Life on Earth is said to have originated as organic molecules in the sea and evolved into more complex manifestations from there, eventually coming to also dwell on land, and even Genesis 1:20-25 describes God as creating water-based life before the animals of the surface. Now, it is not as if evolution and theism contradict each other: theistic evolution entails both evolution and either an initial act of divine biological creation or the divine manipulation of life's trajectory after abiogenesis. Moreover, there is an uncaused cause no matter the exact mechanism that brought life into being, for otherwise nothing that is contingent or chronologically finite could have ever come into existence [1], including the universe in which abiogenesis and evolution would have occured.
Many people think of mere theism and evolution as incompatible when it is only certain kinds of theism and certain kinds of evolution that are exclusive. For instance, of course atheistic evolution contradicts theism. In evangelical or secular circles, one might still encounter the belief in the concept that all versions of the two are inherently opposed. Each of these respective factions cites inferential or hearsay evidence filtered through subjective persuasion that falls short of logical proof anyway, while often seeming to believe that this evidence is somehow the same as "proof" all along. This post will explore a water-related example of how various scientific correlations do not on their own suggest non-theistic evolution (which would still require theism for there to be an initial cosmos at all) or direct divine creation of life.
Take the dependence of creatures such as humans and horses on water, which the first life on this planet could have hypothetically been formed in. If living things evolved without any divine guidance, then they could only survive using the materials available to them, and thus they would have by necessity adapted to or been constantly dependent on whatever physical environment was already there. Water is present in large quantities on Earth. Some creatures, like roaches or tardigrades or whales, might have a somewhat different relationship to water than humans, so that they can survive for longer without it or live directly inside it; life on Earth would be dependent on water from its beginnings until now all the same. In this context, this would be true because living organisms evolved in contact with water.
If, on the contrary, living things need water because God created them this way, perhaps creating both simultaneously so that there is a biological dependence and fulfillment of that need from the start, then there is still a reliance on water by creatures like humans or deer or wolves. The only difference about the relationship between water and life, if this is true, would be its causal origin and tangential things related to it. However, the need of living things for water is present in either this kind of scenario or the aforementioned alternative. Thus, the connection between water and life is neither evidence nor logical proof for either non-theistic evolution or direct biological creationism. Leaving theistic evolution aside once again, none of this can on its own point towards any one of the two predominant general philosophies one might hear presented as the only two options.
At least one of these is true and the other is false, although theistic evolution is always a third possibility. As if scientific paradigms and broad religious frameworks are not already unprovable given human limitations--the verifiable, basic existence of an uncaused cause is a logical necessity that does not require that any religion is actually true--something like the observed connection between biological life and the water in its environment is ultimately compatible with either of these two origins. Yet, it is the kind of thing a non-theistic evolutionist might think is confirmation of how nature does not need a divine initiation of life, even as a direct creationist would likely think this is proof of a divine designer's intentionality.
Something compatible with two different philosophies does not point to either on its own, and it could not possibly allow for the absolute certainty some treat scientific matters as having one way or another. No scientific matter can ever grant this except on the level that one can know one is experiencing particular natural phenomena, without even having the ability to shed one's sensory perspective to see if the world and extended universe really are the way they appear. It is impossible to perceive them from outside of this subjective vantage point and thus impossible to know if they really are as they seem. With something like the relationship between water and biology on Earth, the subjective observations also do not even provide evidence for anything except the relationship in question. Grander metaphysics cannot be known from this because multiple causal starting points are possible.
No comments:
Post a Comment