Lady Evolution
Some biologists don’t hesitate to write about religion. They apparently feel their discipline gives them authority to do that. Richard Dawkins is a prime example. In his case at least, the motivation seems more personal than scientific. I might be forgiven for thinking that he displays not only a significant lack of knowledge and understanding of religion; but worse, a simplistic view of what it is to be human. And even his contribution to biological evolution has been described as having a metaphysical basis, remaining totally ‘ideational and mentalist’. (Girard 2008:100)
Well, I want to turn the tables. I want to write about evolution as a religionist. I myself will display a significant lack of knowledge and understanding about biology; but perhaps worse, a simplistic view of what it is to be a scientist. Nonetheless…..
I am encouraged to do this by something Rene Girard wrote in Things Hidden Since the Foundation of the World.
Evolutionists answer the supreme confidence of the creationists with their own supreme confidence, yet the level of argument is often very similar on both sides…… Much like the legendary good fairy, Lady Evolution surmounts all obstacles with such ease and so predictably that we soon lose interest. With the slightest touch of her wand, the most uniquely human cultural forms, such as symbolic institutions, appear when summoned and parade before us like brave little tin soldiers. Just as the crab needs its pincer and the bat its wings, which the always benevolent and attentive Lady Evolution has provided for them, so man has need of ‘culture’, which he duly receives served on a silver platter from this new, universal Great Mother. (Girard 1987:88)
If some idea claims to explain everything it probably explains nothing. ‘God’ has been seen as just such an explanation. Take any life form and declare ‘God created it’. To someone for whom God is somehow real, such a statement feels to have explanatory meaning, and presumably gives a sense of satisfaction to such a person. Not so to someone who does not think God is real. Especially not so for someone like Dawkins who has personal anger against the idea of ‘God’ and religion generally. Feeling responses to such a supposed explanation are negative.
I suggest that the idea of ‘Evolution’ is in a similar category. Take any life form and declare ‘It evolved’. To someone for whom evolution is very real, such a statement appears to have explanatory meaning, and it may well give a feeling of satisfaction to such a person. Not so to someone for whom evolution is a symbol of the denial of God. Especially not so for people who claim to believe that the Bible is literally true in all and every detail. Feeling responses to such a supposed explanation are negative, very negative.
As Girard notes, the level of argument is often very similar on both sides.
So I put it to you that ‘Evolution’ is not a good explanatory concept. It is a descriptive one. It says in effect one life form develops into another life form, for whatever reasons. It could only ever become part of an explanation as to why this life form and not that one if all those reasons were understood.
The modern day neo-Darwinist is ready for me though, even if he or she accepts my argument so far. Natural selection explains it all. Does it? The definition of natural selection that has appealed to me most comes from Gregory Bateson: it is the process whereby a variation lasts longer than those variations that don’t last as long. Tautologies are our most certain explanations, or so we are told.
To be fair, we need to fill Bateson out a bit. Natural selection is a mechanism whereby spontaneous variations in an organism can grant greater chances of that organism reproducing itself in any given environment. Or to put a Dawkinsion slant on it: variations in any given genetic structure may enhance the possibility of that genetic variation being passed on to the next generation in any given environment. A great idea that at least in part may describe how living organisms change and even perhaps evolve. But does it actually explain it? Is it enough to explain why an organism is like this rather than like that? I think not? Like evolution itself it could be part of an explanation, but only part. To actually explain why something is this and not that would require not just a description of the overall process, or one of the possible mechanisms in that process. It would require analysis and understanding of the phenomenon of variation; and it would require analysis and understanding of the role or roles of each particular environment against which variations are tested to see which lasts longer than those variations that don’t last as long.
To say that variation occurs by mutations seems to me to be scientific. To say variation occurs by random mutations seems to me to be a statement of belief, faith even. A scientific approach would be to leave the process of mutation open to the possibility that there is a deeper order behind it, which maybe one day may even be successfully brought into a scientific understanding.
The other side of the process is the environment against which the organism or genetic structure strives to sustain itself in and pass on its being to the next generation. It seems to me that a truly scientific stance would be to admit that it is possibly un-analysable in principal as far as any attempt to truly explain why any organism is this and not that. It would require not only an understanding of what constituted the whole of that environment, it would also need an understanding of how any part of that environment actually interacted with the organism.
So to be honestly scientific its seems to me is to accept that there are two very open doors to our understanding of evolution, the process of variations and the extent and nature of the environments that organisms have had to engage to ensure the survival of any variation. These can’t in principal be closed off except by fiat.
Something that many scientists cannot countenance is the presence of intentionality in the universe apart from human intentionality. The foundation of science in so-called laws of nature is threatened by such a possibility. Need it be so? But what is very interesting is that Lady Evolution herself seems to be easily endowed with intentionality by many scientists in their discussion of their work. She is given the power to create this and that in at least their everyday speech, to wave her magic wand as Girard suggests. In terms of the process of creation, Lady Evolution seems to hold a position in the everyday minds of some biologists that God once held in our culture, and still holds in the minds of some for whom God is real.
