Evolution: A meeting of Báhá’i and Scientific Minds.

The subject of our origins is one that lends itself to both religious and scientific interests. As such, it is hotly debated for reasons that can be unclear. Perhaps the narrow-mindedness we observe, reflects a lack of humility on the part of some participants in such deliberations. Rigid theologies are bound to fail for one reason: There is no Absolute but God, and rigid theology is based on the assumption that there are other absolutes than God; namely human interpretations of Holy Scripture. The Báhá’i Faith has a simple approach to disagreements between Religion and Science:

“Religion which consists only of rites and ceremonies of prejudice is not the truth. Let us earnestly endeavour to be the means of uniting religion and science.

"Ali, the son-in-law of Muhammad, said: ‘That which is in conformity with science is also in conformity with religion’. Whatever the intelligence of man cannot understand, religion ought not to accept. Religion and science walk hand in hand, and any religion contrary to science is not the truth.”

(`Abdu'l-Baha: Paris Talks, Page: 131)

“Any religious belief which is not conformable with scientific proof and investigation is superstition, for true science is reason and reality, and religion is essentially reality and pure reason; therefore, the two must correspond. Religious teaching which is at variance with science and reason is human invention and imagination unworthy of acceptance, for the antithesis and opposite of knowledge is superstition born of the ignorance of man. If we say religion is opposed to science, we lack knowledge of either true science or true religion, for both are founded upon the premises and conclusions of reason, and both must bear its test.”

(`Abdu'l-Baha: Promulgation of Universal Peace, Page: 107)

However, `Abdu'l-Baha is reported to have said:

"The lost link of Darwinian theory is itself a proof that man is not an animal. How is it possible to have all the links present and that important link absent? Its absence is an indication that man has never been an animal. It will never be found."

(`Abdu'l-Baha: Promulgation of Universal Peace, Page: 359)

In stating that there is no missing link between man and ape, Abdul Baha can be right on two levels. Scientifically, there is no line of descent from ape to man. This is a misconception common to those who are not well versed in science. Rather, studies of faunal progression in the fossil record have uncovered an ancestry that is common to both. To date there are no English translations of statements by `Abdu'l-Baha addressing the issue of common ancestry, as opposed to "missing links" such as can only be interpreted to represent links in a direct line of descent from one form to another. For example:

"They find that his anatomy has undergone successive changes, finally assuming human form, and that these intermediate forms or changes are like links connected. Between man and the ape, however, there is one link missing, and to the present time scientists have not been able to discover it."

(`Abdu'l-Baha: Promulgation of Universal Peace, Pages: 358)

The discovery of many “missing links” or rather, common ancestors for primates in the fossil record sheds new light on `Abdu’l-Baha’s statements. In order from probable common ancestors to Homo Sapiens:

Aegyptopithecus may be a common ancestor but is certainly not the most recent of the common ancestors. This fellow appears in this august position along with Proconsul, on a few web sites dedicated to the topic. According to Kathleen Hunt, Proconsul is probably ancestral to both humans and all later apes. It is not clear if Australopithecus Africanus branched off separately and became extinct, or was one of the direct ancestral forms. According to Kaveh Nateghi, stone tools have been found at several Australopithecus sites (Australopithecus Paranthropus - Oldest being 2.5-2.6 million years old), however it is uncertain whether the use of stone tools was limited to the more advanced Australopithecines or was common to all Australopithecine species. Homo Ergaster forms a sister group to Homo Erectus but it is suggested that Homo Ergaster is much closer to Homo Sapiens than is Homo Erectus - See:

http://www.pro-am.com/origins/research/ergaster1.htm

The common ancestor for Homo Sapiens, Chimps and Gorillas is believed to
have lived about 6-8MYA.
These web sites provide more general information:
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Acropolis/5579/timeline.html
http://www.pro-am.com/origins/research/austgen1.htm
http://www.geocities.com/SoHo/Atrium/1381/index.html

The question this raises is whether we should assume that such species have an unexpressed human potential on the basis of such likely palaeontological relationships? (Eg In common descendancy from Aegyptopithecus with Homo Sapiens).

