http://www.icr.org/article/3513%20/
Darwinism: Survival without Purpose
by Jerry Bergman, Ph.D.*
Humans have always wondered about the meaning of life...life has no
higher purpose than to perpetuate the survival of DNA...life has no
design, no purpose, no evil and no good, nothing but blind pitiless
indifference.1 --Richard Dawkins
Evolution is "deceptively simple yet utterly profound in its
implications,"2 the first of which is that living creatures "differ
from one another, and those variations arise at random, without a plan
or purpose."3 Evolution must be without plan or purpose because its
core tenet is the natural selection of the fittest, produced by random
copying errors called mutations. Darwin "was keenly aware that
admitting any purposefulness whatsoever to the question of the origin
of species would put his theory of natural selection on a very
slippery slope."4 Pulitzer Prize author Edward Humes wrote that the
fact of evolution was obvious but "few could see it, so trapped were
they by the human=85desire to find design and purpose in the world." He
concluded:
Darwin's brilliance was in seeing beyond the appearance of design,
and understanding the purposeless, merciless process of natural
selection, of life and death in the wild, and how it culled all but
the most successful organisms from the tree of life, thereby creating
the illusion that a master intellect had designed the world. But close
inspection of the watchlike "perfection" of honeybees' combs or ant
trails=85reveals that they are a product of random, repetitive,
unconscious behaviors, not conscious design.5
The fact that evolution teaches that life has no purpose beyond
perpetuating its own survival is not lost on teachers. One testified
that teaching evolution "impacted their consciences" because it moved
teachers away from the "idea that they were born for a purpose=85
something completely counter to their mindset and beliefs."6
In a study on why children resist accepting evolution, Yale
psychologists Bloom and Weisberg concluded that the evolutionary way
of viewing the world, which the authors call "promiscuous teleology,"
makes it difficult for them to accept evolution. Children "naturally
see the world in terms of design and purpose."7 The ultimate
purposelessness of evolution, and thus of the life that it produces,
was eloquently expressed by Professor Lawrence Krauss as follows:
"We're just a bit of pollution=85. If you got rid of us=85the universe
would be largely the same. We're completely irrelevant."8
The Textbooks
To determine what schools are teaching about religious questions such
as the purpose of life, I surveyed current science textbooks and found
that they tend to teach the view that evolution is both nihilistic and
atheistic. One of today's most widely-used textbooks stated that
"evolution works without either plan or purpose=85. Evolution is random
and undirected."9 Another text by the same authors added that Darwin
knew his theory "required believing in philosophical materialism, the
conviction that matter is the stuff of all existence and that all
mental and spiritual phenomena are its byproducts." The authors
continued:
Darwinian evolution was not only purposeless but also heartless--a
process in which...nature ruthlessly eliminates the unfit. Suddenly,
humanity was reduced to just one more species in a world that cared
nothing for us. The great human mind was no more than a mass of
evolving neurons. Worst of all, there was no divine plan to guide us.
10
Another text taught that humans are just "a tiny, largely fortuitous,
and late-arising twig on the enormously arborescent bush of life" and
the belief that a "progressive, guiding force, consistently pushing
evolution to move in a single direction" is now known to be
"misguided."11 Many texts teach that evolution is purposeless and has
no goal except to achieve brute survival: the "idea that evolution is
not directed towards a final goal or state has been more difficult for
many people to accept than the process of evolution itself."12 One
major text openly teaches that humans were created by a blind, deaf,
and dumb watchmaker--namely natural selection, which is "totally blind
to the future."
Humans...came from the same evolutionary source as every other
species. It is natural selection of selfish genes that has given us
our bodies and our brains=85. Natural selection=85explains=85the whole of
life, the diversity of life, the complexity of life, |and| the
apparent design in life."13
The Implications
Many texts are very open about the implications of Darwinism for
theism. One teaches that Darwin's immeasurably important contribution
to science was to show that, despite life's apparent evidence of
design and purpose, mechanistic causes explain all biological
phenomena. The text adds that by coupling "undirected, purposeless
variation to the blind, uncaring process of natural selection, Darwin
made theological or spiritual explanations of the life processes
superfluous."14 The author concludes by noting that "it was Darwin's
theory of Evolution that provided a crucial plank to the platform of
mechanisms and materialism=85that has been the stage of most western
thought."15 Another text even stated directly that humans were created
by a random process, not a loving, purposeful God, and:
The real difficulty in accepting Darwin's theory has always been
that it seems to diminish our significance=85. |Evolution| asked us to
accept the proposition that, like all other organisms, we too are the
products of a random process that, as far as science can show, we are
not created for any special purpose or as part of any universal design.
