Chapter 1: The Evolutionary Dilemma

The theory of evolution currently faces significant scrutiny. A 2014 article in Nature, titled “Does evolutionary theory need a rethink?” raised critical concerns about the interplay between evolution and genetics. It highlighted the urgent need for enhanced explanations regarding how organisms adapt to their environments, thereby questioning the long-standing synthesis of Darwin's theories with genetic discoveries and mutations.

It is essential to remember that Darwin formulated his theory of evolution without any knowledge of genes. The integration of genetics with Darwinism has long been regarded as a cornerstone of evolutionary success. Nevertheless, Kevin Laland and his colleagues assert in the Nature article that “an increasing number of biologists advocate for a reevaluation of how evolution is conceptualized.” They note substantial backing from related fields, including developmental biology, genomics, epigenetics, ecology, and social sciences.

Why is it so challenging to revisit evolutionary theory? Laland and his co-authors point out that even a simple mention of the Extended Evolutionary Synthesis (EES) can provoke strong emotional responses among evolutionary biologists. Vital discussions often devolve into disputes, with accusations of confusion or misrepresentation. Fearing the implications of intelligent design, many evolutionary biologists feel compelled to maintain a united front against critics of science.

This situation is crucial to understand. The theory of evolution has emerged alongside the rise of Christian fundamentalism, which often presents a literal interpretation of creation. This dynamic leads to a binary worldview: if one side wins, the other loses. The validity of worldviews often relies on the defense of a theory.

Thus, it is unsettling to acknowledge that evolution encounters more significant issues than those proposed in the Nature paper. While the authors seek to broaden the synthesis of evolutionary theory beyond genetics, they still fundamentally adhere to its core principles. If even slight adaptations to evolutionary theory create anxiety among proponents, questioning its foundational aspects becomes a non-starter—this should raise concerns for anyone who genuinely values science.

One of the most pressing issues facing evolution is the concept of consciousness. The notion that a deity selected two Homo sapiens and bestowed upon them souls offers, in many respects, a more coherent explanation for the origin of consciousness than evolutionary theory currently does (though that is not the argument I am making here). There exists no philosophical framework that adequately describes consciousness without introducing complications regarding the evolution of life. For materialists, the challenge lies in explaining how non-conscious matter can undergo a transformation into qualitative conscious experiences. Conversely, if one subscribes to philosophical panpsychism, they must elucidate how consciousness coalesces within a brain. Even if one leans towards idealism or non-dualism, questions about the fundamental nature or location of consciousness within the brain remain unresolved; abstracting it does not clarify these dilemmas.

In scientific or philosophical discourse, it is easy to overlook the peculiar nature of consciousness. Michael Bitbol encapsulates this perplexity:

Why do I live now, in this special period of history? Why am I me, born in this family, in this place of the world? I was taught that there were many other possibilities: being any person, at any time, or even just not being at all. And yet here I am, in front of you. Me, not you, here, not there, now, not then…What is the reason, if any, of this inescapable singularity? Does the fact that we all live through this mystery alleviate it in any way?

Ultimately, the purpose of evolution extends beyond merely explaining the distribution of flora and fauna on Earth; it must also account for the singular existence of consciousness—how we come to know that any of these entities exist. This unique manifestation of consciousness is intricately linked to our understanding of reality.

As consciousness serves as the lens through which the world is perceived, it is fundamentally tied to ontology. This observation presents a core challenge to the incremental concept of creation. We might refer to it as the "emergence" or "combination" issue, but it fundamentally concerns the fact that incremental changes cannot, by our current understanding, bring new entities into existence.

Marilynne Robinson succinctly captures this idea with the phrase “the givenness of things,” while Roger Scruton emphasizes “that which is precisely most mysterious in the contingent beings surrounding you, which is the fact that they are, and also that they might not have been.”

What kind of theory could potentially clarify this? Terence McKenna famously stated that the essence of science is “Give us one free miracle, and we’ll explain the rest.” However, science should not operate under such concessions; its advancement hinges on the assumption that all phenomena are open to inquiry. Perhaps we need to consider perspectives from advocates of intelligent design, such as Stephen Meyer, who has recently appeared on popular platforms like Joe Rogan and Piers Morgan's shows, suggesting that the return of God could be proposed as a scientific hypothesis.

Nonetheless, I question whether this approach is warranted. Reintroducing God as a scientific theory seems regressive, harkening back to a time before the emergence of the "new atheists," who, if nothing else, raised numerous valid critiques regarding God as merely a scientific proposition. Many perceive God as the terminus of scientific exploration rather than an entity integrated within its objective realm. Concepts such as Aquinas’ ipsum esse subsistens or the Hindu idea of Brahman may provide insights into consciousness but remain largely separate from scientific discourse. Whether these viewpoints signify that we have “non-overlapping magisteria” is still a matter for debate; at least this perspective acknowledges the existence of significant aspects of reality that transcend science, while still being equally real, providing a foundation for morality rooted in ontology rather than in the arbitrary survival advantages proposed by evolution.

However, conceding to the idea of non-overlapping magisteria leaves certain aspects of evolutionary theory inadequately explained, presenting a challenge to those who advocate for its capacity to account for all facets of human existence. As inquiries into its comprehensiveness persist, much may have to remain in the domain of the unknown—the space where all scientists undertake their work.

The first video titled "The Meta-Problem of Consciousness with David Chalmers" explores the intricacies surrounding consciousness and its implications for our understanding of evolution.

The second video, "The Evolution of Consciousness," delves into the evolutionary perspective on consciousness and how it shapes our understanding of existence.