"If
one proved that there exists a complex organ that in no way could get its final
form through a sequence of numerous
changes... that would entirely disprove my theory", Darwin wrote. The
organ that particularly disturbed him for that matter is well known - it's an
eye. "Until now the eye is making me somewhat uneasy", Darwin wrote
in 1860.
Darwin
was not the only one to note the uniquecomplexity of the eye. "It's not
surprising, -Darwin's follower Heckel admitted, - that mane people see in an
eye a sign of the Supreme Powerwhich created everything with amazing degree of mastership,
according to a carefully drafted plan and for a clear purpose. Thinking of
something else is next to impossible."
I
will get back to the question why it's just the eye that amazes even
Evolutionists. But first I'd like to say that throughout human history
"many people" pointed to the harmonious nature of far less impressive
organs to prove the existence of Creator.
Time
and time again have we heard that the Creator's hand is visible in his perfect
works. It's just in this harmony, in the
mysterious, unimaginable cohesion of elements of Nature. Theologists of the
Middle Ages saw this initial rationality of the world as one of the proofs of
God's existence.
But
in the New Age it was stated that God has definitely nothing to do with this,
that in watching the world harmony we, alongside with Laplas can easily abandon
"the hypothesis of God". Moreover, that had been done as early as in
the 2nd century BC by Claudius Galen who wrote a remarkable study "On the
purposes of human body parts" - long before the theory of Evolution. For
instance, here is his view on the eye: "A pupil of the eye is most
surprising. Hadn't it existed, all other parts, so carefully constructed, would
have been absolutely meaningless. But Nature would not overlook this part, as
well as any other. In this place it cut this grapelike surface." As it is,
the complexity of the eye for Galen is just a game of Nature, and the eye is
not more complex than any other organ, like fingers for example: "If
fingers were just made of straight bones, stretched in line, they would only
embrace the form of a square and not the circle. Taking this in mind, Nature
created finger muscles. As they could not be placed on the outer surface, for
that would create unnecessary weight, muscles were placed on the inside, so
that they would smooth the linear character of bones."
So,
harmony and complexity as such are not and can't be the proofs of Creator's
existence. More, these kinds of arguments alert our generation, because desire
for cohesion and "order" remind us of the totalitarian barracks, we
hear the hymn to "square harmony" sung by Zamyatin in his anti-utopic
novel "We": "I saw the machines: their eyes shut, regulator
balls were rolling around; sparkling levers were bending right and left, the
backbalance was proudly shrugging its shoulders and, tuned to some unknown
music, the grinder was moving. All of a sudden I saw the beauty of this grand
mechanic ballet under the dazzling blue sun... I saw it all: the unquestionably
straight streets, beaming glass of pavement, divine squares of transparent
blocks, the square harmony of grey-blue crowds."
The Sign of Supreme Power
So,
our generation reacts to these arguments with pain. Harmony and perfection
don't prove the existence of God, at least it can be explained by the
activities of some other creator, the work of "other gods". Or,
returning to Kant's antinomies, we can say that the compexity of an eye equally
proves both that the world has its Creator and that it's all-sufficient. Still,
in my opinion, we have an empiric backdoor to look behind Kant's antinomies.
Darwin
feared that his theory would be broken if an extremely complex and perfect
organ were found, but in reality his theory is opposed by something quite
different. For if we find the signs of disharmony, if we point out that some
organ is entirely useless, or even harmful to an organism - here indeed the
whole theory of Evolution will be brought down and we'll have to admit that the
world has just the Creator, described as the God of Israel!
Infact,
the one who gave man the Tora is perhaps first of all recognized both in the
universal harmony and in the tremendous gaps, in those inconsistencies that
fill this harmony. Closer to the point would be to say that the God of Israel
reveals himself in this world just in
the combination of harmony and terrifying lack of it. Reason, at least the
reason sought by the man from TaNaHa is being created, being sought but never
sent in advance. In other words, the existence of Creator - God of Israel, no
other - must be deduced not from the amazingly harmonious eye phenomenon, but
from other, inherently meaningless
natural phenomena. Just the absence of some immanent purpose in a natural
phenomenon, its obvious purposeless character can identify the Creator behind
it, prove his "signature". For in that case we are just obliged to
treat this organ as a symbol, awaiting interpretation.
