inside america

WELCOMING ARDI
The unearthing of the oldest hominid skeleton provides an occasion to look more closely at a yearning for meaning and purpose that originates beyond ideological Darwinism.

by lorenzo albacete

Ardi was introduced to the world in October 2nd’s special edition of the prestigious journal Science, which contained 11 papers by a total of 47 authors from 10 countries. She was introduced by the news media to the American and other English-speaking public in reports and articles such as the one in the October 12th issue of Time magazine.
Who is Ardi? Her real name is Ardipithecus Ramidus, abbreviated Ar. Ramidus, but her friends just call her Ardi. We don’t know whether she minds such informality because Ardi is dead, a very long time dead. In fact, Ardi is a fossil of a 110-pound 4-foot female, a 125-piece hominid skeleton that is the oldest hominid fossil ever found so far, some 1.2 million years older than the celebrated Lucy. Ardi’s first bones were found in the Middle Awash region of Ethiopia in November of 1994, and it has taken 15 years of intense searching and re-construction effort in order to be able to introduce her to the world.

Many conclusions about Ardi are still just “probable,” but it appears that Ardi is the best and most documented descendant of a common ancestor between humans and chimps before their lines of evolution diverged about 7 million years ago and Ardi’s kind became extinct. Those who know about these things are excited because Ardi is changing the prevailing view of what that common ancestor must have been like. This discovery, says one of the experts, “flips our understanding of human evolution.” And a member of the team that found her states that Ardi shows that “humans are not merely a slight modification of chimps despite their genomic similarity.” There really is a fascinating discussion going on in the Darwinian world about the consequences of this discovery, and I wish I knew more about it.  But there are people who find all of this contrary to their Christian faith and insist on things like creationism and intelligent design discovered scientifically. There are also non-believing Darwinians who agree on the incompatibility between evolutionary science and religious beliefs. Amongst the most well known of these is Richard Dawkins. In the October 5th edition of Newsweek magazine, there is an article apparently adapted from Dawkins’ new book (The Greatest Show on Earth) followed by an interview with Dawkins who seems upset at being called “strident” in his efforts to promote evolution and in his ridiculing of religious beliefs (as in his earlier book The God Delusion). Still, strident or not, he certainly demonstrates a passionate concern in educating others to what he sees as the beautiful, comprehensive, reasonable view of current Darwinian thought. As the Newsweek headline puts it: “More Americans believe in angels than in evolution–and Richard Dawkins is not going to take it anymore.”

But why should he care? Consider the following account of current Darwinian thought: “Nature is devoid of data suggesting intentionality, direction other than death, perfectibility, or purpose. The living world, ourselves included, …changes, but the changes that make each one of us individually unique and interesting to each other are meaningless differences in DNA, creating the differences among us toward no purpose other than the possible improvement in survival of one or another particular version of DNA over time… Scientific insight into the meaninglessness of DNA life is not simply missing meaning. It is the demonstration that a satisfactory, even elegant explanation of the workings of this aspect of nature actually conflicts with the assumption of purpose and meaning.” [Remarks excerpted from a Crossroads Cultural Center event in NY (9/30/09),  adapted from R. Pollack in Sh’ma magazine, October 2009. Cfr., www.Crossroadsculturalcenter.org.]
These are the words of a professor of biology at Columbia University who began to escape from the limitations of such a view by noticing his care for the future of the human race and our responsibility for the assault on the  environment of this planet. But “caring” and “responsibility” have no place in the “scientific insight into the meaninglessness of DNA life.” Maybe that view cannot totally explain the human reality after all. Maybe a broader view is necessary that contains within it the Darwinian method as modern physics “contains within” it Newton’s equations…This is the question Dawkins should ask himself:  Why does he care?