Excellent review Aaron. You are truly an independent and deep thinker.
I loved that you mentioned the involvement of the Manifestations of God over millions of years of evolution. It's something I've often thought of as a form of divine intervention in evolution, but I left it out on purpose so that the presentation would be entirely naturalistic and avoid the criticism that is heaped on creationists for emphasizing supernatural intervention.
I also agree with your descriptions of the philosophy of science and religion, and the need to avoid wrapping an air of religious truth around any scientific theory.
There is a brief mention in the introduction, pp. 7-8, that I think addresses many of your concerns, but perhaps should have been expanded upon or repeated throughout: "This book takes an untrodden approach by exploring the curent science of evolution in the context of Abdu'l-Baha's comments. Although it deals with materialistic mechanisms of evolution, it also explores the spiritual nature of human reality. Ultimately, the details of human ancestry are not nearly as important as human virtue and its place as the crowning achievement of an evolutionary process."
The book is an exploration of current science in the context of Abdu'l-Baha's comments. It is not meant to be a thesis proving a new model of evolution. Its thesis, if you can call it that, is about how Baha'is can view Abdu'l-Baha's comments, concluding on p. 220, "While it is possible to conclude that Abdu'l-Baha was speaking of spiritual potential and not material ancestry, the more apparent interpretation is of separate ancestry. I feel that it is no longer necessary to conclude that the concept of independeent or 'parallel' descent is incompatible with science. In fact, the trend of discovery has clearly been in the direction of agreement, and there are logical lines of inquiry that could entirely validate it in the next few decades."
The statements of Abdu'l-Baha are authentic and difficult to interpret in a way other than their apparent meaning. Baha'is who address this issue commonly emphasize the spiritual nature of humanity and de-emphasize or ignore source material that disagrees with their interpretation. There are really three approaches to the issue: 1) the apparent meaning is an unfortunate semantic mistake, 2) the apparent meaning is referring to something that will be validated by future scientific enquiry, or 3) Abdu'l-Baha made statements about evolution that are demonstrably untrue. For about 80 years it appears that Baha'is took the second approach, while critics took the third. The first approach avoided any association with the madness of creationist, and it was very appealing when explored for the first time in the 1990s. My emphasis was to suggest that the second approach should not be abandoned.
Thanks for reading and I am glad to hear your remarks.
For my part I took as a departure point your critical paragraph on p. 59: "My understanding of 'Abdu'l-Baha's description of human origin means that the basic idea of a tree of life with diverging branches is correct, but that it happened more than once, providing a model that might be called parallel evolution, polygenesis, or independent descent. This conflicts with the principle of universal common ancestry, a pillar of Darwinism, but does not conflict with the major pillar of natural selection, or the related idea of descent with modification. The model would rely on entirely natural processes and need confirmation by further scientific inquiry."
This may not have been your specifically intended thesis but that is the funny thing about thesis statements and authorial intent vis a vis audience :)
My intention with articulating reflections at the level of models, given your presentation, is that such a model and the need for it is inherent in the effort to ask of scientists to re-envision the evidence as it stands, even if you wish to remain focused on the level of evidences rather than at the level of crafting a new model.
Since every discrete stream of evidence is being placed as pieces into a larger puzzle, when we suggest that certain of these evidences should be reconsidered in another way, it is best done when also providing some justification or framework, now matter how tentative, as to what the alternative picture might. I think this is true even when the picture isn't as clear as we'd hope or the effort to do so feels premature. In fact the very effort to put together that larger vision actually motivates more recontextualization and clarification (whether in favor of the alternative or against it). It is a reciprocal, 'if you build it they will come' process. I consider this an unavoidable consequence of the effort you've embarked on, although I'm sure it feels more focused to stay in the scope of reviewing streams of evidence and possible interpretations rather than compiling the more full view of how it all fits together. I think you did do this to an extent though I think it needed to be taken a step or two further.
I look forward to your further reflections and perhaps future books to describe what you learn and how your thought develops on this topic!
