Sunday, September 16, 2012
Darwin's Evolutionism. Second Thoughts.
The thread of creation or evolution may be seen as consisting of four stages – minerals, plants, animals and man – in the ascending order of evolution.
‘The inanimate’ is the level of minerals.
Life is possessed by plants, but not by minerals.
Consciousness is possessed by animals, but not by plants.
Self awareness is possessed by human beings, but not by animals.
Each higher level encompasses the level of the lower level plus possesses a new level.
In the story of creation, ‘life’, ‘consciousness’ and ‘self awareness’ are points of ontological discontinuity that no science can ever hope to grasp, understand or explain.
According to evolutionism,
“...When a sample atmosphere of hydrogen, water vapour, ammonia and methane was subjected to electric discharges and ultra violet light, large numbers of organic compounds ...were obtained by automatic synthesis...”
But no matter how many such organic compounds you bring together, they will not ‘acquire’ life automatically, in other words, life is not a ‘natural consequent’ or ‘extension’ of several organic compounds coming together, as is assumed in Evolutionism below.
“...It is not unreasonable to suppose that life originated in a watery soup of pre-biological organic compounds and that living organisms arose later by surrounding quantities of these compounds by membranes that made them into cells. This is usually considered the starting point of Darwinian evolution...”
A very bold supposition!
The infusion of life is something ‘new’, it is a ‘jump’ in the level of being, an ‘ontological discontinuity’ that no science can comprehend or demonstrate through experiment.
Similarly, the infusion of ‘consciousness’ in animals represents a jump in creation: something new, not a natural extension of life – no matter how big a ‘living’ plant or tree may grow, how many leaves, branches it may add to itself, it still does not possess ‘consciousness’. Consciousness, found in animals is therefore an ontological discontinuity in creation.
Similarly, the infusion of self awareness in man is a jump in creation. Self awareness here meaning consciousness recoiling upon itself, intellect recoiling upon itself – the ability to think about your thoughts, feel your feelings and analyse oneself.
Self awareness represents an ontological discontinuity.
Hence, in the story of creation, ‘life’, ‘consciousness’ and ‘self awareness’ are jumps, points of ontological discontinuity that no science can ever hope to grasp, understand or explain.
Darwin’s theory of evolution and natural selection is valid and holds true as long as it explains what happens ‘within’ these four stages. When it assumes to be able to comprehend and explain what lies ‘in between’ these stages, when it assumes it can explain the jumps, the gaps, the discontinuities, it becomes a dubious theory – it betrays and offends against all principles of scientific probity.
That is, when Darwin’s theory attempts of explain the origin of life itself, or origin of consciousness and origin of self awareness, instead of admitting with humility that these are beyond it’s grasp, it loses humility as well as credibility.
E F Schumacher, in his work, “A Guide for the Perplexed”, written during times of scientific arrogance when it was not proper even to mention ‘God’ in polite societies, says...
“One can just see it. Cant one? Organic compounds getting together and surrounding themselves by membranes – nothing could be simpler for these clever compounds – and lo! There is the cell, and once the cell has been born there is nothing to stop the emergence of Shakespeare, although it will obviously take a bit of time...”
He also quotes Karl Stern, ‘a psychiatrist with great insight’,
“...such a view of cosmogenesis is crazy, not merely in the sense of slangy invective, but rather in the technical meaning of psychotic. Indeed such a view has much in common with certain aspects of schizophrenic thinking... “
Objections to evolutionism came from theological and political standpoints. But the maximum opposition to Darwin’s theory came from the scientific community of biologists and other scientists, which Encyclopaedia Britannica omitted, admitting only theological and political objections!
When you think about it, it’s amazing that the theory is more popular than its criticism and continues to be advocated in schools, colleges and universities!
And it’s amazing how, after so many years after the theory has been put forward, it is simply accepted without debate and the it’s criticism that makes so much sense, lies quietly under the carpet.