Evolution is often attacked as “just a theory.” Despite the plethora of scientific evidence to the contrary, the criticism (wrongly, I think) persists. By explaining why we evolve in the context of the universal principles that gave rise to atoms, galaxies, and planets, we can, I hope, dispense with the attack on evolution as “just a theory.”
By analyzing the emergence of life in the context of universal laws (which are fixed and objective) we can draw conclusions about evolution, morality, and life’s meaning and purpose that are rational and incontrovertible. If we explore how these laws affect the shape and form of inanimate matter (particles, galaxies, solar systems and planets) we can establish a connection between life as a form of existence and the existence of the material universe.
Before life emerged the universe consisted entirely of inanimate material — dust, rocks, gases, dozens of elements in varying proportions. Matter exists because its form is persistent. This is not tautological! Many forms of matter do not persist (radioactive isotopes) and therefore exist in vanishingly small quantities. The material universe consists overwhelmingly of elements and forms that are persistent. This observation applies to macroscopic as well as microscopic material forms (planetary systems as well as hydrogen gas atoms). It is objectively true and provable; in our universe, where existence is governed by the laws of space, time and causality, things that persist tend to exist in greater quantities than things that don’t persist.
How does this apply to life and to evolution? All living things comprise matter, but can we really say that the meaning and purpose of a marmot relates to the form of a rock?
However, even though life is a more complex form of existence than inanimate matter, it must abide by universal laws and principles. The living form is a form of existence. It persists by sustaining itself and reproducing itself. With life, though, the form persists rather than the material instance of the form. Life goes on, even though the individual dies or the species becomes extinct. The living form evolves not through some quirk or fluke, but because evolution reflects the natural influence of the laws of space, time, and causality.
Evolution then is a phenomenon governed by universal laws that are rational, unchanging and complete.
But where did the matter come from? Why can’t evolution tell me that?
Evolution is a good example of that modern intelligence which, if it destroys anything, destroys itself. Evolution is either an innocent scientific description of how certain earthly things came about; or, if it is anything more than this, it is an attack upon thought itself. If evolution destroys anything, it does not destroy religion but rationalism. If evolution simply means that a positive thing called an ape turned very slowly into a positive thing called a man, then it is stingless for the most orthodox; for a personal God might just as well do things slowly as quickly, especially if, like the Christian God, he were outside time.
But if it means anything more, it means that there is no such thing as an ape to change, and no such thing as a man for him to change into. It means that there is no such thing as a thing. At best, there is only one thing, and that is a flux of everything and anything. This is an attack not upon the faith, but upon the mind; you cannot think if there are no things to think about. You cannot think if you are not separate from the subject of thought. Descartes said, “I think; therefore I am.” The philosophic evolutionist reverses and negatives the epigram. He says, “I am not; therefore I cannot think.”
G.K. Chesterton, (Orthodoxy)
But where did the matter come from? Why can’t evolution tell me that?
Because, aaron, that would not be the task of evolution. That would be physics (theoretical physics, to be more specific). Are you implying that matter cannot come from nothingness? What about quantum foam?
I’m up
Evolution is either an innocent scientific description of how certain earthly things came about; or, if it is anything more than this, it is an attack upon thought itself.
Since when is the theory of evolution anything MORE than an innocent scientific description of the process of life on earth? This whole “attack upon itself” line of reasoning is based on a strawman argument
Evolution does not disprove God. There is no part of the theory that says “God CANNOT exist”. Like all other scientifically derived theories, evolution only utilizes scientifically derived information. God, as I have been informed ad nauseum, cannot be approached with a scientific mind, but one that is unclouded by any sort of rationality. (i.e. “Faith”)
Evolution makes no statement regarding God’s existence. God’s existence is irrelevant to the theory’s operation.
The theory of evolution exists because it answers more questions than it generates. It works within the laws of the physical world. If we are to assume a miracle exists, it allows us to throw out the extended consequences of that miracle (like those physical laws) and concentrate on the nature of the miracle itself. If we exclude a miracle, it points us toward ever more complex unanswered questions about our own existence.
They see me
“But where did the matter come from? Why can’t evolution tell me that?”
As TJM alluded, the theory of evolution does not explain the alleged “origin” of existence - the theory explains the extended history of life on earth back to a very early point.
You made an unfounded assumption when you asked your question. How do you know that matter isn’t (to use a favorite Christian term) “eternal”?
If forced to make that assumption, you are correct - the laws of conservation of energy/mass/momentum/etc. do not allow for matter to simply wink into existence where nothing existed before. Why are we making this particular assumption when all our observations indicate that this is not possible?
I’m Down
Rival
A brief WTF:
Who is this? I didn’t post this. I would never say “This is not tautological!”
RSS feed for comments on this post · TrackBack URI
Dale said,
April 16, 2007 @ 6:51 amWhat?!