In my opinion, anyone who does not think evolution is relevant both religious and non-religious contexts needs to have their head examined. There, I said it without using the forbidden word!
Associated with the concept of evolution is the relevant notion of survival of the fittest. That's all very well as a model, but does the model itself fit. In many ways, it almost seems to beg the question. If a species survives, then it is the fittest. But, is this the case? How does one relate evolution to social change and the human species?
There are evolutionary models of society such as those of Herbert Spenser, Karl Marx, and Joseph Schumpeter that attempt the challenge. In our present day context, we need to encorporate ideas that promote the survival of the planet within the context of its evolution, and hopefully, its survival, which is now up to mankind.
Obviously, some species survive and others don't. Is there any criteria that is relevant other than survival in the now and through space-time as by means of the arrow of time?
There are strange things that emerge from studies of actual human DNA, such that we find community where we thought that there was division.
Evolution of Life, Mortals or Matter?
In a universe in which we observe more than the now, perhaps survival is something other than it seems. Maybe survival needs to be looked at in a wider context. For example, if there were a heaven and eternal life and one was confined a mortal existence, then survival would not mean survival as a mortal being, but survival as an immortal being. Is that all? No!
In Search of the Miraculous
Another example would be in a case if everything survives in its own space-time/space, as in a universe that is recurring, which is what we know many of the stoics believed. There are those such as Ouspenski who believed that that was what Jesus Christ was trying to communicate.
Another way of looking at evolution may be to examine it in the context of needs. If a species survives, it has all that it needs. If a species fails, it somehow has much less than it needs. How are the needs for survival determined? Are these needs, things that come from within the species as an expression of its nature or are the needs imposed by the environment in which the species is surviving?
Does the species have any say in what it needs to survive? Is survival of a species even necessary to assess that it sees itself as having met its purpose or role within the context of the environment in which it finds itself?
Goals of Species as a Means to an Unknown End
One is tempted to assume that the goal of life is to survive until an end is achieved. However, we know that human nature has a way of specifying its needs through choice based on immediate goals and preferences for processes to achieve those goals.
In the Wuh Lax model of evolution, the world has many of the properties of light, which as we know from the exploratory scientific work of Feynman and others is capable of making choices.
If light explores all channels of existence prior to physical processing in any one dimension of existence, might not other entities based/feeding on light do something similar?
Goal Oriented Survival
Perhaps, survival contains more an element of choice than chance, but most probably both are determinants. The survival of a species is not entirely due to randomness, but to very specific decisions made by participants in the species. These specifications by members of a species may derive from internal rankings of preferences as much as from outside interventions, whether random or not, from the environment. Possibly, a very real question to be asked is whether there is freedom to choose. For example, we know that smokers have not survived as well as non-smokers. In our environment, those that prefer to smoke have the odds stacked against them.
If there is a genetic basis for preferring to smoke as compared with not preferring to smoke then the preference to smoke is determining the survival of a large group of people. If, however, there is a group that is deliberately poisoning cigarettes and targeting vulnerable groups of people, then the survival of those that prefer to smoke is being controlled by those that wish to do them harm. This is certainly not a random process.
Being Selfish as a Means of Survival
What we know about life is that species feed off each other in a highly competitive way creating more space for their own survival at the expense of others. Is this the way, the selfish gene comes to dominate, or is there something larger going on? Obviously, competition is one model and cooperation is another. Both are relevant to the story of evolution!
If humans care for trees, love them, then they will survive better than if they cut them down and kill them. Trees are helpless against human beings. The reason trees will survive at all, if they will as a species, arises if man specifies that he prefers to have trees in his world. It is a choice of man to have trees that enables man to survive because man ultimately needs trees even though he may not realize why. It is the act of compassion by mankind for other species that allow man to survive. Is this always the case?
Obviously, man is on a planet that may not survive. How is man going to survive? Man is going to love the planet earth and care for it, otherwise the earth will die. It may even be in the hands of mankind to save earth for a life approximating eternity. We do not know. But, if man as a species has any purpose at all, it is to love the planet earth and to see that the planet earth survives.