Cosmic Evolution
I have been thinking about something that came up in the discussion around my last post. It was something that Carl had said early on when he remarked about how a large part of the American population doesn’t believe in evolution and then wondered how they could possibly ever be interested in anything like evolutionary spirituality. Good question? In fact when I spoke about evolutionary philosophy in America last week in Philadelphia someone there asked exactly the same question.
This question is a good reintroduction to what I have wanted to get us engaged in speaking about. It has to do with the way that we think about evolution. I think that what is commonly called the evolution debate is too narrowly limited to a view of evolution that was popularly created during the early part of the 20th century. It was during that time that the debate about evolution heated up, reaching a pinnacle with the famed Scopes Monkey Trial of 1926. This court case was instigated by the American Civil liberties Union to challenge a Tennessee law that made it illegal to teach in public schools anything besides Divine Creation as the ultimate origin of humanity.
It was the trial of the century with so many people coming to watch the deliberations that they eventually moved the trial proceedings outside. The case ended with the Tennessee law upheld, which was expected from the start, but the move to go to trial did achieve its main goal which was to take the evolution debate to a national stage. The result of this heated national debate was a deepening polarization between religion and science. Christian fundamentalism tightened its grip on a literal interpretation of the Bible and science wrapped its arms around a deterministic interpretation of evolution that increasingly denied the possibility of God.
Along the way the evolution debate was set in terms that are still with us today. The language of the “Scopes Monkey Trial” reduced the essential question at hand to “Did men evolve from apes?” The view of evolution that was on trial, at least in the public’s eye, was limited to the evolution of species on Earth and most specifically, the evolution of human beings from primates. I think in many ways the debate in the public mind often remains limited to this interpretation, which I think is too narrow a definition of evolution to encapsulate the reality of cosmic evolution.
Another typical sentiment that was expressed during the time of the Scopes trial was, “Do you really think that your great, great, great grandmother was a gorilla?” Nobody would think that. The time frame through which one species might turn into another is larger than the human mind can truly hold. The way this question is framed makes it sound like an ape at some time in the past gave birth to a human-like baby. If that is the framework in which you are considering evolution, it is no wonder you would not believe it!
There seems to be a huge emotional challenge for human beings to see themselves as human beings having evolved from other species, but we don’t seem to have any difficulty imaging a tree growing from an acorn, or an adult human growing from a baby – and these transformations are equally awesome and impossible to fully understand.
Perhaps it is more useful not to think about humans evolving from apes, but simply to think of humans having evolved from the universe. We are like a leaf on a tree. The leaf didn’t come from the branch, it came from the acorn. What ever coding lies within the acorn that allows it to grow into a tree includes coding that allows for the gradual unfolding of all of the parts of the tree. One part of the tree doesn’t grow from another; all the parts grow as part of the same unfolding process over time. My consideration of evolution is not scientific (although I am familiar with some of the science of evolution) it is philosophical. I think that when we consider evolutionary philosophy it is valid to leave all that we know about evolution from religion and from science temporarily aside and look anew at how the universe seems to work. The universe grows, and that fact alone is worth contemplating deeply before we get to the more complex questions of how does it grow? is that growth guided or not? and ultimately who or what is guiding it?
There have always been religious people, and specifically Christians, who have embraced the reality of evolution and saw no need for conflict with their faith. And there are also scientists who don’t see their belief in evolution as an obstacle to their faith in God. I think that the way the evolution debate is most popularly framed might be part of what causes what sometimes appears to be an unbridgeable divide between science and religion.
There’s a lot in this post, and I suspect it will prompt lots of comments.
One thought that occurs to me is that the humans who cannot see themselves as having evolved from non-humans might be “species-ists” just as some people are nationalists, racists, tribalists, sexists, and so on. That is, they view our species as very special, so special that it cannot be seen in the same category in any way as non-humans. This, it seems to me, is a form of our particular life form’s ego — an identification ourselves as humans and separation from non-human life forms rather that noticing that all sentient beings have things in common that ought to be respected.
This would be analogous to the individual seeing himself or herself as absolutely separate from others, in a time of great individuation — to have one species see itself as essentially separate from others, at a time when it emerged as a separate form. Many of our creation myths separate out humans as special, just as much current thinking separates out humans as specially endowed with free will, cognition, self-awareness and other features that non-humans seem not to have.
But science has whittled away at that, showing how much more DNA we have in common with earthworms than not, showing that many things, such as individual naming (e.g., among whales), self-concept (e.g., taught to pigeons), and tool use (among some birds and non-human primates) are characteristics of some non-human species as well. Perhaps as we look more deeply, the similarities will come to seem as important or more important than the differences if we are to survive as a Whole.
