Science AND Faith in Middle-earth

[Fordim Hedgethistle]

Over in Mirth and Novices and Newcomers there were two threads (here and here) very recently begun about the discovery of a now extinct race of hominid that scientists have dubbed the ‘hobbit.’ In response to that discovery, I put up the following post (the reason for quoting it again will become clear further on…I hope):

First, a clarification: I have already said in that other, more mirthful thread on this topic, that my father is an “evolutionary biologist.” Well, before somebody calls me on this, let me quickly say that such a formulation is rather redundant: it’s like saying a “flying pilot” or a “teaching professor” insofar as the study of biology (the study of living organisms) is, by definition, the study of evolution (how those organisms have changed through time). My father is, more properly, an endocrinologist, zoologist and comparative anatomist; he is also deeply interested and well-versed in the theory of natural selection.

(Parenthetical Comment: I usually try not to be too overtly provocative or confrontational, but on this one point I will be. . .pre-emptively so. If there are any creationists reading this, please don’t waste your time and mine by trying to argue that evolution is wrong, or didn’t happen, or whatever it may be that you try to argue. Evolution is a fact. I will not say anything about this ever again in the Downs, either in forum or via PM, so if you want to fight with someone about this, go find somebody else.)

This is why I find this discovery and the subsequent discussions in this thread to be so interesting, for it has got me to thinking about the evolution of the peoples in Middle-Earth. We all know how careful Tolkien was to get it ‘right’ in the creation of his secondary world: that it have and obey its internal laws, but that it be compatible with the laws of the primary world. Well, I think – either by dint of extreme care, foresight or luck – he has given us a world in which the theory of natural selection is borne out perfectly!

At the end of the Third Age, all of the talking races in Middle-Earth are in decline, except for Men. The reasons for this are wonderfully in line with natural selection: Men are not ‘better’ than the other races in any way; they are not aggressively wiping out the other races, nor are they in direct competition with them for resources. All of these views are traditional and widespread misinterpretations of what Darwin meant when he said “survival of the fittest.” What that oft-quoted, rarely understood phrase actually means is that those species that are better suited to their environment will have a better chance of reproducing than those that are not. The “fitness” is not a measure between species, but between a species and its environment. This is where I get to Tolkien:

At the end of the Third Age, the Elves are dwindling because they are no longer suited to the environment of Middle-earth. The magical woods and glades that housed them are disappearing; in fact, the realms that they are suited for disappeared at the end of the First Age, but little islands were created by a few powerful Elves to keep the culture alive. With the loss of these islands, there is no longer an environment suitable for Elf habitation, and thus they disappear. They might have had a chance to survive in M-E longer, but for their very low rate of reproduction; without being able to create new offspring who might be willing or able to move into new environments, they are doomed to pass with the passing of their natural habitat.

Much the same is true for the Dwarves. Their habitats, in addition to being scarce (mountains with caves and rich veins of ore) are also dependent upon a limited resource. What happens with the mines of their realms are used up? They also seem to suffer from the same low reproduction rates as do the Elves, this time from a scarcity of Dwarven women.

Hobbits are an interesting case. They have high rates of reproduction (c.f. Rose Cotton!) and are eminently suited to a variety of habitats in Middle-Earth. Their downfall is that they are unwilling or unable to leave the Shire. The Fell Winter nearly wiped them out, but there is no evidence that any of them left to colonise new environments. Hobbits are the perfect example of a species that is the victim of its own success. Sometimes it will happen in a stable environment that a species will become so well adapted to it, that they can no longer dissociate themselves from it without going extinct. So just like the new ‘hobbit’ species discovered in Indonesia, Tolkien’s Hobbits are trapped by the Shire as much as they are protected by it. For as long as the Shire is there, they will do fine. But as soon as there is an ice age, or a volcano or even an extended period of drought or rain brought on by climactic shift, they are doomed. And if there is one thing that evolution has taught us, there is no such thing as an eternally stable environment. Change is the order of the day.

