BY

EZEOMEDO JOHN-BOSCO UGONNA, SMMM.

JUNE, 2004.

DEDICATED

TO

REV. FR. VICTOR ONWUGIGBO, SMMM,

MR. GODDY MBENE

&

SYLVESTER EMERUWA.

TO THE TABLE OF CONTENTS

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Acknowledgements

Introduction

CHAPTER 1

            QUEST FOR THE GENESIS OF LIFE.

1.1              Creationists’ View

1.2            Co-eternalists’ view

1.3             Evolutionists’ view

CHAPTER 2     

THE CONNOTATIONS OF EVOLUTION.

2.1            Chemical Evolution

2.2           Biological Evolution

2.3           Social Evolution

2.4           Cosmic Evolution

2.5           Pre-Darwinism & Post Darwinism 

CHAPTER  3

CHARLES DARWIN’S IDEA OF ORIGIN OF SPECIES

3.1             Darwin’s conception of origin of life

3.2    Extinction of the intermediate varieties

3.3     Limitations of the theory of the Natural Selection

3.4    The Geographical and physiological Isolation

CHAPTER 4

THE NOTION OF OMEGA POINT IN TEILHARD DE CHARDIN

4.1            Teilhard de Chardin’s evolutionary theory

4.2           Teilhard’s cosmic evolution

4.3           The idea of Omega Point

CHAPTER 5.

DARWIN’S EMERGENCE OF SPECIES & TEILHARD’S OMEGA POINT – CRITICAL EVALUATION  

5.1             The problem of the ‘missing link’ in evolutionary thought

5.2           Did the theory of Omega Point solve the problem of

5.3            Refuting Evolution – Darwin’s dangerous idea

5.4           Is creationism a reliable option?

EVALUATION & CONCLUSION

INTRODUCTION.

God created a world destined to develop in time; he gave to the world initially all the virtualities which would be developed and realized throughout the history of the universe. These virtualities of creation are called ‘rationes seminales’[1]

For Augustine, these ‘rationes seminales’ just like a seed of a mango is potentially a mango tree, have within themselves from the very onset, all the bodies of that particular creation but it is only present in what is called germinal fashion. These seed would later develop into their various kinds. Therefore, though the very first existence was created by God, the subsequent ones evolve from the old created species.

Charles Robert Darwin found fault with these theories because for him, they could not be practically proved. Thus he goes on to state that things came into existence only but through evolution. There is no divine act of creation as proposed by the creationists. This theory raised a very cloudy dust in the scientific world of his time that some thinkers divided for either for or against him. This is how Charles Darwin becomes the central figure in the biological evolution theory.

About two centuries later,   Pierre Teilhard de Chardin , a Catholic Priest of Jesuit Order came up with what was seen then as a revolutionary idea. This is an idea of Omega Point of evolution. According to Teilhard, Omega Point is the ultimate summit of cosmic evolution. Teilhard de Chardin maintains that things are gradually developing towards this Omega-point; a point when nothing new emerges, and for him as a Christian, Christ is that Omega-point.

This work is organized into five chapters. In chapter one, I tried to explore and revisit the controversial issue of origin of life in the world. Creationists and evolutionists are two out-standing opposing groups in this regard.

Chapter two treats different types of evolution including the historical background of the evolutionary debates. In a little caveat in the chapter, I went into explanation of other theories of evolution other than well-known biological evolution.

Chapter three is solely dedicated to Charles Robert Darwin and his theories of evolution. Here, we tried some little exposition of Darwin’s controversial theory – ‘Origin of species by Natural Selection’.

In chapter four, Pierre Teilhard de Chardin ‘s theory of  cosmic evolution and omega-point as the final end is treated. And lastly, chapter five evaluates the two Philosophers;  each from the perspective of his idea.

CHAPTER 1.

Another group stands alone in the debate: the co-eternalists. They strongly believed that both living and non-living matters are visitors to the earth. They came to earth from the outer space either at the same time or almost the same time.

GO BACK

1.1 CREATIONISTS’ VIEW.

The central idea of strict creationism is that all kinds of organisms presently existing, perhaps some more were formed on earth in a single event.[1]

The idea generally held by these strict creationists is that things came into the world in just a pronouncement of a ‘fiat’ by God. This  position is too extreme for any one to take. This is because, here, the creationists lack any solid proof of their claims; and for this, P. Kitcher has this to say:

Such people accept strict creationism because its central doctrine follow from two other beliefs that hold: (i) The bible is to be read literally (ii) when the Bible is read literally, it says that all kinds of organisms were formed on earth in a single event.[2]

Apart from their strict adherence to the letters of the Biblical account of creation, they have no other means of supporting their arguments. One therefore, could say that strict creationism is irrational and unjustifiable. I have therefore no ground to support the strict creationism. Divine revelations found in the Scripture could not be totally subjected to literally and artistic writing. Philip Kitcher would suggest that there is no need for us to criticize any religious belief, because according to him, it is contradiction from the very onset. Therefore, it has become an imperative that:

At some definite time in the past, life was placed upon the planet earth through the operation of an extra-mundane cause…. Cause (that) must naturally come from a living, intelligent and omnipotent being otherwise called God.[3]

1.1.2   SCIENTIFIC CREATIONISTS.

I could rather call these groups  ‘an intellectual creationists’. Their common belief is the same with that of St. Thomas Aquinas. This a belief that the world was not created by God in just few days as the Genesis account of creation would like to present. Their common opinion therefore is that “ life did not evolve over millions of years; rather, all forms of life was created at one time by a particular creator.”[4] With their scientific knowledge, they try to explain the authenticity of creationism without any prejudice. They try as much as they could to give a reliable explanation to the observed distribution of fossils, which already stands as evidence against their view. Pierre Teilhard de Chardin whom I would discuss in chapter four, was among those propagating scientific creationism. This could be seen in one of his books “Christianity and Evolution”:

…Creation is not a periodic intrusion of the first cause: it is an act of co-extensive with the whole duration of the universe. God had been creating ever since the beginning of time, and seen from within, his creation (even his initial creation?) takes the form of transformation. Participated being is not introduced in batches, which are differentiated later as a result of non-creative modification. God continually breathing new being into us.[5]

This idea is what we really mean here by scientific creationism. It denies the conception or the biblical mythology that God created in time. God transcends time and space, and thus would have not created within time and space.