16
These texts are all clearly teaching religious ideas, not science. An
excellent example is a text that openly ruled out not only theistic
evolution, but any role for God in nature, and demonstrated that
Darwinism threatened theism by showing that humans and all life "could
be explained by natural selection without the intervention of a god."
Evolutionary "randomness and uncertainty had replaced a deity having
conscious, purposeful, human characteristics."
The Darwinian view that=85 present-type organisms were not created
spontaneously but formed in a succession of selective events that
occurred in the past, contradicted the common religious view that
there could be no design, biological or otherwise, without an
intelligent designer=85. In this scheme a god of design and purpose is
not necessary=85. Religion has been bolstered by=85 the comforting idea
that humanity was created in the image of a god to rule over the world
and its creatures. Religion provided emotional solace, a set of
ethical and moral values=85. Nevertheless, faith in religious dogma has
been eroded by natural explanations of its mysteries=85. The positions
of the creationists and the scientific world appear irreconcilable."17
Darwin himself taught a totally atheistic, naturalistic view of
origins. He even once said, "I would give nothing for the theory of
natural selection if it requires miraculous additions at any one stage
of descent."18 John Alcock, an evolutionary biologist, therefore
concluded that "we exist solely to propagate the genes within us."19
Leading Darwin scholar Janet Browne makes it very clear that Darwin's
goal was the "arduous task of reorienting the way Victorians looked at
nature." To do this Darwin had to convince the world that "ideas about
a benevolent, nearly perfect natural world" and those that believe
"beauty was given to things for a purpose, were wrong--that the idea
of a loving God who created all living things and brought men and
women into existence was=85a fable."
The world=85steeped in moral meaning which helped mankind seek out
higher goals in life, was not Darwin's. Darwin's view of nature was
dark--black=85. Where most men and women generally believed in some kind
of design in nature--some kind of plan and order--and felt a deep-
seated, mostly inexpressible belief that their existence had meaning,
Darwin wanted them to see all life as empty of any divine purpose.20
Darwin knew how difficult it was to abandon such a view, but realized
that for evolution to work, nature must ultimately be "governed
entirely by chance." Browne concludes:
The pleasant outward face of nature was precisely that--only an
outward face. Underneath was perpetual struggle, species against
species, individual against individual. Life was ruled by
death...destruction was the key to reproductive success. All the
theological meaning was thus stripped out by Darwin and replaced by
the concept of competition. All the telos, the purpose, on which
natural theologians based their ideas of perfect adaptation was
redirected into Malthusian--Darwinian--struggle. What most people saw
as God-given design he saw as mere adaptations to circumstance,
adaptations that were meaningless except for the way in which they
helped an animal or plant to survive.21
Neo-Darwinist Richard Dawkins recognized the purposelessness of such a
system:
In a universe of blind physical forces and genetic replication
some people are going to get hurt, other people are going to get
lucky, and you won't find any rhyme or reason in it, nor any justice.
The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect
if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil and no good,
nothing but blind, pitiless indifference.22
How widely is this view held by scientists? One study of 149 leading
biologists found that 89.9 percent believed that evolution has no
ultimate purpose or goal except survival, and we are just a cosmic
accident existing at the whim of time and chance. A mere six percent
believed that evolution has a purpose.23 Almost all of those who
believed that evolution had no purpose were atheists. This is only one
example that Sommers and Rosenberg call the "destructive power of
Darwinian theory."24
Purpose and Christianity
Christianity teaches that God made the universe as a home for humans.
If the universe evolved purely by natural means, then it just exists
and any "purpose" for its existence can only be that which humans
themselves attribute to it. But our own experience and intellectual
attainments argue against this. The similarity of human-constructed
machines and the orderly functioning of the universe is the basis of
the design argument. Just as a machine requires a designer and a
builder, so too the universe that we see requires a designer and a
builder.
