This essay explores the influence of randomness in genetic change based on findings in the scientific literature. In many cases, random mutations are not the source of genetic variation that allows adaptation to an environmental change. Rather, innate mechanisms are the cause. Typical examples are used to illustrate how these systems work, and the evidence for them. Randomness appears to have less effect in causing micro-evolution then once assumed. But it has a significant influence in causing near neutral and deleterious mutations, resulting in genetic entropy. Some random mutations have a beneficial effect. However, all are due to gene damage that in some situations have limited beneficial effects. This suggests that major steps should be taken by the medical community to help ameliorate the adverse effects of random mutations on the human genome.

Scientific measurements of fine-tuning factors, especially the cosmological constant, have forced non-theists to fall back on anthropic reasoning and multiverse theories to try to explain away the implications of a theistically-designed universe. Whatever its other uses, employing anthropic reasoning in this way is questionable. It is unscientific to posit trillions upon trillions of universes--as many multiverse proponents and string theorists do--in order to try to explain away the fine-tuned existence of our own. Albert Einstein would likely dismiss many current multiverse theories. Yet, might we still live in a multiversal reality? This essay posits such a reality--a Triverse--as a more parsimonious view over popular multiverse theories. The proposed Triverse has some similarity to, but is distinct from, Roger Penrose’s “three worlds” in his Shadows of the Mind. A multiversal Triverse reality might also eventually be reconciled with some of the evidence and indicators that support quantum mechanics, and thus help define a more deterministic universe.

Most people believe that everything happens for a reason. Whether it is “God’s will,” “karma” or “fate,” we want to believe that an overarching purpose undergirds everything, that nothing in the world--especially a disaster or tragedy--is a random, meaningless event. This dilemma presents itself provocatively in Charles Darwin’s theory of evolution that, in the conventional scientific understanding, is driven by random chance. Reconciling chance and divine purpose poses challenges to the Judeo-Christian tradition. But the Hebrew Scriptures, in the ancient and powerful story of Job, reveal that questions of purpose and order have long been a part of the conversation. Although the Bible generally affirms that God blesses the righteous in an orderly way, the story of Job is a powerful counterexample to this orderly scheme. The achingly beautiful but tragic story of Job, in concert with the modern quantum picture of the world, push back against the idea that “everything happens for a reason.”

We often suppose that science forces our hand when it comes to theological options. Thus, in the twentieth century, some argued that Darwinian biology rules out the possibility of a loving, caring God, and that quantum mechanics, by disclosing the intrinsic chanciness of nature, problematizes the traditional Christian belief of God’s providential involvement in our lives. Yet science underdetermines religious belief--the so-called scientific evidence is insufficient to rule out belief in divine providence. If we choose not to believe in such, we choose freely, not because science constrains us. If anything, the choice not to believe precedes scientific judgment, not the other way around. To illustrate this thesis, one may compare the religious world-views of Charles Darwin and Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz. The striking difference between the two is not the result of scientific discovery, but rather a shift in Western culture regarding the propriety of letting God figure into scientific explanations of nature.

This essay explores quantum physics and theology to propose that ontological randomness does not exist, but divine Providence does. Some interpretations of quantum physics that involve mathematical formalism and observational phenomenology are deterministic (de Broglie-Bohm, many-worlds, cosmological, time-symmetric, many-minds), while others are non-deterministic (Copenhagen, stochastic, objective collapse, transactional). Yet, quantum events are merely epistemically indeterminable by us, but actually do have a fundamental cause. Compatibilism best describes the teaching of the Bible. Humans possess free agency, and are determined by their desires and values. Hence, they can be said to have “free will,” because they do what they want. The fundamental cause, as understood by Compatibilism, is God’s Providence, defined as God’s continual involvement with creation through keeping it existing, cooperating with creation in every action, and directing it to fulfill His purposes. The interaction between quantum physics and Providence suggests methodological parallels between science and theology in a quest for synthesis.

