Darwinian Evolution & ChatGPT.

An interesting argument came to me during a walk today: the striking parallels between large language models (LLMs) and Darwinian evolution - and how both suggest that the presence of information points to the existence of a mind.

Stephen Meyer makes the claim that wherever we observe the presence of information, we naturally infer the existence of a mind. He considers this one of the most reliable foundations for arguing the presence of intelligence. For example, if we came across a holographic inscription on an ancient tomb, we would not attribute its creation to natural forces like wind or erosion. Instead, we would reasonably conclude that it was created by a mind. Meyer extends this analogy to a book—again, we infer that a mind was responsible for its content.

Reflecting on this, I find a compelling modern parallel in the case of ChatGPT. We are now in a world where articles or books can, at least hypothetically, be generated by large language models like ChatGPT—systems that operate through token prediction and give the appearance of intelligence or agency. At first glance, ChatGPT may seem like an undirected, mindless process. But upon closer inspection, we realize it was created within a specific framework and under constraints deliberately imposed by human minds. Its capacity to generate coherent and contextually appropriate responses is not purely emergent; it is the result of design, structure, and intentional input by its creators.

This leads to an interesting analogy with Darwinian evolution. Just as the creators of ChatGPT established the initial parameters within which the model could function, one could argue that a divine mind set the foundational conditions for evolution to operate. Darwinian evolution may appear to be a blind, incremental process, but the process itself—one that consistently selects for life and being—presupposes a system of constraints that enable such selection. It is not matter itself that is selecting for being, but rather the mind behind matter that enables this selection.

When we use the term natural selection, we must ask: what exactly is being selected, and by what mechanism? The process, even if gradual and undirected at the surface level, consistently favors the persistence and emergence of life. That, in itself, is a significant clue. It suggests that what we are observing is not simply random variation, but a deeper informational structure pointing back to an intelligent source.

Thus, two main points emerge: first, whenever we encounter information—whether in the form of ancient inscriptions, written texts, or the genetic code—we consistently infer the presence of a mind. Second, the analogy between ChatGPT and Darwinian evolution reinforces this view. In both cases, an underlying intelligence establishes the framework within which a seemingly undirected process can operate and yield coherent outcomes. DNA, far from being a random arrangement of molecules, reveals a level of intricacy and organization that resembles code—information that, as with all other cases, suggests the imprint of a mind.

A few reflections on Darwinism during my walk today:

If the human mind is simply the result of mindless, unguided physical processes—nothing more than atoms and molecules interacting by chance—then what reason do we have to trust it to produce true beliefs or reliable reasoning?

Would you trust a calculator or computer whose design was the outcome of random, purposeless variation rather than intelligent construction?

Surely not. And yet, that is exactly what strict Darwinism seems to imply about the mind.

When people speak about Darwinian evolution, they’re implicitly suggesting that this random process of variation and mutation somehow selects for truth, for being, or for life itself.

But why should a random, unguided process do that?

What reason is there to believe that such a process would naturally favour truth? And when people make that claim—when they say that random mutation and natural selection lead to truth—it begins to sound remarkably like they're attributing to evolution qualities we’d typically associate with God.

In doing so, whether they realize it or not, their language carries with it deep philosophical and even theological implications!

By claiming that Darwinian evolution selects for truth, you're introducing a philosophical dimension that goes beyond the science itself. You’re essentially suggesting that a blind, material process—without consciousness or intention—is somehow capable of recognizing or favoring truth, a capacity traditionally linked to mind and purpose.

In doing so, you unintentionally ascribe to matter a kind of higher power, treating it as if it possesses intentionality or direction, which borders on the teleological. This effectively elevates matter to a quasi-divine status. Whether you mean to or not, your view carries religious undertones—in de-emphasizing God, you're ultimately deifying matter instead.

There is absolutely no contradiction between Darwinian evolution and the existence of God. The two are perfectly compatible. Evolution may explain the mechanism of life's development, but it does not rule out the possibility of a divine author behind the process.

Science can never rule out God: for God is outside of the sphere of scientific inquiry,