Maybe one obstacle to our understanding and accepting evolution is simply our feeling of specialness. Maybe if we can see our differences as part of and complementary to the whole array of other life forms and non-living things in the universe, rather than so “special” and therefore superior, we will be able to live without doing so much damage to the Universe and, thereby, without doing so much damage to ourselves. And maybe we will understand more about evolution and how to participate in a wholesome way in it.
When I read Lisa’s comment on last post “through self-awareness that they were the cause of most of their problems, and they could stop them if they wanted.”, it trigger self awareness of own cynicism and darkness,realize my choice is the cause and solution and open up the positivity,innocence,simplicity and enthusiasm which is rediscovery of the trust in a deeper intention.
Now when I read Carl’s comment,I face known problem(cynicism)regarding impersonal perspective again”At fundamental level,I don’t feel same urgency as you who really interested in evolutional spirituality.Honestly,Our Evolutionary Crisis doesn’t sink in me yet.What is the problem about the identification ourselves as humans,specialness? I believe Evolution as status quo,superficial level I guess.I concern about future of human,but not much about the universe.”
Yet all been said.(which nothing new to me ),What Carl’s comment”Maybe one obstacle to our understanding and accepting evolution is simply our feeling of specialness”ride on ,hit the spot!!!!
I think that is the cause and solution of our problems.
I have a simple theory that “If we move forward following our conviction of our inner Truth,Beauty and Goodness,we never fail”.
So even my emotional conviction(heart) doesn’t catch up to the Truth which I recognized,this time ,I want to engage as experimental guinea pig,how we able shift our(my) intention(Mind+Heart+Together as Team)from personal to impersonal.
I am reading Tolles “Power of Now” at the moment and it is very inspiring also in relation to this subject. Tolle write that any religion just points to the reality of spirit that we have to discover for ourselves – the words can only be pointers.
In Denmark we have lutheranism as state religion, and we have no problem with the physical evolution here. But what we are not into (yet) is grasping what a “conscious evolution” could mean. I think that it is quite another thing than the physical evolution. Today we are at at point where our thinking and our minds are creating the world so fast that the physical dimension cant catch up at all. That gives us a much larger responsability. So the important and needed development of humans and situation in the world is now depending upon how we think and how we use our minds. Our thinking has got to be an instrument that we use, rather than it something that is using us. In other words: We have to be more aware of the choosing faculty in ourselves and wake up to the fact that we are very deeply caught up in emotional and cognitive habits, that makes it difficult to develop consciously in the intended direction. And the intentions also have to be uncovered and cultivated. That is conscious evolution, and it actually do not sound wrong at all in a christian view if we are really having a heart and a care for the future.
I liked the bit when Jeff said to “leave all we know from religion and science temporarily aside and look anew at how the universe seems to work. The universe grows, and that fact alone is worth contemplating deeply…..” I have had a bit of a hard time with the term Evolution as it often sounds like a new form of religion. I distinctly remember the start of Biology class in my convent school in Dublin, at about the age of 16, being told by the lay-teacher with a cough and an awkward tone, that the theory of evolution does not mean that God, and the 6-day creation of the world is not correct. After that brief, awkward, opening statement we dove into evolutionary theory without ever mentioning God or Adam and Eve again. My hit at the time was that both must be partly true but neither fully true.
By trying to put the label “Evolution” on our knowledge and experience that the “universe grows” seems to be using an old technology, or old language to try to describe something that cannot be explained with that language.
If we use terms like growth or development instead of evolution, it might work just as well. Seems to me we are talking about general principles that account for change over time in a creative process.
Two underlying principles or types of mechanisms can account for every kind of learning, growth, development, etc. in widely different situations, once we get the process started with the Big Bang or whatever the beginning principle might be.
The first is the principle of variation. In other words, new things happen and they happen for various reasons, such as the effect of random cosmic rays causing genetic mutation, or an explosion throwing out all kinds of particles and blobs and energy, or an accidental encounter between a person and the environment, or maybe the result of something very planned and conscious. In any case, various forms of behavior or activity occur — whether of physical objects, activities of living things, or subjective thoughts and feelings.
Then the second principle can kick in: the principle of selection. Something about the effect or consequence of the event or behavior causes it to happen more frequently, less frequently, or not at all. Individuals get killed, new behavior does or doesn’t “work,” atoms or molecules come together and stick for some reason, life forms turn out to be sustainable (vs. dying), cultural practices lead to greater survival or health, etc.
This process works over and over again, all the time, from the cosmic level all the way down to the level of individual organisms and learning.