1.1.2                                       COMTEMPORARY CREATIONISTS.

One peculiar thing with the contemporary creationists is that they are most often subtle in their answers to their critics. They abhor any theory that would in any way lead to evolutionism. While contemporary creationists are busy countering evolutionism, their critics posit to them the theory that was influenced by what they

(their critics) knew already concerning the fossils. Their critics persevered in their argument because for them:

The different strata all contain remains of the distinct organism that were alive at the time at which those strata were deposited; and the order reflects the fact that different groups of animals have existed at different times.[6]

Critically examining this statement would tell one that it does not make any commitment or suggestion to the evolutionary theory; but nevertheless, creationists shun the idea. Their fear is that if time is not taken, this idea would be misguided and later, it would eventually lead to evolutionism. Therefore in the contemporary era, the advocates of creationism gave us what could be called an ad hoc explanation of fossils seen on the strata as either that “the devil placed them there in the rock to deceive us or that God put fossils there to test us."[7]

GO BACK  

1.2   CO-ETERNALISTS’ VIEW.

These hypothetical germs otherwise called panspermia, cosmozoa or biospores, are assumed to have been transported to the earth by the aid of meteorites through radiation pressure, light quanta or any other mechanisms.[8]

Co-eternalists in this their view of spontaneous generation of both the  life and the earth, solidly maintain that the origin of life could be traced in line with the origin of the earth. Thus, there came a long debate among scientists, especially those of the contemporary era on the issue of the origin of the earth.

To the great displeasure of Charles Darwin  and the geologists of the period, the physicist William Thomson (later Lord Kelvin) performed a seemingly flawless calculation to show that earth had not existed throughout eternity, as many thought then, but had formed 100 million years ago.[9]

In Lord Kelvin’s view, life came to the earth with time. In his effort to calculate the age of the earth, he used the calculation of approximate time it would take the earth to cool from its primordial condition to the present state. The geologists were highly distressed by this theory, though they could not find any counter argument to deal with Lord Kelvin; who intruded into their field.

1.3      EVOLUTIONISTS’ VIEW.

The adherents to the theory of evolution are known as “evolutionists”. The concept “evolution” originated from a Latin word “ evolvere” which means to “roll out” or “to unfold”. Evolutionary theory wants to convince us that the sensible world did not just spring up into being, either by itself or by an extra-mundane cause – according to the creationists. Their idea is that the world developed in time and with time. This happened in a gradual process from a simple unicellular organism to a complex multicellular ones. This gradual process took billions of years. Life for them therefore, started “ about a billion years ago, while earth itself originated at about four billion years….”[10] The theory of evolution therefore states that:

All living things have arisen by a naturalistic, mechanistic, evolutionary process from a single living source which itself arose by a similar process from a dead, inanimate world.[11]

This implies that life on the earth came by a mere chance. In the evolutionists’ opinion above, all living creatures on earth are interrelated; having one common ancestor.

The divergence from this common ancestor has been variously estimated to have occurred from five to twenty million years ago, depending upon who is telling the story. The primates, who include men and apes, are believed to have shared a common ancestor with the horse, and this divergence is believed to have occurred approximately seventy-five million years ago.[12]

The idea of theory of evolution is an age long concept. Charles Darwin; being regarded as the father of biological evolution does not in any way imply that he is the first who thought about the theory. Darwin came only to boast the evolutionary ideas of his predecessors, like that of his grand father: Erasmus Darwin, Lucretius, Aristotle, etc. His book “On the Origin of species” then becomes landmark publication on biological evolution. It was given a laudable admiration by the adherents and destructive criticism by the opposers.  The book became a controversial one, since it went as far as discussing issues that were regarded as being totally against the then common conception of origin of life. To certain group of people like the Christians,  is not far from infidel, and they wanted with every means to treat him as such.

Darwin’s origin of species had an impact comparable in many ways to the revolutionary effects of the work of Copernicus and Newton in the earlier epochs. Like these, Darwin’s work altered the course of scientific research for a long time to come in a particular scientific discipline.[13]

Charles Darwin is a central actor as far as biological evolution is concerned. All other evolutionists before and after him are thus grouped as pre-Darwins and post-Darwins respectively.

CHAPTER 2.

2.1         CHEMICAL EVOLUTION.

An initial hot earth might take 0.3 billion years to become ‘user friendly’, so the first life took only half a billion years to arrive from abiotic (non-living) starting materials.[1]

There is also another conception that during the periods which geologists regard as Proterozoic and Archeozoic (that is, about 20 to 40 billion years ago), life came into existence from simple molecules that later evolved into complex ones.

2.2      BIOLOGICAL EVOLUTION.

2.3       SOCIAL EVOLUTION.

Another great advance in …scheme of evolution is the socialization of mankind. This is not the triumph of herd instinct but a cultural convergence of humanity towards a single society. Evolution has gone about as far as it can to perfect human beings physically: its next step will be social. Teilhard saw such evolution already in progress; through technology, urbanization, and modern communications, more and more links are being established between peoples’ politics, economics, and habits of thought in apparently geometric progression.[2]

Social evolution is therefore the evolutionary thought that through socialization of mankind which we are already feeling the effects through modern discoveries, man is being gradually perfected. Thus, the current species of man are seen as being far better than their ancestors. What technology, urbanization and modern communication have for us today are far beyond what our ancestors had. Evolution, here could be also that of ideas. An idea generated in one generation could be perfected in subsequent generations.

2.4      COSMIC EVOLUTION.

Big Bang Theory, currently accepted explanation of the beginning of the universe. The big bang theory proposes that the universe was once extremely compacting, dense, and hot. Some original event, a cosmic explosion called the big bang, occurred about 10 billion to 20 billion years ago, and the universe has since been expanding and cooling.[3]

Therefore, cosmic evolution is presenting to us, a universe full of complex products of evolution, including ourselves.

