Isn't the process which is random the actual mutations? Errors in replication of DNA? Only some of which are advantageous to the organism, and which are then subject to natural selection. So it's not a random process in that sense, as the time sequences involved in the winnowing out of mutations and the gradual development of species are enormous (although there are puzzling anomalies like the Cambrian Explosion in which many diverse species appeared very suddenly in geological scales.)

But I think the deeper questions are why did life begin in the first place - was this, as Jacques Monod claims in 'Chance and Necessity' a 'biochemical fluke', the fortuitious product of an essentially chemical process? That's where I think people feel that the process is random.

Then there's the question of whether evolution was always bound to produce rational sentient bipeds such as ourselves, and, if so, why? When it seems equally feasible that it might have reached stasis billions of years ago as blue-green algae. But then the idea that evolution gives rise to higher intelligence is categorised as orthogenesis, which is a no-go. Or maybe none of those questions are scientific questions per se but philosophical questions prompted by scientific discoveries.

One point I will note, is that the strictly scientific attitude to h. sapiens treats them - or us - as another species, as an object of scientific analysis. Which is fine, as far as it goes, but when that begins to serve as the basis for philosophical or (anti)religious ideologies then it oversteps the mark, and where the science begins to morph into scientism:

There is professional evolutionary biology: mathematical, experimental, not laden with value statements. But, you are not going to find the answer to the world's mysteries or to societal problems if you open the pages of Evolution or Animal Behaviour. Then, sometimes from the same person, you have evolution as secular religion, generally working from an explicitly materialist background and solving all of the world's major problems, from racism to education to conservation. Consider Edward O. Wilson, rightfully regarded as one of the most outstanding professional evolutionary biologists of our time, and the author of major works of straight science. In his On Human Nature, he calmly assures us that evolution is a myth that is now ready to take over Christianity. And, if this is so, “the final decisive edge enjoyed by scientific naturalism will come from its capacity to explain traditional religion, its chief competition, as a wholly material phenomenon. Theology is not likely to survive as an independent intellectual discipline.” — Is Evolution a Secular Religion, Michael Ruse

Buddhism, for one example, has had this creed of "no origin" for a few millennia now. — javra

Buddhism actually has a rather strange and not very well known creation story. The Aggañña Sutta is a discourse by the Buddha, in which he talks to two monks, Vasettha and Bharadvaja, about the origin of society and social classes. In the sutta, the Buddha describes how beings originally lived in a celestial realm and subsisted on joy or radiance. They later became attracted to a substance that appeared on Earth, and as they consumed it, they gradually lost their luminosity and celestial nature. The story goes on to describe the gradual formation of physical bodies and also how social divisions eventually emerged among humans. In Mahāyāna cultures, such as Tibet, there is also the cosmological mythology of Mt Meru, which is the mythological axis of the Universe and the centre of the world. It is of course thoroughly outmoded by scientific discoveries, something which has been a cause of disquiet in Buddhist culltures (notwithstanding the Dalai Lama's frequent expression that Buddhist doctrine must always recognise empirical facts when they're presented, Mt Meru being no exception.)

There have been some fanciful modern folk mythologies attempting to map Buddhist re-birth against evolutionary history, although I don't think they're part of indigenous Buddhist culture, which knew as little about biological evolution as did the West before Darwin. And none of which is particularly germane to Buddhism generally, which, overall, is probably not as susceptible to the apparent threat to their dogmas posed by natural origins.

Isn't the process which is random the actual mutations? — Wayfarer

Even the randomness of mutations is questionable, and is being investigated moreso these days, due to the availability of modern technologies.

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-021-04269-6

Abstract
Since the first half of the twentieth century, evolutionary theory has been dominated by the idea that mutations occur randomly with respect to their consequences1. Here we test this assumption with large surveys of de novo mutations in the plant Arabidopsis thaliana. In contrast to expectations, we find that mutations occur less often in functionally constrained regions of the genome—mutation frequency is reduced by half inside gene bodies and by two-thirds in essential genes. With independent genomic mutation datasets, including from the largest Arabidopsis mutation accumulation experiment conducted to date, we demonstrate that epigenomic and physical features explain over 90% of variance in the genome-wide pattern of mutation bias surrounding genes. Observed mutation frequencies around genes in turn accurately predict patterns of genetic polymorphisms in natural Arabidopsis accessions (r = 0.96). That mutation bias is the primary force behind patterns of sequence evolution around genes in natural accessions is supported by analyses of allele frequencies. Finally, we find that genes subject to stronger purifying selection have a lower mutation rate. We conclude that epigenome-associated mutation bias2 reduces the occurrence of deleterious mutations in Arabidopsis, challenging the prevailing paradigm that mutation is a directionless force in evolution.

