© 2005 Carmelo Martínez
© 2005 Urantia Association of Spain
Evolution or creation? This question is not intended to imply that we are going to reject the theory of evolution and defend some American creationists who interpret the Bible literally, who want to suppress evolutionary theories from educational settings, and who are very often characterized as ultraconservative in politics and fundamentalist in religion. That is not the case. The evolution of species is a well-established theory in modern science that no one, almost no one, questions. Rather, the purpose is to highlight that, apparently, the last word on this theory has not yet been said.
To present the subsequent points of view, it may be useful to recall a certain controversy that arose a few decades ago regarding two different views on the evolution of species.
In the 1940s, toward the end of his research career, a French Jesuit anthropologist named Pierre Teilhard de Chardin wrote a long essay, summarizing a lifetime of study and fieldwork, entitled Le Phénomène Humain (1955, Editions du Seuil, Paris). In this book, he argued that evolution is an “arrow,” and that the entire spread and succession of species is “oriented” toward the emergence of consciousness in humankind. He went even further, venturing to extend evolution toward the emergence of superconsciousness; the convergence at the Omega point.
Years later, in 1970, another essay appeared, this time by the biologist Jacques Monod, entitled Le Hasard et la Nécessité (Editions du Seuil - Paris, 1970. Translated into Spanish as “El Azar y la Necesidad”. Barral Editores, Barcelona 1970). Its author states in one of the book’s chapters:
“Many distinguished spirits, even today, seem unable to accept or even understand that from a source of noise, selection alone could have extracted all the music of the biosphere”
Many understood this as a clear criticism of Teilhard’s theses.
These are the two different opinions, the two perspectives on evolution. On the one hand, those who believe that evolution is oriented, directed by some kind of force or mechanism, toward the emergence of humankind and consciousness. On the other hand, those who see in evolution nothing more than random mutations and natural selection; chance and necessity.
The latter has clearly prevailed, perhaps thanks to the discovery of genes and the development of genetic theory, which has provided the mechanisms to explain their functioning. It has prevailed to the point of overcoming the prejudices of many religious mindsets and many churches.
Unlike modern scientists, Darwin lacked the concept of genes and the genetic code, so he could not find the mechanism that justified his theory of the evolution of species. Today, we know that the genetic code is the “program” that directs the development (construction) of an organism, its maintenance throughout life, and even its aging and, consequently, its potential longevity. It also determines the characteristics of that organism and its ability to react to the environment in which it lives, and therefore its opportunity to produce other organisms that have the same code (to reproduce). In other words, it determines whether that organism is more or less adapted to its environment and, thus, the number of similar individuals it will be able to produce, and, consequently, whether the variety to which it belongs is more or less likely to survive over time.
Two different species have two different genetic codes; the more similar the two codes are, the closer the species are.
If the code is modified for any reason (e.g., radiation), a mutation occurs in the resulting organism, which will differ from its ancestor in some way. If this mutation is more fit, it will react more favorably (for it) to the environment, giving it more opportunities to reproduce, thus consolidating the mutation. Otherwise, it will be more likely to disappear.
Favorable mutations will accumulate over time, eventually giving rise to a different species.
This would be the mechanism of evolution: a source of noise (random changes in the genetic code) gives natural selection (the reproduction in greater quantities of those most adapted to the environment) the opportunity to compose all the music of the biosphere.
There is no mechanism directing evolution; nothing determines changes in the genetic code; it is random external disturbances that cause mutations. They are the result of chance. There is no plan of action; no one has set a final goal; it is “blind” natural evolution that does the work of evolution. It is the result of necessity.
But it seems that not everything has been said about the evolution of species. Recently browsing through the messages on the Spanish-language AIU forums, I found a topic in the Reader Contributions forum entitled “Evolution and Life Carriers.” The first post (www.librodeurantia.org/forums/aiu/index.php?showtopic=286) referred to a study on a possible deterministic mechanism in biological evolution. I found the comments interesting, so I decided to read the study. The English text of the study can be found at www.mdpi.net/entropy/papers/e6010223.pdf (I have a Spanish translation available for anyone who might be interested).
Reading that study reminded me of Teilhard and Monod’s determinism-chance dilemma, as well as what The Urantia Book tells us about life and its emergence and development on the worlds. So I decided to delve deeper into what was being discussed in the aforementioned forum.
I summarize and comment below on the cited study, and will then present the ideas it suggested to me.
The study begins by proposing a formula to calculate the rate of biological evolution (the rate at which new species emerge), or, in other words, the probability of obtaining a new species from random mutations. After a series of analyses, it concludes that if real values (tested with experiments) are applied to the variables that define the above probability, the resulting figure is so small that it in no way justifies the known rate at which species emerge. In other words, in the best-case scenario, it would have taken many more years than have actually elapsed to go from elementary life forms to humankind.
