Meher Baba Vs. Darwin
by Chris Ott
Download this file as a PDF
Introduction
According to Meher Baba, evolution is not a directionless selection of accidental traits culled by natural forces for their adaptation to environment. Rather it is a series of media that are produced from the template of past impressions of the soul in search of its identity.
Since the time of Charles Darwin, biological evolution has been greatly misunderstood. In fact, evolution was better understood prior to Darwin by mystics in the middle East and India. But it is Darwin's form that has been passed down into our present culture, adopted by science, and been argued over by theologians and educators. Thus we must begin with Darwinism if we are to discuss evolution and the misunderstandings that surround it.
Charles Darwin
Charles Darwin published his famous book, “Origin of the Species,” in 1859. Due to advance publicity the book was greatly anticipated in England. In fact the first publication was sold out before it reached the shelves. Darwinism was already accepted among English academics even before Darwin presented his arguments. Why is this? Because there was a demand for a way to explain the world without relying upon God.
Now this is partly understandable in light of the advances at the beginning of the second industrial revolution. The simple view of a six day Creation had had its day. Some kind of physicalist explanation was sought that would dovetail better with advances in chemistry, biology, geology, physics, etc. So Darwin was not upsetting a world order with a surprising theory; to the contrary he was meeting a demand with an idea whose time had come.
In it he laid out his theory of evolution, which he had worked out painstakingly over a period of twenty years, collecting and analyzing specimens from his voyages to the Galapagos Islands. However, the relatively small amount of data collected and studied by Charles Darwin was terribly misinterpreted by him.
Here are the aspects of Darwin's theory:
1. Gradualism: This is the view that changes in species do not happen suddenly, but happen gradually and continually in a steady flow of continuous change.
2. Random mutation: This is the view that mutations are constantly occurring in nature at a steady rate, and that most of them are not selected by nature because they offer no advantage. However, some accidental random mutations (Darwin theorized) do offer an advantage.
3. Natural selection: Darwin theorized that due to external forces in nature such as predators, mutations that were advantageous to survival would outlast those that were less advantageous.
4. Survival of the fittest. This is merely the term, first coined by Herbert Spencer, for how natural selection made its selections. [1]
Note two important assumptions.
1. One is that change in species is purely by chance, i.e. chance mutations. It is random and accidental. It has no original purpose.
2. Next notice that the control mechanism of evolution, the process by which bad mutations are culled from good ones, is the environment, i.e. it is external.
Thus Darwinism holds that evolution is aimless, and that the agency of evolution is outside of the consciousness of the creature itself. The agency, Darwinism holds, is the environment.
Now to fully grasp how all this comes together, you have to see the example given by Darwinists for this taking place around us.
During the mid 1800s near London, smokestacks from the industrial revolution caused otherwise white trees to turn black with soot. It was at the time recorded that moths that lived among the previously white trees turned black. The reason was that prior to the darkening of the trees, black moths had been easier to see, thus were picked off by birds. When the tree color changed, the darker moths were suddenly the better adapted form since they were better camouflaged from the predatory birds. Thus moths had turned from predominantly white to predominantly black.
A black and white moth against a blackened tree. White moths are easier for birds to see, so they get eaten more often. Over time this leaves mostly black moths.
At first blush this seems not only like a good theory, but the example of the moths seems to prove that evolution is happening all the time all around us.
But here are some problems with this theory as given.
The moth example tells us nothing that was not already known by plant and animal breeders since the beginning of civilization. You can very easily use selective breeding to change the color, size, and general superficial characteristics of a plant or animal. We can, for instance, breed a color of rose. We can breed white horses and have a herd of white horses.
But what no breeder has done is produce a new species. Why is this? It is because of something called homeostasis. If you breed a plant or animal too far from the paragon of that species, one of two things occurs. Either you produce an infertile hybrid as with the hybrid rose, which cannot produce offspring. Or the species at some point snaps back to its ideal. For instance if you breed a common rock pigeon too far in one direction, at some point it will spontaneously revert to the original rock pigeon. If you were to now release all the domesticated dogs into the wild, in a few hundred years they would have reverted to their original natural forms.
To see how strong homeostasis is in nature, examine fossilized samples of the shark, alligator, dragonfly, starfish, horseshoe crab, the jellyfish, the mosquito, the fern, magmatic rock. These species have not changed except for size in not hundreds of years, but literally hundreds of millions of years. Thus where is the constant evolution all around us? There is no evolution at all happening around us. It does not need to occur during a period on Earth when sufficient intermediate forms of evolution are present to serve their purpose of providing media for the expression and extinction of gathering impressions.
