Devolution

It occurred to me while I was writing about the deity “Gravity” last week, and as I've been reading a tract whose purpose is to debunk the idea that science has “buried” G-d, that the idea of science as a religion leaves a lot out – especially an issue that has political, as well as theological and scientific implications. I'm referring to “evolution” which has been a source of contention between local and national governments, between local and national school authorities, and between individuals and the Judiciary for a very long time. The Scopes Trial, which took place over ninety years ago, was hardly the first manifestation of that dispute, but it was probably the most important spur to the use of this issue as a(n American) polarizer of opinion on the claimed incompatibility of science and religion.

The idea of some form of evolution dates back at least to the time of the Greeks, and there are those who believe that even before that the Torah described animals now extinct, providing room for discussion of more recent forms of the same line. According to “infoplease,” however, “Under the restraining influence of the Church, no evolutionary theories developed during some 15 centuries of the Christian era [theories which might be used] to challenge the belief in special creation and the literal interpretation of the first part of Genesis.” It took the publication of Darwin's “Origin of Species” in 1859 for the concept to get traction. (Even then, the publication was unplanned – only taking place when Darwin feared that another man, Alfred Russel Wallace, might publish first. Darwin had been “sitting” on his data for more than two decades.) Because of the theological implications, reaction to his ideas was vociferous – both among his supporters and detractors.

I will not review their arguments at this time, but only note that the initial reaction was that the two ideas were mutually exclusive. “Believers” were scathing in their denunciations of Darwin's heresy, while atheists saw evolution, and science in general, as cogent evidence for their long held position. As I noted in the prior essay, Stephen Hawking said “It is not necessary to invoke God.” Even today there are many convinced “believers” who consider all those who accept evolution as atheists, and their view is true of many of science's adherents. (In current American speech, “evolutionist” is sometimes used as a code word for “atheist.”)

But the presumed exclusivity of the positions has been tempered in recent years. (Admittedly Hawking's statement is recent but he is hanging on to a position that many have abandoned.) Most of those who consider themselves religious are willing to accept the idea that evolution is simply a mechanism by which G-d created life forms. And, while hanging on to the use of evolution as a proof for his own atheism, evolution biologist Stephen Jay Gould also said “Either half of my colleagues are enormously stupid, or else the science of Darwinism is fully compatible with conventional religious beliefs – and equally compatible with atheism.” The reality is that many men of science in the past and at present also themselves were (or are) believers. Another of Gould's ideas is pertinent: “science simply cannot (by its legitimate methods) adjudicate the issue of God's possible existence. We neither affirm it nor deny it; we simply can't comment on it as scientists.”

But another of the reason's why scientists avoid such ideas and assertions, apart from the fact that many are themselves not atheists, is that Natural Selection, however attractive as an explanation, has many areas of weakness and want. It is viewed by some as making statements that are contrary to the evidence and leaving large gaps in its attempts to explain the observed facts. I won't deal with most of them, but there is one particular aspect of the concept that makes me wonder about the whole thing – reversibility.

One of the many flaws perceived about evolution is that, notwithstanding the large number of fossils found, there is an absence, or at least a dearth, of “missing links” – remains providing evidence of transition from one form of life to another (eg amphibians to birds or apes to humans). Paleontologists tell us that there are some already, and that it is only a matter of time before more proofs are found. Perhaps, but that is only the beginning of the problem.

Chemical reactions are two-way streets. One direction may be favored, but given time and variety of conditions they are reversible. Mutation and evolution ought to be the same. If the changes are purely by chance, there is no reason why a retrograde evolution (devolution?) shouldn't occur and, since stages prior to the most recent survived earlier, these should survive as well, and, perhaps, spawn even earlier examples of life. Time and variety of conditions have certainly been available. So there should be “missing links” to the past as well as to the future. We can date the fossils we find, so those remains should be identifiable as being displaced from their period of assumed existence. Overlap is believed to have occurred as life evolved, and it is reasonable to expect that devolution could take place along with the antegrade variety. And why haven't prior species returned? Dinosaurs, for example. While it might be argued that newer species are better adapted and would prevent older ones from becoming established, I suspect that large carnivorous dinosaurs could hold their own against people and pigs.

 

That is an assumption. It is unproved. Logical as it might seem, devolution has not been demonstrated.

But however logical the concept of evolution may be, it, too, is unproved. There are pieces of evidence that suggest that it is an accurate description of biological history, however they can only be viewed as assumptions based on the available information. Those who assert that evolution is a fact rather than a theory are promoting a belief rather than a proven fact. It is a religion which is based both on science and a wish to have an explanation for those events that are unprovable. It is a science of the gaps. And while its adherents may denigrate the views of those who favor other approaches – while they may term those views “mythology” – it is misleading on the part of evolution scientists to invoke knowledge alone when a large part of their position is based on belief. They are no less “believers” than those whom they oppose.

So when the courts rule that “Creationism” is religion and has no place in a science class, it would not be unreasonable for them to say the same of Evolution. Distinguishing between them is also political and religious.

Next episode: “The Rabbit Died” – Animal rights and human wrongs.