Evolution as a mechanism of creation

The impact of Science, Philosophy and Religion:

Leslie Peiris Wettasinha

Over the years scientists, philosophers and other nondescript intellectuals as well as sages and seers have been grappling with three fundamental questions - the origin of the universe, the origin of life and the origin of intelligence.

In deliberating on these questions one has to treat them both as inter-connected, in that they seem to constitute phases of one on-going process, while at the same time in providing answers about origins, each has to be considered separately for the reason that an external force is seen to be at work at critical stages.

Some protagonists, not so much of Darwinism as of atheism, are trying to show that the universe and everything in it simply evolved and was not created. Also widespread is the popular misconception that if one accepts evolution one cannot be a theist, little realising that the origin of the universe preceded the starting point of Darwin’s theory in that Darwin dealt only with biological evolution of live forms from the broth of the primitive oceans in planet Earth, which had already come in to being about 10 billion years before that particular process started.

On the question of what would have been the origin of the universe, science presents to us the spectacle of a cosmic cataclysm (the Big Bang) caused by the explosion of a tiny sped of highly condensed energy in a spaceless void akin to a state of nothingness or non-existence.

To know from where this mysterious and seemingly non-corporeal energy (which does not need space and time for a habitat and which in fact produced space and time) emanated, is to find the missing link that points to the authorship of the universe. Science in its present state and also by definition is helpless in this quest, although philosophy and religion have ventured to provide answers.

The Big Bang theory explained only the beginning or coming into being of the universe. Its final form as given to us in consciousness has involved a process that lasted about 15 billion years. Although somewhat tedious, a consideration of at least the bare essentials of this proceeds is necessary to scientifically explain our 2nd question, namely the origin of life.

The hydrogen-rich gases produced within seconds of the initial cataclysm by undergoing a process of contraction and rotary motion aided by gravitational pull and angular momentum not only produced nuclear forces that splintered away fragments producing billions of galaxies, stars and planets, but also produced all the known chemical elements in the periodic table.

In all fairness, it must be noted that the Big Bang theory is not the only cosmology that scientists have come up with. But it is the only cosmology that has consensus among scientists, based on a balance of evidence especially emanating from distant radio sources (pulsars and quasars).

Known as The Einstein-Freidman cosmology, it describes how the expanding universe began initially with a zero radius and an infinitely high density. Such a situation is mathematically described as a ‘singularity’, i.e. where the laws of physics cannot proceed any further.

But equally at the very moment the Universe started to expand physical laws came into operation. According to the theory in its present form, this expansion cannot proceed for ever.

The gravitational attraction caused by stars and galaxies that are being formed will gradually slow down the expansion till a critical point is reached. That takes place when these gravitational forces equals the explosive motion generated at creation.

The expansion will then cease and the universe will start to contract - the beginning of the end. A necessary corollary of this theory based as it is on relatively and quantum dynamics is that there cannot be a repeat performance and hence no cyclic universe.

I had the good fortune to read (and preserve) an article written by Dr. Lalith Mendis in the Daily News of June 2, 1992 in reply to one written by Prof. Chandra Wickremasinghe. I quote from that article - “the Steady state theory demands the continuous creation of matter. The Big Bang theory demands an initial ‘cosmic atom’, who ordered that is our pertinent question.”

With the outlines of the physical universe in place we next see how the inorganic elements produced by the cosmic cataclysm combined under the primitive conditions prevalent in the cooling planet Earth to form organic compounds through molecular combination.

When the material for this combination was exhausted, the molecules began to develop a protective membrane for purposes of survival as well as for selective combination - the first cell.

From this arose mutating and self-replicating species as per the Wallace-Darwinian hypothesis of random selection and chance mutation, which later was found to be transmissible through the genetic code called the DNA molecule and its ancillary the RNA molecule.

Although the selections and mutations necessary for the survival and evolution of the species have been random, fortuitous and accidental, this activity seems to have proceeded within a large stage controlled by other forces.

No sane person would credit these marauding cells with the intention or the ability to produce a particular outcome (species). In fact the very randomness and fortuitous-ness postulated, militates against doing so.

On this matter, a commentator of note (whose name I had not recorded and cannot now recall) states - “there seems to have existed a background of an all-pervading reservoir of unlimited living forms that were possible of achievement, an ocean of potential reality in fact... not inhering in the evolving matter, but resembling a veritable kaleidoscope shaken by an unseen hand.”

In this scheme of things one has to concede that there is no inherent contradiction between creation (as distinct from creationism) and evolution, and that science, philosophy and religion go hand in hand in lighting up our journey towards the truth.

Creationism on the other hand, which connotes a derogatory reference directed at the Book of Genesis where God is supposed to have created the world in six days and rested on the 7th, is another matter. It will be the task of theologians to explain the terminology used in that book.

From a common sense point of view all that we can say is that if God wanted to send across a message to his people in 1800 BC, he would not be using modern scientific jargon (not even extant then) to do so.

No longer can it be seen as fortuitous that biological evolution as part of the creative process should have culminated in the emergence of the organism called man with higher aspirations and values totally unrelated to biological and chemical processes in his cellular structure.

The Swiss brain neurophysiologist Konstantin von Monakoff investigating the structure of nerve tissue in the brain and spinal cord, concluded that mental and spiritual phenomena cannot be accounted for by physio-chemical activity within the nervous system.

Prior to this finding, philosophers had opined that the super sensible or supreme cause would have to directly provide life at every stage of organic formation, since the essential characteristic of matter being inertia, the possibility of living matter (not to speak of matter capable of extending itself) is inconceivable. Or to put it in another way, matter is capable of self-animation.

Therefore in order to sustain propagation of the species the super sensible had to breathe life into each organic formation or what subsequently transpired, endow the first formation of a species with an enduring capacity to produce another of its own kind.

This is the only way in which a theory of evolution can subsist. Yet it will be seen that under this arrangement individual ‘beings’ had no hand as a formative force of nature, for it is still the super sensible who impregnated life either at every stage of organic formation or once and for all for a given species.

Herein lies the unique-ness and also the difference brought about when the organism called man emerged. Up to now it was only acting involuntarily on instinct that the species produced one of their own kind.

But when it came to man he was found to be endowed not only with intelligence, but also with a will to employ that intelligence in the manner he ought to.

This not only made man a ‘productive link in the generative process’. (a procreator), but also introduced a moral element as a high point in the creative process. Indeed the very rationale, justification and grounds on which there could be any existence (life) at all is the moral dimension.

While the ultimate end of natural processes is man endowed with intelligence and will, the ultimate end of man as lord of nature does not lie in hedonism or reckless self-indulgence, but in responding to a higher calling. What that calling is, is not the concern of this article. Equally a super sensible being as a merely intelligent being (acting volitionally) will not complete the equation.

Our highest insight demands an absolute moral order as emanating from that being in order to give meaning and justification for the creation of life and of the universe and indeed for the privileged existence of such a being.

(The writer is an Attorney-at-Law)