Or maybe none of those questions are scientific questions per se but philosophical questions prompted by scientific discoveries. — Wayfarer

I will second this affirmation. One’s either consciously held or else unconsciously maintained metaphysical presuppositions will guide how one makes sense of the empirical data regarding evolution. Yes, there’s the Young Earther museums where humans are depicted as cohabiting Earth with dinosaurs but, more seriously, the very issue of whether there is any real stochasticity in the cosmos will in turn determine whether one believes either that evolution could only have resulted in the lifeforms that it has or, otherwise, that evolution could have resulted in a tree of life very different to the one we currently know of. Likewise, whether or not evolution tends toward any certain end will in large part be contingent on whether one finds a teleological cosmos at all possible, which is an issue of philosophy rather than of science.

One point I will note, is that the strictly scientific attitude to h. sapiens treats them - or us - as another species, as an object of scientific analysis. Which is fine, as far as it goes, but when that begins to serve as the basis for philosophical or (anti)religious ideologies then it oversteps the mark, and where the science begins to morph into scientism: — Wayfarer

Very true. I nevertheless yet find natural selection to be very intertwined with much of the human phenotype, behavioral as well as physiological. As an undergraduate I did some independent research (with human participants) regarding the evolutionary history of human non-verbal communication via facial expressions. Specifically, back then there was a prevalent notion among ethologists and cognitive scientists alike that the human smile evolved from out of the primate fear-grimace (in short, we smile so as to show fear and thereby appease those we smile to, taking away presumptions of aggression, and thereby reinforcing friendships). The experiments I conduced gave good reason to support the conclusion that our human smile evolved from the primate play-face (in short, an exposing of weapons (for primates these being teeth and esp. canines) in playful mock-aggression—basically, this with the intent of expressing “I’ve got you’re back” when done not as a laugh but as a sincere smile). The details will not be of much use here (though I relish them), but the issue remains: either way, our human smile (and, for that matter, all our basic and universally recognizable human facial expressions) evolved from lesser primate facial expressions, and together with the expressions so too the emotions thereby expressed. Although this does not play into human’s far superior magnitudes of cognition, it does illustrate just how intimately many a defining feature of being human is associated with our biological past from which we’ve evolved as a species. Hard to think of a more prototypically cordial human image than that of a smiling face.

Buddhism actually has a rather strange and not very well known creation story. — Wayfarer

Thanks for that!

There is of course many a diverse creation myth worldwide that explains the origins of the world as it currently is, often via what is relative to the culture some form of axis mundi. Still, to the best of my current knowledge, only in the West are there creation myths regarding the origin of existence of itself, this so as to affirm that time had a beginning. There’s the primordial Chaos of Ancient Greco-Roman religions and, or course, the Abrahamic religions’ notion of creation ex nihilo by a supreme incorporeal psyche that dwells beyond time. (Both in terms of how they are commonly interpreted.) I’m so far thinking the two creation myths of Buddhism you’ve addressed yet present a beginningless eternity of time? Please let me know if you know them to be otherwise … such that they specify a beginning to time's occurrence. Interesting stuff to me.

That all evolution is in essence entirely accidental is a mischaracterization of evolution via natural selection. In short, NS is the favoring of certain varieties of lifeforms by natural constraints—such that this metaphorical favoring by Nature is itself not a matter of chance. The following is a more longwinded but robust explanation that to me amounts to the same:

Natural selection is the differential survival and reproduction of individuals due to differences in phenotype. It is a key mechanism of evolution, the change in the heritable traits characteristic of a population over generations. Charles Darwin popularised the term "natural selection", contrasting it with artificial selection, which is intentional, whereas natural selection is not.

Variation of traits, both genotypic and phenotypic, exists within all populations of organisms. However, some traits are more likely to facilitate survival and reproductive success. Thus, these traits are passed onto the next generation. These traits can also become more common within a population if the environment that favours these traits remain fixed. If new traits become more favored due to changes in a specific niche, microevolution occurs. If new traits become more favored due to changes in the broader environment, macroevolution occurs. Sometimes, new species can arise especially if these new traits are radically different from the traits possessed by their predecessors.

