Religion Confronting Science
by Donivan Bessinger
Chapter Four
BIOLOGICAL EVOLUTION
Let the earth bring forth living creatures
"When does life begin?" That question, frequently heard these days in the abortion debate, usually seems to mean, "When does an individual human life begin?". In today's fundamentalist climate, many are still offended by the answer given by the discovery of evolution.
Life began a very long time ago. Even an individual's life began a very long time ago, for life does not begin anew at each conception, but is passed unbroken from generation to generation and from one species to another. The processes of life, though considerably specialized, derive from the processes of cosmic creation, and the stuff of life is star stuff. Life, or at least the substance of life, ultimately began in the first act of creation, and yet it comes anew in each moment as the reactions of the individual life are sustained both within itself and in its interactions with life beyond itself.
In today's public square, religion and cosmology seem to get along better than religion and biology, for it is in dealing with life questions that the conflict between science and religion becomes most focused and most emotional. Though there were and are significant conflicts between fundamentalist religion and reductionist science, there is not a conflict between a religiously inspired quest for knowledge and the scientific method.
In the first Genesis account, three of the six days of creation were given over to the creation of all forms of life. In the modern cosmological account, the generations of biological creation are a shorter proportion of the time since the Big Bang. Yet both accounts give us a basis for affirming our respect for life. Insights into the inter-relationships among all forms of life and our kinship in one Source are at least as compelling in the modern scientific view as in the Genesis accounts. Indeed, if we but read its lessions thoughtfully, religion gains much from science.
Similarly, science has gained from religion. After all, the scientific revolution developed in monotheistic society, and was often motivated by a curiosity to understand better God's work in creation. Jews and Christians, who tend to take pride in science as a Western phenomenon, do well to remember that especially during Europe's dark age, it was Islamic science which provided the sturdiest bridge between the Aristotelian age and the Renaissance, significantly advancing mathematics, astronomy and the healing arts in the process.
Descartes, Galileo, Newton, and Boyle were all men of religious sensitivity even though their views did not necessarily fit the orthodox mold. The theory of biological evolution itself owes much to contributions by religious people, for the great voyages of exploration yielded new knowledge that had to be fit into the theological framework. Especially in nineteenth century England there was a view of nature as God's "second book of revelation", a view advanced by several noted clergymen-naturalists.
Charles Darwin, who at the end of his life presented himself as agnostic rather than believer, enrolled at Cambridge expecting to prepare for the clergy, changing his goal after his encounter with science. In his introduction to the second edition (1860) of Origin of Species, Darwin recounted the history of the idea of evolution, and cited two clergymen among the many scientists who had made significant contributions.
The Reverend W. Herbert, Dean of Manchester and a noted horticulturalist, presented the idea (1837) that though one species of each genus had been directly created, each was created in "a highly plastic condition" which gave rise to variation and new forms within that genus. Writing in 1855, the Reverend Baden Powell showed that the introduction of new species is "a regular, not a casual phenomenon".
The story of Darwin's publication of his work gives important insight into the high personal integrity that scientific investigation and reporting demand. Investigators in today's commercially and academically competitive world of science do well to mark Darwin's standard of scientific integrity and cooperation.
A. R. Wallace and Darwin developed the same theory independently. Wallace was making observations on a voyage in the Malay archipelago while Darwin was well into the writing of Origin in England; Darwin had returned from his own voyage of Beagle in 1836. In 1858, Wallace sent an abstract of his work for Darwin's review, and for forwarding to Sir Charles Lyell of the influential Linnean Society.
Darwin referred to it as "Mr. Wallace's excellent memoir" and forwarded the abstract as requested. He wrote Sir Charles, "I never saw a more striking coincidence ... if Wallace had my manuscript sketch written out in 1842, he could not have made a better short abstract! Even his terms now stand as heads of my chapters."
Thus, accounts of their work were presented simultaneously to the Society. Darwin's greater subsequent prominence rests on the impressive evidence which he gathered to support the theory of evolution, and his excellent and compelling presentation of the theory of natural selection as evolution's operative method. As he acknowledged, Wallace is due credit too.
