The Final Gap Plugged. Post 1 of 2.

In my wisdom, which, these days, is effectively infinite, I have decided to cut this post into two. The reason should not concern mere mortals like my readers. With that said, the folk who visit my blog are within the top strata regarding intellect. As for the rest of humanity: they see nothing, think nothing, and go about their petty, miserable existence with a smartphone permanently glued to their mortal frame. This blog is not for them- it is far from their ken. Pity them, for they have no comprehension of anything beyond the minutiae of life and the size and shape of Kim Kardashian's voluminous arse. Big fat, Arse.  However, I am a magnanimous, beneficent and clear-headed writer. On this occasion, I will deign to my readership's evident, blatant curiosity and thusly share a wheel in a cog of my restless, remorseless and often disjointed intellect.  

Anyway, for some baffling reason that eludes me, and is essentially inexplicable, my original work was deemed too long for a single posting. Under the guiding principle: 'TOO LONG, WON'T READ', I have made the painful decision to split my original post into two. As can be seen, the first thrilling instalment has been published today. Do not despair, and descend into a quivering state of wretched despond, for the second post will follow but 24 hours later. 

This post is another in the series of Evolution through the process of Natural Selection.  Today's post considers the disquiet that must logically exist between the scientific concept of evolution and theist imposition and interpretation of the same. It is also true that even educated lay folk have an incomplete understanding of how natural selection works and often harbour dangerous misconceptions. However, this is a topic for another day. This post will mainly deal with the tension and conflict that must logically exist between Theology and Evolution. Liberal theologians may embrace the concept but baulk at the implication that no guiding supernatural hand is required. And therein lies the problem. Has god left evolution to occur only by natural law, or has he had a guiding hand by miraculous action? Proponents of Intelligent Design (ID) believe that evolution is a fantasy of the scientific mind and that god is the cause of the existence of all we see. Both ideologies have their problematic issues. Let the lesson begin!

Let us tackle the ID argument first, as it is the easiest to discard. The problem is that the Intelligent Designer is assumed to be god, and a Christian god at that, often replete with white hair and a golden staff. The proposition is easy to state: complexity is attributed to the deity through unspecified mechanisms. In truth, no mechanism is stated because there is no mechanism. Arguments may be wrapped up in esoteric fluff, such as god's majesty or will, or profundity. This is typical theological sleight of hand. At the end of the misdirection, it still remains that an unknown, invisible entity exerts action by means unknown. This sort of drivel is full of logical holes and is unappealing to the rational mind.

The thinking theologian knows that Darwin's theory of evolution is a theory supported by a myriad of evidence from multiple sources. It has stood the test of time, and 160 years after its conception, it remains solid and underpins all that is biology. Also, the process can be explained exclusively by natural phenomena. No god needs to apply for a non-existent position, and this is deeply troubling for theistic evolutionists. Science has pushed god out of the natural world. Perhaps they clutch at the prospect that god had a hand in the formation of life, a provider of the initiating spark. While it is true that scientists have not figured out how the first proto-life came to be, they have made significant inroads into the problem. I'm confident that science will develop a rational, data-driven model of the ultimate process, given time.

It is an anathema to theistic thinking that god has had no role in life formation and progression. There seems little point to a passive deity that absolves all to capricious natural processes. Thus, they can't help but ponder that their beloved god is redundant and unemployed; surely he must be involved somewhere. As science hasn't worked out how life came forth from the mud, a waiting god is in the wings, ready to provide a miracle or two and, mayhap, a guiding hand as time goes by. 

There are many problems the thoughtful theologian must face if he truly accepts the concept of the 'all-loving,' 'all-powerful' god as true. Is Evolution through Natural Selection compatible with the conception of an 'all-loving', 'all-powerful' deity? Notwithstanding the logical issues inherent in these concepts and their contradictory implausibilities, would we expect this theological concept of the deity to be compatible with a mechanism that is immeasurably wasteful and cruel? Natural selection can only work through the death and/or non-reproduction of the majority of organisms. A testament to waste lies in the statistic that 99% of all species that have existed on Earth have gone extinct. Death by predation, disease and parasitisation are natural consequences of the evolutionary process. Consider the horror of the Ichneumonidae wasp as it lays a single egg in the humble caterpillar with implacable, remorseless indifference. After laying the egg, the developing larva devours the organs, in sequence, to ensure that the caterpillar does not die immediately. The wasp larva saves and savours the critical part of the caterpillar until last. The larva excavates the caterpillar, leaving but a hollowed husk (double redundancy, Flaxen!). During the feast, the poor caterpillar remains alive throughout, twitching and writhing in a macabre rhythmic dance of death. This is just one example of the horror repeated through time and geography throughout the natural world. How can this be reconciled with the all-loving god of Christianity? This problem parallels the general argument of the 'Problem of Evil'. This contradiction of god's nature has spawned a whole theological philosophy, called Theodicy. Clever believers throughout the ages have devised many schemes to explain why a benevolent deity allows evident evil. The explanations, although intricate and contrived, fail to provide a satisfactory account. The world is an evil, cruel and capricious existence. It is this observed and blatant injustice in this life that spurred the concept of an afterlife that eliminates pain; jam tomorrow, not today. A lie to keep the simple believers from revolting, 

Nuff said for now. The thrilling instalment will follow in just a thrice.