The idea that a human being may select at will outcomes of certain quantum events, and that this is free will, has been put forward long ago. But how can such a possibility to control quantum randomness be recombined with the necessity to obey the known statistical distributions of the laws of nature? Antoine Suarez proposes a Quantum Homeostasis Hypothesis (QHH), where this may happen during sleep or dreams. Divine providence may also be placed exactly here without violating the free will of a human being, and in accordance with the necessity to follow the statistical laws of nature. God may instruct one during sleep and dreams. Apart from the Bible, this is attested to by sources in many ancient civilizations. This essay addresses this aspect of QHH in an attempt to answer the question whether data may show that our “acts of will” during dreams differ from such during a fully conscious state of mind.

Despite Albert Einstein’s claim that “God does not throw dice,” it is widely believed that quantum physics presents an intrinsically random universe. This conflicts with the theological view that nature operates in one and the same way, unless it be prevented as a result of divine providence. A proposed projection paradigm is based on respect for the integrity of each science. Apparent conflicts between science and theology may be resolved by the consistent application of the principles of science, each within its valid domain. Using this approach, paradoxes are found to involve a covert Platonism among quantum theory’s interpreters. Rather than endorsing an interpretive hypothesis, this essay seeks to apply accepted physics to quandaries posed by quantum theory.

This essay examines the concept of randomness in the Bible and explores comparisons with quantum physics. There is obvious tension in linking these two fields. But there are also similarities concerning the quantum notion of the “arrow of time” and the Biblical arrow which caused the death of Ahab in 1 Kings 22. Randomness and death may also be linked. The main focus of the essay concerns the escape of King David from Absalom as recorded in 2 Samuel 15-17. The non-random selection of Ahithophel, who sided with Absalom against David, is juxtaposed with his suicide and an apparently random well which is vital for David’s survival. The description of the escape, along with a significant translation problem, and concepts associated with quantum physics are used to help explain what occurred. The conclusion highlights how quantum physics and the Bible overlap on the subject of consciousness, and shows the importance of knowledge for defining randomness.

This essay relates probability, fine-tuning, Providence, and the contingency of beings. It considers how perceptions of fine-tuning in the laws of physics are deployed using probabilities in multiverse and fine-tuning arguments regarding the coming into being of the universe. These arguments lack the probabilistic resources to quantitatively sharpen or blunt such perceptions. Yet the philosophical facts behind fine-tuning--the universe’s being, complexity, contingency, order, and intelligibility open to human minds--may reflect the dependence of what is seen on Providence. Randomness, probability, and mathematics in general cannot create, but presume a backdrop of order and actuated possibilities. Providence, guiding beings to good ends, is beyond the competence of science to detect and establish. Yet it may be recognized, in part, by practical and philosophic reflections on the being, behavior, and minds of self and others. The mind’s road to Providence may be explored from the facts of fine-tuning.

A new paradigm is emerging which places Charles Darwin's theory of evolution via natural selection into a larger conceptual framework with greater explanatory power. Darwinism needs to be reconceptualized as a scientific enterprise and philosophical worldview. A larger framework is needed to account for the immaterial laws of nature which guide evolutionary mechanisms and processes to achieve predetermined ends that reflect a superlative Intelligence, Mind or God. Curiously, Darwinism fails to explain intelligent observers who can make sense of the laws of nature. Immanuel Kant's conception of man as both phenomenon and noumenon suggests that man is the missing link between science and religion, and that the two views of genesis—-evolution and creation--are complementary rather than antithetical. Evolution should be taught as science, not ideology. Teaching evolution as science means opening the theory to critical scrutiny which can correct, modify, enrich, and develop the theory in interdisciplinary perspective. But the theory of evolution reaches well beyond science narrowly defined, and broaches philosophical, ethical, and theological dimensions which can be addressed only in interdisciplinary conversation bringing to the table insights from many disciplines. Finally, Darwinism as a materialist, reductionist worldview needs to be humanized, if not Christianized, and thus reach its full potential as science. It would then also recognize human exceptionalism, the teleological imperative, the principle of tolerance, and the fundamental religious insight that we live by faith.

