THE DESCENT OF MAN
I take my title, of course, from Charles Darwin's excellent two part volume of the same name first published in 1871, a "sequel" or companion volume to his first-published (1859) "On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection." It won't be my intent here to delve deeply into the subject of evolution, which I have done enough in several other posts on my site here (cf. the post on Henri Bergson's philosophy, for instance). However, Darwin's great work is full of insights and statements that bear repeating in a contemporary Blog forum, since I find, as in philosophy, that we in our era are still pretty much debating the same things about such subjects as biology, ethics, philosophy, the understanding of nature ("physis" in the Greek; hence our word "physics"), cosmology, religion, and so on and on. There is nothing new under the sun, as the writer of the phenomenal Book of Ecclesiastes stated so wisely all those years ago.
Of course, Darwin has been terribly misunderstood and maligned in the US over the past many years. I often point out that it is obvious that many of the people talking loudly about the problems with "Darwinism" have never read him; and certainly not thoroughly or thoughtfully. Most have no idea what they're talking about. For those of us who are "believers" and people of faith, there really need not be such a big problem with reconciling Darwin's work (cf. the excellent recent book by Dr. Francis Collins entitled "The Language of God" - Collins was head of the Human Genome Project). This is especially true when based upon a very careful and painstaking scrutiny of the natural world and religious belief (remember Darwin, although a polymath as were most of the great European scientists and thinkers of his day, was first a naturalist). I often point out - and this bears repeating here - that in his "Origins..." Darwin admits in print that he has no idea about the 1.) origin of matter, and 2.) the origin of consciousness. These remain the two great questions of the ages.
But he did become certain (with good cause) that life on this planet (and in the Universe, by extension) evolves - "changes over time" due to many environmental and genetic variables; that natural selection is the process or "engine" by which this happens, and that there need not be any "special creation" of species (as is the central point of his "Descent of Man").
To that end, I want to share several noteworthy quotes from his excellent work, keeping in mind that "Descent" deals at first primarily with human evolution (not necessarily addressed so directly in his first work "On the Origin..."); and the second part of this volume deals with a comprehensive review of natural selection as according to sexual characteristics attributive to various species.
As I alluded to the various loud-mouthed (but normally intellectually ill-equipped) Darwin detractors above, here is a memorable zinger straightaway in the Introduction to "Descent":
...but ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge: it is those who know little, and not those who know much, who so positively assert this or that problem will never be solved by science. (Take that, obscurantists!!)
It is common to believe that Darwin originated all the fundamental tenets of evolutionary theory by himself. This is, of course, not true, as he himself states:
...the conclusion that man is the co-descendant with other species of some ancient, lower, and extinct form, is not in any degree new. (He cites the thinking of Lamarck, Alfred Russell Wallace, Thomas Henry Huxley, Charles Lyell, and Ernst Hackel.)
It is often asserted that all human tribes and peoples have some sort of belief in a God or "higher power." Not so, says Darwin, citing several anthropologists of his day: numerous races have existed and still exist who have no idea of one or more gods and who have no words in their languages to express such an idea.
Moreover, there was (and still is) a widespread belief in animism, pantheism, records of dreams as "bifurcations of body/spirit" dualism, and all sorts of "spirits." Darwin: with savages, belief in bad spirits far outweighs belief in good spirits. Interestingly, "D" goes on to associate modern ideas of a "good God"/beneficent Creator with highly advancing civilization and the development of monotheistic beliefs.
In Chapter 3, Darwin does admit to one of the most commonly defended aspects of the difference between humans and other animals, that being their "moral sense." D: this is the most important difference between man and the lower animals. He goes on to cite Kant's thinking on altruism, etc. However, he does note innumerable documented instances of altruistic behavior in animals - by instinct, at the very least. Modern evolutionary theorists tend to consign altruism to strictly evolutionary reasons (preservation of the species), but I beg to differ personally. They may have a point, but there are several instances of humans performing heroically "altruistic" feats from purely unselfish motives; in fact, their motives are inspired by their beliefs in a holy God (Mother Teresa, for starters, and a host of missionaries around the world and throughout history).
The superiority of humans in reasoning processes is attributed to homo sapiens' larger brain size. Stemming from this is the evolution of language among humans, which stimulated intellectual development in manifold ways. Communication fostered new methods of survival, food collection and storage, the development of burial rituals, the beginnings of ritual mysticism, etc. Moreover, "D" attributes a high significance to the idea that early man was arboreal and came down out of the trees, which fostered bipedalism, which in turn enabled the more efficient locomotion of early man. A decided advantage for survival's sake... The Tierra del Fuegian "savages" Darwin loves to cite in this work (he studied them intensely during his voyages to South America and the Galapagos) retained many of the original advantages to survival of our species, shared with many other animals: a highly developed sense of smell, ability to run quite fast, and a high degree of cunning in the hunt for food. These traits have not been retained in most of today's varieties of humans. (Who is more prepared for survival if civilization suffered a catastrophic breakdown?!)