The likelihood of these traits being 'selected' and passed down are determined by many factors. Some are likely to be passed down because they adapt well to their environments. Others are passed down because these traits are actively preferred by mating partners, which is known as sexual selection. Female bodies also prefer traits that confer the lowest cost to their reproductive health, which is known as fecundity selection. — javra

I do see the sense of this, of course. But my comment brought to light the "qualitative features of our existence": it seems right to say that genotypical "errors" that produce phenotypical features are affected by the actual behavior these features encourage and produce. If a gene, accidently modified in the process of meiosis, for, say, stronger muscles, is present in an offspring, and this exceeds the abilities of competitors in survival and reproduction, then the intentional acts of this organism will allow for this trait to dominate, and a new gene pool will arise, and on and on. So yes, it is not as if intent, will, even "choosing" and the like are absent from an analysis the evolutionary process simply because genotypical accidents or errors produce phenotypical tendencies.

But this is not what I want to consider. Evolution dos not determine what it is that stands as a possibility for a manifest characteristic. It is like the bouncer at a bar, say, that denies admittance for some while denying others. The principle of acceptance or denial certainly is determinative, but, if you can stand the analogy, who comes forward seeking admittance is not at all determined at the front gate. Those possibilities are qualitatively indeterminate. So when evolutionists (and all reasonable people are. The point here steps beyond science) attempt to talk about what a human being is, they have nothing to say about the basic givenness that "made it past" the gate bouncer. Our ability to reason, feel, understand, experience the world in all its qualitative richness is a matter for analysis entirely beyond the reach of evolution in a qualitative analysis.

Our ability to reason, feel, understand, experience the world in all its qualitative richness is a matter for analysis entirely beyond the reach of evolution in a qualitative analysis. — Astrophel

I can very much respect this point of view in certain respects - especially when it comes to interpretations such as those of Social Darwinism. Nevertheless, I could present the case that the metaphorical bouncer at the bar is the constraints of objective reality itself, such that that life with is most conformant to objective reality (else least deviates from its requirements) will remain present to the world. But I'm not sure if this very abstract way of thinking about evolution is a worthwhile avenue to here investigate - especially since it makes use of the notion of an objective world which, on its own, can be a very slippery thing to identify. Yet tentatively granting this, it will be true that the possibilities of what can be will be qualitatively indeterminant, but this only in so far as these myriad possibilities nonetheless yet sufficiently conform to objectivity. Hence, as one physiological example, why there has never been an animal with binocular vision whose eyes are vertically (rather than horizontally) aligned: such positioning would be contrary to the objective world's constraint of needing to optimally detect stimuli against the horizon (best short example I could currently think up).

I've also just posted to Wayfarer. The second paragraph in that reply, to me at least, presents the case that some of what makes us human is intimately entwined with our evolution from other primates. This, namely, as per our human smile. Curious to know what you make of it.

natural selection is not random — wonderer1

:100:

Do you understand the role that natural selection plays in evolution, and that natural selection is not random? — wonderer1

Not entirely, no. But I would suggest an apriori argument, and as such has nothing to do with the nuances of evolutionary thinking, in the same way a philosophical critique of science has nothing to do with any particular science. Simply put, prior to ANY talk about how evolution is explained, there is the foundational concept in place, which is the random mutation of genes. Even if traits are produced and the survival of which is determined by nonrandom conditions, like the attractiveness of food or a sexual feature leading to overt behavior of choosing, comparing, and so on, this nonrandomness itself has its basis in randomness. Non randomness occurs within the more basic assumption of random events. At root what is determinative is the nature of traits themselves, and natural selection has nothing to do with these possibilities. An inquiry into the nature of human affectivity is not informed by the way generational groups' genetic and manifest features survive or disappear. They in fact DO survive and disappear, but this says nothing about what it is.

Read the response. You may find some ground of agreement.

-Evolution happened naturally, the current array of species on earth evolved

-Evolution happened, but it was a guided process by a divine or intelligent being

These two are not in contradiction. God is understood to be outside of/beyond nature in tradition theology. That said, divine explanation has no place in science classrooms. The point of science is to understand the natural world by looking at nature and understanding its underlying mechanisms.

So one could believe that a) evolution is natural and b) that it was guided by divine provenance and there is no contradiction. God will use nature to carry out his plans.

This seems pretty essential to the metaphysics, not something ad hoc; it is God "in whom we live and move and have our being," (Acts 17:28, repeated every Mass).

