Darwinism, creationism and style

Most people in the western world (I will except some parts of the U.S. here) look upon the literal interpretation of the bible, particularly regarding Genesis, with contempt. They prefer a more prosaic approach: the theory of evolution. I say prosaic because the theory of evolution is regarded by most people as factual or true. Of course we have no way of knowing this. It certainly is a very efficient theory, it provides a “credible” explanation for a number of “facts”, it has a certain number of successful images that serve as symbols, and, most importantly, it provides a way to oppose something to creationism. Actually it has become a beacon of the “sceptic” groups. The sceptics, as they sometimes call themselves, believe in Darwin. Sometimes, they complain that Darwin is under attack, and they respond to this attack with a similar attack on “creationism”.

One of the reasons for this polar opposition between creationism and Darwinism is the lack of alternative theories. The Darwinian theory of evolution stands alone and basically unchanged for over one hundred and fifty years. It has gaping holes that nobody knows what to do with, but that is not so important. It is also sorely misunderstood, which is a lot more important. I don’t know if it is because old habits die hard or because we need to find a direction to the universe, but interpretations of the organic world, and they are legions (just listen to nature or scientific shows), tend to explain evolution with a teleological vocabulary. “The finch became more so and so in order to get more food”. “Became” and “in order to”, when put together, are very goal oriented, suggesting a will of the finches, an intention in nature. There is no such thing in Darwinian Theory. Darwin’s theory explains everything by chance and by chance alone. That’s why it is so good. There is also a strong bias of economy in these interpretations: more efficient, less energy, etc. Now that might be more in line with Darwin, I don’t know. One thing is certain. As long as you keep this teleological vocabulary, as long as you give an intention to nature, you are just replacing a God with another. I don’t have a problem with that, but I have a problem with claiming that you don’t.

I prefer to acknowledge the idea of god, and then refuse him any part in the nitty-gritty of evolution. Except that is with the notion of exuberance. The universe is exuberant, excessive, extravagant and very wasteful. If something can occur, if something can happen, regardless of its use, practicality or whatever, it appears. The world is the opposite of economical. And anyway if the universe is god, then the universe cannot be economical.

Who wants a god of moderation, counting peonies like pennies, uttering every minute “waste not, want not” or “a peony saved is a peony earned”. Who wants the image of god to be that of a miser! We can have a Darwinian theory but let’s give it some pizzazz, some flair, a certain sense of style!

Unfortunately, we must admit that cretionism does a much better job of that.