On an ethical level, Abdul Baha's arguments oppose the concept of the soul being evolved into being:

"The beginning of the existence of man on the terrestrial globe resembles his formation in the womb of the mother. The embryo in the womb of the mother gradually grows and develops until birth, after which it continues to grow and develop until it reaches the age of discretion and maturity. Though in infancy the signs of the mind and spirit appear in man, they do not reach the degree of perfection; they are imperfect. Only when man attains maturity do the mind and the spirit appear and become evident in utmost perfection. So also the formation of man in the matrix of the world was in the beginning like the embryo; then gradually he made progress in perfectness, and grew and developed until he reached the state of maturity, when the mind and spirit became visible in the greatest power. In the beginning of his formation the mind and spirit also existed, but they were hidden; later they were manifested. In the womb of the world mind and spirit also existed in the embryo, but they were concealed; afterward they appeared. So it is that in the seed the tree exists, but it is hidden and concealed; when it develops and grows, the complete tree appears."

(`Abdu'l-Baha: Some Answered Questions, Page: 198)

Spirit and mind is either there or it isn't, and it is not precluded because it cannot be detected, rather it is given existence by the potential of a species to contemplate things beyond this physical realm either now, or in a different form many million years from now, or anywhere in between. The ancestors of our species being the prime example back in the Triassic when "we" were of a totally different form, and left no archaeological evidence whatsoever that might suggest sentience (eg: Burial sites, refined tools etc.) In spite of these failings, our destiny to evolve into our current form, gave all the species on this line of descent a potential which is as important to consider as are the more obvious aspects of sentience when considering value of life and/or right to life issues. This is why Abdul Baha labels all the species on this line of descent as Human in type and biological in progression, regardless of the apparent lack of outward Humanity. This introduces the issue of cousins who may not exhibit any outward Humanity, but may have the same potential to produce sentient individuals. An uncomfortable question that cannot be readily and dogmatically answered. The pygmy chimpanzee is a remarkable species that has been observed to stop to mourn the death of one member of the hunting party. They have not been observed to refine tools in the wild but have been observed to do so in captivity indicating the potential to imagine what cannot be seen in front of them. Could such a species also imagine life beyond death? Could such a species give rise to another that could imagine a spiritual world? Do we have the right to rule out the possibility that some other primates have the human potential? Might there be "angels on high" or perhaps not so high, debating our apparent worth or definition in this very manner?

The other level on which Abdu’l Baha might be right is that a large chunk of our fossil record is missing (about ten million years worth) owing to the poor fossilisation conditions in tropical rainforests such as were inhabited by the very ancestors that are sought. This however, does not account for the fact that biologically, we are not only Animal in Kingdom, but Chordata in Phylum, Mammalia in class, and Primate in order. Studies of faunal progression indicate common ancestors for primates, for mammals, and for veterbrates (Chordata) It would seem an incredible coincidence to separately evolve the sheer number of physical similarities with another competing line and along exactly the same path.

The question is then, what evidence might lend support to the idea of separate biological evolution of humans, or any other species. One example would be a distinctly different kingdom (thousands, perhaps millions of individual species). The Plant and Animal kingdoms display an enormous amount of biological diversity. If the line that produced Homo Sapiens is truly a separate kingdom again from the plant and animal lines (kingdoms), then one would expect to see the same enormous biodiversity in this "Human Kingdom". If one is to assume that we are at the forefront of this particular kingdom, then there must be thousands of other biological species that carry the same potential, even if it is not made visibly manifest at this time in any of them. I believe that such questions should not be taken lightly, and certainly when pondering this, one should discard the vain human ego that deplores being compared with species that act out almost in caricature, the very things in our carnal nature that we are ashamed to admit. I think that such questions cannot be answered by Science alone, nor by Religion alone, for the very idea of a "Human Kingdom" as opposed to "Human Species" is religious, while the concept of Evolution, and the task of identifying the places of species in an evolutionary tree, is scientific. Particularly in absense of any outward manifestation of sentience.

