My Home Page: http://www.horizons-2000.org
Document status: November 21, 2007
Maintained out of interest
Essential content absorbed to and no further action needed for Journey in Being
April 2006
Further thoughts
1. An idea can be both a theory and a fact. The fact of evolution concerns whether it did or did not occur. The theory of evolution concerns how it occurred
2. Is evolution a fact? Has everything in the entire universe ‘evolved?’ The standard account of evolution in biology is not concerned with this question but it is an interesting question and one that may provide a useful framework to consider the biological question. One issue that I do not address in this brief note is what ‘evolution’ might mean at the level of the universe. This question is considered in detail in the essays of the http://www.horizons-2000.org site. Consider that the universe is all that there is. Often times we use the word ‘universe’ to refer to the ‘known universe.’ But, obviously, the actual universe is larger than the known one and may be colossally larger. Anyway, since the universe is all that there is, God --whatever that term may mean-- is part of the universe. I.e. the universe = God (or gods) + the rest of the universe. Perhaps, then, God created the rest of the universe but if a creator and creation are distinct then nothing created the universe (the potential paradoxes in the foregoing thoughts are addressed at the site http://www.horizons-2000.org.) Did life evolve? The entire sequence from atoms to people has not been demonstrated (in science) but the majority of the steps including the evolution from simpler to more complex organisms have been demonstrated (within reason.) Something that seems to be frequently ignored is the fact that the fossil record is but one kind of evidence that might show/disprove the facts of evolution. Readers may refer to any good textbook on evolution regarding the ten or so widely differing major kinds of evidence. What is interesting is that the variety of different kinds of evidence is in agreement. The fact that there are gaps and occasional difficulties in interpreting the fossil record does not at all disprove the fact of evolution because invertebrates would in general leave no preserved record and geological upheaval would sometimes cause problems with sequence. However, taking into account these factors together with the other kinds of evidence, it seems absurd to argue against the evolution of life as a fact – it is especially absurd to think that the species were created as they are (even though this thought may have been more reasonable / less unreasonable in earlier times.) Consider for example, the fact that the genetic codes of the ‘great apes’ is so closely match the human genetic code (98%.) Comparison of genetic makeup is one of the kinds of evidence referred to above. Although those who argue for ‘creation’ and ‘intelligent design’ argue (these arguments appear to be flawed as shown above and below) against the logic of evolution where is there any evidence for creation or special creation of the species except for the lament ‘I cannot imagine how it could have happened and therefore it cannot be.’ (Saying that something is too complex to have happened is essentially saying that the limits of the thinkers imagination are the limits of nature. And when the thinker says this is he / she really saying that such and such limits are the limits of imagination or is he / she simply refusing to read and think?)
3. What is the theory of evolution? In the history of science there have been a number of theories or explanations of evolution and two important ones have been Lamarckian (that acquired characters may be inherited) and Darwinian (in which acquired characters are not inherited but evolution occurs by variation and selection.) Lamarck’s theory has not stood the test of time; however, even though the majority of scientists might think of it as absurd, it is not altogether absurd and there may be some minor ways in which evolution is Lamarckian. How so? Well the acquired characters are thought to be things that are not genetic but that developed as a result of other influences. But, for simple enough organisms, the distinction between ‘acquired character’ and ‘genetic mutation or recombination’ breaks down. For the most part, however, Darwin’s theory has stood time’s test. It is useful to remember that in its original form, Darwin’s theory was incomplete and went through periods when scientists doubted it. That was good for the doubts prompted the search for a foundation for evolutionary theory. One of the elements that were missing was how genetic material is transmitted from parents to offspring. Gregor Mendel provided an answer to this question. Much work went in to developing a foundation for the theory and the ‘New Synthesis’ that emerged by the 1940’s is generally thought to have cleared up the major difficulties. Regarding such difficulties in general it is noteworthy that many of the doubts that arise are really due to the limitations of imagination. The idea that complex organisms could not arise from atoms is an example. Just because someone cannot imagination complexity arising does not mean that it cannot. Here additional confusions arise. It is said that ‘mere chance’ could not result in complexity. However, the theory of evolution is not one of ‘mere chance.’ In a side note, I may add that for someone to say that ‘nature cannot do this because I cannot imagine it’ is essentially to say ‘I am God’ and may be seen (were the thought fully conscious) as arrogance
4. Are the ideas of religion and science compatible? Since science is not complete, there is definitely a role for extra-scientific imagination of various kinds. I believe that this is important. One problem that I find with the scientific attitude is that it is often thought to imply that all our planning for the future should be based in science. Why? Of course, if you want everything to be 100% secure you might want that but there is no such thing as 100% security. And since science is not everything, think of the waste that requiring everything to be scientific entails. Sure, when science does have something to say (and there are obviously vast areas in which this is true - the known material and living universe) then it is prudent to use science. However, there are so many lonely materialists out there that live stunted (stunted only in some ways) lives because they succumb to the limits to imagination. Such persons have much in common with some creationists. They say ‘because I cannot see how so and so is explainable by the science of today, it cannot happen.’ The challenge, then, is to build a religion that is reasonable, exciting and does not contradict science in its known domains of validity. This is a challenging task that will require the highest orders of poetic imagination and careful thought. Good luck humankind. And, just as science has to discard old hypotheses so must religion. The Bible has many wonderful thoughts in it, especially its thoughts on love and forgiveness. What about something like ‘rising from the dead.’ Lots of people think that this contradicts science. However it does not. Does that mean that Jesus Christ did indeed rise from the dead? No it does not. At least, however, the rising from the dead has the following significance. It challenges us to consider our common assumptions about the nature of death and, if you think about it, also the nature of the universe. In this way, the rising from the dead has literal implications regardless of its 100% literal truth. Perhaps this is what fundamentalism should be (fundamentalism, then = concern with foundations.) Thus in the most immature of literal senses, religion and reason are not compatible. However, with a little flexibility and more than a little of imagination the incompatibilities disappear. I do not mean to imply that the future of religion, should there be one, should be based in the Bible or Biblical revelation, or in the Koran, the Bhagavad-Gita. I am saying that despite the abuses in the name of religion, the old texts have much of value. Regarding the abuses, of course, ‘crusade’ and ‘jihad’ come to mind but it is also important to remember that while we focus on the associated violence there are often complex social problems that manifest as crusade or jihad. But more than the spectacular abuses I am concerned with the common ones, the implicit arrogance of the thought ‘everything I know so far is the truth and the whole truth, the limits of my imagination are the limits of the universe.’ We’ve seen that both fundamentalists and liberals fall prey to that style of thought. That is, when you think about it, rather evil in terms of the way it stunts lives -- even when the intent is not evil... Perhaps, given not just that not everything has been reduced to science, but also that there are limits to reason (as conventionally understood the limit is its ability to know; here I am thinking of its limit as a mode of living - conventional reason is a very stunted mode if insistence is made that it should be the only mode), the future of religion (some people would prefer that I use the word ‘spirituality’) is wide open