WHAT IF SCIENTISTS FIND EVIDENCE FOR OUTSIDE INTERFERENCE IN OUR EVOLUTION?
In the debate between Biblical creationism and materialistic evolution, the creationists make many unwarranted assumptions about what kind of being may have interfered with our origins. This is because their ideology is based on only one religion, and one very limited and uninspired view of the supernatural. My purpose here is to demonstrate that THIS DEBATE HAS MORE THAN TWO SIDES. For an open-minded person, there is the possibility that BOTH materialistic evolution AND Biblical creationism could be totally wrong.
So far, the evidence for outside interference in our evolution is only circumstantial: the apparent complexity of biochemical mechanisms in modern cells, which are of course greatly modified compared to unknown cells which existed 3.5 billion years ago. But what if there was REAL evidence in our DNA or metabolic cycles that the development of life on Earth was not entirely "natural"? What could scientists conclude from such a discovery?
The answer is, not very much. Everyone has their own biased ideas about the "true purpose of life" which causes them to leap to unjustified conclusions without considering all of the possibilities. This is why rational scientists wish to avoid the subject. However, I think the various possibilities SHOULD be discussed, and not simply left as fodder for dishonest religious propaganda.
To start, here is a (non-scientific) list of the general explanations for the origin and evolution of life on Earth:
- 1. Life is a random event in this universe ruled by probability. Mutation and natural selection account for the present condition of life on Earth.
- 2. The natural (but as yet undescribed) "self-organizing" nature of complex systems makes life very likely.
- 3. A "supernatural" innate life-force guides the development and evolution of all living things (this is the basis of Vitalism and some ancient traditional/Animist religions).
- 4. A supreme cosmic power (such as the Tao) creates all that exists, but NOT because of a "plan". The so-called "evolution" of life is just a facet of this continuous, irresistible process of creation.
- 5. Alien beings with rational minds comparable to ours interfered with the origin or evolution of life on Earth. These beings might be very powerful ("gods")
- 6. Other causes: an infinite number of undiscovered or even "supernatural" explanations may exist besides those listed above, but limited human minds have not yet even imagined the ultimate cause of our existence.
First of all, it must be pointed out that even unquestioned evidence for un-natural interference would NOT prove that the undirected evolution of intelligent life (#1) is "impossible". All we would know is that, during the history of life on Earth, for some reason, our development was altered.
Also, for those who wish that there was some sort of "design" to life on Earth, there would have to be more evidence than the appearance of "too much complexity", which could be explained by #2-#4. Do not be fooled into thinking that all religions agree on how life was created, or that there is a God. The "materialism vs. monotheism" dichotomy is a false one, made by people ignorant of the diversity among human religions. It is also necessary to mention people are always coming up with NEW religious views (see #6), sometimes in the guise of science-fiction.
However, many people like the idea of "design", for which we would have to hypothesize the existence of sapient life other than our own lineage (#5). I call this the Theory of Alien Interference in Terran Evolution (also known by the redundant term "intelligent design").
That theory gives us the following possibilities:
- 1. Aliens similar to us in biology and power interfered with the origin or evolution of life on Earth.
- 2. Aliens different from us in biology, but not much more powerful, interfered with the origin or evolution of life on Earth.
- 3. Aliens far more powerful than we are ("gods") interfered in the origin or evolution of life on Earth.
- 4. The "aliens" are actually humans from the future--we helped create ourselves! (This has been suggested for the popular "gray aliens", who look like big-eyed hominids)
Let's ignore #4 unless time travel is discovered. As for the other options, evidence for interference says little about the abilities of the guilty aliens. A species does not need to have incredible powers to modify DNA or even create a cell. WE should have the ability to create artificial life in the next few centuries, if our knowledge of either biotechnology (allowing us to accomplish #1 on the above list) or robotics (allowing #2) advances at anything near the rate it has been. Perhaps we will end up seeding other worlds with life—deliberately or accidentally.
