A mystery solved

The opening strain of the Dawkins symphony to evolution, in "The Blind Watchmaker," begins with this statement:

"This book is written in the conviction that our own existence once presented the greatest of all mysteries, but that it is a mystery no longer because it is solved." P. ix

Two important claims are presented here:

1. The mystery of our existence has been solved by the theory of evolution.
2. Before Darwin there was no solution (or no credible solution) to this problem.

With regard to the first claim we might begin by noting its comprehensive sweep. Evolution does not simply explain how life developed from simple progenitors to complex life forms. Evolution explains the whole mystery of our existence. The "fact" of evolution establishes the philosophy of philosophical naturalism. I think that what Dawkins is saying is that with respect to the physical origin and history of life on earth a clear understanding of evolution makes God unnecessary. However, the question of the necessity of God for our existence is not aided or hindered by any understanding of nature or its mechanisms. As useful as the scientific method has been to the realm of science it is beyond itself with respect to metaphysical questions (such as "the mystery of our existence") in particular and philosophical questions in general. Darwinism has done nothing to make atheism more "intellectually fulfilling." Scientific fact is fodder for both the theist and the atheist, accessible to both and amenable to both. The mystery of our existence will never be solved by pointing to some scientific fact.

With regard to the second claim, that Darwin has solved "the greatest of all mysteries", this is just a little bit of grandstanding on the part of Dawkins. This would be analogous to Kraft inventing a new food spread and saying: "we finally solved the mystery of what to spread on toast." This line of reasoning attempts to make peanut butter, Cheez Whiz, jam, etc. merely provisional solutions awaiting the latest, final, and definitive solution to the problem of food spreads. The fact is that philosophical naturalism (we can't simply say Darwinism because it is not necessarily incompatible with previous solutions to the mystery of our existence) is just another, alternative, explanation for this "mystery." Dawkins seeks to prove too much. It is interesting that scientists sometimes complain about religion making pronouncements on science but these same scientists don't mind making pronouncements on religion and philosophy. The sword of Damacles cuts both ways.