Interestingly, regarding warfare, Darwin notes that was seems an integral part of the natural order. This is hard for moderns to swallow, but I would add that the early Greek philosophers thought the same thing. "Victory in warfare;" "tribe supplanting tribe" -these were seen as obvious evidences of natural selection at work. Darwin regarded the ancient Greeks as "some grades higher in intellect than any race that have ever existed." Quite controversial thinking today, but it is an intriguing point. The success of nations and ethnic groups in the struggle for survival, abundance of food, and general prosperity are seen as evidences of natural selection writ large. Darwin thought the same about his contemporary western European civilization (the highest of the age). (One wonders what he would have thought a century later - after the two most devastating and destructive wars in human history!)
Those who still think that Darwin is the "arch enemy" of Christianity would be surprised that in this work, "D" give lofty praise to it (in comparing it to primeval beliefs). He characterized Christianity as "the highest form of religion - the grand idea of God hating sin and loving righteousness was unknown in primeval times."
And how about some of his rhetoric, which is similar to those in the Intelligent Design camp: the world, it has been often remarked, appears as if it had long been preparing for the advent of man... He remarks about "humble creatures" who have "marvellous structure and properties..."
The second major division of Darwin's "Descent" deals with "Sexual Selection" among species. (Sorry feminists: Darwin believed men to be "superior" to women in power, intellect, etc. - a prominent theme here). But many good points are made here which survive to our day:
Though Darwin is willing to admit that there is some degree of uniqueness to the human species, such as man's "advanced level of intellect" (mind) and "moral disposition," he remained nonetheless convinced in the end that natural selection could account for it all. He remained attached to his view that the lower mammals have most of the same qualities of man "in kind, though not in degree."
Personally, I do detect some dissonances in Darwin's views of man, since, as in the "Origins," there are some troubling and stubborn facts regarding humans for him, and their seeming uniqueness. These would include the stubborn fact that man is the only animal with a highly developed set of languages and language principles; man has the highest capacity to use reason for survival with the least effort and suffering (cf. agriculture, hunting, manufacturing, etc.), and so on. For Darwin (and this remains today), the primary success of humans is attributed to our evolved ability to combine language with our large brains to affect intellectual development - certainly a unique feat in the history of this planet.
The developed "moral qualities" always intrigued Darwin. He felt it had more to do with mankind's evolution into larger societies and communities; a shared response to the danger and vagaries of life as experienced in community. Naturally, then, "morality" and ethics evolved to meet those needs, especially through "social instincts" and "sympathy" (his words). The development of our "consciences" as "governors" or "supreme judges" or "monitors," gradually resulting in the articulation of beliefs about a Supreme Being, or God, were natural outgrowths. These were accomplished, in Darwin's words, in the "more civilized races."
Darwin concludes "Descent" with reflections on his first sighting and working among the South American "Fuegians." He was aghast at the "savages" who, to him, were "utterly repulsive"; using "torture" and "infanticide" routinely. In spite of all this, and perhaps in contrast to this, mankind in many societies had risen to great heights in morality and religious and scientific understanding. Since the evidence clearly indicates that humans have "risen to the top of the organic scale," perhaps humanity could evolve towards "a still higher destiny in the distant future."
I would point out that Darwin's thinking points toward a philosophical understanding of existence described under the rubric of "teleology" (the fact that existence is going towards some sort of end, or goal). I wonder if Darwin realized it? While this is not necessarily held to by modern evolutionists (who stress randomness much more in natural selection), Darwin definitely believed in a teleological form of evolutionary theory; things went from simplicity to complexity; there was some sort of "plan" or "reason" for it all, so it seemed.
One steps back from all this, ponders the colossal achievement and courage of Charles Darwin, and the work that has gone on with the "evolution" of his theory among the world's greatest thinkers and scientists over the last 140 years, and asks a thoughtful question: Why indeed the movement of existence from simplicity to more complexity, both in micro (our planet) and macro (the cosmos at large)? Why the increase in scientific knowledge and understanding over the ages? Why the apparent "uniqueness" of the species homo sapiens' to ponder the Universe, fly spacecraft to other planets and beyond our solar system, create monumental works of art, music, and literature - and so on and on? This is precisely the history of the cosmos we understand today. Why should it be thus?