2.5           PRE- DARWINISM AND POST-DARWINISM.

The idea of origin held by the Ancient Egyptians may be found expressed in the “Legend of the Creation” where we see that Khephera was thought to be the creator of all things and Nu was the abyss water out of which Khephera raised up all living things.[4]

In the conception of the Ancient Greeks, primary elements are the basic stuff from which everything including life emanates. One of the Ionian Philosophers – Thales – thought that water should be the primordial element; while other subsequent Ancient Greek Philosophers “recognized four elements – earth, air, fire and water – with their respective qualities of dry, cold, hot and wet.”[5]

Heraclitus of Ephesus (540-475 BC) proposed that individuals were in a struggle to preserve themselves from constant force of change and decay. The ‘weeping philosopher’ also proposed that the original matter for all form of life was fire.

Empedocles (450 BC) was one of the materialists to realize that phenomena of adaptive complexity required a specific explanation within the framework of a naturalistic scheme. His selectionist theory to account for the design of organisms preceded Darwin by two thousand years[6]

Atomists (like Democritus and Epicurus) in the 5^th century BC, formulated the basis principles that evolutionary trend could stand upon. These are ideas of continuity in nature and that of random selection. Also, Aristotle’s conception of things on earth as being produced in certain logical sequence of perfection could be another prediction of biological evolution; though his  

…theory of matter and form may be too rigid a concept to allow change of one form into another. Individual may die, or change, but species is immutable.[7]

It should also be noted that even the Genesis account of creation, as a myth of origin in Jewish tradition has also the logic of evolution. In this famous mythology, Jewish narrated the story of God created the world, including life in certain sequential order; starting from non-living matters to living ones (plants and animals) and finally, created man.

Natural Philosophers like Francis Bacon, Rene Descartes, Leibniz and Immanuel Kant also had the same conception of evolution; though they saw it as a part of change in the universe. As P.G. Fothergil would put it:

The modern idea of evolution is a direct extension of Kant’s philosophical views and these views at the time gave the philosophical explanation of the work of the naturalists with their plant and animal systems of classification.[8]

Between 1790 and 1901 is known as a formulative period in the history of evolution. We could notice the giant step made by the entrance of Charles Darwin in the theory of evolution. Thus, his work on “ Origin of Species by means of natural selection” attracted attentions of many. It should be noted that this formulative begins with Erasmus Darwin, the grandfather of Charles Darwin.

Erasmus certainly seems to have quite definite ideas of evolution of living things and he also believed in the inheritance of acquired characters.[9]

2.5.2         POST – DARWINISM.

Darwin’s book on the “Origin of Species” aroused many thinkers either for him, or against him. They were all out to uproot the basis of the theory and to go deeper than Darwin himself. Intention of many of them is to test the validity and workability of the theory. Every thinker that said that Darwin had stepped into his domain came out to question his theory. This even contributed in making Darwin’s theory more popular. Thus, on the day of the first publication of the theory (24^th November 1859), it was noted that 1,250 copies printed were all sold. From hence, many people had been responding to the theory. As Forthergill puts it:

Many people accepted evolution as a reasonable explanation of the known facts but they did not accept Darwin’s theory of the way evolution occurred.[10]

Though Darwin still has scores to settle with his critics, we must appreciate the fact that the later discoveries and progresses in biology, especially in genetics are some of the fruits of Darwinian theory. Bergson for instance, took off from this theory only that he was not contented on how Darwin could not give a precise account of evolution. He latter affirmed that it might be that Darwin did not recognize the ‘elan vital’ in all organism. According to Bergson, this élan vital or the vital impulse; drives every organism towards more and more complex and higher modes of organization. His theory therefore is not totally different from what Teilhard de Chardin would later in the 20^th century refer to as higher and higher development of things through evolution and towards their omega point.

When Darwin was accused of not providing an answer to the cause of variation as he noted, Hugo De Vries went to rescue him by telling us that variation is as a result of constant mutation in organism, but at last he (Hugo De Vries) could not provide us how these mutations came about.

 BACK TO THE TABLE OF CONTENTS

CHAPTER 3.

3.1         Darwin’s conception of origin of life.

Darwin … amassed an enormous amount evidence to show that, historically, biological evolution has in fact taken place and that humanity is a product of it.[1]

Darwin got his influence likely from British economist – Thomas Robert Malthus, who in his essay ‘An Essay on the principle of population’, explained how human population remain in balance.

 Malthus argued that any increase in the availability of food for basic human survival could not match the geometrical rate of population growth. The latter, therefore, had to be checked by natural limitations such as famine and disease, or by social actions such as war.[2]

From this theory, Darwin formed his theory of natural selection – the theory that promotes adaptation and the survival of the fittest. Natural selection wants to extol the fact that in any natural habitat, adaptation is the most essential because, in such condition, it is only those species that are well adapted to the environment would eventually survive.

Charles Darwin was a core evolutionist. He refused to see reason in any other theory concerning origin of life. The impact that this Darwinian theory made in the lives of people can be compared to the impacts that Copernican and Newton’s made in its own time. We are going now to look into Charles Darwin’s theory of origin of species, which would, for the sake of clarity, be grouped into four:

1.                  Over production

2.                Struggle for existence

3.                 Hereditary Variations

4.               Natural Selection

3.1.1 Over Production.

Darwin tells us that there is clear evidence to prove that population of living things (both plants and animals) increases so fast in their geometrical ratio. This increase is not at the advantage of such species because as they grow up, there would be a period during which they would be struggling for existence. During this period, many of the species would die off; leaving those that mostly survived the situation. Thus, in the case of over-production, nature ‘selects’ those that are most suited to the condition. Therefore, one can also say that:

A struggle for existence inevitably follows from the high rate at which all organic beings tend to increase. Every being, which during its natural lifetime produces several eggs or seeds, must suffer destruction during some period of its life, and during some season or occasional year, otherwise, on the principle of geometrical increase, its numbers would quickly become so inordinately great that no country could support the product. Hence, as more individuals are produced than can possibly survive, there must in every case be a struggle for existence, either one individual with another of the same species, or with the individuals of distinct species, or with the physical conditions of life.[3]

This struggle for existence is very important, because if nature would allow every species of organism produced to survive, there would have been a total catastrophe. The intensity of struggle for survival, not only that it would increase in a geometrical progression, but the earth would have been in complete disarray. Supporting this opinion, P. G. Fothergill presented Darwin’s analogy in support of this view:

One of Darwin’s examples was that of elephant, which he found start breeding when it is about thirty years old and lives till it is about one hundred years old; in that time it produces on the average about six young. It is reckoned to be one of the slowest breeders among animals. But even so, after a period of seven hundred and fifty years, there would be nearly nineteen million elephants alive descended from only a single pair.[4]

 If elephant, though it is slow breeder could generate such number of offspring within the limited number of years, then what would be the result of some fast-breeding organisms? It should also be noted that nature has made it that some organisms produces many eggs or seeds due to inevitable extinction of many of them in certain level of their life span.

