Conway Morris is professor of Evolutionary
Palaeobiology in the School of Earth Sciences at Cambridge University. He is a
Fellow of the Royal Society since 1990. As a palaeobiologist he is widely
experienced in research into the fossil record to establish the detailed
evolution of life on Earth. He has extensive experience in the field and his
research of the literature is also thorough. There are more than 100 pages of
notes with copious references. This is a very substantial contribution to the
emerging view that departs significantly from the dominant biological view that
held sway throughout the last century. The evolution of humans by purely random
Darwinian processes was considered to be inherently so massively improbable and
inherently unlikely as to be virtually unique. (A highly improbable event can
always occur by chance once: lucky us). This is still the view of many
biologists. Richard Dawkins is the prime exemplar of what Conway Morris calls
ultra-Darwinism. He in fact refers to
Dawkins as ‘England’s most pious atheist’.
There have always been a few dissenters such
as emeritus professor Charles Birch. Even Heisenberg said that, after listening
to a lecture on Darwinism, he had mused that perhaps the uncertainty principle
gave scope for the Creator to interfere a little at a time. We should not fall
into the trap of believing that the current approach by Conway Morris and others
is a rejection of the fundamental process of Darwinian evolution. Rather, the
knowledge gained over recent decades concerning complex processes has added a
new layer of understanding. Complexity theorist Stuart Kauffman argued in his
book At Home in the Universe (1995)
that Darwinian selection has always had a handmaiden in the form of complexity
and has thus been supplemented by the abrupt changes which can occur in complex
non-linear systems. This has been a stepping stone toward the new understanding
presented by Conway Morris.
One of the telling arguments in favour of
the new view he presents is the phenomenon known as biological convergence
whereby evolution tends to arrive at the same solution in very different sets
of circumstances over and over again. A prime example cited is that of camera
style eyes (such as we have) that have evolved a great many times in different
situations. Another among the many examples of convergence cited is the
mechanism of olfaction (smelling), which is common to a wide range of
organisms. There is an extensive discussion of many areas of convergence. There
are many steps along the way from convergence in simple situations to the
eventual inevitable convergence toward humans or at least human-like
intelligent beings.
Another interesting example of convergence
(amongst many such examples) is that we are not the only species to carry out
agriculture. It is also carried out by social insects such as bees and
termites. He describes leaf-cutting ants of Central and South America, which
cut leaves from trees, cut them up further into small pieces, carry them back
to the nest (each step by a different group of ants), strip away the waxy
layer, then shred and pulp the leaves for fungal breakdown to provide edible
food. The harvesting and processing of a wild crop is a primitive form of
agriculture (The ants hardly plant the trees). However I have read that ants
deliberately cultivate aphis which feed on roses in order to ‘milk’ the aphis.
Conway Morris is staggered at the remarkable
efficiency of the genetic code with only one out of a million randomised
variations on the actual code even coming close. The work which he cites here
is explained in some detail in an article in Scientific American (April, 2004). He accepts with some difficulty
that the genetic code universal to all life is the product of Darwinian
selection, saying “to arrive at the best of all possible codes, selection has
to be more than powerful, it has to be overwhelmingly effective.
There is a very
interesting chapter in the book entitled “Towards a theology of evolution?” I
will include a few extracts to give the flavour of the discussion:
“It seldom seems to strike the ultra-Darwinists that
theology might have its own richness and subtleties and might – strange thought
– actually tell us things about the world that are not only to our real
advantage, but will never be revealed by science. … To assume that science
itself can produce and verify the truths on which it depends, is … simply
circular.” [for present purposes we may, if we wish, regard theosophy as a form
of theology or substitute for it.]
“Outside the cellular milieu the DNA is biologically
inert, if not useless. Genes may provide a switchboard for life, but the
complexity of life will depend on something else: how the same genes may be
recruited to make different products, how the developmental networks change and
evolve, and how apparently trivial events such as gene duplication and protein
isoforms open up immense new territories for biological exploration. Life may
be impossible without genes, but to ascribe to them intentionality misses the
mark”.
“Science becomes pointless and even destructive unless
it takes on significance and direction from a religious affirmation concerning
the meaning and value of human existence”. (a quotation from an article by John
Greene in a philosophical Journal).
“The myths of genetic determinism, set in a dreary
world of reductionism, are being used to drive new agendas, mostly in eugenics
… now vanished is the notion that the world we have been given might have its
own integrity and values. … The moral high ground is highjacked on the
assumption that all this is for our perceived good, although in reality the
benefits are far more likely to fill the coffers of the corporations and erode
the diversity of crop species”.
“Science, by definition is a human construct and
offers no promise of final answers. We should however, remind ourselves that we
live in a Universe that seems strangely well suited to us. … Not only is the universe
strangely fit to purpose but so too, as I have argued throughout this book, is
life’s ability to navigate to its solutions. … Equally germane and even more
mysterious, is to explain the origin of sentience, such that the product of
ultimately inanimate processes can understand both itself, its world and its
(and thus our) strange sense of purpose”.
“Why the second part of the sub-title
‘inevitable humans’ but ‘in a lonely universe’?
The existence of life on Earth appears to be surrounded by improbabilities:
life may be a universal principle but we can still be alone. … This may never
be established and … it is far more prudent to assume that we are unique and
act accordingly”.
Finally, Conway Morris, having led us through the
truly astounding features of the evolutionary process, leaves us to reach our
own conclusion when he asks: “what
salient facts of evolution are congruent with a Creation”? [emphasis mine].
He lists several, including the following: [my labelling] a) “the exuberance of
biological diversity, but the ubiquity of biological convergence”, b) “the
inevitability of the emergence of sentience,” c) “the existence of an immense
universe of possibilities but a way of navigating to that minutest of fractions
which actually work”.
I have managed to
deal here with only a very small part of this fascinating book. However, I
would like to emphasise that it is to books such as this that we should turn to
learn about the details of the evolution of life on Earth, and certainly not to
the standard theosophical texts which paint a hopelessly out-of-date picture.
However, in this regard, there is an important point I should make. While
scientists are coming to recognise an inbuilt directedness toward higher forms
of life, they generally do not, as yet, distinguish between life and living
organisms. Theosophists, however, acknowledge an ensouling life within the
organism.
Additional note:
For those who would like a sane theosophical approach, I recommend the second
(Quest Books, 1990) edition of the book Intelligence
Came First by lifelong theosophist, E Lester Smith F.R.S. (He called on a
sympathetic biologist, to help revise the book for the new edition). He would
have been delighted to see some of the recent developments.
The Theosophical Society in Australia