Why indeed...
TTC
Of course, Darwin has been terribly misunderstood and maligned in the US over the past many years. I often point out that it is obvious that many of the people talking loudly about the problems with "Darwinism" have never read him; and certainly not thoroughly or thoughtfully. Most have no idea what they're talking about. For those of us who are "believers" and people of faith, there really need not be such a big problem with reconciling Darwin's work (cf. the excellent recent book by Dr. Francis Collins entitled "The Language of God" - Collins was head of the Human Genome Project). This is especially true when based upon a very careful and painstaking scrutiny of the natural world and religious belief (remember Darwin, although a polymath as were most of the great European scientists and thinkers of his day, was first a naturalist). I often point out - and this bears repeating here - that in his "Origins..." Darwin admits in print that he has no idea about the 1.) origin of matter, and 2.) the origin of consciousness. These remain the two great questions of the ages.
But he did become certain (with good cause) that life on this planet (and in the Universe, by extension) evolves - "changes over time" due to many environmental and genetic variables; that natural selection is the process or "engine" by which this happens, and that there need not be any "special creation" of species (as is the central point of his "Descent of Man").
To that end, I want to share several noteworthy quotes from his excellent work, keeping in mind that "Descent" deals at first primarily with human evolution (not necessarily addressed so directly in his first work "On the Origin..."); and the second part of this volume deals with a comprehensive review of natural selection as according to sexual characteristics attributive to various species.
As I alluded to the various loud-mouthed (but normally intellectually ill-equipped) Darwin detractors above, here is a memorable zinger straightaway in the Introduction to "Descent":
...but ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge: it is those who know little, and not those who know much, who so positively assert this or that problem will never be solved by science. (Take that, obscurantists!!)
It is common to believe that Darwin originated all the fundamental tenets of evolutionary theory by himself. This is, of course, not true, as he himself states:
...the conclusion that man is the co-descendant with other species of some ancient, lower, and extinct form, is not in any degree new. (He cites the thinking of Lamarck, Alfred Russell Wallace, Thomas Henry Huxley, Charles Lyell, and Ernst Hackel.)
It is often asserted that all human tribes and peoples have some sort of belief in a God or "higher power." Not so, says Darwin, citing several anthropologists of his day: numerous races have existed and still exist who have no idea of one or more gods and who have no words in their languages to express such an idea.
Moreover, there was (and still is) a widespread belief in animism, pantheism, records of dreams as "bifurcations of body/spirit" dualism, and all sorts of "spirits." Darwin: with savages, belief in bad spirits far outweighs belief in good spirits. Interestingly, "D" goes on to associate modern ideas of a "good God"/beneficent Creator with highly advancing civilization and the development of monotheistic beliefs.
In Chapter 3, Darwin does admit to one of the most commonly defended aspects of the difference between humans and other animals, that being their "moral sense." D: this is the most important difference between man and the lower animals. He goes on to cite Kant's thinking on altruism, etc. However, he does note innumerable documented instances of altruistic behavior in animals - by instinct, at the very least. Modern evolutionary theorists tend to consign altruism to strictly evolutionary reasons (preservation of the species), but I beg to differ personally. They may have a point, but there are several instances of humans performing heroically "altruistic" feats from purely unselfish motives; in fact, their motives are inspired by their beliefs in a holy God (Mother Teresa, for starters, and a host of missionaries around the world and throughout history).
The superiority of humans in reasoning processes is attributed to homo sapiens' larger brain size. Stemming from this is the evolution of language among humans, which stimulated intellectual development in manifold ways. Communication fostered new methods of survival, food collection and storage, the development of burial rituals, the beginnings of ritual mysticism, etc. Moreover, "D" attributes a high significance to the idea that early man was arboreal and came down out of the trees, which fostered bipedalism, which in turn enabled the more efficient locomotion of early man. A decided advantage for survival's sake... The Tierra del Fuegian "savages" Darwin loves to cite in this work (he studied them intensely during his voyages to South America and the Galapagos) retained many of the original advantages to survival of our species, shared with many other animals: a highly developed sense of smell, ability to run quite fast, and a high degree of cunning in the hunt for food. These traits have not been retained in most of today's varieties of humans. (Who is more prepared for survival if civilization suffered a catastrophic breakdown?!)