What is being presented in the case of the moths being culled by birds is indeed survival of the fittest, which Meher Baba indeed does mention. And it is this feature of nature that causes the moths to survive without change from their intended form (right media). Ironically, survival of the fittest has nothing to do with evolution. It has to do with keeping it in check. With preservation of that species the form persists as a vehicle for the evolution of consciousness of the soul.
Thus it is that, when the soul tends to identify itself with varied species of vegetable-forms, the evolved finite subtle form and the evolved finite mental form of the soul begin to show greater and visible signs of the soul’s association with its much evolved finite subtle form and finite mental form in the shape of varied, rapid cycles of changes taking place in vegetable-forms; and also, in the shape of vegetable-forms showing first signs of peculiar, varied and meaningful tendencies of self-preservation and survival of the fittest. (Meher Baba, God Speaks, online version p. 32)
Now the alert should see a very important implication to this. Eugenics is based on a misunderstanding of evolution, which in turn is based on a misinterpretation of data. But I want to explain this further.
Eugenics
In all races and in all climes, in all countries and at all times, the watchword for the groping and struggling humanity has always been freedom. (Meher Baba, LM 2832)
Even in ancient times the notion of control and purification of races existed. But Darwin's theory of survival of the fittest codified it. And eugenics made it a science. [2]
It's not hard to see the thinking that leads to eugenics.
Examination of nature will reveal that animals remain fit for their tough environment by a kind of continuous culling. Large trees starve weeds of sunlight, mother wolves throw out the least of their litter. Predators pick the sickest or oldest from the herd of wildebeests. There is no room for the unfit in the harsh law of the wilderness.
But what of people? Do we not tend to our sick, care for our meek, love our feeble minded? Is this not a weakness? - or so goes the thinking. Does this not breed an unhealthy herd of humans? Being the top of the food chain, what predators do we have to cull the weak from our number? Add to this the notion that poor people have more children than the affluent. Are we not breeding a race of weaklings?
To people who have such thoughts, the thought sometimes comes that men ought to cull their own kind. After all, this is as natural as survival of the fittest and natural selection. In fact, we might by such "natural law" breed a master race, no?
There are numerous problems with this thinking, not the least of which is that it is based on a misunderstanding of the process and purpose of evolution.
Here are a few of the least metaphysical of the problems.
1. Imagine that a sector of the human race that had resources and power decided to kill those who were meeker and less violent. When the first culling was finished, the Earth would be made up of the most predatory, the most absent of compassion, the most ruthless and loveless. Now of course from among this new ruthless loveless race a second wave of culling would occur, again culling the meeker by the more inclined to murder. Gradually man would breed all the love out of himself, and breed a tiny race of murderers with no feelings at all. Of course one can see where this goes. At last one of the last two of the race of nihilist sociopaths that have inherited the Earth would kill the other, then kill himself. So that is not a very smart plan for creating a "master" race. It is a plan to breed a dead race.
2. Socrates was poor, and so was Jesus. If we are to cull the meek, the least suitable for survival, must we begin with men such as these? And what of Einstein who was dyslexic and had mental illness in his family line? And what of Stephen Hawking the physicist and chair at Cambridge? Would he not have been culled when he was diagnosed with neuromuscular dystrophy? And even I, the writer of these words you are reading, I ought to have been culled. Since my father carried a hereditary form of blindness. And so him also by the same logic. Even though it was later discovered that I do not carry the gene. It was not known before recently. My father, born in 1926 at the peak of American eugenics might have been sterilized or even euthanized by the logic of eugenics. What of all the blind prophets. It is nearly a cliche. Must we cull all of the wise and talented for the sake of perpetuation of sociopathy?
3. What of the poor who are said to breed so prodigiously and the affluent who supposedly breed modestly? Remember that the law of homeostasis that governs genetics is such that so long as a species endures, no matter how degenerate, so long as it survives it will spontaneously regenerate its ideal once it is left to its natural inclinations. By such a law it is only logical then that the poor are the most advantageous sector of the species of man to promulgate his kind, if it is true that he is such a prodigious breeder. And it is the rich feeble breeder that needs to be groomed to best assure the adequate survival of the species.
Now for the more metaphysical reasons that eugenics has no meaning. Eugenics assumes many things. One is that the purpose of evolution is --- well they don't see any purpose. But Baba says that the purpose of evolution is to grant to the soul the medium by which it can attain God-realization. And that medium is the human body. And quite literally any body will do you. In fact it was said by one that a rich man has less chance of entering into the Kingdom of Heaven than the poor.
In short, Eugenics is the very opposite of the spirit of goodness.
