Evolution vs. Creation
Mr. E asks: can one argue the predisposition to love as being a more likely attestation of evolution or of creation?
You may argue whatever you like, but since you are asking my opinion the short answer is “no”.
I am afraid that I am about to disappoint a lot of people with my thoughts on this subject, as they are by no means original nor terribly unique.
It seems to me that the notion that Creation and Evolution are mutually exclusive is indefensible. Allow me to synthesize the arguments in extremely simple terms. The Creationist argues that Evolution strips Man of his unique spiritual nature, denying him the grace offered by his creator. The Evolutionist argues that Creation strips man of his critical nature, rendering the evidence of science at best a carefully constructed set of fallacies, at worst as a construct of the Father of Lies.
Where can we go from here? How can we reconcile these two viewpoints?
We need to decide if Man as an intelligent creature is unique. Consider the implications if we were to discover that Man is alone in the Universe as a critical and self-aware creature. This is not idle speculation for if we decide that science will answer this question, so far the answer is that we cannot prove that he is not. Before you all tell me- yes, I understand that proving a negative is logically impossible when all possible scenarios are outside the realm of testability; however, lacking evidence of extraterrestrial intelligences we cannot discount the possibility that Man may indeed be unique.
There was a time not very long ago when writers of speculative fiction used a certain hypothetical formula to suggest that the idea of Earth as the only inhabitable or inhabited planet in this galaxy was patently absurd. I believe the calculation was similar to this: There are approximately 400 billion stars in this galaxy. If one one-tenth of one percent of them has any kind of planetary system, and one-tenth of one percent of those has a possibly habitable planet, this results in 400,000 possibilities. Expand this to include the billions of galaxies that comprise the Universe and it seems absurd to think that there is no life anywhere else in the Universe.
It seems reasonable, yes? The problem with this calculation is that it makes broad assumptions that are quite unwarranted regarding the nature of stars in general and the observable requirements for the existence of life. Where just Earth-like planets are concerned it turns out that the possibilities are becoming more and more limited as Man’s understanding of those requirements expands. We can all speculate on the possibilities of forms of life that might exist outside the sphere of the carbon-based water band; however, such speculations themselves face their own limits as the unique nature of carbon becomes more and more apparent. Proponents of alternate-chemistry life forms refer to this “carbon chauvinism”, but a catchy phrase does little to lessen the reality that carbon does seem to be unparalleled both in its ability to form long chains of complex molecules and its ubiquitous nature in the Universe.
What we face here is a lack of sufficient discreet subjects to form a baseline of scientific knowledge. You and I have only a single instance of an inhabited planet from which to draw conclusions. We have only a single race of beings possessed of the gift of rational thought and a demonstrated ability to manipulate their environment. Given these limitations science is unable to provide concrete answers to questions such as mankind’s status in the Universe. Hints and trends and possibilities yes, but no certain answers. Nothing even close.
So, science has nothing to say regarding the uniqueness or lack thereof of Man, but it has plenty to tell us about his development. We have growing mounds of evidence that Man is the product of an evolutionary process set in motion by a confluence of near random and highly unlikely circumstances. While there are those among us who would argue that the picture is by no means complete I think most of us probably can agree that the image is there for any who are willing to see it.
And here we are, right back where we started. Science has plenty to say about evolution, but very little to say about Creation. And here is where I generally get myself excommunicated, assuming of course that the Catholic Church would have a creature such as me in its fold.
The idea that God, if he exists, created the Universe in seven days is nothing more than metaphor. Any creation myth is metaphor, a construct of minds too primitive, too ignorant to have any understanding of the nature of the world and the Universe beyond that which served their very practical needs. They had imagination and they had a thirst to know, but they had no tools sufficient unto the task of answering their questions. So they fell back on myth, on metaphor, because they had to have an answer. Men are quite stubborn that way, you know.
I have no difficulty eschewing the Creation as described in Genesis in favor of a far more complex, far more miraculous act where God sets the Universe in motion several billions of years ago, setting the stage for the eventual ascent of Man from the primordial ooze of a tiny planet in one spiral arm of an unremarkable galaxy amongst billions of galaxies. That seems a much more impressive feat than simply willing it all in to existence over a week. It also puts to rest the need for God or the Devil to have put in place all the evidence of evolution, geology, chemistry, biology, physics, and astrophysics for Man to discover and puzzle over as some test of faith. Any God I might be tempted to believe in would be above that kind of foolishness. In this context since Evolution is merely part of God’s plan it cannot separate Man from God’s grace, and accepting that Evolution is God’s plan in no way robs Man of his critical nature since science becomes the primary tool Man uses to read the Gospel According to Physics. Finally, since we cannot prove that Man is not unique in the Universe our critical nature requires that we at the very least consider that Man indeed may indeed be unique. We do not have to accept it as fact, but we must admit that it is possible. Failure to do so in the face of a lack of any evidence to the contrary risks replacing one myth with another.