Obviously, the religious would be far more interested in possibility #3, even without any way to exclude the other possibilities. However, even if we assume "gods" are responsible, we are still a long way from justifying belief in any Human religion. In fact, we would still have no reason to doubt the one fact that many religious people can't stomach, that our biological ancestors were apes. Even if there was evidence for recent outside intervention applied only to the human species, it would mean that we are "artificially improved" (Uplifted) apes.
Here are a few of the numerous proposed god-based worldviews:
- 1. Polytheism, oligarchical
- 2. Polytheism, hierarchical ("henotheism")
- 3. Ditheism, complementary (usually representing male and female gods)
- 4. Ditheism, conflicted ("moral god vs. evil god/devil")
- 5. Monotheism (most that claim this title fall under #4)
- 6. Panentheism
- 7. Pantheism
One point that should be obvious, but is always ignored by religious propaganda, is that there would be no reason to believe that a single individual was responsible for the changes in our evolution; in other words, it takes a leap of faith to conclude there is only one god, and not many. I’m not the first to suggest that the world appears like it was "designed by committee" (#1--for more, look up the philosopher Hume).
Evidence for alien interference would also say nothing about the motives of our "gods". The problem with determining a god’s will from nature is that living organisms are basically designed to eat, mate, suffer, and die. Most people feel the need for a more humane "purpose" to justify all this carnage, which is the root of all religion and philosophy. Unfortunately, there is little we can use other than a leap of faith to determine the motives of the alien "gods":
- 1. Human evolution was under direct, deliberate control. We are the ultimate goal of the alien involvement with Earth. Our suffering is part of the "plan", which means the God/gods must be evil.
- 2. Human evolution was under direct, deliberate control. We are the ultimate goal of the alien involvement with Earth. Our suffering, however, is NOT part of the "plan". This means the God/gods must be incompetent.
- 3. Evolution of life on Earth was directed, but for a goal other than the rise of humanity. What if the trilobites were the ultimate purpose of the world? We are just the side-effect of God's plans.
- 4. Evolution of life was the subject of an experiment, with a less-than-certain outcome. Humans are merely a result, but not a goal of the God/gods' interference.
- 5. The "divine" interference with our evolution was accidental.
We are in the realm of philosophy now. Most people choose the beliefs that they were raised with and that sound good to them. It is our own arrogance which leads us to conclude that Humanity is the greatest thing in the world. In fact, even belief in your favorite God is no guarantee of your own "purpose". Even with a God in charge, your existence could STILL be an accident--after all, some say the greatest possible creation of a God would be randomness, a world it could not predict or control.
The point you should take from all these multiple-choice lists is that a scientist who rejects pure materialist evolution is a LONG way from belief in any particular religion. A truly honest person would have to consider all of the above possibilities--and this was by no means an exhaustive list.
Do not be misled by reports of scientists "finding God"--after all, scientists are people, raised in a culture where the dominant religion is drilled into their heads by society and the media from birth through death. Many of them have never been exposed to any views besides fundamentalism and materialism, and therefore cannot consider all of the other possibilities in an unbiased manner.
However, the vast majority of scientists are skeptics. Some are atheists. Others stay true to the materialism of the scientific method, not because they are anti-religion, but because the supernatural realm offers an infinite number of explanations and no way to choose which is correct. They know that concluding anything about the "purpose" of life requires repeated leaps of faith. After winding your way through the (non-exhaustive) lists above, can you understand why many rational scientists do NOT conclude that your favorite religion is true, and why most decide to stick to the "null hypothesis" of materialism?
Related issues:
What is the proper criterion for concluding there is a God? Complexity? Order? Or, perfection?
Why should "doubting Thomas" keep doubting?
Teaching Alternatives to Evolution: Comparing Buddhist 'Infinite Causes' to Christian 'Intelligent Design'
Home
![[TNA]](TNA.jpg)