how random can you get?
Nothing gets creationists more excited than science writers using the word “random” in their explanations of how something happens in nature. It helps them transition to their patent pending how-could-blank-happen-by-random-chance talking point and excitedly anticipate how their target is going to stammer in answering their question.
So what exactly is randomness in nature? Is it the classic Sunday school example of neat rows of sorted vegetables growing in the middle of a forest just happening by nothing more than a cosmic equivalent of a coin flip? No. Not at all. While there are a lot of random things in nature, they and their outcomes are governed by all sorts of rules and constraints. If you roll a pair of dice, the smallest value you can get is two. The highest is 12. Why? Because the dice only have six sides marked one to six. You can’t flip dice and get a value of 27 but you would still have a random result between two and twelve.
Nature’s randomness works the same way. There are basic rules of chemistry and physics that put a limit on what kinds of changes can occur in living things and to their surroundings. Some chemicals can’t mix with others and others fuse into something brand new. Some compounds are abundant, some are rare. To talk about random changes in the world around us and forget about the basic limitations imposed by reality is just plain wrong. The only time creationists try to remember that is when claiming that evolution violates the Second Law of Thermodynamics. But that talking point is based on a major misconception that evolution equals complexity (in a nod to Lamarck’s long discarded ideas) and baseless assumptions about our universe and how it’s put together.
The Second Law of Thermodynamics is basically the law of entropy. A closed system will fall to pieces, not organize itself. And that’s true. However, you can have many open systems inside a closed one. Earth is an open system. It gets water, chemicals and radiation from outer space. Is the universe a closed system in which planets like Earth will circulate matter until it decays and falls apart? We don’t know that either. We don’t even know how big the universe is and if it’s the only one out there. We don’t know if multiple universes could interact with one another, making our whole cosmos yet another open system. When creationists confidently try to use the law in question to disprove evolution, they’re showing that they don’t understand it beyond the parts that interest them.
The other problem with randomness in nature is that our minds look for patterns. A subjective opinion of what a certain molecule looks like or how it looks to be symmetrical, becomes a tool for creationists who want to demonstrate some sort of intelligence behind our world and how it works. But what they’re doing is putting the equivalent of a Rorschach test on the same level as a mathematical formula or a tangible piece of evidence. Randomness isn’t pure chaos. It’s just one of the possibilities for a particular scenario coming to pass. Whether the laws and rules of nature are proof of God or not, is a matter of personal opinion because then we get into vague and personal questions like what is the definition of God and leave the realm of science for the realm of faith, culture and psychology.