In short, random evolution, that of chance and necessity, does not explain what really happened; it doesn’t work.
To resolve this contradiction, the study proposes assuming the existence of a molecular machine capable of making decisions based on information accumulated within it (in reference samples). In other words, it triggers not just any mutation, but only those predetermined. In other words, the machine “knows” where it needs to go and triggers only the mutations that lead to that goal, thus shortening the time to achieve it.
According to this, evolution doesn’t waste time randomly testing different possibilities and leaving it to natural selection to find the viable and adapted ones; rather, it produces specific, predetermined mutations and lets selection “pass quality control” by rejecting the undesirable ones. If not all mutations are viable, let’s not waste time testing them.
What are these molecular machines? The study proposes the hypothesis that elementary particles (which make up atoms and molecules) have an internal structure, which means they can exist in different internal states, even behaving the same externally. It adds that their internal state can vary depending on the particle’s environment and certain characteristics that correspond to the reference samples it accumulates. The latter would be precisely the particle’s information memorization mechanism. This internal state would manifest itself, under the action of some external stimulus, changing the particle’s behavior, which would ultimately cause the mutation of the corresponding gene. Not just any mutation, but a specific one based on the information memorized in the particle.
This elementary particle could be an electron from a nucleotide atom that forms a gene that composes a particular chromosome. The study proposes a possible algorithm for the functioning of these molecular machines based on short-term changes in an electron. As the environment changes (the study says “the organism explores the environment”), the electrons “perceive” it, although they do not react until they recognize a specific form in the environment, the stimulus or stimuli for which they are programmed. The process of electron state change is then triggered, ultimately ending in the appearance of a new gene. A specific one, corresponding to the change in state of the environment recognized by the electron in question. A gene that was “programmed” as a reaction to a particular environment. This process is repeated until all the genes necessary to bring the initial organism to a new niche, a new organism, are changed. And so on and so forth, until the full variety of the biosphere, all of “its music,” is displayed.
In short, it would not be a random evolution resulting from chance and necessity, but a deterministic evolution resulting from planning and the environment.
And that’s the summary of the scientific study. Now, based on it, let’s let our imaginations run wild.
Genes are, as already stated, the “program” for constructing organisms, the “blueprints” for these living machines. To this familiar picture, we could now add, following the scientific study cited above, that genes also contain their own mutation rules (molecular machines). If we move from the consideration of a single gene to the set of all genes in a given organism, we would have the total of all possible mutation rules for that organism, that is, the possible species that can arise from that species. But since potential new species should also have their own mutation rules, we would have to assume that the genes of an organism of any species contain all the mutation rules for all possible species; that is, the planning of all possible types of organisms on a given planet. This planning is potential; only some of the species will appear, depending on the evolution that actually occurs in the planetary environment.
It is known that within a single species, the genetic code is the same in all its organisms; it is conceivable that within a single planet (in all species that exist, have existed, will ever exist, or could exist but never will) the genetic plan would be the same. The genetic code is transmitted within the same species; the genetic plan would be transmitted, within a single planet, to all species.
This genetic plan would be represented by the sum total of all the molecular machines contained in the genes of organisms, a kind of vital plasma specific to a planet.
But how did this genetic blueprint get into the genes? Is it intrinsic to matter, to elementary particles? Has someone “loaded” it?
It could be argued that it is intrinsic to matter. And thus, if we assume that matter is the same throughout the universe, we could think that all planets have the same potential (though not necessarily actual) species, a hypothesis that doesn’t seem absurd.
It could also be argued that matter, although externally the same, is not the same within its elementary particles, and that this difference actually manifests itself when the planet forms in space, perhaps due to the different spatial environments in which this occurs. This would associate the formation of a planet with its life forms, and would imply a specialization of life based on the spatial environment in which the planet formed. In short, each planet would have its own particular life forms adapted to that specific planet. This, too, does not seem an absurd hypothesis.
In both hypotheses, the question of how life formed is a continuation of the question of how matter and, in general, the universe formed. The formation of life would truly be the natural continuation of the formation of matter, something that could very well satisfy the most materialistic spirit of science.
But I am a reader of The Urantia Book, so reading the aforementioned study on a possible deterministic mechanism in evolution and the idea of a genetic plan led me to reread Papers 36, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, and especially Paper 65. In this reading, and with these new ideas, I noticed details that I had not noticed in the previous ones. I found confirmation of the existence of a genetic plan in paragraph 398:4 (the texts of the quoted paragraphs are in the final appendix). I also found in section 2 of Paper 36 (pages 397, 398 and 399) numerous details about how the genetic plan is tested, experimented with, and created; in Paper 58 sections 1, 2, and 3 (pages 664 to 668) how the planetary environment is analyzed and waited for to be favorable; and in Paper 36 section 3 (pages 399 and 400) and Paper 58 section 4 (pages 667 and 668) how life is planted and how the environment is acted upon to direct its development toward the final objective.