One fly deposits hundreds of eggs, and another, like the hippobosca, a single one; but this difference does not determine how many individuals of the two species can be supported in a district. A large number of eggs are of some importance to those species, which depend on a fluctuating amount of food, for it allows them rapidly to increase in number. But the real importance of a large number of eggs or seeds is to make up for much destruction at some period of life; and this period in the great majority of cases is an early one. If an animal can in any way protect its own eggs or young, a small number may be produced, and yet the average stock be fully kept up; but if many eggs or young are destroyed, many must be produced, or the species will become extinct.[5]

3.1.2         Struggle for existence.

There are some limitations as regards the quantity and quality of food and space in nature. In this vein, we notice that there are persistence struggles among animals and plants, both of the same species and of different species over these limited resources. These are what Charles Darwin called ‘struggle for existence’ in his theory of natural selection.

Bacilli and other microscopic organisms reproduce so rapidly and extensively that if one strain could escape destruction by its competitors, it would be able to take over the entire environment.[6]

 These struggles are not necessarily conscious ones as could be seen in rational beings, but they are most often irrational. For instance, if a farmer scatters some seeds of tomatoes in his nursery bed, it is noticed that even at their early age, there is this irrational blind struggle among them for sunlight, nutrients and basic necessities that would enable them to survive. In the case of two animals fighting for food, one would object to my opinion of ‘irrational blind struggle’ since they are conscious of what they are doing. I want to note here that though these animals are conscious of the fact that they are struggling for food, they did not in any way consider the fact that this struggle would lead to the extinction of their species. Darwin therefore did not avoid including this urge to live in his theory of evolution.

3.1.3                       Hereditary Variation.

How can we account for the resemblances among organisms of the same species in our environment? The answer is found in genetical inheritances. Genes are passes to offspring from their individual parents at birth. Heredity therefore, gives account of the reason why offspring resemble their parents. Cow cannot beget goat, and vice verse. Charles Darwin was not the first to have some views about hereditary variation in species. Many eminent thinkers of the past before him are of the same view, though they presented theirs in very obscure manners.

The ancient Babylonians knew that pollen from a male date palm tree must be applied to the carpel of a female flower to obtain fruit, but they did not know about the reproductive cells in humans. The Greek scientist and philosopher Aristotle believed that inheritance was passed through the blood. This concept was embraced for centuries and persists today in such terminology as bloodlines, half bloods, and blue bloods.[7]

 Heredity therefore is the cause of variation among species. Millions of genes are found in each individual, ready to be inherited by their offspring. But at last, few of these inheritable characters from both parents are naturally selected to manifest in their offspring. Thus, no two offspring from even the same parents (identical twin, inclusive) have these genetic make-ups. And this is what Darwin called Variation in species.

3.1.4               Natural Selection/Survival of          the fittest.

We should understand that all the evolutionary theories of Charles Darwin rest on this very topic. This idea of natural selection sprang up from Darwin’s opinion that no logical necessity would in any way defend the then notion of divine creation as propagated by the Christian theologians or the theory of the big bang by the Chemists. Natural selection as should be noted is not attributed solely to Charles Darwin because, he discovered it though separately, but simultaneously with A. R. Wallace. The term was originally used by Darwin to explain the causal mechanism, which is responsible for the operation of his theory. Darwin later abandoned this term in favour of the term Survival of the Fittest. The term Natural Selection is important because it is currently used by virtually all evolutionists as the explanation for the mechanism originally intended by Darwin, in spite of his essential retraction, as above. Natural selection in a plane language is “the survival of the fittest in the struggle for existence.”[8]

Darwin realized that the individuals with variations that make them better adapted to their environment, survive and reproduce in greater number than those less fit. Thus there favourable variations tend to be passed on to the next generation. Over many generations favourable variations gradually accumulate in the species and unfavourable variations disappear. Eventually the accumulated changes become too great that the net result is new specie. [9]

In the light of the above view, we have realize that natural selection is a wrong choice of word to present what Darwin had in mind; but it is clearly expressed by term ‘survival of the fittest.’ Natural selection as used by Darwin is a metonymy, which does not consider whether those who are to use it understand it, or not.

Population evolves when natural selection sorts them out from the gene pool. Beneficial new genes quickly spread through a population because members who carry them have a greater reproductive success, or evolutionary fitness, and consequently pass the beneficial genes to more offspring. It is also noticed that genes that are not good for organisms are eliminated. This process of elimination takes quite a long time, though sometimes, it happens quickly, depending on how the individual carriers of those particular bad traits survive with them. Some genes in some species are seen as being stubborn, in the sense that they find some ways to reintroduce themselves to every new generation by the way of mutation.

TYPES OF NATURAL SELECTION.

Under this we are to look into four ways through which we can say that nature selects:

1.                  Directional Selection.

2.                Stabilizing Selection

3.                 Disruptive selection

4.                Sexual selection

1.      Directional Selection: It is noticed that most often in a natural habitat, some changes in the climate, the constant invading of predators and coming up of new diseases can disrupt natural selection, and channels it to work in their own dictates and pace. In this type of condition, one would observe that larger animals survive this type of natural selection. For instance, during a season of cold, some larger species of animals might come together and warm each other, and on the process would eventually survive the condition.

2.    Stabilizing selection: I would like to call this “selection from the middle”. It involves the case where during natural selection (survival of the fittest), only those offspring that have intermediate version of characteristics survive.

