Hawks, Eagles, Darwin, Intelligent Design

In The Immense Journey, Loren Eiseley describes the boisterous reunion of a mated pair of sparrow hawks that may have revealed that they understand, and feel more compassion than scientists have ever guessed.

“I saw both now. He was rising fast to meet her. They met in a great soaring gyre that turned into a whirling circle and a dance of wings. Once more, just once, their two voices, joined in a harsh wild medley of question and response, struck and echoed against the pinnacles of the valley. Then they were gone forever somewhere into the upper regions beyond the eyes of man.â€

Watching the Yukon live-feed eagle-cam proved to be pretty slow going until I suddenly saw a minor miracle. The female was nestled over two chicks, patiently waiting for her mate to return with their next meal. After awhile the male descended and carefully landed on the edge of the nest. Using beak and talons, he immediately proceeded to tear some flesh from a freshly killed rodent. He succeeded in tearing off three successive chunks and placed each on the nest in front of his mate. She quickly devoured each piece. With the fourth piece, however, she picked up the meat in her beak and raised it up to her mate’s beak. Instinctively, he engaged her in a protein tug-o-war as they reduced the larger piece of meat into bits that were small enough to feed her chicks. She stood up and the chicks immediately emerged from beneath her with beaks opened widely, ready to be fed. This process provided a wonderful miracle that Darwin’s Theory does not explain.

According to avian behavioral experts, birds are not able to comprehend the concept of time. They simply don’t have the neocortex tissue necessary to conceptualize the future or the past. Apparently they live in a continuous “now.†Does this suggest that they are incapable of experiencing any form of altruism? Lacking this, why would the male even bother to feed his mate? If Darwin’s Theory of “survival of the fittest†were the only factor at play, why would the male not keep all the meat for himself? What possible good could come to him for feeding his mate? Furthermore, why would he bother to feed offspring who, if they survive, would only increase competition for his food supply?  There is no immediate selective advantage for him to care for his mate or her chicks.

At the bare minimum, this suggests that there are genetically encoded behavioral characteristics that Darwin’s Theory does not explain. Either the bird brain experts are wrong about the bird’s ability to process abstract thought or Darwin’s ToE is flawed. Without this evidence, it is rational to hypothesize that there are mysterious forces at play which could include “Intelligent Design.â€Â  These forces have somehow equipped male and female eagles with the motivation and ability to transcend the law of survival of the fittest and contribute to the greater good of maintaining the species.

“Intelligent Design†need not be connected with a Supreme Being; in fact, scientists are acting properly when they contend that “Intelligent Design†(or any theory ascribed to “Godâ€) can not be accepted until there is definitive “scientific†proof.

Poets and sages (especially writer O’Henry) suggest that life is nothing but ironic. Meister Eckhart, currently regarded as truly one of the world’s great theologians, was put on trial by the Catholic Church for ideas that they deemed “heretical.†Ironically, his teachings are now widely accepted by many faiths and include the opinion that the answers to mankind’s greatest mysteries will not be found in science. In another irony, it is now the scientist’s turn to regard all beliefs but their own as “heretical.â€

In the end, the simple, yet profound, behavior of  Eiseley’s sparrow hawks and a pair of American Bald Eagles proves that the common denominator of both science and religion is mystery. Little wonder that Abraham Maslow (Religion-Values-Peak Experiences) suggested; “sooner or later we will have to redefine the meaning of science and religion.â€