Evolutionary Mysticism

The materialistic view of evolution is that it is an unguided and meaningless process. Yet here we see Harvard geochemist Charles Langmuir demonstrating that man’s innate tendencies towards finding a higher meaning to life are hard to root out, and if you prefer evolution to God, evolution can easily become your god.

In a lecture as part of Harvard’s “Earth Matters” series, Langmuir discussed the impact that mankind has had on the planet’s global ecology, and called for humanity to play a responsible role in its place on the planet. So far, so good — the Church has called for the same, noting man’s vocation as steward; but instead of rooting this responsibility in an ordered view of the universe, Langmuir appeals to a vague mystical notion of “planetary evolution”:

“The Earth today may be at the brink of another step, Langmuir said. Complex life has evolved into intelligent life that dominates the planet — ecosystems, food webs, and energy flow — as no species ever has before.

Whether the planet takes the next step or not may depend on us. If we recognize humanity is an integral part of the planet and begin working for a healthy Earth, then planetary evolution could move forward to some unknown future.

On the other hand, Langmuir said, if we continue to view the Earth as something that is separate, that we merely use, then the resulting practices could damage the environment enough to stall planetary evolution, even causing it to fall back to a level where it supports just microscopic life.”

Where Langmuir gets this undeniably teleological view he doesn’t say, but it certainly doesn’t come from the scientific theory of evolution itself. The theory, emphasizing competition and selection, has no way to judge whether one pathway in is any better than any other. Why would it be so terrible if all macroscopic life were to be eliminated, leaving only bacteria behind? That would indicate only one thing: that bacteria are tenacious. The judgment that this is a step “backwards” when a step “forwards” in “planetary evolution” is preferable can come only from extra-scientific philosophical schemes.

And so we see the inevitable result of the rejection of reason-based philosophy, statements such as the following, wherein Langmuir endorses both the directionless aspect of evolution and yet appeals to its mystical progress:

“Do we relate to the current environmental problems as if we are users of the Earth, or do we recognize that we are the byproduct of 4.5 billion years of planetary evolution? What we do may determine whether the planet is able to move into its next phase of development.”

We are a mere byproduct; and yet evolution somehow encompasses meaningful phases which, if we aren’t careful, we will thwart. The interesting thing is that Langmuir is right: the earth reverting to a state where only microbes survive would be a bad thing. But, as is usual with modern materialist sentiments, his evolutionary mysticism can’t give a reason why it would be bad. Christianity, on the other hand, can, with its picture of a creative God making a fecund world (perhaps with evolution as part of the process), and giving to man the responsibility of tending the garden well.