In the different domains there are many factors that cause variation, and many ways that consequences “select” the variations that will continue. But these principles seem to apply no matter whether we’re talking about physics, biology, or events in subjective awareness.
To me, that’s what we mean by this term “evolution,” and the more we can understand the factors that cause both variation and selection in different domains, the more we will be able to consciously, actively participate in and even guide it.
Many of the arguments about evolution and development seem to be about whether or not we need a third principle, Telos — or the idea of a foreordained design/designer with an end in mind — to explain development. In the interests of parsimony, it seems philosophically important to determine whether or not such a third principle is needed. I personally do not believe that we need Telos, and in fact I think it is the Anthropomorphic error — assuming that the world is
Oops. I didn’t finish that.
The Anthropomorphic error — assuming that the world or Universe works just like we do, with verbal behavior, cognition, planning, and all the rest of it. It’s not clear that such a human-like model is necessary, but we do tend to make God in the image and likeness of ourselves.
Why Christians don’t get threaten their faith to God by the evolution?
Why scientists who don’t see their belief in evolution as an obstacle to their faith to god?
If we are talking about conscious evolution and if the principle of selection apply,
God (some one up there)seems as an obstacle to see the reality of cosmic evolution or further development of consciousness.
God may be deeply tied up with our unquestionable identity of specialness as human being, as the center of universe,
but same time God is deeply rooted in our heart, emotional conviction and humbles us for the trust of deeper dimension of life and in the vast universe.
Question would be,do we still need from now on?and why (the reason)we need or don’t need?
Those who insist on telos in evolution are missing the whole point. The God hypothesis really is discredited by the correct understanding of evolution. Religious folks have good reason to feel their views are threatened if they want to hold on to those beliefs. There, I said it.
Bravo, Brian!
Brian, there are very good arguements and strong evidence for telos in evolution. Not difinitive, but certainly enough to make it impossible to say definitivly that telos doesn’t exist. So I would need to know what point you are meaning when you say that the the God hyposthesis is discredited.
What a brilliant and fascinating essay. I had never considered the notion of evolution as philosophy/philosophical. I must say: That is one of the most reasonable and sound things I have heard in some time. Such an approach might even lend itself toward one understanding the “science” better, if one wants to do such a thing.
I think your notion of evolution as philosophy is of great integrity and something which I respect very much.
I would agree with Brian that the science of evolution has to give pause to many traditional religious notions of God. At the same time I don’t believe that Scientific Determinism is going to become our new Religion. Science adheres to objective evidence and is devoid of value and moral judgement. It isn’t a complete enough picture of human reality on its own to guide human activity. What we need is a new religion that has a moral foundation and does not contradict our scientific understanding of reality. I believe that an evolutionary perspective has to be part of that new religion and I do believe that in some way direction has to be part of that evolution religion. It is the Telos that creates the potential for a moral compass to guide us. It doesn’t have to be a Telos that is guiding us to some predetermined location, or that is guided by a supreme intelligence, but I do think that direction has to be part of any human picture of reality that will prove useful to direct human development.
I know this blog is a product in and of itself. But isn’t it tempting to somehow capture it?
The mind-blowing thing about evolution is that all of life’s grandeur came about with only variation, selection, and reproduction. Absolutely stunning!
What is the evidence for telos in evolution?
The revulsion some feel forwards the idea that human beings may be descended from apes may also have another aspect. The Scopes Monkey trial was also about race. Some people didn’t want to be descended from apes because that might have meant they were descended from Africans. They were and are racist, and they are not who I’m thinking about at this point. I’m thinking about the pluralists of the green mime who want to embrace everyone and offend no one. Maybe their desire to offend no one is hindering the *pluralists* from conceptualizing evolution as it truly is, because they don’t want to in any way continue to offend African Americans.
I under no circumstances am implying that it is acceptable to offend African Americans, or anyone else for that matter. My point is, is part of the problem the thinking methodology of the pluralists and, if so, how can we help them evolve to a higher level.
Interesting that racist revulsion is another form of separation or ego, just like “species-ism” — the idea that we are a special species separate from and superior to all others. The idea that there is an “Intelligence” that works like we do by imposing purpose on the things it creates (versus simply evolving without an imposed purpose) is anthropomorphic, as though the Universe were like we humans with verbal behavior and cognition.
Maybe, in Truth, there really IS only one Being that precludes all types of separation, flowing with the interdependent co-origination of all its apparent parts, as the Buddhists describe.
Maybe it all really is just a single process that evolves based on principles of variation and selection, without an “other” to impose purpose on it, without a teleological end-point or vision that is separate from the Thing itself.