And this is why Men do so well in the Fourth Age. With the passing of Sauron and the Noldor, the stasis that had been maintained in certain parts of Middle-Earth goes with it, and change begins to accumulate at an increasing rate. The Elves see their environment disappear, the Dwarves, presumably, consume their limited resources and are pushed into an ever narrower and smaller niche in pursuit of what they need, and the Hobbits remain in the Shire, growing ever closer to it until they share its fate. Only Men are equipped to survive because they are the only ones who are adapted to live in every environment in Middle-Earth. Think about this: like Elves they are happy in places like Ithilien; like Hobbits they do well in richly rolling hills (Bree, and environs); like the Dwarves they work well in mountains and with stone (Minas Tirith; the Hornburg); and they even inhabit environments that the others shun (the grasslands of Rohan).

I write all this not just to talk about evolution (which would be reason enough) but to point out just how surprisingly true to life Tolkien’s imagined world is, even in ways he does not intend it to be. Tolkien’s view of his peoples is clearly and explicitly creationist, but he is so careful an observer of life, and so particular a creator of life-forms, that they follow the established laws of the primary world (evolution)! Is it any wonder, then, that we should find that the primary world has creatures in it that not only resemble his imagined beings, but that they shared the same fate? Remember, the ‘hobbits’ of Indonesia, like the Hobbits of the Shire, were victims of their own success: they had become so perfectly adapted to their environment , that they were unable to spread beyond it (there were no other islands nearby with Komodo dragons and little food resources), and were thus totally wiped out when that environment was!

Hope my Dad will be proud of me for this!

As a follow up to this post, Heren-Istarion and I had a brief exchange of PMs in which we discussed how neither of us like to think in terms of religion versus science. The way H-I put it was that science is wonderful at working through the hows but not so much the whys, which is why both are necessary.

So this got me to thinking about fantasy worlds in general and Middle-earth in particular. What is the relation between imagined worlds peopled by magical beings, and science? Is it possible to develop a science of Middle-earth? There are geologic features and life forms that grow and develop according to the laws of nature (as we understand them). There are stars and planets and a moon, all of which adhere to the laws of physics; there is gravity and weather (meteorology) – but there are Balrogs, and wizards, and Rings that turn people invisible… Is Middle-Earth, in some sense, unscientific? Is the “magic” that motivates so many of its creatures and events nonrational?

Another way to think about it is this: are there things about the ‘reality’ of Middle-earth that are essentially based upon a “mystery” in the sense that they are unknowable, rather than not-known-yet. To what extent do we have to take Middle-earth on faith, and to what extent can we reconcile what we find there with the laws of science (again, as we know them)?

As a last thought, I would like to quote the final sentences of Darwin’s The Origin of Species:

Thus, from the war of nature, from famine and death, the most exalted object which we are capable of conceiving, namely, the production of the higher animals, directly follows. There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being, evolved.

I have always found this sentiment fascinating, and touching. Even as Darwin concluded the work that was to set off one of the most heated debates about the validity of religious explanations of life, he did so by appealing to that God that many of his followers were determined to do away with: “having been originally breathed into a few forms or into one.” Darwin maintained until his death that his theory of natural selection was not opposed to a view of the universe that includes God; in fact, he found evolution and Christianity to be complementary.

Now, as I have said elsewhere, I do not want to touch of a debate about evolution! I have cited this passage instead to point out how the questions that I am posing about Middle-earth are not really unique to fantastic realms. Even in the primary world we are always working between two ways of seeing things: a “religious” way that bases itself upon revelation and mystery; and a “scientific” way that bases itself upon experimentation and reason. How does our encounter with Middle-earth help us work through these two ‘ways of seeing’? Is Middle-earth a mysterious dream? A rational experience? Some hybrid of the two? Is it understandable through the laws of science in the primary world, or does it operate according to its own rules? Are those rules rational/scientific? Non-rational/mysterious? Or some combination thereof?