This makes sense from the frame of a God who is "within everything but contained in nothing," (St. Augustine)

Panentheism.

As a Jew, not the understanding that I was brought up with. The bush doesn't set alight because divinity inheres in it, but because God, at that moment, invested it with his divinity. Once the revelation stopped, the bush stopped burning and returned to its normal non-divine state.

There's also this idea of gradients of divinity as demonstrated through the construction of the temple with the tabernacle at the center (inner chamber, outer chamber, outside.)

I must say this is a cop-out somehow more ridiculous than the "God made the Big Bang then pissed off". — Lionino
Isn't this just the definition of deism? — Hanover

Not necessarily. One interpretation of Deism is that G*D is the universe*1. For example, G*D may exist eternally as a disembodied spirit, but occasionally transforms --- for no known reason --- into a physical material form. In that case, the Big Bang would be a birth event, and it took almost 14B years to mature into a world with self-conscious creatures. From that point onward, homo sapiens are god's way to "know thyself" (self-realization). Hence, our interactions with Nature constitute our relationship with G*D, and G*D's dealings with man. This is similar to some ancient notions of eternal formless deity (rational creative power : Brahma, Logos) and a temporal constructive demi-god (demiurge)*2*3.

However, the notion of gradual evolution (maturation) of the physical world is a rather recent cosmological & teleological concept. So the ancient god-models may not fit any of the Evolution-based options in the OP. But the Deist model emerged, along with modern empirical Science, in the 17th century, so 18th century Darwinian evolution should fit neatly into the general concept of a Nature God. Such an immanent deity does not "interfere" with natural processes, but is undergoing constant changes & transformations, just as the human body does during its allotted years. And we can assume that the Big Sigh, in about 10 trillion years, will mark the death of G*D's current incarnation. :smile:

PS___ I suppose a Deist could check None or All of the Above options.

*1. Deism's immanent deity :
Influence of Deism since the early 20th century There is thus no theological need to posit any special relationship between God and creation; rather, God is the universe and not a transcendent entity that created and subsequently governs it.
https://www.britannica.com/topic/Deism

*2. Plato’s Timaeus
The universe, he proposes, is the product of rational, purposive, and beneficent agency. It is the handiwork of a divine Craftsman (“Demiurge,” dêmiourgos,) who, imitating an unchanging and eternal model, imposes mathematical order on a preexistent chaos to generate the ordered universe (kosmos).
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/plato-timaeus/.
Note --- In the immanent nature-god model, Chaos would be the "pre-existent" formless eternal spirit that takes on the material form of the physical universe we know and love. Presumably, Chaos-god has no properties or qualities that we humans could know or love, other than abstract mathematical Logic.

*3. Hindu Creation Myth :
For Hindus the universe was created by Brahma, the creator who made the universe out of himself.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/bitesize/guides/zv2fgwx/revision/7

Deism is the philosophical position and rationalistic theology that generally rejects revelation as a source of divine knowledge and asserts that empirical reason and observation of the natural world are how we come to know god. ___ Wikipedia

Even the randomness of mutations is questionable — wonderer1

So if it’s not random, and indeed these findings are

challenging the prevailing paradigm that mutation is a directionless force in evolution.

Then what is it that provides ‘direction’? Aren’t we back to orthogenesis, that being ‘evolution in which variations follow a particular direction and are not merely sporadic and fortuitous’? That is a very different picture to orthodox neo-Darwinism. I asked ChatGPT for a synopsis:

Neo-Darwinian theory, which is essentially the modern synthesis of Darwinian evolution and Mendelian genetics, focuses on natural selection, genetic drift, mutation, and gene flow as the main drivers of evolution. It emphasizes the role of random mutations, which are then acted upon by natural selection, leading to adaptations that increase the fitness of organisms in their environments.

Orthogenesis, on the other hand, is an evolutionary hypothesis suggesting that life has an inherent tendency to evolve in a unilinear direction towards some kind of predetermined goal or ideal form. This concept implies that evolution is guided by an internal or directional force rather than by random mutations and environmental pressures.

The key divergences between these two viewpoints are:

1. **Directionality**: Neo-Darwinian theory views evolution as non-directional, driven by random mutations and natural selection based on environmental pressures. Orthogenesis posits a direction or goal to evolution, implying a kind of intrinsic purpose or end-state.