Another example of evidence that might lend support to the idea of separate biological evolution, would be an example of a Class that had ancestors in more than one phylum not being on the same line of descent. Even a humble species with ancestors in more than one genus on separate lines of descent (eg. Geographically separated) would turn current ideas about evolution on their head. For example, is it possible that Homo Sapiens descended from Homo Erectus in some places and Homo Egaster in others? Or are we talking about a single line of descent? The "Mitachondrial Eve" theory would suggest a single line of descent, even if its potential for error (time is where the big problem in this particular study) is taken into consideration.

“It is necessary, therefore, that we should know what each of the important existences was in the beginning - for there is no doubt that in the beginning the origin was one:   the origin of all numbers is one and not two.  Then it is evident that in the beginning matter was one, and that one matter appeared in different aspects in each element. Thus various forms were produced, and these various aspects as they were produced became permanent, and each element was specialized.  But this permanence was not definite, and did not attain realization and perfect existence until after a very long time.  Then these elements became composed, and organized and combined in infinite forms; or rather from the composition and combination of these elements innumerable beings appeared.” 

(`Abdu'l-Baha:  Some Answered Questions, Page: 181)

This conforms to a Hermetic verse whose tablet is possibly referred to by Baha’u’llah as follows:

"I will also mention for thee the invocation voiced by Balinus who was familiar with the theories put forward by the Father of Philosophy^1? regarding the mysteries of creation as given in his chrysolite tablets, that everyone may be fully assured of the things We have elucidated for thee in this manifest Tablet, which, if pressed with the hand of fairness and knowledge, will yield the spirit of life for the quickening of all created things. Great is the blessedness of him who swimmeth in this ocean and celebrateth the praise of his Lord, the Gracious, the Best-Beloved. Indeed the breezes of divine revelation are diffused from the verses of thy Lord in such wise that no one can dispute its truth, except those who are bereft of hearing, of vision, of understanding and of every human faculty. Verily thy Lord beareth witness unto this, yet the people understand not...                        … It was this man of wisdom who became informed of the mysteries of creation and discerned the subtleties which lie enshrined in the Hermetic writings¹.”
(Baha'u'llah, 1988, "Tablet of Wisdom", Tablets of Bahá'u'lláh Revealed After the Kitab-i-Aqdas, U.S.A. p147-148)

Notwithstanding the shift in gemstone names that makes the translation of old texts dubious at best in this particular regard, there is a copy of the "Emerald Tablet" by the Father of Philosophy (also known as Hermes in Greek history, Idris in Egyptian history, and Enoch in Hebrew history), that does mention the issue of how diverse things came into being from one. Specifically:

"And all things have been and arose from one, by ye meditation of one, so all things have their birth from this one thing by adaption".
(Dobbs, B. J. T. 1988, Newton's Commentary on the Emerald Tablet of Hermes Trismegistas: Its   Scientific and Theological Significance. In Merkel, E. & Debus, A. G. (Editors), Hermeticism and the Renaissance, Associated University Presses, London. p183)

A "birth from one thing by adaption" might not be as sophisticated as a thesis on the intricacies of natural selection but adaption is a key factor in this process. The use of the word "adaption" in the above quote is interesting to say the least. On the other hand, perhaps the object of the alchemists' quest was a little more than they bargained for?

Is this perhaps an indirect reference to ancient texts describing in a simplistic manner, an up and coming scientific theory at the time of reference? Or perhaps this link is too tenuous to be tangible? IE The object of the above quote from Baha'u'llah is not the chrysolite tablets nor their theoretical contents, but an invocation voiced by Balinus. Perhaps I have delved too deeply but in doing so I hope to make a point concerning thoroughness in the research of such complex issues.

Footnote:
1. In one of His Tablets Baha'u'llah wrote:  `The first person who devoted himself to philosophy was Idris. Thus was he named. Some called him also Hermes. In every tongue he hath a special name. He it is who hath set forth in every branch of philosophy thorough and convincing statements. After him Balinus derived his knowledge and sciences from the Hermetic Tablets and most of the philosophers who followed him made their philosophical and scientific discoveries from his words and statements...'. In the Qur'an, Sura 19, verses 57 and 58, is written: `And commemorate Idris in the Book; for he was a man of truth, a Prophet; And we uplifted him to a place on high.'