Dawkins, Evolution, and Intent

Earlier I thought, I would have the title “Dawkins, God, and Evolution”. But I am not elaborating on the GOD theme in this post. My belief one way or the other is also not expressed. Dawkins’s book The God Delusion is very effective at explaining the collateral that religion causes to whole of the society, when its parts are submitted to different religions. The time of religious stability is long past. In the new global existence of mankind, religion has simply outlived its usefulness. Again, among other things, religion and individual FAITH should never be mixed or taken for the same thing. Even an atheist maintains a faith, about the awesomeness of universe, and that the dumbfounding mystery that man may not fathom now, but may be, in distance future, would be good enough to do so. This is exactly what Dawkins means when he proposes a distinction between an Einsteinian religion and the general theistic idea of God as the creator of the universe to be worshipped above all else, probably at the expense of non-worshippers. The Wikipedia article on the same summarizes this position succinctly. To explain how such a complex and highly unlikely design as the human life comes to be, there are two explanations.

• A theory involving a designer, that is, postulating a complex being to account for the complexity that we see.
• A theory that explains how from simple origins and principles, something more complex can emerge.

Its the proverbial chicken and the egg situation, but I would like to quote Q of the Star Trek-TNG in this respect, “The continuum has always existed.” In reality, what this meant that, before the current Big Bang, or the birth of universe, there was yet another Big Bang, of, called the old era (as opposed to our ‘new era’). The Q civilization flourished and reached the current state of omniscience in that era, witnessing eventually, the Big End of that era culminating in the beginning of new era with the current Big Bang. If indeed Q existed at the time of new Big Bang, then indeed, from our perspective, they really “always existed”. Fictional part apart, so much really depends upon the frame of reference, or the vantage point of oneself. From Dawkins lecture, he would ask, “But how did the Q come to be?”.

This cycle would go on indefinitely, terminating ultimately, in Dawkins context, at EVOLUTION. Neither the Star Trek trivia or Dawkins would be able to explain, why evolution? That is, ok, its the evolution, that there is a movement or a progress from the simple to the complex. But whence the drive to do so? Once the designer has been discarded, this drive can not be explained, except from the perspective of ancient seers, as quoted in Carlos Castaneda’s Magical Passes: The Practical Wisdom of the Shamans of Ancient Mexico.

Evolution is defined in the world of modern man as the capacity of different species to modify themselves through the processes of natural selection or the transmission of traits, until they can successfully reproduce in their offspring the changes brought about in themselves.

The evolutionary theory that has lasted to our day, from the time it was formulated over a hundred years ago, says that the origin and the perpetuation of a new species of animal or plant is brought about by the process of natural selection, which favors the survival of individuals whose characteristics render them best adapted to their environment, and that the evolution is brought about by the interplay of three principles: first, heredity, the conservative force that transmits similar organic forms from one generation to another; second, variation, the differences present in all forms of life; and third, the struggle for existence, which determines which variations confer advantages in a given environment. This last principle gave rise to the phrase still in current use: “the survival of the fittest.”

Evolution, as a theory, has enormous loopholes; it leaves tremendous room for doubt. It is at best an open-ended process for which scientists have created classificatory schemes; they have created taxonomies to their hearts’ content. But the fact remains that it is a theory full of holes. What we know about evolution doesn’t tell us what evolution is.

Don Juan Matus believed that evolution was the product of intending at a very profound level. In the case of sorcerers, that profound level was marked by what he had called inner silence.

“For instance,” he said, when he was explaining this phenomenon, “sorcerers are sure that dinosaurs flew because they intended flying. But what is very difficult to understand, much less accept, is that wings are only one solution to flying, in this case, the dinosaurs’ solution. Nevertheless, this solution is not the only one that is possible. It’s the only one available to us by imitation. Our airplanes are flying with wings imitating the dinosaurs, perhaps because flying has never been intended again since the dinosaurs’ time. Perhaps wings were adopted because they were the easiest solution.”

Don Juan was of the opinion that if we were to intend it now, there is no way of knowing what other options for flying would be available besides wings. He insisted that because intent is infinite, there was no logical way in which the mind, following processes of deduction or induction, could calculate or determine what these options for flying might be.

This intent, or the intention had also been explained by Roger Penrose, in the book, The Emperor’s new mind. If I recall correctly, he did come nearer to such conclusion, as postulated in the Magical Passes, but not as much succinctly. May be some other post for that.

Scientists’ evolution – Newton, Einstein, Hawkins, and Lt. Cmdr. Data in the TNG episode DESCENT – I