In short, there is a genetic plan, and it is meticulously laid out; life is planned; biological evolution has a purpose; a planet’s environmental and spatial conditions are carefully analyzed, a plan is made for what life will develop there, and it is studied and patiently awaits until geological evolution has set the stage. And this task is carried out by Life Carriers, “technicians” specialized in this wide range of activities, possibly supplemented by numerous other types of beings, including ascending mortals.
In short, when the Life Carriers appear with the original life plasm on a new planet, there is apparently a huge amount of work behind it. In the words of today’s Urantia: a complete evolutionary engineering project. And the ultimate goal is to transform the planet into a nursery, an initial world, for creatures with free will and the capacity to know and worship the Father.
Normally, Life Carriers bring already prepared life plasma to a new planet. This plasma will be very similar to that of another planet, with some modifications, adaptations, or improvements. This occurs on normal planets, and although the resulting species will not be exactly the same as on another planet with that type of plasma, they will have clear similarities since they originate from the same potential genetic plan (paragraph UB 36:2.13).
But evolutionary engineering takes them even further. In a quest for perfection, they carry out some of the experimentation directly on certain planets: the decimal planets. On these life experiment planets, like ours, the Life Carriers construct this plasma directly on the planet according to engineering previously developed in their laboratories (paragraphs UB 36:3.2 and UB 58:4.1).
And after experimenting, they analyze the results of those experiments in their laboratories to apply them to other planets (paragraph UB 65:4.1).
Once they have planted life in the previously chosen locations, the Life Carriers remain on the planet to promote its development. In this regard, I imagine that the genetic plan contained in the original life plasm of a planet has foreseen a multitude of evolutionary alternatives, taking into account the many accidents that can occur during the hundreds of millions of years that life’s development takes. The Life Carriers act on the environment to direct evolutionary development and to react to unforeseen events that may arise. In this regard, it is very interesting to reread sections 2 and 3 of Paper 65, pages 731, 732, 733, and 734.
But acting upon the environment is apparently sufficient (it should be recalled that in the scientific study cited above, it was hypothesized that molecular machines are triggered by environmental recognition, subsequently unleashing the mutational potential of the genes). Life Carriers do not manipulate the implanted life plasm itself. The evolutionary plan is presumed to be well thought out and to account for all possible contingencies (paragraphs UB 36:3.6, UB 36:3.7, and UB 65:3.2).
A fairly clear example of this way of acting is found in paragraph UB 65:2.14.
There will likely be a large reservoir of species predicted to exist in the lifeblood that ultimately do not appear on the planet, as they will not have been necessary given the specific circumstances that have actually occurred.
And finally, evolution culminates in the emergence of a species (or perhaps several?) with self-awareness and free will. The work of the Life Carriers is complete. Most will withdraw from the planet. Only a few volunteers will remain as advisors, provided they renounce any further involvement in evolution.
But the course of evolution is not yet complete. The human species must continue to develop their potentials on their own, and in this regard, paragraph 734.3 is clear. And the way to do this is also clear: What we, the Life Carriers, did to promote and preserve the life lines before the appearance of human will, humankind must do for itself after this event and after our withdrawal from active participation in evolution.
A surprising and unexpected statement, at least to me; a statement that indicates that the potential for evolution does not end with the emergence of human consciousness, as Teilhard de Chardin dared to suggest; that the mental and spiritual capacities of human races must continue to develop possibly until the very ages of light and life, something Teilhard surely intuited in what he called the Omega Point.
And all this development is in our hands! We are expected to improve the mental and spiritual capabilities of mankind, and to do this by improving the races, by continuing evolution. Eugenics? Not at all, at least not in its most negative sense. “What we Life Carriers do…, man must do for himself…” Plans for the improvement of mental and spiritual capabilities through race improvement (the continuation of evolution) must be far-reaching, spanning thousands of years; did not the Life Carriers have to wait patiently for favorable events to utilize them, for fortuitous circumstances to arise and take advantage of them? They were not permitted to act directly upon the natural development of evolution. (UB 65:3.2) Likewise, continuing evolution does not require the extermination of multitudes, or the disappearance of the retarded, or the execution of irredeemable murderers or misfits; nor does it require experiments in selective racial mixing to seek out a “master race.” All of these are aberrations. Interpreting what The Urantia Book says in this way is a mistake that leads some to accuse it of racism and other such “niceties.” The Urantia Book clearly states the objective: to increase people’s mental and spiritual capacities; and the method: to act patiently and over the long term on the environment (social, environmental, educational, moral conditions, etc.); evolution, not revolution.
