Evolution and Nothingness

"Matter is the ground of all existence; mind, spirit, and God as well, are just words that express the wondrous results of neuronal complexity." - Stephen J. Gould

When I started this blog it was my intention to now and then write posts on the subjects of science and religion, and in particular bring up small points I have difficulty with regarding Darwin's theory of Evolution by Natural Selection. I thought that, over time, after raising several of these minor nagging points I might actually get to the one big one - the philosophical, rather than logical, foundation of my displeasure with the theory. I don't know why exactly, but I decided to go for it now. So here goes my sure to annoy anyone of a scientific bent mini-rant.

Of the billion or so interesting quotations available on the subject, I selected the one above because it so perfectly states the essence of EBNS and exemplifies my objection to it. Read it very carefully. Don't just glance over it and say "Oh yeah, I see what he's saying.". Read it.  It is perfection. No supporter of Darwin could raise a single objection to a single word in it. I would say, in other words, it is impossible to believe the theory without agreeing 100% with Gould's pithy absolute.

So, what does it, and EBNS, actually say when reduced to the basics? Just this:

1. At some point in time past various molecules became joined together to form a more complex molecule. It was an entirely mechanical and meaningless process. There was no "will", "intention", "choice" or other abstract noun or verb involved. It was an inevitable result of the laws of physics that govern the universe. It could have been predicted at the Big Bang, had one a total knowledge of those laws.

2. That complex molecule, again inevitably, replicated itself by way of reactions with surrounding molecules. The resulting new identical complex molecule in turn replicated itself, and so on and so forth until some number of such molecules existed.

3. The complex molecule(s), again inevitably and without intent or choice, became increasingly complex, and sometimes replicated themselves imperfectly, giving rise to a variety of different complex molecules with the "ability" to replicate themselves.

4. The process continued, with molecules becoming increasingly complex and some complex molecules interacting with other dissimilar complex molecules. All of this activity was, to repeat myself as I often will, involuntary, without will, without choice, predictable and inevitable.

5. Processes 1 through 4 continued, leading inevitably to a 120 piece symphony orchestra and 200 voice choir on a stage playing and singing Beethoven's 9th Ode To Joy. And it was inevitable and had nothing whatsoever to do with the musicians or vocalists because the musicians and vocalists DO NOT EXIST.

That, is the essence of evolution by natural selection. You, reading this now, do not exist. One cannot even say "You only think you exist and it is all an illusion." because thinking requires a thinker and illusion requires a victim. But there is no thinker. There is no victim. There is simply a big bag of unavoidable, inevitable chemical reactions (wondrous neuronal complexity). And on a pure physics level, there is not even a discrete "bag" - just stuff and energy whizzing about according to the laws of physics, not the dictates of will.

I spoke once with a good friend who was a geneticist and staunch supporter of Darwin. When I raised this matter - which I called, and some others have called, "reductionist materialism" his response was "I don't like that term." Of course he didn't like it. No scientist does. And why? Because it speaks the unavoidable truth. It lays it out there on the table as plain as day: reductionist materialism - all and everything, including thoughts, emotions and self awareness, being reduced to electromagnetism, gravity and so forth. It backs the scientist into an uncomfortable corner where he or she is forced to own their position that "I", "you", "he" and "she" are just abstract nouns without meaning or reality. They are "just words that express the wondrous results of neuronal complexity." Forget the question of whether or not "god" exists; what scientists are saying - soto voce - is that sentient life as we think of it does not exist.

I will not get into the quagmire of discussing the social and other ramifications of this theory - such as the fact that actually believing it would leave Gould, Dawkins, Darwin et al in the extremely uncomfortable position of not being able to provide a single rational reason why somebody who took took a dislike to them shouldn't just blow their brains out.

It seems clear to me that there are only two possible ways to define "life".

1. "Life" is an unreal apparency or false perception - merely a word we apply to certain clusters of matter that are, inevitably and without choice or will, animate in specific ways according to the laws of physics. (as above).

2. "Life" is an undefinable intangible that animates matter and only its effects, not itself, can be observed or quantified.

There is no doubt better wording to express the two ideas but I hope mine suffice. There is no middle ground that I am aware of.

For those people who regard the first option as correct and the second as "unscientific", I have a simple question. On Occamite grounds, the choice containing the fewest assumptions is the one that should be embraced. A very sensible dictate, to be sure. So, presumably, the fewer the assumptions, the better and more "scientific" the hypothesis. By extension, the most "scientific" statement possible would be one that contained no assumptions. Okay, my question:

Can you make a statement that contains zero assumptions?

I can.

C'est tout.

________________________________________________________________________

PS: For any religious types out there: If you think the above is in any way an apologia or support for Creationism or any of its related ideas, think again. Or as an old Brit friend used to put it, "Go piss up a rope!"

PPS: Despite Dr. Gould's preposterous and amazingly god-like pronouncement, I actually quite like his pop-science writing. He was very entertaining and informative - and his punctuated equilibrium notions were pretty cool, really.