... Certain proponents of an expanded evolutionary theory are fond of explaining all sorts of things — religion and art, for example — in terms of their survival value. But if the overriding point of evolution — if I may put it that way — is survival, that point was reached right from the start. The simplest life forms — bacteria, algae, protozoa — mastered the art of survival so well and so immediately that they continue to thrive as they did from the beginning. So development beyond them into more complex life forms would hardly seem to have anything to do with survival. In other words, while the more complex form, once it does exist, must meet the challenge of survival, its emergence as a more complex entity cannot be explained as a response to that challenge. And since its origin cannot be accounted for in terms of survival, why should survival be the sole or even principal explanation of its subsequent activity?