Darwin's insight, based not on one piece of evidence but on the unifying of many pieces of evidence, is a prime example of the powerful synthesis that may come from holistic thinking. The essential feature of Darwinism is that new species come about by gradual and naturally occurring variations in individuals, and the variations determine whether the individual will adapt and thrive in the existing environment, or die out. For this idea, Darwin used Herbert Spencer's term "survival of the fittest".
Theodosius Dobzhansky, a leading geneticist, points out that the theory does not call for the inexorable Nietzschian struggle that "fittest" implies; a better understanding is "survival of the fit." Life is not a process of species aggressively competing against each other in some perverse "law of the jungle". The old cliche' is wrong. Species seek adaptations in which all species support each other. The law of the jungle is the law of balance.
Exactly how evolutionary variations might occur was not then understood; understanding that came only later after the re-discovery of the work of another Darwin contemporary. That too, had a religious connection, for the laws of heredity were discovered in a monastery garden.
Gregor Mendel (1822-1884) was an Austrian monk and priest of the Augustinian order, and a high school teacher of science who, ironically, never passed his teacher's examination; his lowest marks were in mathematics and science! Even so, in the quiet and controlled environment of his garden he began experiments in 1856 which were to open up the world of genetics. It is a field which is now exploding exceedingly rapidly, and it is going to be more of a challenge to our ethics and religious sensitivities than any other scientific field has been to date.
By crossing varieties of the common garden pea, Mendel showed that hereditary characteristics are conveyed by discrete units (later called genes) which follow regular laws, though there are occasional exceptions called mutations. Mendel published his findings in 1865 and 1866, but they made little impression until his papers were re-discovered in 1900 by three European botanists who had independently made the same discovery.
Now biology had its explanation of how Darwin's individual variations come about and how they are passed on within the population. Dobzhansky and others later made the "modern synthesis" of mutation theory and Darwinian natural selection, and that synthesis had become the dominant theory of biological evolution well before mid-century.
Exhibit
8. Creation History
|
Billion 15 |
____Million 000 |
Thousand 000 |
years ago |
|
3 |
500 |
___ |
life: single
celled, no nucleus |
|
1 |
450 |
___ |
cells with
nucleus (ameba) |
|
___ |
570 |
___ |
jellyfish,
sponges, worms |
|
___ |
290 |
___ |
early
dinosaurs |
|
___ |
___ |
225 |
human species |
|
___ |
_ |
3.2 |
Moses |
It should not be surprising that even a theory of evolution can evolve. In recent years, general systems theory and the study of complex systems operating so far from thermodynamic equilibrium have highlighted new problems in evolutionary theory. In addition, the new science of chaos has shown complex degrees of order where it is least expected.
Along with progress in genetics, there has been an increasing understanding of ecological interactions. Sometimes several species evolve together (co-evolution), such as the "bees and the flowers", each of whom is a survival link for the other. Another "leap" in evolutionary theory is the theory that evolution is not as smooth, regular, and gradual as Darwinism had always assumed.
In 1972, Eldridge and Gould presented evidence of species which had maintained the same form for very long periods of time, and whose changes had not been gradual, but relatively sudden. The changes were "leaps" (technically called "saltations"), and the new forms settled into survival equilibrium for additional long periods. These long periods were "punctuated" by new leaps, hence the new name, theory of punctuated equilibria. Equilibrium here refers to the flux equilibrium or homeostasis (finely-tuned balancing) of life systems, not thermodynamic equilibrium.
Though biology has by no means abandoned Darwin, there does now seem to be much more complexity to life dynamics than Darwin could have realized in his time. In offering a current "grand synthesis" of evolutionary theory at all levels, Ervin Laszlo identifies three basic principles encountered in biological evolution: speciation, mutation, and convergence.