2. **Role of Mutations**: Neo-Darwinism sees mutations as random events that provide raw material for natural selection to act upon. Orthogenesis often downplays the role of random mutations, suggesting instead that evolutionary changes are guided by inherent trends.

3. **Adaptation**: Neo-Darwinian evolution emphasizes adaptation through natural selection as a key driver of species change, while orthogenesis might lead to traits that do not necessarily enhance survival or reproductive success but fit an internal direction or trend.

Orthogenesis has largely fallen out of favor in mainstream biology because it lacks empirical support and doesn't align well with our understanding of genetics and evolutionary processes. The neo-Darwinian framework, which is well-supported by genetic evidence, has become the dominant paradigm in evolutionary biology.

But the times they are a’ changing. I would say that orthogenetic has fallen out of favour more for philosophical reasons, than for empirical, as it re-introduces the whole idea of intentionality and indeed ( :yikes: ) something like intelligent design.

There have been a couple of references provided on the Forum the last year or so suggesting a shift in favour of a more orthogenetic view (I don’t have time to dig for them right now but might later.) And philosophically, that is definitely a challenge to the prevailing paradigm.

Evolution seems to fit in there fine — Count Timothy von Icarus

My issue isn't whether evolution fits there. But how god is used as an explanation, which is essentially god of gaps. One of the options is "Evolution happened, but it was a guided process by a divine or intelligent being". To put it simply, there is no reason to think this. Where our human knowledge has accounted for some phenomenons, God is forcibly inserted even though it is not parsimonious to do so. The same can be applied, less ridiculously, to the Big Bang. But we have to separate God and prime mover; God is a prime mover with intention and personality — a mind —, a prime mover is just that.

Then there's the question of whether evolution was always bound to produce rational sentient bipeds such as ourselves, and, if so, why? — Wayfarer

If causal determinism based on the invariances we refer to as laws of nature were the actuality, then life would be an inevitable part of the unfolding of the cosmic process.

Then what is it that provides ‘direction’? — Wayfarer

Under the deterministic scenario what appears as direction is just the result of the inevitable unfolding of the cosmic process. But this would not imply any externally or transcendently imposed intention or "telos".

Then what is it that provides ‘direction’? Aren’t we back to orthogenesis, that being ‘evolution in which variations follow a particular direction and are not merely sporadic and fortuitous’? That is a very different picture to orthodox neo-Darwinism. I asked ChatGPT for a synopsis:

Neo-Darwinian theory, which is essentially the modern synthesis of Darwinian evolution and Mendelian genetics, focuses on natural selection, genetic drift, mutation, and gene flow as the main drivers of evolution. It emphasizes the role of random mutations, which are then acted upon by natural selection, leading to adaptations that increase the fitness of organisms in their environments. — Wayfarer

That there are drivers other than the main drivers doesn't seem like a surprising thing to find, in light of a an up to date view on evolution. It is called the "modern synthesis" not the "ultimate synthesis". Modern technology has given us the ability to look through millions of haystacks for needles, in gathering the data needed to get a better look at the degree of seeming randomness involved. I don't think scientists are on the verge of finding the hand of God at work.

But the times they are a’ changing. — Wayfarer

Always. But that doesn't make Theodosius Dobzhansky's statement any less valid, "Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution."

But that doesn't make Theodosius Dobzhansky's statement any less valid, "Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution." — wonderer1

Indeed not. Interesting that Dobzhansky also wrote quite a religious book called the Biology of Ultimate Concern which discusses religious and philosophical ideas in relation to evolution. Synopsis here.

while the universe is surely not geocentric, it may conceivably be anthropocentric. Man, this mysterious product of the world's evolution, may also be its protagonist, and eventually its pilot. In any case, the world is not fixed, not finished, and not unchangeable. Everything in it is engaged in evolutionary flow and development.

Human society and culture, mankind itself, the living world, the terrestrial globe, the solar system, and even the “indivisible” atoms arose from ancestral states which were radically different from the present states. Moreover, the changes are not all past history. The world has not only evolved, it is evolving.