All of this leads me to the conclusion that asking whether Man’s predisposition to love is more indicative of a Creation origin or an Evolution origin is an exercise in futility. My opinion is that they are one and the same.
Bearing in mind, of course, that I have no firm opinion on the existence of God to begin with. And of course my own existence within the framework of this argument could be somewhat problematic. My faith rests on my observation of Man and my belief that Man does indeed have a destiny that is beyond mere propagation. Whether or not Man fulfills that destiny is pretty much up to you.
Posted on November 1st, 2003 by Zsallia
Filed under: Philosophy
The following comments are as they appeared on the original BlogSpot/Haloscan system. –ZM
I can already see this striking up the flame of debate, but not from this corner. So much of what you’ve written here is almost to the letter of what my mother taught my brothers and I. It’s a comfort to hear this coming from an intellect that I respect as well as my mother’s. For her, this was what proved to her there was a supreme being. For me, that god is within all of Mankind.
etherian | Email | Homepage | 11.01.03 – 5:18 am | #
I am, once again, enthralled by your aptitude with the written word, in spite of your previously stated dislike of writing as a means of interpersonal communication. When you address a topic, your statements are definitive and well-reasoned, as befits one who has both the perspective that your level of experience provides, and the time for contemplation affored one in your unique position.
There is little to add to the discussion, other than my own, admittedly swainish, opinions. I must agree with your summation regarding the postulate of sheer numbers as relates to intelligence outside of our sphere of experience. It always struck me as akin to saying (please forgive the oversimplification here, but I am a simple man) that, given a cardboard box, a junkyard, and a sufficient amount of time, I could scoop a random pile of debris, shake the box, and open it to find a functioning television. Most would have to admit, if pressed, that such an idea is ludicrous, and humanity is far more complicated than a television, as well as infinitely more entertaining.
On the topic of Creation, the questions are often less obvious that many on either side of the debate would be willing to acknowledge, or in many cases, face. The Six Days story may refer to literal days, or figurative days. The time span is not really all that pertinent to the question. Far more significant than How would be the question of Why. You have, in the past, touched on this topic briefly. I believe your statement was something to the effect that you didn’t know why an intelligent being of sufficient ability to create such a complex form of life as humanity would have interest in personal interaction. Again, I would be mortified to think that I had ill-treated your hospitality, but I would ask that you look to your own situation, or even that of any other person, for an indication. Interaction, even when pain is a guaranteed result, seems to be a compulsion for any species of even moderate intelligence.
Of course, it’s just my opinion, and easily discounted or reasoned away.
Mr. E. | Email | Homepage | 11.01.03 – 6:56 am | #
Using forseeable technologies, we actually could know definitively whether or not we are alone in this galaxy. A von Neumann type survey could be completed in 10 million years using relatively straightforward technologies.
If some form of faster-than-light is possible, then a complete universe survey could be completed rather more quickly.
Interesting sidelines, but not especially relevant.
The rest of your logic fairly closely follows my own assessment. There are simply too many unknowns. The typical human reaction to that is reject outright the unknowns and put our faith in whatever we want to believe.
That seems to lead to people killing each other on a fairly regular basis.
Dishman | Email | Homepage | 11.01.03 – 8:22 pm | #
I am not certain of the necessity of faith or unexamined beliefs. I would go further, and say that if one truly believes in something, they would not feel threatened by the prospect of ruthlessly examining it and exploring the possibility that it might be false.
Dishman | Email | Homepage | 11.02.03 – 1:09 pm | #
So now we are into counting the grains of sand in this world.
We set ourselves an impossible task.
There is only the intuition, and belief, and the understanding that there is more.
What is sad is those of us who understand can never have an snwer outside of faith.
But faith is outside of proof. Proof is insanity. Insantiy is not accepted. We simply must believe.
And yet, those who believe, because they’ve felt God’s fire, cannot be trusted.
You have to wonder whether we truly believe what we say, or whether we write for a purpose. And if we write for a purpose, how can you trust our belief, ourfaith.
There are more things in heaven and eath than are dreamt of…
And yet we try to figure you out MD.
My question is whether we know, or you do.
And what we plan to do about it. That is my point about power. power works when it is unused.
TheYeti | Email | Homepage | 11.02.03 – 1:14 am | #
I am an ardent admired of our hirsuit friend, the Yeti. He is a man of apt facility, and not given to timidity in his beliefs, as are even the most ardent on occasion.
Sometimes we do, indeed, count the grains of sand, and other times we call the wind to task. Faith may, indeed, be impossible to prove outside of experience. So, I would posit, is Science, in that Science is no more or less than our method of explaining why and how the universe around us operates. We have, over the centuries, been rather selective with what we seek to prove with the scientific method.
