Life on Earth evolved from simple organisms, to the stage where the brain – the most complex organ of all – has been developed. The human brain may well be the most complex structure in the universe, but is it an inevitable by-product of biological evolution? Given that life can start on a planet, is there a biological "ladder of progress" inevitably and inexorably leading to the development of intelligence, cognition and consciousness, and thus technological civilizations?
Darwinism and natural selection tell us that nature does not plan ahead; mutations occur randomly and are selected for their survival value at that particular time. Evolutionary biologist Richard Dawkins likens nature to a blind watchmaker; blind because it does not see ahead, and has no pre-defined purpose in view. Dawkins writes: "... Yet the living results of natural selection overwhelmingly impress us with the appearance of design as if by a master watchmaker, impress us with the illusion of design and planning." So, according to this line of reasoning, humanity’s existence is a result of mere chance.
Some biologists and philosophers look to the concept of convergent evolution – i.e. different evolutionary paths leading to the same features, e.g. eyes, legs, wing – to show that the result of evolution is not pure chance … that there must be a purpose to life. Convergent evolution is hardly surprising when one considers that millions of species on Earth are exposed to the same selective conditions – so similar solutions emerge time and time again. However, as Jared Diamond points out in his book The Rise and Fall of the Third Chimpanzee, some traits do not evolve convergently – i.e. convergent evolution is not universal. Diamond takes the example of woodpeckers that are able to excavate into live wood for food or nest sites, and appear to be the only species that has evolved to do this. No other species – e.g. parrots, honeyeaters, possums – can excavate live wood. And just as woodpeckers are the only species to have exploited a particular niche, only one species in the billions that have ever existed in the 4.6 billion year history of the Earth has ever developed human intelligence and consciousness. He goes on to say: "Earth’s really successful species have instead been dumb and clumsy rats and beetles, who found better routes to their current dominance".
So the neo-Darwinists tell us that the evolution of intelligence is not an inevitable outcome of evolution, and it is very improbable.
Even great physicists have remarked on how the universe appears to have no point. Richard Feynman wrote: "The great accumulation of understanding as to how the physical world behaves only convinces one that this behaviour has a kind of meaninglessness about it".
And Steven Weinberg wrote: "The more the universe seems comprehensible, the more it also seems pointless".
If the whole point of science is to try to understand the universe, and if the universe really is pointless, then why are we humans doing science? Why are we working so hard on things like astrophysics and cosmology? The problem is that we simply don’t know. In The Goldilocks Enigma, Paul Davies states that he does not believe human intelligence to be an "accidental by-product of haphazard processes", but he is reluctant to resort to supernatural explanations. He says, "I do believe that life and mind are etched deeply into the fabric of the cosmos, perhaps through a shadowy half-glimpsed life principle." Somehow, the physical constants of the universe are set "just right" to allow intelligent beings to emerge. But how?
Science does not have all the answers, but this doesn’t mean that we should take refuge in mystic solutions. Scientists indeed try to find out more about the universe. Perhaps we will end up finding simple physical laws that explain the universe; or perhaps, just as there is the law of conservation of energy, there is also a law of "conservation of mystery" – i.e. the deeper we delve, the more mysteries we discover. However, we’ll never know unless we keep on investigating – trying to learn more – and we mustn’t pre-empt the conclusion by categorically saying, "the universe is pointless and intelligent life is just an accident", or take the deist solution and say "God set the physical constants of nature when she created the universe, and this made possible the eventual emergence of intelligent life".
For the moment, it appears to me that our lot is cast in a mysterious universe that has no purpose, but it may not be that way – that’s why we do science. And besides, isn’t it exciting to learn how nature works?