Maybe we have such a hard time getting beyond the illusory separation of our “selves” that we just can’t surrender to an utterly nondual view in which the Thing emerges as it does, period.
The more a person engages in meditation without thought, the answers to their questions come faster. Supposedly, when a person is without thought during meditation, all their ideas they have about the question stop being produced allowing a new way of seeing the question to come to them in a pure way.
I know this to be true for me when I had the question, “God gave humans everything they needed to know about living life, inside of them. How do I get to that information?” (I soon left my church and religion after I started receiving the answer to my question.) I was surprised when the answer to this question started coming to me in a variety of ways.
With that said: The power of group meditation, with the intention of sending out the peace the group feels inside of them to certain areas of the world, works lifting the veil from peoples consciousness’ so they to can get the answers to their questions about life in a new pure way. This is how one would get masses of people thinking about evolution in the purest form.
What I mean by “pure” is the best possible answer that is right for humanity, not just the individual.
I certainly can’t prove – nor can anyway – definitively that there is telos guiding the universe. Of course it can’t be proved that there is not. There are arguments based on the Anthropic Principle that give evidence that can be interpreted to indicate that carbon based life forms have a certain inevitability of emergence in the universe. That evidence can also be explained in other ways that do not lead to teleology.
The point remains that teleology as far as I know cannot be definitively proved or disproved based on objective evidence alone. So we can’t know for sure. It is probably likely that our understanding of evolution today will change dramatically should we survive into the centuries that lay ahead. Our notions of God will also likely be unrecognizable to what we know now.
My point is not to say that I can definitively prove that there is a guiding principle in the universe. I merely say that I believe that there can be a philosophical argument made that can reasonably defend a belief in teleology because of what it gives us in terms of a basis for morality and based on a certain interpretation of evidence. What I wonder is if there is a good reason to not believe in teleology and what that reason would be.
Belief in telos (or God) makes evolution less wondrous. It takes all the fun out. A total buzzkill.
I have always believed in parsimony, Occam’s razor, the idea that we should not use any more principles or complexity to explain or describe things than needed.
In the case of individual behavior, for example, lab experiments show that consequences alone without any instructions or explanation can increase the frequency, form, and complexity of behavior. We don’t need additional principles other than to account for what initiates a response in the first place (variation) and the reinforcing impact of consequences on responding (selection).
Certainly, consequences can account for increasing differentiation and specialization of behavior, species, and other events because they “select” specific instances or categories out of larger categories, thereby bringing those features, behavior elements, or characteristics into higher relief. The result is what we think of as “complexity.”
This is built into the nature of things, it seems to me, as long as there is energy.
I might be dense, but I cannot see why a third element of pre-defined purpose or design is needed.
I think we can build a very robust “morality” based on two facts of nature: that everything is interconnected in a single process; and that our behavior ultimately impacts the whole process and all its parts.
“For the sake of the Whole” — Its survival and welfare — seems to become an imperative based on a natural self-interest, assuming that our awareness has become broad and deep enough so that we identify with a “Whole” that is bigger than ourselves.
“Do unto others as you would have them do unto you” becomes a sort of Cosmic principle, since You and Others are the same.
I think our perception of “intelligence” and “purpose” in the Universe when we have enlightenment experiences is based on the direct recognition that “we” are the Universe; that we and other seemingly sentient or aware beings are manifestations of the same energy; and that the degree of self-awareness manifested in that Whole is growing to the point where it is clearly bigger than we are as separate individuals.
That is the mind-blowing part, and I don’t think we have to interpret it as implying a separate Intelligence that knows beforehand what and how things happen. I think that the Whole continues to emerge with greater and greater complexity, patterning that we humans interpret as “intelligence” but that do not require a separate principle of “purpose” or telos to explain.
Given Occam’s razor, I tend to think that we have to explain the need for additional principles.
Jeff,
I agree with you wholeheartedly. I encourage people I discuss these topics with to replace “evolution” with “development” if it becomes a hindrance. Would be interested to hear your conclusion to this post.
Together,
Jay Marrs
Life’s Is A Ubiquitous Evolution Mode
The mode of a gene’s response to organism-culture’s feedback signal, i.e. “replicate without change” or “replicate with change” in case of proven augmented energy constrainment by the offspring, is the mode of Life’s normal evolution, which is the mode of evolution universally.
Genes’ Expression Modification
http://www.the-scientist.com/community/posts/list/200/122.page#3649
Again, the scope of of genes lifehood is not just the lifehood of genes.