For example, recent studies indicate that people who spend time in prayer are less likely to suffer from depression and anxiety. Other studies indicate that people who are the subject of other people’s prayer are more likely to recover from illness or injury, even when they are unaware that intercession is being made on their behalf. These studies could have been conducted long ago, with a great deal more objective thought put into the methods of testing and recording. Unfortunately, we as a species have grown so comfortable with our current paradigm that we are no longer willing to question the unknown.
Primitive societies may have had some odd ideas regarding the mechanics of the universe, but I will credit them with the courage to face the unknown with some form of curiosity. Modern society, when faced with the unknown, tends to prefer leaving it that way, or denying its existence altogether. Such a mindset is, of course, not confined to those who put their faith in Science, but I would ask the sincere Athiest to consider the following question. When you put God in the balance, and found Him wanting, withi what scale was He wieghed?
Mr. E. | Email | Homepage | 11.02.03 – 2:34 am | #
Sorry to interrupt the flow, but in case my email was not received, my blog has moved to http://www.jaynedarcy.us/blog/.
etherian | Email | Homepage | 11.02.03 – 4:11 am | #
Why, when I discuss the disjointed musings that define my faith, or perhaps my lack thereof, others somehow assume that my words might constitute a subtle dismissal of their own faith? This is not an accusation, merely a question.
When I questioned the idea that God takes an interest in individuals I merely posited that His interest might be in Man as a whole rather than men as individuals. In that case would not the concept of Faith take some rather interesting turns?
Still, none of this has any bearing on the faith of others. I am not so arrogant as to presume to preach to others, or to deny them the understanding they hold within themselves. Faith is, in the final analysis, a terribly personal experience and as Dishman noted, conflicts over faith can become quite sanguinary. I do not offer my thoughts as a source for conflict. Feel free to ignore them if you are easily offended.
Oh, and Dishman: Is not a von Neumann solution the basis for more than one modern day cautionary tale? I rather admire you for bringing it up.
MD | Email | Homepage | 11.02.03 – 11:16 pm | #
More than just one cautionary tale…
and with more than just machines. “Berserker Wars” comes to mind first, with “The White Plague” right behind it. I think it’s a general hazard with self-replication. Still, exponents are an incredibly powerful tool for dealing with large numbers.
For me, questioning everything is part of my basic process, and something I regularly kick myself for not doing enough. I’ve done it regularly to my religious beliefs.
One of the more interesting things I’ve found is that religious (or scientific) beliefs actually hold up fairly well under a rigorous self-examination as long as one is honest about what they’re looking for from their religion. I think the fear of inquiry is grossly overrated.
On the other hand, I recognize that it is very difficult to function if everything is subject to doubt.
Dishman | Email | Homepage | 11.03.03 – 4:22 am | #
I’ve recently encountered a belief which is taken as a matter of faith and defended with “religious fervor”. As it turns out, I can actually prove it wrong.
“I slept with Faith, and found a corpse in my arms on awaking; I drank and danced all night with Doubt, and found her a virgin in the morning.” A. Crowley (yes, he was a drug-addict and madman, but the passage stands).
The particular context I’m talking about here has nothing to do with religion per se. Instead, it is more symptomatic of a general process that occurs over and over through history. The history of medicine has a number of prime examples.
Please note that I do not in any way intend this as an attack on your beliefs. Rather, I intend to say that you (and I) as flesh and bones are incapable of fully understanding any real-world topic.
Dishman | Email | Homepage | 11.04.03 – 1:03 pm | #
Here is an interesting line of questioning, inspired by the current line of conversation. If we insist on some sort of scientific evidence of the Godhead, in whatever form you may perceive, does that not make Science into Theosophy? If we believe that there is no Godhead, in any form, and that hapenstance has brought about the questionably fortuitous appearance of Man, does Mathematics, as the only absolute Truth in the Universe, become God and Science, as Man’s attempt at gaining knowledge of this God, again become Theosophy?
In regards to Dishman’s comments above, I applaud his introspection. One should frequently test one’s beliefs against the known, rather like making sure one’s medications are compatible. I would hasten to add, however, that you should also, and with equal earnest, examine the proof against that belief.
Mr. E. | Email | Homepage | 11.05.03 – 8:23 am | #
‘Proof’ only carries weight to the extent that it is ‘believed’, unless it’s mathematical, in which case the operative words are ‘relevant’ and ‘correct’. I’ve embraced doubt pretty thoroughly.
An odd thought occurs to me. My world is as chaotic as MDs is persistent. Perhaps even my Amber to her Halls of Chaos.
Dishman | Email | Homepage | 11.05.03 – 11:13 am | #