|
Evolutionism:
Just Another Old Materialistic Philosophical Theory?
by Luiz Sérgio Solimeo
While many try to frame the evolution as
a purely natural process that explains the origins of the
universe, they do not see all the implications of that position.
They fail to realize that, at least in its Darwinian version,
evolutionism is above all a philosophical doctrine or belief
since it aims to demonstrate that the existence of an orderly
universe and intelligent life on earth does not require the
action of an intelligent and ordering being, or a pre-established
plan.
To do this, evolutionists ironically do not even explain the
origins of the universe since they must shift the focus of
their study away from creation properly speaking, that is,
the passage from non-being to being. They can only deal with
a process of transformation that supposedly changed simple
pre-existing elements into more complex ones which in turn
gave rise to the universe and life as now known.
In short, evolution does not address creation properly speaking
but rather the transformation that creation supposedly underwent.
It has nothing to do, therefore, with the act of creation
but rather with a process of transformation.
A Product of Chance
The agent or force that purportedly drives this transforming
action is nothing but mere chance, which supposedly guides
evolution so that mutations will always have the same direction,
unity of action, and finality. The universe, in all its complexity,
is the end result of this evolutionary process, and the same
can be said of human intelligence, also the fruit of an endless
series of fortuitous events.
A synthesis of this theory was presented by 38 Nobel Prize
winners, including several scientists, in a position paper
defending Darwinian evolution.
On September 9, 2005 they sent a letter to the Kansas State
Board of Education saying:
We, Nobel Laureates, are writing in defense of science
…. [and] urge the Kansas State Board of Education to
maintain Darwinian evolution as the sole curriculum and science
standard in the State of Kansas.
They then define what they understand by Darwinian evolution:
[E]volution is understood to be the result of an unguided,
unplanned process of random variation and natural selection.1
What normally occurs is not due
to chance
Replacing God the Creator with mere chance is not new. This
has been tried by all materialists throughout history.
Already in ancient Greece, philosophical schools of the
atomists and mechanicists2 presented chance and
necessity as the causes of creation.
Greek philosopher Aristotle (384-322 BC) refuted those theories
when he contended:
Yet it is impossible that this should be the true
view. For teeth and all other natural things either invariably
or normally come about in a given way; but of not one of the
results of chance or spontaneity is this true. We do not ascribe
to chance or mere coincidence the frequency of rain in winter,
but frequent rain in summer we do;3 nor heat in the dog-days,
but only if we have it in winter. If then, it is agreed that
things are either the result of coincidence or for an end,
and these cannot be the result of coincidence or spontaneity,
it follows that they must be for an end; and that such things
are all due to nature even the champions of the theory which
is before us would agree. Therefore action for an end is present
in things which come to be and are by nature.4
The Role of Divine Providence
Saint Thomas Aquinas, the greatest of all Christian philosophers,
in his Disputed Questions on Truth (De Veritate), takes
the arguments yet further when he complements Aristotle's
explanation with the notion of divine Providence.
His argumentation is so clear and accessible that it is better
to simply transcribe it here with brief commentary rather
than paraphrase it. The saint explains:
Some of the very ancient philosophers admitted only
a material cause. Since they would not admit an efficient
cause, they could not affirm the existence of an end, for
an end is a cause only in so far as it moves the efficient
cause.
Other and later philosophers admitted an efficient
cause, but said nothing about a final cause. According to
both schools, everything was necessarily caused by previously
existing causes, material or efficient.
This position, however, was criticized by other philosophers
on the following grounds. Material and efficient causes, as
such, cause only the existence of their effects. They are
not sufficient to produce goodness in them so that they be
aptly disposed in themselves, so that they could continue
to exist, and toward others so that they could help them.
Heat, for example, of its very nature and of itself can break
down other things, but this breaking down is good and helpful
only if it happens up to a certain point and in a certain
way. Consequently, if we do not admit that there exist in
nature causes other than heat and similar agents, we cannot
give any reason why things happen in a good and orderly way.
In other words, matter and change are not in themselves
enough to bring about meaningful change in a certain and orderly
direction. The saint continues:
Moreover, whatever does not have a determinate cause
happens by accident. Consequently, if the position mentioned
above were true, all the harmony and usefulness found in things
would be the result of chance. This was actually what Empedocles
[492-432 BC] held. He asserted that it was by accident that
the parts of animals came together in this way through friendship
and this was his explanation of an animal and of a frequent
occurrence.
This explanation, of course, is absurd, for those
things that happen by chance, happen only rarely; we know
from experience, however, that harmony and usefulness are
found in nature either at all times or at least for the most
part. This cannot be the result of mere chance; it must be
because an end is intended. What lacks intellect or knowledge,
however, cannot tend directly toward an end. It can do this
only if someone else's knowledge has established an end for
it, and directs it to that end.
Consequently, since natural things have no knowledge,
there must be some previously existing intelligence directing
them to an end, like an archer who gives a definite motion
to an arrow so that it will will its way to a determined end.
Now, the hit made by the arrow is said to be the work not
of the arrow alone but also of the person who shot it. Similarly,
philosophers call every work of nature the work of intelligence.
Consequently, the world is ruled by the providence
of that intellect which gave this order to nature; and we
may compare the providence by which God rules the world to
the domestic foresight by which a man rules his family, or
to the political foresight by which a ruler governs a city
or a kingdom, and directs the acts of others to a definite
end.5
Eternal Matter and Provident Chance
By seeking to eliminate a first, subsistent, eternal, omnipotent
and wise cause, God, as the ultimate reason for all that exists,
Darwinian evolution shifts, perhaps unwittingly, these divine
characteristics to matter and chance.
Not willing to admit someone that creates matter, evolutionists
must necessarily see matter in its simplest state, be it gaseous
or even atomic, as something eternal, uncreated, and endowed
with an almost infinite potential. They must also see chance
as the agent that supposedly transforms this matter. Perhaps
it would be better to say Chance with a capital "C,"
as it has the characteristics of an intelligent being, much
like the Demiurge featured in Gnostic theories.6
A Justification for Atheism and Class Struggle
Indeed, Darwinian evolution scorns any notion of finality,
and therefore intelligibility in the universe. As such, it
has been a most powerful factor paving the way to atheism.
Thus, it is easy to understand Karl Marx's satisfaction
on reading Darwin's book The Origin of Species. In
a letter of January 16, 1861 to socialist leader Ferdinand
Lassale, Marx wrote:
Darwin's work is most important and suits my purpose
in that it provides a basis in natural science for the historical
class struggle. One does, of course, have to put up with the
clumsy English style of argument. Despite all shortcomings,
it is here that, for the first time, "teleology" in natural
science is not only dealt a mortal blow but its rational meaning
is empirically explained.7
Denying a final cause to the natural order of the universe
makes it easy to make the same conclusion in political theory.
Marx was rightly pleased by his discovery since, if history
has no meaning or purpose, his dialectic materialism theory
almost makes sense.
The scientific shortcomings of Darwin's theory have long
been debated. However, rarely are the philosophical implications
of his theory discussed. Indeed, the philosophy of Darwinian
evolutionism is but a rehashing of materialist philosophies
of the past. However, rarely have the implications of a theory
adapted itself so well to philosophical errors of the times.
Rarely has materialism found such a fitting and ambiguous
disguise. And that is where the danger lies.
__________________
|