Apart from Lady Evolution and her wand, need science be so threatened by the possibility of an intentionality in the universe apart from human intentionality. Let me take you on a hypothetical journey, a very hypothetical journey!
Natural selection is not the only form of selection in the development and evolution of life. There is sexual selection and there is artificial selection. Artificial selection is very interesting for our discussion in that although it is limited to intra-species selection it does mark an acceptance of intentionality into the evolutionary process. Human beings have been breeding differences in animals from time immemorial. It is even part of the first chapters of the Bible. In our day and age it has become highly sophisticated, to the point that scientists are accused by some of ‘playing God’.
Now imagine that I by a variety of accepted techniques bred significant difference into a group of horses, and there they were together in one of my paddocks. Then by dreadful circumstance I and all my life is irredeemably destroyed, and all the world around it. Only the group of horses remains and they are free to roam because all the fences are destroyed. Eventually they are found in a never before discovered canyon, alive and well and unlike any horse that had been witnessed before. My artificial selection had been very successful. What are the biologists to make of it. Well it is quite clear says Professor Dawkins. This is a very interesting example of some horses being cut off in a unique environment and adapting to it through the processes of natural selection over a long period of time. Quite clear. My intentionality is completely hidden. But this in no way stops any possible scientific investigation, hypothesis or theory being engaged and offered, even, dare I say it, artificial selection. There will be the neo-Darwinists convinced they have satisfactorily explained it, they far more than any others. There will be other evolutionists who accept a far greater mystery than the neo-Darwinists with their ideas. And so on.
I guess my point is clear, whether you are convinced by it or not. Intentionality in the evolutionary process cannot be ruled out, and if it is it is not done on any justifiably scientific or philosophic ground. I believe science has to live with that. If it can’t it is doing what it has always accused religion of doing. This is a whole other issue. Why is it easier for science to propose a Multiverse of Multiverses than to accept other than human intentionality in the Universe. There is something to really ponder here.
I will mention what I see as part of the problem. Science cannot countenance feelings as part of its process or method. It can examine feelings and emotions scientifically; that’s fine. They are to be excluded however from the method in the name of objectivity. This works fine when you are dealing with mathematical tautologies. But it becomes a lot harder when you move away from them. Like it or not feelings become an integral part of a sense of meaning and hence explanation. The things we are most certain of are the things we directly experience, and we experience these things cognitively and emotionally. These are the things that really are. They don’t need explanation. We don’t have to argue their existence. As the philosopher John Macmurray once put it, ‘being’ is not a predicate.
Some biologists don’t hesitate to write about religion. They apparently feel their discipline gives them authority to do that. Richard Dawkins is a prime example. In his case at least, the motivation seems more personal than scientific. I might be forgiven for thinking that he displays not only a significant lack of knowledge and understanding of religion; but worse, a simplistic view of what it is to be human. And even his contribution to biological evolution has been described as having a metaphysical basis, remaining totally ‘ideational and mentalist’. (Girard 2008:100)
Well, I want to turn the tables. I want to write about evolution as a religionist. I myself will display a significant lack of knowledge and understanding about biology; but perhaps worse, a simplistic view of what it is to be a scientist. Nonetheless…..
I am encouraged to do this by something Rene Girard wrote in Things Hidden Since the Foundation of the World.
Evolutionists answer the supreme confidence of the creationists with their own supreme confidence, yet the level of argument is often very similar on both sides…… Much like the legendary good fairy, Lady Evolution surmounts all obstacles with such ease and so predictably that we soon lose interest. With the slightest touch of her wand, the most uniquely human cultural forms, such as symbolic institutions, appear when summoned and parade before us like brave little tin soldiers. Just as the crab needs its pincer and the bat its wings, which the always benevolent and attentive Lady Evolution has provided for them, so man has need of ‘culture’, which he duly receives served on a silver platter from this new, universal Great Mother. (Girard 1987:88)
If some idea claims to explain everything it probably explains nothing. ‘God’ has been seen as just such an explanation. Take any life form and declare ‘God created it’. To someone for whom God is somehow real, such a statement feels to have explanatory meaning, and presumably gives a sense of satisfaction to such a person. Not so to someone who does not think God is real. Especially not so for someone like Dawkins who has personal anger against the idea of ‘God’ and religion generally. Feeling responses to such a supposed explanation are negative.
I suggest that the idea of ‘Evolution’ is in a similar category. Take any life form and declare ‘It evolved’. To someone for whom evolution is very real, such a statement appears to have explanatory meaning, and it may well give a feeling of satisfaction to such a person. Not so to someone for whom evolution is a symbol of the denial of God. Especially not so for people who claim to believe that the Bible is literally true in all and every detail. Feeling responses to such a supposed explanation are negative, very negative.
As Girard notes, the level of argument is often very similar on both sides.
So I put it to you that ‘Evolution’ is not a good explanatory concept. It is a descriptive one. It says in effect one life form develops into another life form, for whatever reasons. It could only ever become part of an explanation as to why this life form and not that one if all those reasons were understood.
