Re: [SPAM]RE: Are there things that don't evolve?

Deborah Mann wrote:

> 'Descent'? Doesn't evolve' indicate 'ascent'? Evolution bothers me
> theoretically because it defies the law of entropy. Change by simplification
> wouldn't bother me - but change by complication does. I'd love it if your
> definitiion was the only 'evolution' there was.
>

One thing is that you're confusing the meaning of descent (expressed
as a direction), and descent (expressed as ancestry), as already pointed
out. But I also see that you are conflating evolution with upward direction
in progress. Although it just so happens to be the case that life on earth
appears to have progressed from a possibly simple RNA world to a world
of cells, and from a world of cells to something as complex as a human
with a mind and ability to know God and worship Him, there is nothing
in evolution itself that implies any direction is actually to be expected.

Evolution simply moves from where it is. There actually is little
reason why the complexity should increase except that during the process
of natural selection here on earth, somehow, this situation was dominantly
favored. Hence, first we see this increase in complexity over time, and we
infer that the direction is upward, but there is nothing within evolution and
the process of natural selection that says that it must be so.

In addition, the process of natural selection involves a very complex system
dependent on a multitude of factors including the conditions in the earth's
environment, the competition between different organisms, and even
competition within the species.

So the notion that some scientists seem
to express that intelligent life is somehow inevitable, is really a faith
statement,
and so far at least, SETI is listening, but we haven't heard anything. And
that
alone should raise serious doubts about that claim; although I will stress
here
that even if we do hear something genuine over the cosmic airwaves, whereas
it will force us to modify our theology, it does not change the message of
the
gospel. That Jesus came here only reflects how much more we were in need
of salvation and Grace, not that we were somehow the most special. At any
rate, your feeling that things should not naturally progress higher and
higher
is correct in that respect.

Since we do not know the reason, as a scientist, I would first look for
some way to discover the mechanism that drives this progression.
Natural selection certainly is part of it. Within our social system, we
select out the "best and the brightest" to end up in the high places.
But, a question to think about, is that enough to make progress?
Similarly, in the contest for food, the strongest animals would probably
win out, although here the word "strong" takes on different meanings
depending on what is most likely to perpetuate the organisms as a
whole.

Up to here, I've said little about God or why we should care about
salvation, and I think this is why we find ourselves so often in conflict
with people who are not familiar with science, so just bear with me for
a little longer.

My job as a scientist is to look for ways to explain how a system
changes due to the manipulation of some parameters. Because
of the extreme complexity, as far as I know, we still don't have
a good explanation for why the direction appears to always be up.
To suggest that part, I've mainly pointed out words like competition,
natural selection, etc. These are certainly factors that can
encourage some direction. But one would still have to ask why
it didn't stop with real survivors like ants, roaches and other
organisms that many of us loath. I think it is difficult at that point
at least to know exactly why, but, though it is very tempting to
suggest that maybe there is this God (speaking now as a Christian),
as a scientist, I cannot ask God to perform tricks for me like a
mouse in a cage, I must work with the tools I have. Should I make
progress in my understanding, using these tools, I am obliged to
report it. But the issue of how God is working in this process is
something I would ask myself. Maybe the universe is all "front loaded"
with a tendency toward greater complexity. At any rate, you should
recognize that any claims about us evolving further into some superior
and far advanced organism (of course obviously more moral -- with
sneering sarcasm on the "of course"), are all nonscientific claims
as far as I know. We have no proof that it should go that way, all
we know is that for some strange reason, the complexity of the
organisms has, up to now at least. Further, the moral progression,
though we do see this I think in the historical progression of
scripture and working from the old testament to the new testament.
Our moral understanding is dependent on God coming to us, not
our discovery. Without God, we are nothing.

Now, the issue with God saying the creation is good. We may punish
a dog for doing something we don't approve of, and the dog will know
that we will punish it, should it repeat that offense. But if a dog kills
a human being for example, we do not say the dog was unethical, do
we? The dog doesn't know God, the dog only know you. You can know
God, so you have a duty to God to be moral, but the dog does not;
though I think ones Godly character should even shine through and be
brightly reflected from the behavior of the animals you care for. Now
then again, cats? well aha. .... let's go on. (just kidding) So I don't see

the issue of natural selection there reflecting evil or something like
that as some people try to read into evolution because there is
death and all that.

Moreover, that we share a common ancestry with other organisms
does not mean that we should play by the rules of evolution or
any of the animals we observe. We can know God, and therefore we
have obligation to be moral. Though morality often coincides with
results we can see from evolution, it is not at all a one to one
correspondence. Evolution cannot teach us follow Christ, and even
staunch atheists like Dawkins recognize that you must teach altruism.
Whereas there are some instances of it in nature we can explain, Jesus
dying on the cross for our sins is "a stumbling block to the Jews and
foolishness to the Gentiles." It was the same then when Paul wrote
that, and it is the same now. We are asked to have faith that this is
what God wants. We know that in the world, evil men get away with
many things unpunished and the righteous are sometimes cruelly
oppressed. But we must go on in faith trusting that God is in control,
even when we really find ourselves wondering.

So at the heart of your original question, that sense of direction of
evolution is some consequence of the way this universe is, but why
it is, is not in the domain of science. That God planned it that way
is what we Christians believe, but because we cannot measure God,
we have to accept this as a matter of faith.

By Grace alone we proceed,
Wayne
Received on Sat Mar 25 12:28:48 2006