Ever Evolving
When Darwin published his seminal work on evolution, On The Origin of Species,
it raised a storm of controversy that has hardly abated to this day. For most of
the intervening years it has been a straight fight between the Darwinian
evolutionists and the religious "creationists". That is indeed what
evolutionists would have us believe is still the current state-of-play. But it
isn't. There is another point of view, supporters of which include the religious
and the non-religious including a growing number of scientists. This is the
argument from Intelligent Design.
Let us take a look at the three contenders.
Darwinian Evolution
The view that the process of natural selection can and does explain all the
variety and development of life on the planet. From the accidental (but perhaps
inevitable) chemical combinations that produced the first amino acids in the
primeval soup, through a myriad of chance mutations - of which only the
successful survive - to the massively complex organisms such as the eagle's eye
and the human brain. It would appear that the vast majority of scientists
consider this theory as proven beyond argument.
Religious Creationism
Often thought of as Christian fundamentalist doctrine, creationism is a shared
belief of many orthodox religions including Judaism and Islam. Even within the
Christian community, however, there are views ranging from the "Genesis says it
all"
biblical (or "young earth") creationists through to the
theistic
evolutionists who accept most of the evidence of the Darwinian school but insist
that God was the "clock-maker". This latter group come close to the views of
those in the next sub-section.
Intelligent Design
Supporters of this theory hold that there is evidence that natural selection
alone cannot explain the complexity and diversity of life: evidence therefore of
design. Not all of the proponents of this view are religious, in that they do
not necessarily hold religious convictions or accept the religious
interpretations of God as designer. Evolutionists tend to dismiss ID supporters
as creationists in disguise which might say more about the insecurity of the
evolutionists than the true intent of the ID advocates. The mainstay of the ID
argument is something called "
Irreducible Complexity" - the idea that some
complex biological systems could not have developed by the step-by-step process
of natural selection: all the constituent parts are vital to the system.
My own thoughts on evolution are broadly aligned with the Intelligent Design
camp but, consistent with my views on consciousness (indeed, my personal
philosophy as a whole), I believe that the design imperative arises out of the
consciousness of the system (organism, species, eco-system, planet, universe)
and not from some external designer. I prefer to think of it as "conscious
evolution" although this term has already been coined by others whose agenda
probably has nothing to do with the concept I had in mind. Recently I found this
article on
EAM
(Endogenous Adaptive Mutagenesis) which, I think, is saying something
similar, especially this part:
"
EAM is a process that involves non-mechanical,
non-physical, phenomena, such as self-awareness, cellular intelligence, memory,
intention, and other aspects of 'mind'."
I'll try to elucidate my own thoughts when I get to the section on my personal
philosophy although I am finding it difficult to to avoid personal observations
in these background summaries.
As mentioned earlier, evolution is a very contentious issue and the subject
produces some of the most distasteful arguments - unworthy of the high respect
afforded to both men-of-science and men-of-the-cloth. Type the words "evolution"
and/or "creationism" into Google and you will find page upon page of vitriol -
mostly, it has to be said, coming from the supporters of the Darwinian view.
Here are a few examples of what I am talking about:
That last link contains the famous quote from our old friend, Richard Dawkins
(doesn't he just crop up everywhere?):
"
It is absolutely safe to say that if you meet somebody who
claims not to believe in evolution, that person is ignorant, stupid or insane
(or wicked, but I'd rather not consider that)."
To be fair, the purpose of the article is to show that Dawkins isn't really as
arrogant as he sounds in that quote but he only succeeds in proving that he is
not only arrogant but intolerably patronising to boot.
One further link to an article I enjoyed reading is this one on the
Metaphysics of Evolution
by Fred Reed, a journalist for the Washington Times. This passage in particular
had me nodding in agreement:
[Begin quote]
Third, evolutionists are obsessed by
Christianity and Creationism, with which they imagine themselves to be in mortal
combat. This is peculiar to them. Note that other sciences, such as astronomy
and geology, even archaeology, are equally threatened by the notion that the
world was created in 4004 BC. Astronomers pay not the slightest attention to
creationist ideas. Nobody does – except evolutionists. We are dealing with
competing religions – overarching explanations of origin and destiny. Thus the
fury of their response to skepticism.
I found it pointless to tell them that I wasn't a Creationist. They refused to
believe it. If they had, they would have had to answer questions that they would
rather avoid. Like any zealots, they cannot recognize their own zealotry. Thus
their constant classification of skeptics as enemies (a word they often use) –
of truth, of science, of Darwin, of progress.
This tactical demonization is not unique to evolution. "Creationist" is to
evolution what "racist" is to politics: A way of preventing discussion of what
you do not want to discuss. Evolution is the political correctness of science.
[End quote]
On the next page I'll take a look at the arguments. For the sake of brevity,
I'll mostly ignore the Bible-says-it-all crowd (sorry) because, well, that
phrase says it all; what more could I add?