This summary is for me. So please don't complain about its incomprehensibility. It's not written for the public. Thanks.
Chapter 3 Universal Acid
The proof that life is a tree, that could be recursively created by applying the same algorithmic process to x, x's descendants, has huge implications for philosophy . The idea of Teleology, where everything has a purpose and end, is "dealt a death blow". It also makes psychologists wonder, if the products of our real "mind" be exempt from an evolutionary explanation (that our free will is algorithmic too)?
Darwin's impact can be felt in many fields not limited to psychology, but to understand the impacts we should first understand a crude map of pre-Darwinian territory, the Cosmic Pyramid.
The pyramid looks like this:
In the pyramid, only some chaos is ordered, some is pure chaos. Only some ordered matter is designed, and only some designed matter has mind. God is the ultimate explanation for all matters.
How the pyramid differentiates from evolutionary theory is this: since non-living, random matters often exhibit "purposes" or "designs", the purpose or design must not come from themselves but from above- it takes an intelligence to make an intelligence. And if minded matter designs all that are below, who designs mind? God is left the only explanation.
What's so revolutionary about Darwin's theory is that Absolute Ignorance, not absolute intelligence, is the artificer of everything. You don't need to establish orders (as an intelligent third party) out of chaos. Give Darwin chaos and sufficient time, order will EMERGE out of chaos, while the whole process is algorithmic and mindless! What makes watches and other designed products are not intelligent, mindful R&D, but through the Principle of Accumulation of Design, distributed over a huge amount of time.
One big issue with traditional cosmic pyramid: If God created and designed all those wonderful things, who created God? Supergod, Supersupergod? If embracing this pyramid means embracing complete mystery, then is it any improvement over over denying the principle that "it must take an intelligence to make an intelligence"?