Evolution

[Guest guest]

Today I addressed a Christian school assembly on the theme of

Evolution. This is a sensitive subject for any main stream Christian

school to handle. I suppose they took a bit of a gamble in asking

me to contribute.

 

The talk was well received. Let me share with you some of the

salient points I tried to put across. It is a lengthy email (kindly

bear with it), hopefully some of the points developed in

this talk will generate interesting reaction from the list.

(I cannot remember the whole talk but it went something like...).

 

(1) The apparent conflict between the findings of Modern Science

(Biological as well as Physical) and the teachings in the Genesis

has to be tackled in a rational manner. The flaw is clearly with the

scriptures. It is important to tackle this head on. Any scripture

however elitist is always going to be limited. However grand the

prophet, however grand the absolute he is talking about, the

moment he opens his mouth to 'relate' his spiritual experience,

he is operating in the relative realm and as such faces serious

limitations. It is important to recognise that every scripture has

to operate within a certain framework regulated by time, place and

human circumstances. Else it becomes worthless.

All religions have two kinds of scriptures - those that touch on the

eternal values - dealing with the theology or philosophy and those

that try and convey the higher spiritual truths in an allegorical style

- in a story format - generating the mythological element.

The problem comes when the mythological element is accepted

as literally true and gets interwoven within the theology. This

is the problem faced by the Abrahemic faiths in trying to insist

that the world is perhaps no older than 4 to 10 thousand years.

Man appearing only about 4 thousand years back.

The physical sciences are quite sure (using radioactive dating

methods etc) in predicting the age of the earth to

be about 5 billion years, and the appearance of the first single

celled organism bearing that ingenious molecule - the DNA about

3.5 billion years back.

 

(2) The theory of Evolution put forward by Darwin and his

successors like Richard Dawkins is fine as it fits the facts

but there are some interesting elements that are missing.

At best it can best be described as a 'partial theory'.

The missing elements are not within the realm of present

day science but come out naturally from spiritual teachings.

 

(3) The elements that are missing are things like:-

 

(a) Purely random mutation of genes - will certainly face difficulty

in producing such complex beings as ourselves.

Mathematically it is considered to be highly improbable.

Each DNA strand has 1 million atoms.

Random mutation of such large numbers produce astronomically

high probabilities of chaos rather than ordered beings.

There is more at work here then mere chance.

This is not a minor error - these mutations and continuation of

mutations by billions of organisms (separately) throughout

billions of years is a continuing process (hence to consider

it to be a chance happening once in a while does not really satisfy).

The example is given of a hurricane going through a scrap-heap and

producing (by chance) a plane that can fly. We may even go along with

the scientist if he said this is just a one off. But that is not the case.

This

phenomenon is seen repeated billions of time over billions of years!

 

(b) The second unusual feature connected with evolution is seen

at the moment of conception.

In the initial process of gestrulation (the embryo formation process)

the cells are all identical with identical genetic code. How do they

differentiate their roles? The best response is given as 'there is a

chemical imbalance produced in the concentration gradient of the

chemical composition'. This is an 'analogue' phenomenon and does

not sit well with the 'digital genetic mutation' required for perfect

replications. Hence this is an interesting phenomenon not suitably

explained. The scientists say - " We will find a satisfactory answer

in the future " . This is called:-

'Writing blank cheques on the future'. (not good enough).

 

© It is implicit in the Darwinian theory - that " Survival of the fittest

is the name of the game " . This would give permit for any strong

nation to wipe out a weak nation. Would be contrary to the ideas of

helping the weak or even allowing them to exist. Maybe the old

people who are past their 'replication stage' should be put to

sleep? Maybe we can create a clone of ourselves and use that

for bodily spare-parts? All these questions crop up. The present

day neo-Darwinians move away from getting involved with this

by saying, " In this respect we as humans have to back away from

what we observe in the animal kingdom " .

But everything else they have said has implied that we are

the extension of the animal kingdom -

so why back off now? Not a clear explanation. Social science

may put up the excuse that we now (as a social animal)

recognise the idea of good of many is also good for the

individual. But a sarcastic opponent could say,

" Why care for the good of many? What is

so special about a soup of chemicals sitting in one cup

or many cups replicating or not replicating. Maintained or

flushed down a drain? "

 

What the spiritually oriented say about the missing

parts in the theory of evolution can be summed up as:

 

Yes, there is something evolving in nature - that something that

is evolving is not purely by random chance events but follows a

well directed process. It is that process that guides the

mutations of the genes, it is that process that is seen clearly

giving direction at the initial stages of gestrulation. It is by the wish of

that being trying to manifest itself fully that evolution happens.

That thing manifesting itself is variously called 'divinity' or

addressed in the old fashioned way as " God " . It is the

infinite trying its best to express itself in the finite as 'you and me'.

And the reason why you give a hand to the weak is because it

is really you out there in another form. You are just helping yourself!

Nowhere else can we find a more rational explanation giving

a solid foundation for moral teachings.

 

When science begins to incorporate ideas such as these,

we will see a major move by many towards spirituality.

According to me this cannot be stopped. The role science

can play in highlighting spiritual teachings can perhaps be

best described as the most comprehensive boost for mankind.

 

We live in hope : )

 

jay