Determining the purpose of something depends on the observer's
worldview. To a nontheist the question "What is the purpose of a
living organism's structure?" means only "How does this structure aid
survival?" Eyesight and legs would therefore have nothing to do with
enjoyment of life; they are merely an unintended byproduct of
evolution. Biologists consistently explain everything from coloration
to sexual habits solely on the basis of survival. Orthodox neo-
Darwinism views everything as either an unfortunate or a fortuitous
event resulting from the outworking of natural law and random,
naturally-selected mutations. Conversely, creationists interpret all
reality according to beliefs about God's purpose for humans.
Evolutionists can usually explain even contradictory behavior, but
creationists look beyond this and try to determine what role it plays
in God's plan.
Conclusions
Orthodox evolution teaches that the living world has no plan or
purpose except survival, is random, undirected, and heartless. Humans
live in a world that cares nothing for us, our minds are simply masses
of meat, and no divine plan exists to guide us. These teachings are
hardly neutral, but rather openly teach religion--the religion of
atheism and nihilism. The courts have consistently approved teaching
this anti-Christian religion in public schools and have blocked all
attempts to neutralize these clearly religious ideas.
As the Word of God states, "For the time will come when they will not
endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to
themselves teachers, having itching ears; And they shall turn away
their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables" (2 Timothy
4:3-4).
References
1. Scheff, Liam. 2007. The Dawkins Delusion. Salvo, 2:94.
2. Humes, Edward. 2007. Monkey Girl: Evolution, Education, Religion,
and the Battle for America's Soul. New York: Ecco, 119.
3. Ibid, 119.
4. Turner, J. Scott. 2007. The Tinkerer's Accomplice: How Design
Emerges from Life Itself. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press,
206.
5. Humes, Monkey Girl, 119.
6. Ibid, 172.
7. Bloom, Paul and Deena Skolnick Weisberg. 2007. Childhood Origins
to Adult Resistance to Science. Science, 316:996.
8. Panek, Richard. 2007. Out There. New York Times Magazine, 56.
9. Miller, Kenneth R. and Joseph S. Levine. Biology. 1998. Fourth
Edition, Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall, 658, emphasis in
original.
10. Levine, Joseph S. and Kenneth R. Miller 1994. Biology: Discovering
Life. Second Edition, Lexington, MA: D.C. Heath, 161, emphasis in
original.
11. Raven, Peter H. and George B. Johnson. 2002. Biology. Sixth
Edition, Boston, MA: McGraw Hill, 16, 443.
12. Purves, William K., David Sadava, Gordon H. Orians, and H. Craig
Keller. 2001. Life: The Science of Biology. Sixth Edition, Sunderland,
MA: Sinauer Associates; W.H. Freeman, 3.
13. Interview with Richard Dawkins in Campbell, Neil A., Jane B.
Reece, and Lawrence G. Mitchell. 1999. Biology. Fifth Edition, Menlo
Park, CA: Addison Wesley Longman, 412-413.
14. Futuyma, Douglas J. 1998. Evolutionary Biology. Third Edition,
Sunderland, MA: Sinauer Associates, 5.
15. Ibid, 5.
16. Curtis, Helena and N. Sue Barnes. 1981. Invitation to Biology.
Third Edition, New York, NY: Worth, 475.
17. Strickberger, Monroe. 2000. Evolution. Third Edition, Sudbury, MA:
Jones & Bartlett, 70-71.
18. Darwin, Francis (editor). 1888. The Life and Letters of Charles
Darwin. London: John Murray, 210.
19. Alcock, John. 1998. Animal Behavior: An Evolutionary Approach.
Sunderland, MA: Sinauer Associates, 16, 609.
20. Browne, Janet. 1995. Charles Darwin: Voyaging, A Biography.
Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 542.
21. Ibid, 542.
22. Dawkins, Richard. 1995. River Out of Eden. New York: Basic Books,
133.
23. Graffin, Gregory W. 2004. Evolution, Monism, Atheism, and the
Naturalist World-View. Ithaca, NY: Polypterus Press, 42.
24. Sommers, Tamler and Alex Rosenberg. 2003. Darwin's Nihilistic
Idea: Evolution and the Meaningless of Life. Biology and Philosophy,
18:653.
* Dr. Bergman is Professor of Biology at Northwest State College in
Ohio.
|
