posted by ![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
orichalcum at 08:31pm on 10/02/2006
orichalcum at 08:31pm on 10/02/2006Since the last discussion seemed to provoke some interesting commentary.
I wonder if one of the threatening aspects of the study of evolution, from certain perspectives, is the idea of incompletion, of being merely one step along a path. It's much more tempting and gratifying to think of one's species, at least, as being the ultimate and most successful creation of the divine, and indeed this is a common thread in world religions (except for the ones where current humans are the poor fifth-best to the superior but threatening Golden Humans.) But if you accept the tenets of evolution, we aren't at the end-stage of anything; we're just part of the physical process. Someday there will be a more "perfected" mold - say, without an appendix, or wisdom teeth (here thinking of some of the ideas Asimov proposes in the _Ends of Eternity._) And that can diminish a sense of self and of specialness.
Of course, the interesting parallel here is that the religions of the Book all place a fair amount of emphasis on the idea of human _moral_ and _spiritual_ evolution - that we ought, as a species, to be gradually becoming more moral and righteous, though what that means obviously differs depending on who you're talking to. I like to think of it as growing closer to "God's image." There's even the very common notion that the world won't end until we've become, or at least a certain number of people have become, truly good.
Perhaps this is less threatening because it involves a much larger degree of agency and choice? Sure, I may only be part-way along the step of human moral evolution, but I can work hard to be a better person and maybe skip the line and jump ahead. But I can't decide that my child won't have an appendix, even if it would make its life easier. In fact, because of modern medicine, my child is likely to have a whole bunch of minor physical ailments like asthma and near-sightedness that would have hindered its ability to grow to adulthood and reproduce in previous eras, but now will merely mean that it needs contact lenses.
So, thoughts? And how come we aren't comfortable with both ideas?
I wonder if one of the threatening aspects of the study of evolution, from certain perspectives, is the idea of incompletion, of being merely one step along a path. It's much more tempting and gratifying to think of one's species, at least, as being the ultimate and most successful creation of the divine, and indeed this is a common thread in world religions (except for the ones where current humans are the poor fifth-best to the superior but threatening Golden Humans.) But if you accept the tenets of evolution, we aren't at the end-stage of anything; we're just part of the physical process. Someday there will be a more "perfected" mold - say, without an appendix, or wisdom teeth (here thinking of some of the ideas Asimov proposes in the _Ends of Eternity._) And that can diminish a sense of self and of specialness.
Of course, the interesting parallel here is that the religions of the Book all place a fair amount of emphasis on the idea of human _moral_ and _spiritual_ evolution - that we ought, as a species, to be gradually becoming more moral and righteous, though what that means obviously differs depending on who you're talking to. I like to think of it as growing closer to "God's image." There's even the very common notion that the world won't end until we've become, or at least a certain number of people have become, truly good.
Perhaps this is less threatening because it involves a much larger degree of agency and choice? Sure, I may only be part-way along the step of human moral evolution, but I can work hard to be a better person and maybe skip the line and jump ahead. But I can't decide that my child won't have an appendix, even if it would make its life easier. In fact, because of modern medicine, my child is likely to have a whole bunch of minor physical ailments like asthma and near-sightedness that would have hindered its ability to grow to adulthood and reproduce in previous eras, but now will merely mean that it needs contact lenses.
So, thoughts? And how come we aren't comfortable with both ideas?
tired
(no subject)
I think your assesment encapsulates very well some of the religious problems with the popular understanding of evolution, and that understanding is disturbingly wrong. The idea that evolution is a process by which species get better is older than Darwin, but it fails the reality test; evolution is a process by which things become other than they were, but there is no "path", there is no "line" to jump ahead of. E.g., I've never heard the assertion that the prevalence of myopia in modern populations is a consequence of "modern medicine"; the two prevailing explanations have been the increase of literacy (there's a reason bookworms are portrayed with glasses; reading is really hard on the eyes); but there's a more interesting explanation, which is that myopia is actually selected *for* in pre-technological cultures. The idea is that the well-sighted men go off hunting, while the near-sighted men stay at home. With the women. This explanation is repeated in the persistence of albinism in some southwestern indigenous American cultures. (the prevalence of asthma, too, is believed to be *caused* rather than *protected* by modern life, though no one's quite sure how.)
The thing is, that while Darwin emphasized a kind of "goodness" in natural selection, modern population biology reduces "fitness" to a near-tautology -- he who dies with the most [genes in the next generation] wins. That fitness doesn't necessarily correspond to anything that humans would value as good; it is just as fit for a new alpha male in a tribe to kill all the dependent infants as it is for him to protect his own offspring. If intelligence in women encourages them to postpone child rearing until it's difficult for them to bear children, then intelligence is a disadvantage in evolutionary terms.
One of the forerunning theories about the advantage of sexual recombination is called the "Red Queen Hypothesis". It basically argues that one way sexual reproduction is maintained in populations which have a choice is as a defense against parasitism -- with sexual recombination, you're always changing, but the parasites ALSO have sexual recombination, and they're always changing to keep up. It's called the Red Queen because you're running as fast as you can to stay in the same place -- you're evolving rapidly without changing in a meaningful way. [This is supported by real data, by the way, it's not just rhetoricians blathering on without data.]
My point, if I have one, is that even the popular understanding of evolution assumes that change is *directed*, when, in fact, it is only the generation by generation response of the gene pool to changing environments (and random chance.)
(no subject)
In short, I think religious believers are well equipped to deal with the idea that we're not at the perfect end-stage of anything. Most believers, I think, are happy to think of themselves as imperfect in all sorts of ways, changing according to a process guided by God. The problem with Darwinism, as
Still, I can't overstate the importance of Biblical literalism in explaining why people find evolution threatening. It's really quite hard to reconcile Darwin with a natural reading the Bible, even allowing for a fair amount of metaphor. That fact alone I think sums up most American opposition to evolution, and if we want underlying causes, we should look at what motivates so many Americans to hold passionately to the idea of Biblical truth.
(no subject)
I'm hoping, though, that God gave us the tools of critical analysis (as preached yesterday on "Evolution Sunday," at hundreds of churches across America, hence the reason for my post) precisely because we're intended to evolve morally through deliberate choice and questioning, not just "sausagelike."