That also resonates with Julian Huxley's evolutionary humanism:

Man is that part of reality in which and through which the cosmic process has become conscious and has begun to comprehend itself. His supreme task is to increase that conscious comprehension and to apply it as fully as possible to guide the course of events. In other words, his role is to discover his destiny as an agent of the evolutionary process, in order to fulfill it more adequately — Julian Huxley, Evolution and Meaning

I can very much respect this point of view in certain respects - especially when it comes to interpretations such as those of Social Darwinism. Nevertheless, I could present the case that the metaphorical bouncer at the bar is the constraints of objective reality itself, such that that life with is most conformant to objective reality (else least deviates from its requirements) will remain present to the world. But I'm not sure if this very abstract way of thinking about evolution is a worthwhile avenue to here investigate - especially since it makes use of the notion of an objective world which, on its own, can be a very slippery thing to identify. Yet tentatively granting this, it will be true that the possibilities of what can be will be qualitatively indeterminant, but this only in so far as these myriad possibilities nonetheless yet sufficiently conform to objectivity. Hence, as one physiological example, why there has never been an animal with binocular vision whose eyes are vertically (rather than horizontally) aligned: such positioning would be contrary to the objective world's constraint of needing to optimally detect stimuli against the horizon (best short example I could currently think up). — javra

Constraints on reality itself is an interesting thought. I imagine genetic research will one day be able to determine if DNA and its molecular combinatory possibilities has such a limit. I imagine AI will one day be able to say whether or not a binoculared animal would be possible, that is, whether it is conceivable that there be a genetic counterpart to the physical idea of being binocular. I can't see why not, though this would be something only occurring in an environment that allowed for such a thing to manifest, that is, once the series of genetic accidents leads to a generational tendency, and this tendency is further encouraged by the survival advantages it produces, sure; why not? AI could do this is a lab in some future world in which the human genome is mastered and surpassed?

Just a bit of musing, but I think the matter would have to be framed not in terms of actual familiar environmental conditions we that evolution deals with in trying understand our own evolved constitution, but in terms of what is molecularly possible for the self replicating DNA. This, I suspect, has no limits, though this would be for a geneticist to say.

Very true. I nevertheless yet find natural selection to be very intertwined with much of the human phenotype, behavioral as well as physiological. As an undergraduate I did some independent research (with human participants) regarding the evolutionary history of human non-verbal communication via facial expressions. Specifically, back then there was a prevalent notion among ethologists and cognitive scientists alike that the human smile evolved from out of the primate fear-grimace (in short, we smile so as to show fear and thereby appease those we smile to, taking away presumptions of aggression, and thereby reinforcing friendships). The experiments I conduced gave good reason to support the conclusion that our human smile evolved from the primate play-face (in short, an exposing of weapons (for primates these being teeth and esp. canines) in playful mock-aggression—basically, this with the intent of expressing “I’ve got you’re back” when done not as a laugh but as a sincere smile). The details will not be of much use here (though I relish them), but the issue remains: either way, our human smile (and, for that matter, all our basic and universally recognizable human facial expressions) evolved from lesser primate facial expressions, and together with the expressions so too the emotions thereby expressed. Although this does not play into human’s far superior magnitudes of cognition, it does illustrate just how intimately many a defining feature of being human is associated with our biological past from which we’ve evolved as a species. Hard to think of a more prototypically cordial human image than that of a smiling face. — javra

Or that of a tortured face, on the noncordial side of it. Weird to keep in mind that our conception of what the "smile" was way back before it evolved into what it is now is an interpretative imposition produced by our current phase or order of evolvement. One way that confounds this conversation about evolution is to see that whatever we say, we ourselves are doing so from a position of endowed evolved features, which will move on as the geologic ages do (unless, as I suspect will happen, AI takes the steering wheel away from evolution and replaces it with genetic engineering. Talk about everything changing!). Our very thinking about things has no privileged pov on access to "objective" statements about what is the case in the world. Not that the smile did not undergo its transformation as you are convinced it did, or that this is not a good theory. It is deeper than this. Thinking itself and the meanings of things is IN the evolved hard wiring, so being right and being a good theory simply issues from this. Odd to say this, perhaps, but to think the idea of evolution rigorously, following through, leads only to one place, which is a radical relativity and hermeneutics.

But that aside, I think the face is a window to the soul. Truly and no kidding. But this is not a ridiculous religious idea learned in catechism. It comes out of a proper analysis of our existence. Long story, though. I think of that smile, and I am led to joy, pleasure, eustasy, bliss, and all the rest, behind it. I think overt features are incidental. One has to drop the physicalism and make the move toward the psyche, and its evolution.

I answered

Evolution happened naturally, the current array of species on earth evolved — flannel jesus

I’m willing to question evolution, but I am just as willing to assume it. Evolution makes sense and follows from all current evidence. It happened, or better, continues happening now. Darwin was a brave genius.