Interestingly, regarding warfare, Darwin notes that was seems an integral part of the natural order. This is hard for moderns to swallow, but I would add that the early Greek philosophers thought the same thing. "Victory in warfare;" "tribe supplanting tribe" -these were seen as obvious evidences of natural selection at work. Darwin regarded the ancient Greeks as "some grades higher in intellect than any race that have ever existed." Quite controversial thinking today, but it is an intriguing point. The success of nations and ethnic groups in the struggle for survival, abundance of food, and general prosperity are seen as evidences of natural selection writ large. Darwin thought the same about his contemporary western European civilization (the highest of the age). (One wonders what he would have thought a century later - after the two most devastating and destructive wars in human history!)
Those who still think that Darwin is the "arch enemy" of Christianity would be surprised that in this work, "D" give lofty praise to it (in comparing it to primeval beliefs). He characterized Christianity as "the highest form of religion - the grand idea of God hating sin and loving righteousness was unknown in primeval times."
And how about some of his rhetoric, which is similar to those in the Intelligent Design camp: the world, it has been often remarked, appears as if it had long been preparing for the advent of man... He remarks about "humble creatures" who have "marvellous structure and properties..."
The second major division of Darwin's "Descent" deals with "Sexual Selection" among species. (Sorry feminists: Darwin believed men to be "superior" to women in power, intellect, etc. - a prominent theme here). But many good points are made here which survive to our day:
- humans around the globe share many characteristics, and this is very uncanny: tattooing, ornamentation (especially for sexual purposes), music, dancing, "making rude pictures," hierarchical religious and governmental organization, the practice of polygamy (especially by the various alpha males) and even some polygynous cultures, et.al.
- that several facts of human biology, common to other mammalian species, point toward the veracity of Darwin's central tenet regarding the common evolution of man with other mammals - "rudimentary" organs (such as wisdom teeth, nipples on men, appendixes, etc.), similarities of embryology, and "reversions" of certain characteristics of the human species (reverting to a lower vestigial form).
Though Darwin is willing to admit that there is some degree of uniqueness to the human species, such as man's "advanced level of intellect" (mind) and "moral disposition," he remained nonetheless convinced in the end that natural selection could account for it all. He remained attached to his view that the lower mammals have most of the same qualities of man "in kind, though not in degree."
Personally, I do detect some dissonances in Darwin's views of man, since, as in the "Origins," there are some troubling and stubborn facts regarding humans for him, and their seeming uniqueness. These would include the stubborn fact that man is the only animal with a highly developed set of languages and language principles; man has the highest capacity to use reason for survival with the least effort and suffering (cf. agriculture, hunting, manufacturing, etc.), and so on. For Darwin (and this remains today), the primary success of humans is attributed to our evolved ability to combine language with our large brains to affect intellectual development - certainly a unique feat in the history of this planet.
The developed "moral qualities" always intrigued Darwin. He felt it had more to do with mankind's evolution into larger societies and communities; a shared response to the danger and vagaries of life as experienced in community. Naturally, then, "morality" and ethics evolved to meet those needs, especially through "social instincts" and "sympathy" (his words). The development of our "consciences" as "governors" or "supreme judges" or "monitors," gradually resulting in the articulation of beliefs about a Supreme Being, or God, were natural outgrowths. These were accomplished, in Darwin's words, in the "more civilized races."
Darwin concludes "Descent" with reflections on his first sighting and working among the South American "Fuegians." He was aghast at the "savages" who, to him, were "utterly repulsive"; using "torture" and "infanticide" routinely. In spite of all this, and perhaps in contrast to this, mankind in many societies had risen to great heights in morality and religious and scientific understanding. Since the evidence clearly indicates that humans have "risen to the top of the organic scale," perhaps humanity could evolve towards "a still higher destiny in the distant future."
I would point out that Darwin's thinking points toward a philosophical understanding of existence described under the rubric of "teleology" (the fact that existence is going towards some sort of end, or goal). I wonder if Darwin realized it? While this is not necessarily held to by modern evolutionists (who stress randomness much more in natural selection), Darwin definitely believed in a teleological form of evolutionary theory; things went from simplicity to complexity; there was some sort of "plan" or "reason" for it all, so it seemed.
One steps back from all this, ponders the colossal achievement and courage of Charles Darwin, and the work that has gone on with the "evolution" of his theory among the world's greatest thinkers and scientists over the last 140 years, and asks a thoughtful question: Why indeed the movement of existence from simplicity to more complexity, both in micro (our planet) and macro (the cosmos at large)? Why the increase in scientific knowledge and understanding over the ages? Why the apparent "uniqueness" of the species homo sapiens' to ponder the Universe, fly spacecraft to other planets and beyond our solar system, create monumental works of art, music, and literature - and so on and on? This is precisely the history of the cosmos we understand today. Why should it be thus?
Why indeed...
TTC
posted by thoughtful conservative at 2:45 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home