Stabilizing selection was evident in a study of the birth weight of human babies published in the middle of the 20th century. It showed that babies of intermediate weight, about 3.5 kg (8 lb), were more likely to survive. Babies with a heftier birth weight had lower chances for survival because they were more likely to cause complications during the delivery process, and lightweight babies were often born premature or with other health problems. Babies of intermediate birth weight, then, were more likely to survive to reproductive age.[10]

3. Disruptive Selection: In  another case, it is discovered

 that the case of intermediate selection as discussed above could not hold. Rather, the two extremes are favoured and thus are bound to survive during the natural selection. For instance, chameleon has learnt to avoid its enemies by turning its body colour to that of its natural habitat. This makes it uneasy to be seen by its predators. Another example is that of African Mocker Swallowtail. According to Encarta Encyclopedia:

The African Mocker swallowtail butterfly has undergone this form of selection, known as disruptive selection. The Mocker swallowtail evades its predators by resembling poisonous butterflies in its ecosystem. Predators have learned to avoid these poisonous butterflies and also to steer away from the look-alike Mocker swallowtails.[11]

     4.      Sexual Selection:  This is a reproductive process through which survival of species is measured by their successes in mating. In some ecosystems or habitats there are struggles among mature males of the particular species over the ownership of their territory (This could be easily be noticed in lizard family). These competitions are likely to favour those individuals with hereditary traits. These traits survive, only if they are allowed to  do so during the sexual mating of these species or else, the traits are likely to phase out. It is also observed “Some males win females’ attention more often than others and, as a result, pass their genes to more offspring.”[12]

3.2            THE EXTINCTION OF THE                          INTERMEDIATE VARIETIES.

Some species laid eggs by the thousands, and countless seeds wafted their way through the air from countless parent plants. Any one race would overrun the world in a short time if some check did not intervene. That a check did intervene was obvious, for even such sturdy invaders as the cardoon came to a halt and long-established species remained fairly constant in numbers. And yet, even the closest observers were seldom able to tell when the check was applied or precisely what it was.[13]

          Darwin, in effort to treat this issue, proposed that there is a possibility of some ‘missing links’ in the evolutionary trend; when the whole species become extinct despite their struggle for existence. The extinction for him is the reason for some gaps in the evolutionary lineage. Existence of this gap has left some bone of contention for the evolutionists and their critics. Critics of evolution theory are of the opinion that if evolution is a possibility, there must be remnants or the fossils of the organisms that Darwin claimed in his theory that might have become extinct.

Studying this problem, Darwin noticed that species first became rare and then extinct. In this rarity, he reasoned to himself, was the plainest evidence that less favourable conditions led to extinction.[14]

Nevertheless, some varieties of species might have been erroneously thought to become extinct whereas nobody has discovered the present natural habitat of such species. For instance:

The coelacanth [a specie of fish] was thought to have been extinct for nearly one hundred million years until a fisherman caught a living specimen off the coast of East Africa.[15]

This is not in any to doubt the role of extinction in natural selection but I would like to emphasize the misconceptions of many scientists who for the sake of their experiment in just a small square kilometre habitat, would come out to generalize their findings, extending it far to even other natural habitats that have nothing in common with the habitat of their experiment. Commenting on the issue of extinction, A. J. Brook said:

Extinction… has played an important part in defining and widening the intervals between the several groups in each class. We may thus account for each other… by the belief that many ancient forms of life have been utterly lost, through which the early progenitors of birds [for instance] were formerly connected with the early progenitors of the other and at time less differentiated vertebrate classes.[16]

3.3    LIMITATIONS OF THE THEORY OF NATURAL SELECTION.

A striking witness to this is the fact that nowhere was Darwin able to point to one bona fide case of natural selection having actually generated evolutionary change in nature, let alone having been responsible for the creation of new species.[17]

          Natural selection also was unable to address fully the issues concerning inheritance, which was one of the problems facing their generation. Being unable to take a full distinct standpoint in this regard, Darwin was forced by circumstances to take almost the same stand with

Jean Lamarck, who was as at that period was a sole propagator of the idea of genetic inheritance and mutation. Darwin wanted to run away from every circumstance that would in anyway lead to the contradiction of his already established theory but this was not at all successful. He knew fully well that his proposal of evolution was too speculative to the extent that sometimes, it seems to loose every means for it to be true. Writing on the speculative nature of Darwin’s theory, Michael Denton comments:

The highly speculative nature of his evolutionary model was quite apparent to Darwin himself. Although convinced of the reality of evolution, nowhere, either in the origin or in any of his other writings including his autobiography and letters, is he even dogmatic or fanatical in his advocacy.[18]

3.4   THE GEOGRAPHICAL AND PHYSIOLOGICAL ISOLATION.

Geographical isolation prevents interbreeding with the parent population and allows the isolated daughter population to undergo unique adaptive changes leading eventually to the formation of a distinct species.[19]

There is another possibility that geographical isolation could lead to mutative change in species. During adaptation, living organisms struggle to use the nearest available natural resources for their survival. If these organisms are isolated, that is, they are now living in a habitat that are quite distinct and separate from their original habitat where they were breed, there is a likely case of mutation. The organisms in order to survive a particular strange environment develop those characteristics, not inherited from their parents, but are needed for their survival in the particular habitat. Though, this acquire  genes are naturally produced by the organisms in their struggle for existence, they are now inheritable by their subsequent species and throughout their generation, these same traits are shared among them.

There is evidence that some species, especially plant species, have been formed suddenly massive chromosomal mutations, which create instantly a new daughter population reproductively isolated from its parental stock.[20]

 BACK TO THE TABLE OF CONTENTS

CHAPTER 4.

4.1         Teilhard  De Chardin’s Evolutionary Theory.

Henceforth, science recognized itself as a means of extending and completing in man a world still incompletely formed. It assumed the shape of grandeur of a sacred duty. It became charged with futurity. In the great body, already coming to birth, of humanity grouped by the act of discovery, a soul was at last released; a mysticism of discovery.[1]

Teilhard tried to promote the awareness that the way by which people view science should be corrected. Science has no trouble with religion or other human endevours. Knowledge of science therefore, could serve in no small measure in other areas of life, including religion. Life for him therefore, could be traced from the most simplest conscious organism that emerges from the abiotic materials. So, it should be a case of moving from the simplest organism to most complex, from animal to human species, from the most basic colonies of bacteria to the highest civilizations.