But
are there such meaning gapes in Nature, the disharmony in which the presence of
Creator is revealed? I can mark at least three objects denied any biological
purpose (or at least it is absolutely obscure to us).
Foreskin
has no biological purpose - that is proved by the fact that a great part of
humankind has for thousands of years been practicing circumcision. What is the
purpose of this complex tissue, every mammal, besides human beings, has? Can
Nature create anything pointless? No,
the God of philosophers and scientists is incapable of that, he must do
everything with view to harmony and reason. Their God would have created Man
without foreskin, which, as medicine proves, can only cause trouble? But
Abraham, Isaac and Jacob's God is different. He created foreskin, as Judaism
teaches, specially for a man to clip it. What for? To take his part in
creation, to demonstrate his unity with the Creator.
Indeed,
denied biological purpose, foreskin has metaphysical sense. It exists
exclusively to create a single inner surface between man's and woman's body
during coitus. Foreskin symbolizes unity. And its clipping symbolises the dissection
of single flesh, and God's penetration in between, to the most intimate
spheres.
The same refers to the outer android
glands. Biologically, it's absolutely pointless that such an important organ -
not just to one, but to the whole species - is taken out, becoming an extremely
painful and susceptible place. The only argument scientists put forward here is
that sperm exists at lower temperatures. This argument mixing cause and effect
is obviously absurd. First, it is well known that with birds, whose bidy
temperature is as a rule much higher than that of mammals, sperm inseminates
quite well. Second, what kind of argument is it for evolutionists at all? If
natural selection produced an elephant from a bacteria, why can't it pick out a
more secure sperm?
Well, when entering a zoo and see the
same strange formation in every cage, this, as a poet said "fatal place
resented at nearly every fight" - one realises that this is like the
finger of Creator, a sign.
It looks like the God of Israel wanted
to make animals and human beings vulnerable - and just for that reason he took
android glands out, so that sperm had to live under lower temperatures than the
organism as a whole. In my opinion, this casting of kin (universal) outside individual
(single), this exile of seed from the organism can be connected with Adam's
exile from Eden and qualified as a stamp, a stigma, reminding of primary Sin.
And finally, dream. Its biological aim
is obscure. The word "rest"usually attached to this word is obviously
profane and in no way relating to it. One can understand, why bears hibernate,
but it remains unclear why people should sleep. It looks quite mysterious. A
healthy, alert man just falls on the ground and remains quite helpless for hours!
Let's imagine what it would be like if
nature didn't make us sleep and dream would only be for a few people. Dream
would then be treated as a horrible disease, something like epilepsy.
But Judaism says that a dream is but a
small death. A sleeping person is
considered dead by 1/60. Here lies its impact. Dream was introduced for man
when woman was being created (as midrash puts it, until God introduced dream
for man, angels were taking them for each other and didn't know whom to prey).
Dream is a sign of human bestiality and another stigma of sin. Dream is a sign
of human vulnerability, his inability to self-guidance. Every night, unbeatable
like death, dream comes on us to turn us into corpses for a few hours. That is
why on awakening Jews pray: "Thank you, King, for giving me back my
soul."
Returning to the problem of eye, I'd
have to say that this is a truly outstanding organ and Darwin's uneasy attitude
was justified. No-one will argue that flowers are not just genitals but also a
face, eyes if i may say so, of a plant.
Animals and human beings both have
genitals and face separated. Here is some food for thought. Infact, is it
connected with Cardinal Sin? Unlike animals, plants were practically unaffectes
by the Fall of Adam. The Earth is cursed, it gives birth to weeds, but no more
than that. Plants don't emanate fear. They are not afraid of death and their
fruit just seek to be eaten. They try to look appetizing, as if tempting
animals to eat them. In a sense we are involved in their sexual life, for
fruits and vegetables are the immediate results of plant "sex" - and
they are born to be eaten by animals!
But at the same time faces of humans
and animals are formed not by genitals, but by organs of senses, first of all
eyes. In animal world sex and face are polar. In any way it is fair to say that
the "eye phenomenon" or rather binocular sight creating the what in
the language of Judaism is called "God's form and likeness" may
really tell of God more than any of His other creations.