Re: Evolution appears fulfilled

Gary Collins (etlgycs@etluk.ericsson.se)
Tue, 15 Dec 1998 13:49:02 GMT

> RDehaan237@aol.com wrote:
> ............................
> > My understanding of the theory of evolution is that it has no long-range plans
> > or goals. What is evolution's goal? There is no general plan that has
> > reached fulfillment. If there is one, I would welcome you or someone else
> > telling us what it is. Natural selection only works on fortuitous mutations
> > that enhance the survival and adaptibility of a given organism in its
> > immediate, specific environment, and eventually of a population.
> >
> > Thus Simpson could say, “Man is the result of a purposeless and naturalistic
> > process that did not have him in mind. He was not planned.…He happens to
> > represent the highest form of organization of matter and energy that has
> > ever appeared” In another place he wrote, “Evolution has no purpose; man
> > must supply this for himself” (Simpson, G. G., 1949. The Meaning of
> > Evolution. The Yale University Press. New Haven.)
>
> Of course this is true from a purely scientific standpoint. But when we try to
> understand evolution theologically we should view it in the light of revelation. When
> we do that we see the goal of evolution not simply as humanity but as the Incarnation,
> for which the evolution of an intelligent species is preparation.
> Simpson would see this as an example of man supplying a meaning for himself. If
> we believe that revelation is revelation, we see it as God telling us the meaning.
>
> Shalom,
> George
> George L. Murphy
> gmurphy@raex.com
> http://web.raex.com/~gmurphy/
>
Also interesting to bear in mind is that evolution has now resulted in the
emergence of Man, who has the ability to a large extent to shape his
environment to the conditions he finds necessary and/or desirable.

I remember reading somewhere the idea that evolution is "slowing down" in
the sense that the major body plans were laid down very early, and
diversification has been within those plans. As time progressed the
variation became more and more restricted until we find that now not
a great deal happens except for "trifling losses and gains at the species
level" (I think that was the expression used - I'm not sure now if the
statement was that it has already reached that stage, or appears to be
headed in that sort of direction.) Is that the sort of thing that Robin
had in mind when he posed the question? What do others think?

Regards
/Gary