Teilhard De Chardin has evolutionary idea that is quite distinct and unique from every other evolutionary theory before him. He centred his idea on the fact that evolution is being governed by what he called ‘law of complexification’.  He aimed at reaching what he called ‘metaphysics of evolution’. The law of complexification according to him is of the view that:

Inorganic matter will reach ever more complex forms, resulting in inorganic matter being followed by conscious life forms.[2]

The emergence of conscious life would not be the end of evolution, rather, evolution would progress more to what he called omega-point:

…Evolution, following the law of complexification with the co-operation of human choice moves to omega point at which Christ’s fullness include as his ‘body’ a unified humanity that is at peace.[3]

Through the law of complexification, the world would reach the utmost conscious level. This in other words imply that as the consciousness in man increases, so also do the material structures that made up such person.

Complexity of animal brains is accompanied by equal degree of consciousness while infinite complexity of human brain will generate reflection.[4]

One could therefore, rightly asserts that evolution takes place along the axis of complexification where we pass from relatively simple to the complex. Thus, we pass on from atoms to molecule and successively to molecular compounds, carbon compounds, viruses, and cells living organism, plant, animals and finally man. This passage could be briefly stated as passing from pre-life to life, and lastly to thought.

4.2       Teilhard’s Cosmic Evolution.

Teilhard’s evolutionary theory is a total break-through from the general conception of evolution to project even higher than expected. This is reason why some of his critics would accuse him of being more speculative than practical in his theory. Teilhard was disturbed by the general idea held by many scientists about the evolution as being only biological due to influence they got from Darwin and some subsequent scientists. He would then argue that evolution is not only about life since evolution existed even before life. Evolution “is much more than a mere genesis of animal species.”[5] Thus Teilhard writes:

In the nineteenth century, the theory of evolution (transformism) was simply a problem of animal speciation. Today, it extends to the general problem of ‘the corpusculizatiuon of energy’ throughout time, from the atomic elements up to the individual man; including … ‘planetised’ mankind.[6]

Teilhard De Chardin, rather gave interpretation of the cosmic evolution as something that happened in three phases. The first phase is the cosmogenesis – this is the cooling of the earth that brought inorganic matters into existence. After the cosmogenesis, comes the biogenesis – which implies the emergence of life from inorganic matters. Then, there is noogenesis.  This is the emergence of thought. Teilhard insists that these three levels are very essential in evolution. “Geosphere is succeeded by biosphere, biosphere is followed by noosphere.”[7]

In his book, “Phenomena of Man” Teilhard made his central message known. He talked about pre-life, life, the Alpha point, the Omega point, and so on.

4.2.1                       PRE – LIFE.

This is for Teilhard, another name for matter. He gave this name to matter because for him, every matter has potentiality of life in it. This potentiality could be achieved any moment. In calling it ‘pre-life’, he wants to imply that there is already direction, a tendency, an obscure sort of will in matter. Teilhard also tried to present in his theory the origin of this pre-life – “primordial matter that evolved from ‘protons, neutrons, electrons and phantons.’[8]  Also for Teilhard:

The evolution of matter, in current theory, comes back to the gradual building up by growing complication of the of the various elements recognized by physical chemistry.[9]

This implies that simple matters combine with the elemental stuff of the universe either at the atomic state or at the molecular stage.

4.2.2                     LIFE.

According to Teilhard; life emanates from pre-life. This means that a certain stage, in evolution; the unconscious matter, due to the natural endowment of will already in it, would become conscious. Thus, there would be a sort of movement from pre-life (geogenesis/cosmogenesis) to life (biogenesis). Biosphere originated from this biogenesis. This is a stage of development of cell. The developed cells combine into a multitude of living and ever more complex forms. Life starts in the cell membrane through the activating energy supplied to all part of the cell by the mitochondria.

4.2.3             ALPHA POINT.

This point is most often being neglected or being forgotten in the theory of Teilhard. Teilhard is of the opinion that infinite multiplicity should be regarded as the starting point of evolution. Alpha point wants to buttress the point that evolution started from somewhere and is fast moving towards its final goal or direction. This direction is found in the orderliness of the world. J. F. Raj has this to say:

Evolution does not proceed haphazardly, it is othorgenetic; it has a direction, a goal, an axis of development. The axis passes through the amphibians, reptiles, mammals, the primates and leads straight to man. We can almost pinpoint the axis in the gradual observable complexification of the nervous system, especially of the brain.[10]

4.3    THE IDEA OF OMEGA POINT.

 Since omega treatise is conjectural [it is] therefore speculative, [and also] it is a hypothesis. This does not invalidate its existence. Though it transcends scientific investigation, it still remains a great truth which stems from Teilhard’s religious convictions. When the hypothetic and synthetic natures of the omega point are summed up, the omega point becomes the hypothetic- synthetic point in the evolutionary process.[11]

4.3.1    Attributes of Omega Point.

          Teilhard did not advocate for the theory of the ‘Big bang’. For him therefore, nothing happens by chance. The world is properly planned and well arranged in such a manner that it continue to unfold sequentially. Therefore, since cosmic process has meaning, direction and goal; invariably, it must have a point towards which it is moving. This could be the ‘nucleus’. If this is the case, we would observe also that synthesis could only take place around a nucleus – the ultimate point from which life and consciousness emanate; and to be finally crystallized. Thus, even if evolution follows many lines, there must be a converging peak, otherwise called the Omega point.

Omega point has some attributes such as being already existing(this means that its existence was there before every other thing), personal (meaning that it is an intellectual being that is in no way abstract in nature). Omega point must also be transcendent (meaning that it must cut across all existing realities). It must be autonomous; thus cannot be limited by space and time, and lastly, it must be irreversible (that is, it must be attainable).

Teilhard is also of the view that human person and freedom are incapable of being suppressed in the omega point, rather, would be super-personalised and infinitely enriched.