I don’t know that you had to add “naturally” other than to elaborate that evolution is a moving process of parts changing over time. But if evolution doesn’t happen naturally, it is not evolution. That’s why intelligent design doesn’t make sense. If God directed evolution, evolution would not be what evolution appears to be in the first place.

But I do believe in God. Like evolution, God is happening too.

But I’d rather say answer 4, that evolution never happened, than talk about the God or the evolution posited in options 2 and 3.

I see no need to pit God for or against evolution. The pitting distorts the concepts of both God and evolution, and blurs the distinctions it is trying to integrate in the pitting. I can cross the street by myself, and over time, we living bodies evolve all by ourselves. No need to seek God’s place in these simple motions.

Man is that part of reality in which and through which the cosmic process has become conscious and has begun to comprehend itself. His supreme task is to increase that conscious comprehension and to apply it as fully as possible to guide the course of events. In other words, his role is to discover his destiny as an agent of the evolutionary process, in order to fulfill it more adequately — Julian Huxley, Evolution and Meaning

This is a way of looking at human consciousness and intelligence, but it doesn't mean much since we are such a tiny fraction of the cosmos, Animals too are arguably conscious, so it could be said that life itself is, or that percipients constitute, that part of reality in which the cosmic process has become aware. But even life as far as we know is a vanishingly tiny part of the cosmic process.

The idea that humanity could "guide the course of events" presents us with a type of scientific hubris or scientism. Humanity cannot even begin to imagine a plausible way to guide the evolution of the entire cosmos.

There have been unconvincing attempts, for example, see The Physics of Immortality by Frank Tipler

Think also of Teilhard de Chardin. Unbridled anthropocentrism, anthropomorphism and scientism seem to go hand in hand.

X

This is a way of looking at human consciousness and intelligence, but it doesn't mean much since we are such a tiny fraction of the cosmos, — Janus

We’re the only ‘tiny fraction of the cosmos’ who know what that means. It’s amusing in the extreme that objective science, which is a cognitive mode only available to h. Sapiens, then declares its authors insignificant in the ‘grand scheme’ - a grand scheme that is their own mental creation!

(I have read that that Tipler book is unbridled nonsense, but the Tipler and Barrow book The Cosmic Anthropic Principle seems reasonably well-regarded.)

We’re the only ‘tiny fraction of the cosmos’ who know what that means. It’s amusing in the extreme that objective science, which is a cognitive mode only available to h. Sapiens, then declares its authors insignificant in the ‘grand scheme’ - a grand scheme that is their own mental creation! — Wayfarer

I doubt many scientists think in terms of a grand scheme, since as I already pointed out, the idea implies the existence of a grand schemer. So, I agree that a grand scheme would be a human conceptualization. much like the idea of 'laws of nature'. You could argue that the idea of laws implies the existence of a lawgiver, but it seems to me it is just the human way of conceiving of what seem to be the strict natural regularizes that are observed.

Obviously, we are not insignificant in the world, when that is conceived as the human world, including all of science and all the other human understandings. That is one perspective. But science presents us with a cosmos that seems to be almost infinitely older and larger than humanity, and as far as we can tell we occupy only a tiny corner, both in time and space of this vast universe.

science presents us with a cosmos that seems to be almost infinitely older and larger than humanity, — Janus

Yes, science does that, and science is a human enterprise. Please try to understand this point, I am not trying to be confrontational or arguing for its own sake.

I do understand your perspective. I don't think there is any determinate fact of the matter to be discovered. Our scientific theories tell us the Universe is much older than humanity. You can try to get around that by saying that knowledge and understanding is all in the human mind. but for me, that strategy doesn't hold water. We simply see it differently and neither of us can demonstrate the truth of their position or the falsity of the other— which means it comes down to personal preference and/ or faith.

I also don't think that how we might prefer to answer that question matters much in relation to the far more important matter concerning how to best live. You probably disagree with me on that too, as it seems to me you treat it as a kind of moral crusade.

Buddhism, for one example, has had this creed of "no origin" for a few millennia now. — javra
Buddhism actually has a rather strange and not very well known creation story. — Wayfarer

I'm no expert on Buddhist beliefs, but a quick Google indicates that there is no single dogma on the topic of Evolution ; instead there are "schools of thought"*1. One description*2 sounds like a world marking-time -- marching in place -- without any progress : perhaps an eternal alternation between Potential & Actual : cosmic vibrations of positive & negative energy. However, the rapidity of alternations might make a series of still-shots look like a movie, to an outside observer.

