MA: No.
J: When we spoke at the lake for the first time your opinions were very new to me and, in all honesty, somewhat shocking.
I had never known someone with strong religious beliefs who also believed in evolution.
MA: It is not as unusual as you might think James. In fact the more you study the workings of the universe the more you find yourself in awe of the beauty.
J: And you feel that man is subject to both evolution and to God's will?
MA: James, why would you think that evolution is not God's will?
J: Well I don't know. Isn't evolution a physical system that functions independently?
MA: So is the morning dew and so is the rainbow. But to insist that the Creator did not create the operating system for his work is a bit naive.
J: Operating System?
MA: Why yes, evolution, gravity, electromagnetism and sex are all part of the big picture that makes this rare and wonderful experience not only exist, but change and constantly evolve. If you ever study fractals you can see that there may even be simple patterns or elements used over and over in varying magnifications. Sort of like building blocks but way more complex.
And, of course, we know now that the condition we once called chaos is all smoke and mirrors.
Chaos is simply highly complex rhythms that, at this time, are beyond our understanding. And James this is not a sermon about not knowing God, but simple mathematics.
We know for a fact (thank you Mitchel Feigenbaum) that the mathematical process whereby an orderly system moves into the realm of chaos is highly structured and a mathematically beautiful rhythm.
Then we lose our way. The rhythms are just too complex. That does not mean they don't exist, because they do - just that we do not have that level of perception yet.
J: Perception. I see. Actually I have done some reading that has helped me understand why you always site order vs chaos as an example of perception.
I have very limited math skills, but I can understand the significance of being able to predict events right up to and a little ways into chaos. It is way cool reading.
MA: Extra cool James.
J: That makes very good sense to me MA.
J: So when you speak of being worried about challenges to our continued population growth (as a species) you are using that predictability?
MA: Very much so James. While we may be the overwhelmingly dominate species on this rock, it would be sheer vanity to believe that we exist out of the normal natural processes of life. It just is not true.
Our species is subject to all the forces that influence, regulate and contain population growth - we are not Gods. However it is our ability to understand and react to those forces that is our strong suit.
J: What kind of forces are you talking about?
MA: Well the most basic dynamic is simply this:
Is the birth rate larger than the death rate? If the answer is yes then you are in an era where the species is expanding.
J: Haven't we always expanded as a species?
MA: No, not at all. We have had a number of events that we call bottlenecks. A population bottleneck is where a significant percentage of any species is either killed or prevented from reproducing.
There have been a number of these events in our history, but the time-line, severity and number of bottlenecks is a very hotly debated subject. It depends a lot on which gene you backtrack.
But there is a general consensus that we might have been reduced to perhaps only 5,000 reproducing females around 70,000 years ago.
That is a very large event and the genetic implications of such a bottleneck are equally significant.