These attributes depict what Teilhard thought about the omega. From all these, it is evident that omega, for Teilhard, does not exist only in the mind. He has concrete existence and is Christ.[12]

4.3.2                  Omega Point: The ultimate    Summit of Cosmic Evolution.

This caption is the summary of evolutionary ideas of Teilhard De Chardin. Omega point for him is the ultimate reality. Thus, all things that are seemed to be scattered are not so. They are rather moving towards the same direction, though from their respective angles. What matters is their final converging point. Teilhard, telling us that this final converging point (the ultimate reality) is the omega point, is by the way of extension asserting that omega point is the end the world history (the terminus ad quem of cosmic evolution). Teilhard says:

Life is moving towards unification, our hope can only be operative if it is expressed in greater human cohesion and solidarity.[13]

These cohesions are essential, if this zenith of cosmic evolution should be attained. “Teilhard is of the view that human race was scattered and each went on his own way, but at omega point, mankind will be brought together. Omega point therefore, is the point of socialization, centralization, unification and concentration for the survival of mankind.”[14]

BACK TO THE TABLE OF CONTENTS

CHAPTER 5.

5.1   The problem of the ‘missing link’ in evolutionary thought.

…Species had not been independently created, but had descended like varieties from other species.[1]

If this is the case, there should be a continuous link from the first varieties of a species to the next. Since evolution is a long-age process according to him, the absence of some varieties that are most closely related to the assumed descendant of a particular species casts a lot of doubt in the evolutionists’ claim. Darwin tried as much as he could to abandon the idea of fossils in his theory but it is unavoidable for him. Since he had made the assertion quoted above, he has a duty to close the gap that is found for instance, between man and monkey; unless he would in the alternate decline to the claim that man descended from monkey.

Darwin ‘s inability to discover any missing link threatened the validity of his theory, since it eventually emptied all Darwin’s macro evolutionary claim of any empirical basis.[2]

Only fossil records could make evolutionary theory to be intelligible. And it would  become speculation or non-factual if one starts to tell us that for instance, it is an adaptation and struggle for existence that conditioned giraffes to develop their long neck. Also, evolutionists would insist that the long neck of the giraffes were then inherited from their transitional ancestors:

But none of these transitional forms have been found. There is not a hint of them. Are there any fossils of giraffes with neck two-third or three-quarter as long as at present.[3]

The evolutionists must address these questions before their theory could be rendered intelligible. Evolutionists most often accuse creationists of speculation. For them, creationists just speculated the idea of Supreme Being who is the ultimate cause of every existential reality; and thus cannot be brought down to the level of science or investigation, but they failed in every ramification to present to us the reason for the gap in the transitional forms in various species. Even fossil record has not succeeded in this regard.

No matter how far back we go in the fossil record of previous animal life upon earth, we find no trace of any animal forms which are intermediate between the various major groups or phyla.[4]

Some evolutionists after Darwin tried as much as they could to discard the idea of fossils as being the problem of Darwin, but despite this, the discovery being made in the modern times concerning the fossils are threatening the validity of their claims. Many fossils have been discovered and many are still on the process to be discovered. Being unable to establish a valid link between evolution and the missing links, some evolutionist thought that a good solution would be abandoning the importance of fossil record. Mark Ridley (a British evolutionists and zoologist) has this to say:

…The gradual change of fossil species has never been part of the evidence for evolution. In the chapters on the fossil record in the origin of species, Darwin showed that the record was useless for testing between evolution and special creation because it has great gap in it. The same argument still applies…. In any case, no real evolutionist, whether gradualist or punctuationist uses the fossil record as evidence in favour of the theory of evolution as opposed to special creation.[5]

 Ridley must understand that it is impossible for one to discuss of long process of an event without first of all giving account of those that were involved during the process. Therefore, there is no way evolutionist could be discussing evolution as a process that took place within a very long time without giving account of events that took place within the long years. The search for the ‘missing links’ in evolutionary theory thus, becomes an imperative.

5.2  DID THE THEORY OF OMEGA                POINT SOLVE THE PROBLEM OF THE ‘MISSING LINKS’ IN EVOLUTION?

Coming to the works of Teilhard de Chardin, we discover that no explicit evidence was found in his works denying gradual evolution. His theory supports the idea of gradual evolution, only that he stressed the fact that one cannot in anyway, authentically find the ‘missing link’ in evolution in a fossil state. Teilhard was avoiding the problem that tried to mar Darwin ‘s evolutionary theory. Evolution for Teilhard then becomes a movement – things are gradually moving towards their ultimate goal or their omega point. Though Teilhard claimed that he has no evolutionary theory, “he always talk of evolution as a vision; a process which alone could explain all possible reality.”[6]

In his theory of movement of evolution towards omega point, Teilhard gave the direction of the movement as a movement from pre-life to life, towards the alpha point and will finally settle at the omega point.

By abandoning the idea of fossils, Teilhard failed to give proper account of series of transitions that life underwent before it would finally reach the acclaimed omega point. In his law of complexification, certain assumptions characterise the whole theory. For instance, Teilhard did not account for the link between the unconscious non-living matters that he called pre-life and conscious lives that it generated afterwards. Likewise, no account of transition is found between life which in the real sense, is the basis of evolution and further complexification that later took place. One could therefore, accuse Teilhard of his illusory thought of running away from the problem of providing the ‘missing link’ as early as possible in his theory by subscribing to gradual evolution on one hand, and on the other, he discarded the issue of transitional fossils that could only made them possible.

The problem of the missing link therefore, becomes also (like Darwin) the problem of Teilhard’s theory of movement (or evolution) towards the final point. Since both of them believe that evolution is a gradual process, there must be remnant of that gradual process that would either be presented as a fossil or seen in their surviving species. No accounts of these were found in their writings.

5.3  REFUTING EVOLUTION - DARWIN’S DANGEROUS IDEA.

While evolutionists deny the miraculous in the origin of living things, the evolutionary process, given enough time, supposedly produces miracle. [7]

Thus, since it implies that in creation theory that man can emerge instantaneously from either lower matters or through miraculous action of a Supreme Being, there is no single change in this sense when it comes to evolutionary theory; because the same emergence of man took place (from lower organisms) only that a long period of time was allowed. Thus, evolutionists’ stand is just a mere product of imagination and time.

Charles Darwin, the great high priest of evolution, had proclaimed that evolution had taken place slowly and gradually, during which very small, almost imperceptible changes accumulated in each evolving line, causing species to evolve into new species over long stretch of time.[8]

Evolutionists, being faithful advocates of Charles Darwin’ theory, conscientiously follow this doctrine. The summary of their assumption therefore holds that creation is a nursery tale just because it is as a result of instantaneous event, and evolution is then a science and more reliable because what it took creationism a twinkle of eye to accomplish, took evolution about three to four million years. One can therefore easily observe the non-logical nature of this claim.