I have no doubt that science will continue to make discoveries that confirm the data in The Urantia Book. Sometimes they may appear to contradict it, but it’s not wise to jump to conclusions. Although it may seem clear at first reading, the Book is, at times, extremely ambiguous (due no doubt to the limitations of the Revelators). I don’t believe, as some other readers claim, that it contains erroneous data (valid at the time of its publication, but invalid in subsequent times). There may be ambiguity, but not error; the Revelators may have overcome their limitations with ambiguity, but I don’t believe they did so with errors.
An example of the relationship between the science of our planet and The Urantia Book could be found in what we saw above regarding the evolution of species. Despite the fact that the random evolution of species is a firmly established theory, that same science is already beginning to question it. It may turn out that chance and necessity are not enough to justify the known development of the biosphere. The concept of determinism in evolution is beginning to emerge, along with certain hypotheses about mechanisms associated with genes that guide the advancement of species. A possibility is opening up in science that the evolution-creation dilemma may not be such, something already affirmed in The Urantia Book.
If, in light of that science, we were to ask ourselves: evolution or creation?, the answer might well be: evolution and creation. Or, more precisely, creation through evolution.
(Note: All quotes are taken directly from The Urantia Book; the Spanish text is my own translation.)
“…The original life plasm of an evolutionary world must contain the full potential for all future developmental variations and for all subsequent evolutionary changes and modifications. The provision for such far-reaching projects of life metamorphosis may require the appearance of many apparently useless forms of animal and vegetable life. Such by-products of planetary evolution, foreseen or unforeseen, appear upon the stage of action only to disappear, but in and through all this long process there runs the thread of the wise and intelligent formulations of the original designers of the planetary life plan and species scheme. The manifold by-products of biologic evolution are all essential to the final and full function of the higher intelligent forms of life…” UB 36:2.17
“Planetary life, therefore, while similar in some respects, differs in many ways on each evolutionary world. Even in a uniform life series in a single family of worlds, life is not exactly the same on any two planets; there is always a planetary type, for the Life Carriers work constantly in an effort to improve the vital formulas committed to their keeping.” UB 36:2.13
“…The Life Carriers often carry actual life plasm to a new world, but not always. They sometimes organize the life patterns after arriving on the planet of assignment in accordance with formulas previously approved for a new adventure in life establishment…” UB 36:3.2
“That we are called Life Carriers should not confuse you. We can and do carry life to the planets, but we brought no life to Urantia. Urantia life is unique, original with the planet. This sphere is a life-modification world; all life appearing hereon was formulated by us right here on the planet; and there is no other world in all Satania, even in all Nebadon, that has a life existence just like that of Urantia.” UB 58:4.1
“…On this planet we made our sixtieth attempt to modify and, if possible, improve the Satania adaptation of the Nebadon life designs, and it is of record that we achieved numerous beneficial modifications of the standard life patterns. To be specific, on Urantia we worked out and have satisfactorily demonstrated not less than twenty-eight features of life modification which will be of service to all Nebadon throughout all future time.” UB 65:4.1
“The Life Carriers of a planetary corps are given a certain period in which to establish life on a new world, approximately one-half million years of the time of that planet. At the termination of this period, indicated by certain developmental attainments of the planetary life, they cease implantation efforts, and they may not subsequently add anything new or supplemental to the life of that planet.” UB 36:3.6
“During the ages intervening between life establishment and the emergence of human creatures of moral status, the Life Carriers are permitted to manipulate the life environment and otherwise favorably directionize the course of biologic evolution. And this they do for long periods of time…” UB 36:3.7
“Life Carriers may employ every possible natural resource and may utilize any and all fortuitous circumstances which will enhance the developmental progress of the life experiment, but we are not permitted mechanically to intervene in, or arbitrarily to manipulate the conduct and course of, either plant or animal evolution.” UB 65:3.2
“Since the quality of the mind capacity for development in this eastern group was so definitely inferior to that of the other two groups, the Life Carriers, with the consent of their superiors, so manipulated the environment as further to circumscribe these inferior prehuman strains of evolving life. To all outward appearances the elimination of these inferior groups of creatures was accidental, but in reality it was altogether purposeful.” UB 65:2.14
“…But this fact does not preclude the possibility of the attainment of vastly higher levels of human development through the intelligent fostering of the evolutionary potentials still resident in the mortal races. That which we, the Life Carriers, do toward fostering and conserving the life strains before the appearance of human will, man must do for himself after such an event and subsequent to our retirement from active participation in evolution. In a general way, man’s evolutionary destiny is in his own hands, and scientific intelligence must sooner or later supersede the random functioning of uncontrolled natural selection and chance survival.” UB 65:3.6