Matthew 5:2-10
and he began to teach them saying:
Blessed are the poor in spirit,
for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.
Blessed are those who mourn,
for they will be comforted.
Blessed are the meek,
for they will inherit the earth.
Blessed are those who hunger and thirst for righteousness,
for they will be filled.
Blessed are the merciful,
for they will be shown mercy.
Blessed are the pure in heart,
for they will see God.
Blessed are the peacemakers,
for they will be called sons of God.
Blessed are those who are persecuted because of righteousness,
for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.
An extension of eugenics, which, broadly speaking, is the control of human populations, is population control. While on its surface population control seems to be a reasonable part of an efficient plan for the distribution of natural resources, in reality external population control such as forced sterilization and birth control is bogus science that obfuscates the real need for human beings to align their behavior to resources, and most especially those human beings who conceive of such measures who tend to use the most resources of anyone.
Addressing the concern over large populations, Meher Baba very succinctly said:
Selfishness, multiplied by population, results in wars, exploitation, persecution and poverty. Selflessness, multiplied by population, brings about peace and plenty. All the modern fads that are stalking the world today, in the guise of politics, economics, materialism, communalism, nationalism and socialism, have to be judged on the criteria of selfishness or selflessness. (LM 3162)
Meher Baba not a Darwinist
Some students of Meher Baba mistakenly believe that because Meher Baba is dealing with a different side of evolution, the evolution of consciousness, he is not in disagreement with prevailing forms of Neo-Darwinism. This is untrue. While it is true that Meher Baba is dealing with the rise of consciousness, he is not in agreement that the control mechanism of evolution is survival of the fittest. The evolution of consciousness is not merely another side of the coin of evolution; it is the control mechanism itself.
The physical form that acts as the medium for experiencing the opposites of Creation is shown to be an increasingly complex by-product of this will of God to know Himself consciously. The very force of evolution of form becomes, not a random selection of the fittest, but a result of the necessity of the residues of experience to express themselves through increasingly more complex instruments. (God Speaks xxxi)
The external is led by the internal; they are not merely parallel sides. More precisely Baba teaches that the impressions gathered while experiencing the previous form produce the mold for the next external form. What Baba agrees with scientists on is only that evolution occurs, not on its agency. The current misconception of its agency, in fact, is partially the excuse for some of the most hanous crimes of humanity in this period of the Kali Yuga. Baba has come not just to teach us evolution and its purpose, but to counter such misconceptions.
Neo-Darwinism
At the time that Darwin collected specimens from Galapagos, he assumed that, as the fossil record grew, his idea of gradualism would be born out. However, this did not occur. Rather than numerous intermediate species, fossils were found to fall within distinct species, species that often did not evolve at all for millions, even hundreds of millions, of years. Take for example the shark, the jellyfish, the alligator, the dragonfly. The shape of their form remains unchanged for epochs.
By Darwin's theory of constant and continuous chance mutation, there is no justification for things to remain constant. Especially when those species remain static in a shared environment with higher forms, such as mammals, that are evolving.
In addition, evolution does not occur all along the chain of life at the same time. For example a burst of evolution occurs during what is called the Cambrian explosion around 530 million years ago, but such evolution does not touch lower forms that share the same environment.
In the late 20th century this problem provoked a set of new theories that perhaps sudden cataclysmic changes in the environment, such as changes in oxygen levels, might account for unexpected increases in evolution along a particular portion of the evolutionary spectrum. This is called "punctuated equilibrium." Such theories do not, however, account for why evolution is particular to a portion of the evolutionary chain while leaving more rudimentary forms in the same environment, such as invertebrates, untouched.
To give a vivid example of this problem of localized evolution, consider the short period of time in which upright bipedal apes evolved, gave rise to man, and then went extinct. If this change in the gate of apes was caused by a change in the environment of the apes, then why did other animals that accompanied them in the same savanna not likewise have to adapt?
Thus, the Darwinian theory of an environmental agency for evolution has never fully worked to explain localized evolution. If you add to this that the locality of evolution on the tree of life is always topside, at the tip of the spear of complexity as it were, we see that there is really no sensible explanation for evolution as it manifests in the fossil record except for Baba's explanation of an evolution of consciousness.
Whim Vs. Intention
It's a subtle but important distinction that Meher Baba does not present a version of Intelligent Design, the idea that a mind analogous to the human mind played conscious architect to evolution. In fact, for Baba, evolution is the very evolution of consciousness itself, precluding any such possibility.