Excellent review Aaron. You are truly an independent and deep thinker.
I loved that you mentioned the involvement of the Manifestations of God over millions of years of evolution. It's something I've often thought of as a form of divine intervention in evolution, but I left it out on purpose so that the presentation would be entirely naturalistic and avoid the criticism that is heaped on creationists for emphasizing supernatural intervention.
I also agree with your descriptions of the philosophy of science and religion, and the need to avoid wrapping an air of religious truth around any scientific theory.
There is a brief mention in the introduction, pp. 7-8, that I think addresses many of your concerns, but perhaps should have been expanded upon or repeated throughout: "This book takes an untrodden approach by exploring the curent science of evolution in the context of Abdu'l-Baha's comments. Although it deals with materialistic mechanisms of evolution, it also explores the spiritual nature of human reality. Ultimately, the details of human ancestry are not nearly as important as human virtue and its place as the crowning achievement of an evolutionary process."
The book is an exploration of current science in the context of Abdu'l-Baha's comments. It is not meant to be a thesis proving a new model of evolution. Its thesis, if you can call it that, is about how Baha'is can view Abdu'l-Baha's comments, concluding on p. 220, "While it is possible to conclude that Abdu'l-Baha was speaking of spiritual potential and not material ancestry, the more apparent interpretation is of separate ancestry. I feel that it is no longer necessary to conclude that the concept of independeent or 'parallel' descent is incompatible with science. In fact, the trend of discovery has clearly been in the direction of agreement, and there are logical lines of inquiry that could entirely validate it in the next few decades."
The statements of Abdu'l-Baha are authentic and difficult to interpret in a way other than their apparent meaning. Baha'is who address this issue commonly emphasize the spiritual nature of humanity and de-emphasize or ignore source material that disagrees with their interpretation. There are really three approaches to the issue: 1) the apparent meaning is an unfortunate semantic mistake, 2) the apparent meaning is referring to something that will be validated by future scientific enquiry, or 3) Abdu'l-Baha made statements about evolution that are demonstrably untrue. For about 80 years it appears that Baha'is took the second approach, while critics took the third. The first approach avoided any association with the madness of creationist, and it was very appealing when explored for the first time in the 1990s. My emphasis was to suggest that the second approach should not be abandoned.
Dear Bryan,
Thanks for reading and I am glad to hear your remarks.
For my part I took as a departure point your critical paragraph on p. 59: "My understanding of 'Abdu'l-Baha's description of human origin means that the basic idea of a tree of life with diverging branches is correct, but that it happened more than once, providing a model that might be called parallel evolution, polygenesis, or independent descent. This conflicts with the principle of universal common ancestry, a pillar of Darwinism, but does not conflict with the major pillar of natural selection, or the related idea of descent with modification. The model would rely on entirely natural processes and need confirmation by further scientific inquiry."
This may not have been your specifically intended thesis but that is the funny thing about thesis statements and authorial intent vis a vis audience :)
My intention with articulating reflections at the level of models, given your presentation, is that such a model and the need for it is inherent in the effort to ask of scientists to re-envision the evidence as it stands, even if you wish to remain focused on the level of evidences rather than at the level of crafting a new model.
Since every discrete stream of evidence is being placed as pieces into a larger puzzle, when we suggest that certain of these evidences should be reconsidered in another way, it is best done when also providing some justification or framework, now matter how tentative, as to what the alternative picture might. I think this is true even when the picture isn't as clear as we'd hope or the effort to do so feels premature. In fact the very effort to put together that larger vision actually motivates more recontextualization and clarification (whether in favor of the alternative or against it). It is a reciprocal, 'if you build it they will come' process. I consider this an unavoidable consequence of the effort you've embarked on, although I'm sure it feels more focused to stay in the scope of reviewing streams of evidence and possible interpretations rather than compiling the more full view of how it all fits together. I think you did do this to an extent though I think it needed to be taken a step or two further.
I look forward to your further reflections and perhaps future books to describe what you learn and how your thought develops on this topic!