begins to divide and to undergo cellular differentiation as it moves into the uterus (assuming fertilization took place in the fallopian tubes). If an IUD or other impediment prevents the embryo from implanting then it will die. The term "human being" has been arbitrarily applied to the point where the DNA becomes determined for the new individual.

It is scientifically well known that homo sapiens shares a very high percentage of its DNA with lower life forms. It is also known that pieces of DNA are activated and deactivated at different times and that cell differentiation causes certain cells to "express" different DNA sequences than other cells. Much evidence indicates that the early embryo goes through the same stages in humans as it does in say earthworms. The notochord and gut are formed first and in a nearly identical fashion. It is likely that the DNA sequences that are directing early embryonic development are sequences that humans largely share with lower life forms. So, is the developing embryo human yet? Or does it become human only when those DNA sequences unique to humans have contributed to its development? I believe that the embryo becomes human during the process of genotypic expression. I believe that future research will show that early development is directed by DNA sequences that evolved before humans. Haekel was wrong but lets not throw the baby out with the bathwater.

With either of the above two definitions of a "human being" we still have the moral questions to answer. It is widely accepted that different rights are bestowed on different ages. A child has the right to life but not to liberty and the pursuit of happiness. If the parents are doing their job, the child does not have the freedom to pursue his definition of happiness. Otherwise boys would skip school and play computer games 24/7. Does an early human embryo have a right to life? Human dignity is a term one often hears used but never clearly defined. Why is human dignity not improved by utilizing embryonic stem cells to cure diseases? Surely life, freedom, and happiness have no meaning to the embryo. To me it is glorious that humans can build such a marvelous model of the physiology of themselves and their environment that these medical problems can be addressed. Utilizing the excess embryos from in vitro fertilization (IVF) to save and improve the lives of others seems like a noble effort contributive to human dignity.

The arguements for cloning are less clear. Obviously human clones should not be implanted and raised if there is a likelihood of deformity or premature aging. If cloning becomes safe and reliable then we might question the motivations of those who wish to clone themselves but such a clone would still have one biological parent and would have all of the rights of any other human. They would certainly have the right NOT to donate their organs to their biological parent. Most parents enjoy being told their child looks just like her mother. Most children take pride in their genetic heritage and try to live up to their parents expectations. Even clones need diaper changes. Strip away the science fiction horror stories about mad scientists and it is hard to see how clones are reducing human dignity. They do possibly skip a generation of evolution. Identical twins (spontaneous clones) seem to do fine. At any rate, given no good scientific reasons to clone humans and the current danger of deformities, cloning should be banned at least until animal cloning is better understood.

Proof of God

So, can science prove anything about God or anything outside of this universe? Here is a "proof" that God is "likely". Assume that the laws of physics gave rise to self reproduction, which, in turn, gave rise to evolution, which produced cognizant beings who imagine a creator. Also assume that existence implies likelihood, that is, if a thing exists then it is typical. For example, since cognizant life evolved on this planet and there are many other planets, our expectation would be that other cognizant life forms, both more and less advanced are likely in a probabilistic sense. Our existence implies that we are likely, that we are the mean or the average

We, on our planet have developed computers within which we have implemented simulations of physical laws that, in principle, can give rise to self reproduction, evolution, and cognizant beings. In principle, a programmer can thus become a creator of a sub-universe that evolves cognizant beings that imagine their creator. It is also likely that other, more advanced, beings in our universe (since we likely are average) have produced sub universes that themselves have produced sub universes. So therefore, it is likely that a tree of subuniverses exists.

Is our universe the root of this likely tree of sub universes? The existence of the tree and the likelihood of nodes in the tree implies that our universe is typical of a node in this tree and therefore is not likely to be a root. That implies that there exists a meta universe for which we are a sub universe. Therefore a creator God of our universe is scientifically likely. Therefore it is scientifically unlikely that athiests are correct. It is also likely that you are smiling.

Children's Suffrage

Over the past century the fertility rate among American women has fallen dramatically. This has been largely due to methods of contraception, abortion, and a higher level of education and thus greater opportunities for women. The result is that children make up a much smaller percentage of the population than they did 50 years ago and childless couples and singles are a much larger percentage of the population. This has a significant effect on democracy since the percentage of votes that reflect the interests of children has dropped. Since children cannot vote, they are reliant on their parents and society in general to look out for their interests at the voting booth. This is not happening effectively. With the feminist anti-child emphasis, with fewer parental proxies, and fewer parents still who are responsibly caring for their kids it is not surprising to see kids being abused and neglected. This representational exploitation of children should be corrected.

My proposal would be children's suffrage legislation. At birth a child is born with a vote. Until the age of 18 this vote is split between the people most likely to have the interests of the child at heart, namely his parents or guardians. Typically the father would get an additional half a vote and the mother would get half a vote. Custody arrangements could decide whether both halves would go with the full custody parent. This would change the political landscape for children in a way that I think would be dramatic. Children's issues would get more attention. An even larger percentage of the votes would push for educational choice such as vouchers. This would appropriately balance the poisonous effects of the genetic suicide crowd of promiscuous disease spreaders.

Another way to help children would be to reduce the number of children fathered by the most irresponsible males in society. My proposal would be to give every prisoner an option to get out of prison a year or two early if they agree to be given a vasectomy. This cannot be considered cruel and unusual since it is completely voluntary. If they choose not to do it, they would just serve out their normal sentence. Obviously this would be a one time opportunity for any given convict. The result would be fewer children born into cruel parenting situations. It might have the additional advantage of draining some aggresiveness from the gene pool.

Peace & Justice

We often hear the phrase "No Justice, no Peace" by which people mean that if there is no justice there will be no peace. But one seldom hears "No truth, no justice". Why? Virtually everyone claims to be for justice. But each party has a different idea of what justice is. Each group has a different "truth". In a complex world of incomplete and unreliable information, the truth is difficult to determine. Without a free press and free speech it is impossible to reach the truth. No free speech, no truth; no truth, no justice; no justice, no peace. Even the views of extremists help shape the truth by making others think through the issues and prepare their case.

There are obvious injustices in the world. Subsidies to textile workers in the US kills Africans by removing their livelihood. GM food paranoia in Europe kills Africans by curtailing the benefit of GM corn to forestall imminent starvation. Agriculture subsidies to rich American and European farmers destroy the market for African produce. Promiscuity pushers in Hollywood make money by spreading the culture of AIDS. Muslims in Mauritania and Sudan are still taking slaves. Freedom of speech and religion are denied in many countries.

Free speech by itself does not guarantee that a society will reach the truth. The sound bytes that are used often obscure the underlying issues. For example, there are two very different kinds of racial profiling. Racial profiling for the purpose of, and with the intent to discriminate is clearly wrong. Racial profiling based on information about a perpetrator is simply efficient police work. These are two completely different things. It would be unfortunate if we pass laws that mandate inefficient police work. It shouldn't be too difficult to pass laws that clearly distinguish between these two kinds of racial profiling. Then we can stop doing body searches on little old Swiss ladies in airports. And if police work is more efficient perhaps we can focus more effort on eliminating racial discrimination.

Pithy Statements