Rather than deliberation and design, Baba explains that the motivating force of evolution is a Whim of God to know himself. He says the Whim (or first cause) can be described as a wordless question, "Who am I?", to which the ultimate answer is simply, "I am God." In God Speaks Meher Baba is meticulous in explaining that a whim has, by its definition, no prior cause, design, or deliberate intention.
This Cause is just nothing but the WHIM or lahar of God. This original whim can also be called the first “WORD” uttered by God— “WHO AM I?” (GS, online version p. 78)
Whim after all is a whim; and, by its very nature, it is such that “why—wherefore—when” can find no place in its nature. (GS, online version p. 78)
. . . this evolution of consciousness inadvertently evolves a series of forms of higher and higher species. (GS, online version p. 17)
But Creation does have a purpose. And if Creation is looked upon as evolution, then evolution has a purpose. In fact, to explain this purpose is one of the principle concepts of God Speaks, whose full title is "God Speaks, The Theme of Creation and Its Purpose." But it bears noting that this purpose is originally inconceivable even to God.
1st No consciousness, 2nd creation, 3rd consciousness of the False, 4th consciousness of the Real. Therefore purpose can only be conceived at the 3rd stage.
While Intelligent Design plays no part in Baba's evolution, Infinite Intelligence as all in all does. Thus we can even speak of the Mind of God or the Universal Mind, yet even this Intelligence is forced to find itself in the dreamt journey of Creation. Baba sums up his theme as follows:
Formless and Colorless God's Creative and Impulsive Imagination to Know Himself as Omnipresent, Infinite, and Eternal. (GS, online version, chart following p. 190)
That pretty much says it all, I think.
Understanding Forms
Modern evolutionary biologists do not conceive of rocks, plants, and animals as discrete forms. Rather they see species as families in a state of chaos and flux, maintaining a merely temporary equilibrium with their environment while they fill a niche. Meher Baba sees things differently.
Meher Baba speaks of forms. The term "form" or "forms" appears in God Speaks nearly 200 times. Form refers to the shape, visual appearance, or configuration of an object. Much like the forms in the writing of Plato, Meher Baba's forms in Creation appear to be complete ideas or archetypes. They seem to appear prior to and irrespective of their manifestation.
Consider this odd line by Baba stated in the 1930s:
One bird is so peculiar that no one can have any idea of it even in his wildest imagination. This bird is half bat and very large – about fifteen feet high. It has two legs like an ostrich. Its neck is about two feet in circumference. It[sic] head, however, is small, only about two feet – when compared to its body. Its wingspread is six feet. Its beak is like a vulture's, the end being thick and the point being thin. (Meher Baba, LM 1872)
It is easy to see that Baba is speaking about a giant extinct terror bird. The potential size of these creatures was only realized in 2006 when a complete skull of a giant terror bird was discovered in Argentina. But note that Baba did not speak in the past or future tense. He spoke in the present tense, of a bird that is. It seems clear that Baba is speaking of the form of the bird and not the bird itself.
If you can grasp this concept, you can have a better understanding of what evolution is.
For Baba, the forms are necessary media for the experience of impressions. Rather than Random and purposeless niched phenomena, they have a definite purpose that is fulfilled in the human form. The purpose of evolution is to give the soul full consciousness. This is achieved in the first human form. And it is in this perfect form that God-realization is at last possible. This obviates the need for a "master race." It also renders as meaningless the concept that man will evolve into anything else. Once we understand the purpose of attaining a human body, to attain enlightenment, we see that caring for our brothers and sisters, regardless of their condition, is far closer to the real purpose of life.
He is born in vain, who having attained the human birth, so difficult to get, does not attempt to realise God in this very life. (Ramakrishna)
Evolution of Consciousness First, Forms Second
It's important to keep in mind, when studying evolution as described by Meher Baba, that for him all that we assume to be the be-all-and end-all of Creation is merely a side-effect of what is actually fundamentally occurring - an evolution of consciousness. Baba likens this side-effect of the evolution of consciousness to a by-product.
by-product –noun
1. a secondary or incidental product, as in a process of manufacture.
2. the result of another action, often unforeseen or unintended.
The evolution of gross forms is but a by-product in the universal factory of evolution of consciousness. (Meher Baba, GS p 23)
...this evolution of consciousness inadvertently evolves a series of forms of higher and higher species... (Meher Baba, GS p 18)
Change and Homeostasis
Ancient and modern alligator, 200 million years apart, showing virtually no change in form (geometric shape). This is called homeostasis.
The nature of evolution is largely misunderstood. It is not a process of continuous change at all levels of the chain of being at all times. Rather it is a process that has two aspects: change and homeostasis. Without change evolution would never happen; without homeostasis there would be chaos in nature.