Coming to the side of moral, we notice that decline in morality and subsequent effects on the society at large could easily be noticed in the countries like America that either adopted evolutionism as basis of their morality or another theory that fully rests on evolutionism. We have to observe from the other hand that though it is very obvious that evolutionism has helped mankind in various ways, especially as it concerns health and genetics, but the rate of crime that this very discovery has caused in our various societies cannot be over-emphasized. For instance, that Hitler decided to wipe away those he regarded as inferior race was because science of genetics (embedded in evolutionism) has been used to buttress racial theories of the innate inferiority of certain groups.

I suppose that nobody will deny that it is a great misfortune if an entire branch of science becomes addicted to a false theory. But this is what happen in biology: for a long time now people discuss evolutionary problems in a peculiar “Darwinian” vocabulary – “adaptation”, “selection”, “ pressure”, “natural selection”, etc – thereby believing that they contribute to the explanation of natural events.

5.4  IS CREATIONISM A RELIABLE OPTION?

We do not know how God created, what processes which He used, for God used processes which are not now operative anywhere in the natural universe. This is why we refer to divine creation as special creation. We cannot discover by scientific investigations anything about creative process used by God. …Evolutionists have not witnessed any real evolutionary changes take place, nor will this be possible in the future. They likewise, will never be able, to know how their postulated evolutionary changes may have taken place.[9]

This statement of Duane Gish above opined that though creationism remains a mystery to the atheists who may doubt the validity of such claim; it does not in either way make evolutionism a reliable and provable to those that opposes it. The process that God used in creation is so mysterious and has not been found anywhere in the world. No one on the other hand, has ever seen evolution in action. These extreme opinions then threw man into confusion and dilemma of which one to uphold, and which one to abandon. Which of these options are more reliable? Creationism or evolutionism? We are much concerned with these two theories of origin of life because according to Douglas Futuyma:

Creation and evolution… exhaust the possible explanations for the origin of living things. Organisms either appeared on earth fully developed or they did not. If they did not, they must have developed from pre-existing species by some process of modification. If they did appear in fully developed state, they must indeed have been created by some omnipotent intelligence.[10]

We should recall that out of various theories of origin of life already propounded, creationism and evolution are being regarded as being more intelligible. But the case is which one out of these is more likely to be firm truth about the origin of life. Life came into the world, only but through one process and therefore, either evolution or creationism is more likely to be false. The problem here now is, how should we decipher which one that is more reliable?

From every indication so far, we understood that though both creationism and evolutionism are both built upon speculations, creationism is more likely to be the better option as far as origin of life is concern. What makes creationism more sensible? Since evolutionists could not give account of the basic stuff from which living things, which they uphold, came from, they failed in their claim. This is because, before ever the evolutionists’ basic stuff came into existence, it must have been caused by something else. Evolutionists did not give this account. Creationists explain it on the basis of sudden ‘fiat’ from a supra-sensible being. Since this account is necessary, we better look on creationism as a reliable option. On the other hand, even the evolutionists’ basic stuff would have been created.

BACK TO THE TABLE OF CONTENTS

EVALUATION AND CONCLUSION.

If as a result of interior revolution, I were to loose in succession my faith in Christ, my faith in a personal God, and my faith in spirit, I feel that I should continue to believe invincibly in the world. [11]

Teilhard views the resolution of the dilemma as necessary. This is because he found a common factor between science and faith; and this common factor is a kind of upwards and forwards movements towards consciousness. He affirmed that since religion has been a veritable instrument in uplifting man to higher consciousness through vertical dimension; science on the other side is doing the same work on a horizontal level within the boundaries of the material world. Therefore, both science and faith have common denominator, which is the conscious movement upwards and forwards. This evolution of human consciousness continues to grow till its apex is reached; and this apex is what Teilhard attributes to as omega point.

He turned back to the Bible, and in the scripture, he discovered a God that is both suitable and compatible with the world of continual evolution. He found in this God none of the attributes given by the philosophers like “the unmoved mover”. Teilhard is of the opinion  that if God is really an unmoved mover according to  philosophers, then he should be viewed as standing both over and against creation. On the alternative, Teilhard discovered God who is in constant movement with the world in the process of evolution. Being able to explore the mysteries of the material world, Teilhard found that there is no difference between the world and Christian God. He stressed that there are some elements of faith that we have forgotten as they lie waste in the very heart of science. With this, Teilhard affirmed that the ultimate goal and end of evolution is God.

I must therefore confess that, Teilhard de Chardin’s theory can only be more and fairly appreciated by those who subscribe to his invitation to the merging of science and faith. In the final analysis, scientists should look into and accept the basis of faith while on the other hand; theologians should not continue to look far beyond the sensible things. They should try to glance reasonably into the world that is constantly emerging through the scrutiny of science.

 We have to understand that Teilhard ‘s theory is not only a mental concept that is not applicable in ordinary human life. It has also some practical implications. Our world today is currently clamouring for globalizations. This is a theory that what made human race to be diverse in nature should also be the point where they should unite. If we can borrow this theory from Teilhard, then, we would understand that globalisation we are advocating for should be called (in Teilhard’s conception) the omega point.

On the other hand, Teilhard’s evolutionary theory is not devoid of flaws. It could easily be discovered that his evolutionary process is full of ambiguity. He could not clearly and distinctly distinguish his thought. Reading through his theory, one could observe that there are a lot of mix- ups that cast doubts on the certainty of what he is saying. This makes it impossible to group him as either a theologian or cosmic, economic, or social evolutionist. In all these confusion, he also talked about Christ-omega as their summit. In short, his theory lacks clarity and is characterised by confusion. He only tries to answer questions concerning the ultimate end and future of human enquiry, which is practically impossible to some extent. The fact therefore remain that; the very day that human mind grasps the knowledge of either origin of its existence, or the ultimate end of its being as a whole, human knowledge would then reach its maximum zenith, and be brought to halt. Discovery of the origin of man should bring to a close all our struggles, and on the other hand, the discovery of end of man should mark the end of morality. Both of these should continue to be  mysteries to us or else, the result would be an automatic return to the state of nature.