An evolutionist’s perspective on the Universe from the ever-cogent EggBert himself:
But what good does it do me to think of the universe as an unthinking mechanism vast beyond comprehension? It gives me the consolation of believing I conceive it as it really is. It makes me thankful that I can conceive it at all. I could have been a pair of ragged claws, scuttling across the floors of silent seas. In this connection I find the Theory of Evolution a great consolation. It helps me understand how life came about and how I came to be. It reveals a logical principle I believe applies everywhere in the universe and at all levels: Of all the things that exist, animate and inanimate, some will be more successful than others at continuing to exist. Of those, some will evolve into greater complexity. This isn’t “progress,” it is simply the way things work. On this dot of space and in this instant of time, the human mind is a great success story, and I am fortunate to possess one. No, even that’s not true, because a goldfish isn’t unfortunate to lack one. It’s just that knowing what I know, I would rather be a human than a goldfish.
Some reject the Theory of Evolution because it offers no consolation in the face of death. They might just as well blame it for explaining why minds can conceive of death. Living things must die. That I can plainly see. That we are aware of our inevitable death is the price we must pay for being aware at all. On the whole, I think we’re getting a good deal.
When I die, what happens? Nothing much. Every atom of my body will continue to exist. The sum of the universe will be the same. The universe will not know or care.
He keenly and convincingly finds paradoxical comfort in the ineffable vastness of the great unknown, and the perplexing eventuality of the sentient beings that we are — that is, mankind being the result of atomic and subatomic particulates from an exploded star (supernova) — particulates with an avid agenda. Yet, I find the very existence of “animate” (or even inanimate) subatomic, atomic, molecular, cellular and microbial “life” a vast mystery in of themselves. Unseen particles of “energy” with one feral purpose: to evolve into something greater, into a greater intelligence. My question to EggBert is: Where does that “energy” come from? Where does that subatomic “purpose” come from? It is a desire, is it not? A design. Atomic energy, to me, is comprised of invisible vessels of design and propulsion. Energy seedlings. In the seed, there is power.
Who turned the power on? As a Creationist, I find that the quintessence of dust (by dust I think stardust), and the manner in which we choose to perceive it, requires a Kierkegaardian leap of faith, notwithstanding which side of the debate you fall on. This specific subject of quintessence (in relation to the universe) is like a coin — and a coin will always have two sides. Call me an old-fashioned, Paley-bred teleologist, but it is within natural design, energy and purpose that I see God, not a random explosion of life.