The modern day neo-Darwinist is ready for me though, even if he or she accepts my argument so far. Natural selection explains it all. Does it? The definition of natural selection that has appealed to me most comes from Gregory Bateson: it is the process whereby a variation lasts longer than those variations that don’t last as long. Tautologies are our most certain explanations, or so we are told.
To be fair, we need to fill Bateson out a bit. Natural selection is a mechanism whereby spontaneous variations in an organism can grant greater chances of that organism reproducing itself in any given environment. Or to put a Dawkinsion slant on it: variations in any given genetic structure may enhance the possibility of that genetic variation being passed on to the next generation in any given environment. A great idea that at least in part may describe how living organisms change and even perhaps evolve. But does it actually explain it? Is it enough to explain why an organism is like this rather than like that? I think not? Like evolution itself it could be part of an explanation, but only part. To actually explain why something is this and not that would require not just a description of the overall process, or one of the possible mechanisms in that process. It would require analysis and understanding of the phenomenon of variation; and it would require analysis and understanding of the role or roles of each particular environment against which variations are tested to see which lasts longer than those variations that don’t last as long.
To say that variation occurs by mutations seems to me to be scientific. To say variation occurs by random mutations seems to me to be a statement of belief, faith even. A scientific approach would be to leave the process of mutation open to the possibility that there is a deeper order behind it, which maybe one day may even be successfully brought into a scientific understanding.
The other side of the process is the environment against which the organism or genetic structure strives to sustain itself in and pass on its being to the next generation. It seems to me that a truly scientific stance would be to admit that it is possibly un-analysable in principal as far as any attempt to truly explain why any organism is this and not that. It would require not only an understanding of what constituted the whole of that environment, it would also need an understanding of how any part of that environment actually interacted with the organism.
So to be honestly scientific its seems to me is to accept that there are two very open doors to our understanding of evolution, the process of variations and the extent and nature of the environments that organisms have had to engage to ensure the survival of any variation. These can’t in principal be closed off except by fiat.
Something that many scientists cannot countenance is the presence of intentionality in the universe apart from human intentionality. The foundation of science in so-called laws of nature is threatened by such a possibility. Need it be so? But what is very interesting is that Lady Evolution herself seems to be easily endowed with intentionality by many scientists in their discussion of their work. She is given the power to create this and that in at least their everyday speech, to wave her magic wand as Girard suggests. In terms of the process of creation, Lady Evolution seems to hold a position in the everyday minds of some biologists that God once held in our culture, and still holds in the minds of some for whom God is real.
Apart from Lady Evolution and her wand, need science be so threatened by the possibility of an intentionality in the universe apart from human intentionality. Let me take you on a hypothetical journey, a very hypothetical journey!
Natural selection is not the only form of selection in the development and evolution of life. There is sexual selection and there is artificial selection. Artificial selection is very interesting for our discussion in that although it is limited to intra-species selection it does mark an acceptance of intentionality into the evolutionary process. Human beings have been breeding differences in animals from time immemorial. It is even part of the first chapters of the Bible. In our day and age it has become highly sophisticated, to the point that scientists are accused by some of ‘playing God’.
Now imagine that I by a variety of accepted techniques bred significant difference into a group of horses, and there they were together in one of my paddocks. Then by dreadful circumstance I and all my life is irredeemably destroyed, and all the world around it. Only the group of horses remains and they are free to roam because all the fences are destroyed. Eventually they are found in a never before discovered canyon, alive and well and unlike any horse that had been witnessed before. My artificial selection had been very successful. What are the biologists to make of it. Well it is quite clear says Professor Dawkins. This is a very interesting example of some horses being cut off in a unique environment and adapting to it through the processes of natural selection over a long period of time. Quite clear. My intentionality is completely hidden. But this in no way stops any possible scientific investigation, hypothesis or theory being engaged and offered, even, dare I say it, artificial selection. There will be the neo-Darwinists convinced they have satisfactorily explained it, they far more than any others. There will be other evolutionists who accept a far greater mystery than the neo-Darwinists with their ideas. And so on.
I guess my point is clear, whether you are convinced by it or not. Intentionality in the evolutionary process cannot be ruled out, and if it is it is not done on any justifiably scientific or philosophic ground. I believe science has to live with that. If it can’t it is doing what it has always accused religion of doing. This is a whole other issue. Why is it easier for science to propose a Multiverse of Multiverses than to accept other than human intentionality in the Universe. There is something to really ponder here.
I will mention what I see as part of the problem. Science cannot countenance feelings as part of its process or method. It can examine feelings and emotions scientifically; that’s fine. They are to be excluded however from the method in the name of objectivity. This works fine when you are dealing with mathematical tautologies. But it becomes a lot harder when you move away from them. Like it or not feelings become an integral part of a sense of meaning and hence explanation. The things we are most certain of are the things we directly experience, and we experience these things cognitively and emotionally. These are the things that really are. They don’t need explanation. We don’t have to argue their existence. As the philosopher John Macmurray once put it, ‘being’ is not a predicate.