Speciation, or the separating of organisms into species, occurs by the mechanisms discussed above. However, speciation occurs, not by accident or chance, but according to the logic of the fixed principles of life systems. May we call it a quantum logic? As in quantum theory, the outcome of the next interaction, or next change of a species characteristic, cannot be predicted with certainty; nevertheless, the flow of life does follow defined principles. Changes take place within a defined range of possibilities which can be calculated by various probability equations.
Natural selection does make it hard to see design in creation. The individual design steps seem "blind" rather than calculated or foreordained. However, design is apparent at the level of the life principles even if not at our level of viewing each natural selection "decision".
Exhibit 9. Evolution's Design. The development of life looks random only
if we restrict our view. The diagram represents a hypothetical evolutionary
sequence. If we look only at historical snapshots taken at each branching, we
will simply see a random assortment of pictures, each showing only a branching
left (B) or right (A). However, if we look at the entire picture formed by all
life forms which touch the present (P), we do begin to see a pattern (design)
of interactive species dependent on each other and filling each niche in the
biosphere. Evolution (considered as a whole process) applies the physical and
biological laws (the "deep reality") allowing some forms (E) to
become extinct and others (P) to emerge into the "design" of an
intact web of life. From that perspective, evolution "pulls" rather
than "pushes" the development of life forms.
Mutation refers to changes in a gene that make it transmit a characteristic that was not programmed by a parental gene. Genes are not inanimate chips or blocks all of the same size, but may have varying degrees of complexity; the chemical structure of one gene may overlap another on the DNA chain. The whole complex of genetic material (genes) is referred to as the genome. The genome itself is a level of the living system, and genome dynamics also prove to be much more complicated than mere chance. There are interactions between genes and chemical systems, both within the cell and beyond it.
Convergence is the term Laszlo uses to describe the tendency of life systems to form complicated chemical feedback loops called "hypercycles". Non-living systems tend toward disorder, in the phenomenon called entropy. By contrast, living systems are drawn into complex hierarchies of subsystems, and toward greater complexity and higher degrees of order.
All of these mechanisms serve to maintain and increase the diversity of life forms which are so necessary to preserving an intact web of life. All life forms are interdependent, and the whole of life depends on the diversity of its constituent forms for its capacity to "heal". Even when environmental conditions change and old forms are lost, new adaptations permit the reconnecting of life's web of relationships to allow the biosphere to remain intact.
Is there a direction to evolution? There is a wide consensus in biology that there is not. Stephen Jay Gould has been perhaps the most notable advocate for rejecting the interpretation of evolution as a "tree of progress" crowned by humankind. He holds that all forms of life are the result of all of the accidental forces which bear on selection.
Gould states that, if we could rewind the "tape of life" to the conditions at some ancestral point, then let life "play" again from that point, the result would not be the same. Any tiny variation in conditions would determine an altogether different set of outcomes. He finds nothing inherent in the laws of life which would necessarily result in the development of humans on the "replay".
Ancient fossils, particularly those found at the Burgess Shale in British Columbia, show many different body plans which nature tried without success. There was not a steady and symmetrical branching of the evolutionary "tree" from a common stem. Rather there were many dead end stems, and only a few successful phyla giving rise to today's life forms.
However, it would be hard for biology to find a direction to life from biological studies alone. Indeed, biology is the main source of the evidence that no system -- life system, or system of thought -- carries the full explanation of itself within itself. No system is closed. None may be understood without reference at least to the levels of system above and below itself.
As we have seen in the discussion of quantum theory, the anthropic principle gives us an entirely different perspective on purpose and direction in evolution. It holds that in some respect (depending on whether one holds strong or weak views of the matter), evolution is directed toward the development of consciousness, which itself somehow participates in the creative process.
Life originates and evolves only around stars which allow sufficient evolutionary time, and which have the radiation of its parent star correctly balanced between luminosity and temperature. Hawking says that if the gravitational constant of the universe were just slightly different (by one part in a million million), such conditions could not occur.