Philosophical naturalists claim macroevolution shows order emerging by pure chance. This claim is incompatible with accepted physical and biological principles. The present state of the universe is implicit in its initial state and the laws ofnature. Logical principles essential to science require these laws to be maintained by a self-conserving reality identifiable as God. Further, the laws share a common dynamic with human committed intentions. Both are logical propagators seen to the intentional by theists and naturalists alike. Mechanism and teleology project a single reality into different conceptual spaces. Statistically, evolution is only possible given predefined goals. For fitness to be explanatory, it must be prior to survival events, entailing immanent goals verified by convergent evolution, toolkit genes, and evolutionary stasis. Aristotle's falsifiable claims for teleology are confirmed by evolution. Evolution is not random, but fully intentional, evidencing mind in nature.

In the controversy between Darwinian evolution and Intelligent Design, the fonver is commonly portrayed as science and the latter as theology or phitosophy. Yet Charles Darwin's "one long argument" in The Origin of Species was heavily theological. In particular, Darwin argued that the geographical distribution of living things, the fossil record, vestigial organs, and homologies were "inexplicabte on the theory of creation," but made sense on his theory of descent with modification. In this context, "The theory of creation" did not imply young-earth creationism, but a God conceived by Darwin to create all species separately, arbitrarily, and perfectly. In the many instances when the evidence was not sufficient to support his positive case for descent with modification, Darwin would simply declare that the only altemative-the "theory of creation"-was not a scientific explanation. Darwin's followers often argue similarly. Thus, arguments for Darwinian evolution, in both its ordinal and modem forms, are commonly bound up with arguments from theology and philosophy.

The concept of inreducible complexity is central to the origins controversy. Ineducible complexity (IC) may be defined as any machine or system that requires two or more parts in order to function. Examples range from molecules to mousetraps, organelles, and organisms such as humans. This essay explores the relationship between IC and complexity, clarifying the levels of IC such as the irreducible core and its mode of function. IC has been used in a wide variety of disciplines for over a century. Objections to irreducibte complexity include co-option, the "junk DNA" theory, and the scaffolding argument. Co-option, a major argument against IC, attempts to explain how IC can be achieved through natural means by utilizing existing parts to construct a new biological machine or structure. Yet examples of IC in both the biological and non-biological wortds show that such common objections do not invalidate the concept. IC is firmly established.

Intelligence and design are vast concepts. Components of intelligence, such as changing in response to environmental conditions or problem-solving, can be found in things such as viruses or machines, which are not fully intelligent. "Intelligence" in humans includes awareness, ethics, narrative, and perceiving meaning. The word "designed" usually refers to things for which the designer's purpose is known or inferred. The problem of how the "ghost" --soul, spirit, or consciousness--gets into the "machine"--material reality--arises because of the assumptions inherent in the questton asked. What is needed is a perspective that recognizes subjective and objective data, does not deny a major part of human experience or contradict scientific knowledge, and that takes both the existence of intelligence and the observation of design seriously. This essay is an attempt to explore the outlines of such a theory, as suggested by the design of the human brain.

Evolutionary processes are conditioned both by unique phenomena and probabilistic ones. Given probabilistic factors, one may speak of changeability of evolution. This essay attempts to model evolutionary processes by modeling changeability in the natural sciences. Yet a framework of determinism and indeterminism appears inadequate to apprehend evolutionary processes. Autodeterminism is a more promising framework for addressing the causal, functional, and probabilistic dimension of evolution. Such an approach ensures the possibility of perceiving and presenting the complexity of evolution. The essay proposes that the synthetic theory of evolution conjoins factors of evolution, determinism, and changeability. The question still remains whether one can say that real being, which exists in the stream of time, is the subject of philosophy. This puzzle may be resdved by showing that besides the scientific cognition of nature, there is another possible cognition--the philosophical cognition. This is reflected in a significant group of problems of philosophical cosmology which are not addressed by the natural sciences due to their research methods.

