Adam, this premise seems to be the key to the question in your OP. On what basis do you hold this premise?
1 Like
I think we are already a more advanced form of life. One that surpasses biological evolution to change at a much faster rate.
The idea that evolution = advancement or progress is quite popular, and easy to find in popular claims about evolution, including from scientists who ought to know better. But the reality is that evolution is simply change. Of course, change advances in some direction or another. Some organisms have evolved increased complexity in particular aspects; some have simplified in particular aspects. These changes may be advantageous or disadvantageous in different contexts. We can figure out lots of things with our complex brains that other creatures can’t, and can get in lots more trouble from the things we figure out than they can.
In The Voyage of the Dawn Treader, Lewis raises the question of distinguishing between Progress and Going Bad. Both are going somewhere, which is all that science alone can tell us.
3 Likes
Incorrect. It is variation AND natural selection. (Of course when I read past that sentence, I see you are aware of this) To be sure there is no end goal and I definitely think variation is the driving force. But there is a filter which acts as a measure of approval or disapproval. Many changes are neither, of course. Thus you get a branching tree to millions of species. I agree with you (and thus disagree with T-aquaticus), I suppose, to the point that there is no inevitability.
But natural selection is very important part of this because populations of living organism significantly alter the environment – not only for a competition factor, but also to create new opportunities (new niches and making cooperation advantageous).
I would be interested in a reference to that, because I don’t recall this.
I think it’s part of what happens to/with Eustace.