Why are they not content just to preach the truth of evolution? Their conclusions so grossly exceed their legitimate arguments, that one suspects at once that they have a hidden agenda. I accept their exposition of the wonders of Nature, and share their sense of wonder that a creation so marvellous should have come into being. But I am still entitled to scrutinize their arguments, even while I would not consider questioning their truly biological opinions. So when a biologist says there is no goal at the end of evolution, and that it is human vanity to think Man is the final product of evolution; I am entitled to point out that this is not a statement of fact, it is a statement of opinion couched in highly emotive and prejudiced language. It is a colossal non-sequitur, and the wildest of illegitimate inductions, from their explaining the possible, and maybe probable, steps in natural selection. When you reflect that evolution has actually progressed along the road of complexification of the central nervous system in living creatures, until it has reached the celebralization of man, there is nothing absurd in Teilhard de Chardin suggesting that actually this was the underlying purpose all along. Nor does an underlying purpose invalidate any of the hypothetical and speculative steps of natural selection that the biologist describes. Indeed his account is probably correct, whether there was, or was not, an underlying purpose.
And when Teilhard de Chardin goes on to point out that man has taken over the direction of his mental and spiritual evolution, even to the extent of building tower blocks of flats, which are so corrosive of former local loyalties, one cannot but admire his colossal edifice of the Noosphere, or the mental and psychological envelope of thought which he says surrounds the entire biosphere. His hypothesis may be right, or it may be wrong, but it is the most imaginative concept. In contrast the pure biologist, I say “pure” because Teilhard de Chardin was a biologist amongst other things, when he “explains” evolution in terms solely of natural selection without purpose, has actually not explained anything. Quite the contrary; he has stripped the known-world of all explanation and meaning. Whilst I concede that this may be the truth, that it has no meaning; it is an unhappy conclusion to reach. Compared with the colossal and majestic concept of the Noosphere, I’m afraid the “explanation” of the pure biologist is most depressing. But of course I concede that one must struggle to grasp the truth, even if it is most depressing truth.
And one of the most depressing features of any purely biological description of natural selection, is the complete absence of any admission that thought and will influence matter. I could understand how a sightless creature long ago, might have conceived ever-so-dimly a desire to become more aware of the “other” round about it; and so developed a patch on the skin that became sensitive to light. And I could understand how that patch might ever-so-slowly have evolved into an eye.