Narlikar summarizes the anthropic principle this way: "The universe is
the way it is because we are here to observe it". The laws of nature are a
recipe for creating consciousness. In the view of the anthropic principle,
understanding humans is the key to understanding the universe.
|
Exhibit 10. Anthropic Principle The slightest variation in conditions existing at the Big Bang, and thus in the elementary laws of physics, would not have permitted the development of life or consciousness. It is unlikely that consciousness is an "accident." Biology contains as yet unraveled information which cosmologists may one day find highly relevant to their search for cosmic roots. Just as the questions of the origin of particles and nuclei are seen to be of cosmological importance now, so in future we may find information regarding the origin of living systems to have a bearing on what model we use to describe the universe. J. V. Narlikar |
Such an idea overwhelms our conventional way of looking at the material world. It makes no sense when we look at it from the ordinary time-based cause-effect level. It requires us to think at the holistic non-temporal "eternal" level, where all events connect, regardless of the time relationship between them.
Our language does not give us an easy way to communicate such concepts. Even the physicists seem to be struggling to describe this idea without sounding religious! Yet this is a key idea that goes to the heart of our problem of harmonizing religion and science.
Is there inherently any anti-religious feature of the theory of evolution? It is important to remember that the theory of evolution is not an invention or a hypothesis. It is a description of a discovery of a characteristic of nature. The idea of evolutionary creation is no more opposed to religion than is the doctrine of instantaneous creation. Dobzhansky observes:
Christianity is a religion that is implicitly evolutionistic, in that it believes history to be meaningful: its current flows from the Creation, through progressive revelation of God to Man, to Christ, and from Christ to the Kingdom of God. Saint Augustine (354-430) expressed this evolutionistic philosophy most clearly. But the Judeo-Christian tradition took over from oriental religions the idea of the Garden of Eden and of the Fall as the beginning of the world's history. Interpreted literally rather than symbolically, this view is anti-evolutionistic.
However, a mystical view of religion, more focused on relationships with the divine than on literalistic doctrine, can see the possibility of a triumphant "convergence" of a spiritual type. Teilhard de Chardin, Jesuit priest and paleontologist, wrote that reason and mysticism are still opposed; however, "in the conjunction of reason and mysticism, the human spirit is destined, by the very nature of its development, to find -- the maximum of its vital force."
Not only is Christianity evolutionary; evolution is in some sense "christian". Teilhard wrote, "When looked at from the point of view of the essential vision of the world they offer, evolution and Christianity coincide fundamentally", and "Evolutionism and Christianity need one another to support and complete each other."
Christianity has traditionally claimed that God's creative spiritual work, for individuals as well as for humans generally, takes place through time and in history. Theologians use the technical term Heilgeschichte for that "salvation history". The evidence from evolution lets us see God's continuing work in material creation in the same light. For Teilhard, the process of continuing creation in evolution is directed toward the omega point of union of all things in Christ. Evolution is God's process of uniting all creation into the wholeness of the divine.
Darwin's objections to religion were not to religious sensitivity and belief per se, but to the prevailing literalist interpretations of his day, for which he "saw no evidence". The theological environment of the time left little alternative. William Paley's treatise on natural theology and its concept of the literal detailed, foreordained, and final Design retained much influence. It was the famous argument, "A clock implies the clockmaker". At that time, religious consciousness had not accepted that the universe which God is creating is not a clockworks.
As far as we know, Darwin's ability to think holistically and integrate his biological evidence did not reach expression in his religious thinking. Yet the evidence which he presented, and the great theory by which he unified the evidence, help us immeasureably to see the "Spirit of God moving over the waters" through all the processes of creation. Current evidence lets us find far greater meaning in the affirmation that "It is God" who is now saying
Let the earth bring forth living creatures.
[ Exhibit 8. Creation history ]
[ Exhibit 9. Evolution's design ]
[ Exhibit 10. Anthropic principle ]
[ Notes and References ] , [
Glossary ]
[ Contents: Religion Confronting Science ] , [TOP]
_