The first aspect (change) is marked by forward thrusts, unexpected revolutions at the tip of the spear of evolution, i.e. at the peak of complexity, often in massive movements of forms - while leaving previous forms undisturbed. These relatively sudden revolutions or thrusts forward can be found in the fossil record such as in the Cambrian explosion.
Once there is a change, however, and a set of species are well formed, the second aspect (homeostasis) sets in to keep reproducing those species. This is true if we are talking about species of gas/rock or species of advanced animal.
If one looks about on the Earth, he finds magmatic rock being reproduced today precisely as it was when it first evolved billions of years ago. Similarly, the alligator form is produced as it was 200 million years ago. This second aspect of evolution, the upholdment and preservation of form, serves the purpose of supplying stable media for the advancement of souls.
So we do not have constant change at all levels of nature at all times, as is falsely believed in Darwinism.
Rather we have revolutions, during certain unique periods, at the tip of the spear of evolution, followed by homeostasis, where the same thing is produced in the same way for the life of that biosystem. [3]
So, for the most part and in most periods, nature is stable - kept so by natural processes of homeostasis.
Ironically, the process in nature that biologists think is the catalyst of change is in fact causing homeostasis - preventing change from occurring. For instance, the result of survival of the fittest, the process by which only the most fit specimens of a species survive, is that the paragon of that species, i.e. its ideal, is indefinitely upheld and prevented from evolving or devolving.
Survival of the fittest, whereby a set of ideal traits are continually culled by predators or other forces in nature, is an external physical control mechanism, although the cause of this equilibrium itself has a spiritual core.
However, these thrusts forward at the tip of the spear of evolution, these revolutions in evolution when they occur, have an internal cause. Scientists who try to point to an external catalyst for periods of evolutionary change at its summit are mistaken. They will forever be able to conceive of imaginative candidates for the external cause, and will forever be incapable of forming an experiment to test their claims.
The best experiment scientists point to is where a darkening in tree color in the 19th century, caused by nearby London smokestacks, made white moths more visible to predatory birds. This in turn caused a decline in the number of white moths and an increase in the number of black moths - previously a recessive trait. This experiment proves the point being made here about homeostasis. The change in the environment (the darkening of trees caused by the nearby London smokestacks) caused a change in culling practices by the birds - the fortunate net result of which was the survival of the moths as moths - and the prevention of any change in form. The external agencies in nature have the result of preventing extinction in species. The function of survival of the fittest is keeping a species fit so it will survive.
So what is meant by saying that the cause of the change aspect of evolution is internal? This is best explained in God Speaks by Meher Baba. On any planet where evolution is occurring, evolution is being thrust forward by the urge of species that are evolving higher degrees of consciousness. As consciousness is, so arises the form. When a form is no longer suitable for the expression of impressions, a new form is forged spontaneously. Change, we could thus say, is an inside job.
From this perspective, once the necessary change occurs and a new suitable media is formed, there is no further need for experimentation, since the new form is suitable for its 'internal' purpose. Then the external control mechanisms in nature that are responsible for maintaining that species (homeostasis), such as survival of the fittest, take over to sustain that step in the ladder for evolving souls.
Footnotes
1. Charles Darwin didn't himself use the phrase "survival of the fittest." It was Herbert Spencer, a Social Darwinist, who coined the term when applying it to society.
2. In The Decline of the West (1918), Oswald Spengler wrote that Charles Darwin's idea of a struggle for existence as the guiding force of evolution was "read into Nature and not out of it." [emphasis his] "Darwin himself had remoulded the evolution-ideas of the 18th Century according to the Malthusian tendencies of political economy, which he projected on the higher animal-world" [Oswald Spengler, The Decline of the West, Alfred A Knopf, Inc. 1926 p. 370, 371]. Thomas Malthus (1766-1834) thought that the dangers of population growth would preclude endless progress towards a utopian society: "The power of population is indefinitely greater than the power in the earth to produce subsistence for man" [Malthus T.R. An essay on the principle of population, 1798, Chapter 1, p. 13 in Oxford World's Classics reprint]. Darwin chose to make competition for survival in a harsh environment with limited resources (niches) the control mechanism of advancing species. Baba makes it the inner search for consciousness, thus completely rewriting the basic nature of life. "The incapacity of men to deal with their problems constructively and creatively reveals a tragic deficiency in the right understanding of the basic nature of man and the true purpose of life" [Meher Baba, Discourses, 7th edition p. 298].
3. Was Darwin Wrong? by Francis Hitching, Life Magazine, April 1982, p 50.