Envisioned as a cosmic Cabaret beyond ttie space-time continuum, Gadfly explores the power of the establishment to determine what we call accepted truth, and chronicles how it has historically been the outsider that has moved our understanding of truth forward. Special guests are invited to defend their teachings or actions, including Socrates, Luther, Copernicus, Galileo, Darwin, Einstein, Picasso, Beckett, and science philosopher William Dembski. These visitations are marshaled by a musical Poet Guide named Virgil (shades of Dante), who is backed by a British threesome with a ukulele and a squeeze box. Virgil keeps the action moving forward as the "Idols of the Institution" play judge and jury over the minds of history's greatest thinkers. The resulting journey beyond space and time sheds light on the present claims of science as compared to the claims ofthe greatest thinkers down through the ages. It is, above all else, an exoneration of contemporary scholars choosing to explore Intelligent Design as a legitimate discipline in the academy, both scientifically and philosophically.

Most Americans in the 1920s and 1930s were unaware of the crimes committed in the Soviet Union. Even today, the full extent of the carnage is unknown. This essay explores the ways in which Presidents Kennedy and Reagan dealt with the contrast between the open societies of the West and the severely damage civil societies of the Soviet bloc through the rhetorical presidency. Key speeches throughout the two administrations stressed the use of presidential rhetoric as a way of challenging the communist regimes of Eastern Europe and the USSR. For both Presidents, the key rhetorical moment came in West Berlin, in 1963 and 1987, respectively. Using comparable language Kennedy and Reagan spoke of the hope offered by West Berlin to those suffering under communist rule. The highlight came when Reagan challenged the Soviet leaders to tear down the Wall separating the city. Ironically, the victory over Soviet bloc communism has not led to the elimination of communist regimes, notably China. That chapter in the struggle against communism remains yet to be written.

From the Adriatic to the Baltic, from the Elbe to the Urals and beyond, totalitarianism has collapsed. Yet the 1989 bloodless revolution in Eastem Europe caught most observers by surprise. This essay explores the signal socio-cultural forces which contributed to the sea-change. Throughout Eastem Europe, grassroots movements emerged in the 1970s and 1980s demanding greater participation in social, economic, cultural, and political life. Thus, the rise of a new civic culture and civil society preceded and fostered the momentous changes in Eastem Europe, This essay offers a model of transition from authoritarian systems to political democracy, highlighted by "The Menshevik Divide," and places East European nations and the USSR on a cognitive map which indicates the relative strength of civic values and autonomous action just before the revolution (1988), Curiously, this model also shows why the transition remains incomplete, since authoritarian values and political processes keep many post-communist systems in a twilight zone between democracy and dictatorship. Hence, the quest for universal human rights, democracy, pluralism, tolerance, and an open society is still a futuristic project in much of Eastem Europe and the Soviet successor states, suspended between democracy and "virtual communism."

This essay explores social forces which contributed to regaining independence by the Polish people and sovereignty by the Polish state after 45 years of Soviet domination There were four major factors or forces of historical change: workers' resistance (big-industry working class); intellectual opposition (dissidents); grass-roots movement (families, households and their microeconmuc activity); and the Catholic Church (in the late phase of the Polish People's Republic). The preliminary thesis is that Poland succeeded in transcending communism and Soviet domination as quickly as it did thanks to its civil society traditions. In particular, universities and their intellectual influence on the young generations of Poles helped nurture the political opposition Equally, the grass-roots movement of Polish family households undermined the unrealistic, strange system of national (planned) economy, which otherwise could have lasted much longer in Poland, as it did in all of Eastem Europe. The conclusion follows that the historically formed cultural capital of the Polish people was the decisive factor in the nation's liberation from totalitarian rule.

Aleksandras Shtromas (1931-1999), a British-American scholar, became an eminent figure in his native Lithuania, yet Westem social scientists have yet to discover this human rights activist, Soviet dissident, and political thinker. Shtromas had no doubts about the inexorable collapse of the Soviet Union, resting his analysis on the assumption that communism was unable to provide any viable social and moral order. The vast majority of the Soviet intelligentsia had become skilled at the ideological cat-and-mouse games, wrestling wth Soviet Newspeak and censorship, and employing an Aesopian language in order to survive and remain as decent as possible in a world of brainwashing and lies. A gifted prophet of post-communism, Shtromas was the only political scientist in the world who took the disintegration of the Soviet Union as early as the late 1970s as an ongoing process. This essay links Shtromas' legacy to the great East European dissenters.