The oscillating-non-progressive school of thought makes no sense in the light of modern physics, unless you interpret those eternal positive/negative alternations as the essence of creative Energy vibrations (or quantum fluctuations) that could serve as the Cause of our Big Bang model. That flickering-reality notion might accord with the Many Worlds interpretation of Quantum Uncertainty : "This implies that all possible outcomes of quantum measurements are physically realized in some "world" or universe" ___Wiki.

Like Buddhist traditions, modern cosmology has produced a variety of explanations (opinions ; schools of thought) for the existence of our evolving home-world. The Big Bang theory even sets a birth-date for the beginning of our own bubble of space-time. But a "no origin" theory avoids the Creation problem by arguing that Time is only local*3, implying that space-time-vacuum energy is eternally creative of local bubbles. Despite the various hypothetical attempts to work around the empirical evidence for Creation From Nothing, the most logically acceptable explanation*4 for existence is the one with a creation event evocative of Genesis*5. :smile:


*1. No Beginning vs Alternation of Potential/Actual :
There are three schools of thought regarding the origin of the world. The first school of thought claims that this world came into existence by nature and that nature is not an intelligent force. However, nature works on its own accord and goes on changing.
The second school of thought says that the world was created by an almighty God who is responsible for everything.
The third school of thought says that the beginning of this world and of life is inconceivable since they have neither beginning nor end. Buddhism is in accordance with this third school of thought. Bertrand Russell supports this school of thought by saying, 'There is no reason to suppose that the world had a beginning at all. The idea that things must have a beginning is really due to the poverty of our thoughts.'
https://www.budsas.org/ebud/whatbudbeliev/297.htm
Note --- "No Reason" ? see *4 & *5.

*2. Buddhism and Evolution :
Buddhists believe the beginning of this world and of life is inconceivable since they have neither beginning nor end. Buddhists believe that the world was not created once upon a time, but that the world has been created millions of times every second and will continue to do so by itself and will break away by itself.
https://encyclopedia.pub/entry/33133

*3. Does time have a beginning? :
After the Second World War, two different schools came to dominate cosmological thinking. One told a story in which time begins at the Big Bang, while in the other, there is no cosmic time and no Big Bang — time passes locally, but the Universe remains the same on average. The two schools would go to battle to decide who was right.
https://bigthink.com/13-8/does-time-have-a-beginning/

*4. Is the Big Bang still the most accepted theory?
A wide range of empirical evidence strongly favors the Big Bang event, which is now essentially universally accepted.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang

*5. Creation with a Bang :
The most popular theory of our universe's origin centers on a cosmic cataclysm unmatched in all of history—the big bang. The best-supported theory of our universe's origin centers on an event known as the big bang.
https://www.nationalgeographic.com/science/article/origins-of-the-universe

I believe in evolution but the Theory Of Evolution is woefully incomplete. I don't believe mutations can create a person, the works of Shakespeare, a Mozart symphony...

I believe in evolution but the Theory Of Evolution is woefully incomplete. I don't believe mutations can create a person, the works of Shakespeare, a Mozart symphony... — EnPassant

It was never intended to, but it’s occupied the space left by the collapse of creation mythologies.

We've studied evolution on one planet, so how can we determine, with a sample size of one, whether evolution is directed or not?

If there were life on millions or billions of planets and we were somehow able to study the evolution of life on all those planets, would we even then be able to show whether or not evolution is "directed"?

Since any putative "director" logically must exist outside the system to be directed, and thus beyond our capacity to detect it, I think the more relevant question is as to whether we have any good reason to think evolution is directed.

If there were life on millions or billions of planets and we were somehow able to study the evolution of life on all those planets, would we even then be able to show whether or not evolution is "directed"? — Janus

If we observe a billion examples of evolution on other planets and discover that life never gets to the multicellular stage on any of them, that would be evidence that we were either really lucky, or something intervened. Such a finding would definitely give a boost to the hypothesis that evolution here wasn't completely natural.

Since any putative "director" logically must exist outside the system to be directed, and thus beyond our capacity to detect it, I think the more relevant question is as to whether we have any good reason to think evolution is directed. — Janus

Maybe aliens are interfering. They wouldn't necessarily be beyond our capacity to detect. Although it would beg the question: who interfered in the aliens evolution? It could also be a simulation creator, and it's possible we'll someday be able to detect that we're in a simulation (although I doubt it).