Genes, and Life in general, are but one of the forms of mass, of constrained energy formats. The lifehood of genes is the foundation of the subject of evolutionary biology, which is a major component of the subject of life, which is a minute component of the subject of evolution of the universe, which is the subject for which humanity seeks a unified field theory.
Since the big-bang resolution of E/m superposition ALL the energy of the universe is destined for the galactic clusters expansion plus laying down of the gravity natrix for the eventual cosmic impansion, and ALL the mass is destined to revert to energy for these ends. The mass-to-energy reversion is resisted by the mass, this resistance being the archtype of selection for survival by all materials, including life. This resistance is due, exciting to us, to the fact that – as we know from everyday experience – formation of mass requires investment of energy, that dissipates when the mass disintegrates. And as we also know from everyday experience all energy forms other than gravity end up eventually as gravity energy. This is expected since ALL the contents of the universe are manifestations of the gravity energy freed at Inflation.
And again, a unified field theory is sought since unlike the evergrowing list of specific science/technology divisions drawn by the “scientists” trade-unions like the AAAS, the universe and Earth evolve as an integrated intertwined interrelated tangled whole and not as a collection of individual divisions.
Dov Henis
(Comments From The 22nd Century)
Updated Life’s Manifest May 2009
http://www.the-scientist.com/community/posts/list/140/122.page#2321
Implications Of E=Total[m(1 + D)]
http://www.the-scientist.com/community/posts/list/180/122.page#3108
Updated Physical Evolution Defintion Dec 1 2009
A. Three present definitions of physical evolution, at
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/evolution
– a process of change in a certain direction.
– a theory that the various types of animals and plants have their origin in other preexisting types and that the distinguishable differences are due to modifications in their successive generations, and also the process described by this theory.
– a process in which the whole universe is a progression of interrelated phenomena.
B. Suggested updated physical evolution definition, of Life’s normal evolution and universal energy-mass evolution.
a theory, and the process described by it, that the whole universe changes in a progression of interrelated phenomena of mass formats attaining temporary augmented energy constraint in their successive generations with energy drained from other mass formats, to temporarily postpone, survive, reverting of their mass to the cosmic energy fueling the galactic clusters expansion.
Dov Henis
(Comments From The 22nd Century)
Updated Life’s Manifest May 2009
http://www.the-scientist.com/community/posts/list/140/122.page#2321
Implications Of E=Total[m(1 + D)]
http://www.the-scientist.com/community/posts/list/180/122.page#3108
Have any of you read Ken Wilber in “Sex, Spirituality and Ecology” asserting that ecology continues, not being static, and that the Omega Point of human ecology is Enlightenment? It seems to me that our physical beings are not so much evolving as our minds are, greatly affected by tech developments.
Hindus believe that greatly evolved people become transformed into light. Can it be that there’s a cosmic black joke involved where an atomic apocalyse will transform us all into star stuff, our “enlightenment”?
The radio program “New Dimensions” has a great leader statement at the beginning of their weekly programs that the personal and the cosmic are connected. Human actions play out in planetary and cosmic consequences and the reverse is true. Can there be any doubts even in light of all the nay-sayers of scientific presentation of evidence of this truth? Doubt and demands for corroboration of findings is useful but truth will out, eventually. As Galileo muttered, “But it (the earth) moves, nevertheless”.
What’s astoundingly mind-bending is that an overwhelming amount of Americans believe in The Rapture more than in the truth of Evolution. Is this saying something about the acceptance of Science findings, about the need for metaphysics? Is the credence of Christianities teachings, understood and misunderstood, due to the fact that for many Americans the Bible is maybe the only book they know, some people only by hearsay?
To accept we are descended from apes even with the dicovery that our DNA is nearly the same is too difficult for those who see apes as too grotesque and different from accepted standards of what is physically beautiful in our culture. Oour standards of physical beauty are mostly too rigid to allow some to accept apes being our cousins.
If we see that evolution’s modifications of species is usually about helping species to survive, I submit that humanity’s modification to help us survive is to develop the higher consciousness that will enable us to realize peace is something we must attain or perish. This modification is obviously still in progress and may take a very long time. I hope the realization will eventually trump aggressive destructive behavior ingrained in humans so far but that our instinct for survival will lead us to learn to co-exist with our fellow humans in peace.
Have I scared off any further comments? Have many long-standing threads just died? My comments seem to be languishing at the tail-end of a lot of threads. What’s happening? All talked out or on to greener pastures?
??
Hello Frank, I don’t think you have scared anyone off. You are hard to keep up with I will give you that…but you aren’t scary… 🙂 Thanks for all your insights and enthusiasm.
HI Jeff, TY for that, I was really wondering. Aloha!
Youre unquestionably correct on this blog post!!