No matter how stupid our election race will end up in terms of the pollies saying anything to get our votes, it could be worse. Recently all the Republican presidential candidates were asked if they believe in evolution. The problem is not so much that three confirmed they didn’t (and kudos to the Washington Post subbie who came up with Eager to Be Reagan’s Heir, but Not Bonzo’s Cousin) but the idea that the fact of evolution is still a controversy in the 21st century.
However an interesting new skirmish has broken out in the US over evolution but this time it is not your usual suspects involved.
It is the conservatives fighting over Darwin now, with some arguing that they should look to evolution to support conservatives politics.
Which is utter bilge as evolution does not support the politics of the right nor of the left (yes, I’m looking at you Singer). Evolution is simply the story of who we are and how we came to be; one of the greatest intellectual achievements of all time. But the explanatory power of evolution is extraordinarily seductive and hence the attempts to claim evolution as supportive of various beliefs over the years.
Which is a little strange as evolution is simply a story of descent with modification. Homo sapiens simply one branch of many on the grand bush of life. It is a scientific explanation for life on earth, not a prescription for ethics and morality or a political manifesto.
While it is great to see that elements of the right are waking up to the need to deal with reality (and I point out the traditional battlegrounds over evolution have never been an exclusively left v right conflict - just so many anti-evolutionists come from the right side of politics given the constituency they seek), it is amusing to see some commentators take to evolution with a misguided zeal.
Take the remarkably efficient combination of arrogance and ignorance called Dinesh D’Souza:
First, Darwin gives a dark and selfish view of human nature, which is why we need a tough foreign policy to deal with bad guys who cannot be talked out of their badness–even if U.N. cocktails are served. In addition, the selfishness in human nature warrants a system called capitalism which channels this self-orientation toward the material betterment of society.
Darwin, and evolution, have no such view of human nature. A lot of how evolution is interpreted is rooted in 19th century notions of progress and politics. And even if evolution, via evolutionary psychology, did give us such a view, it is not a guide to international politics. Don’t just take it from me. PZ Myers does delightful dissing of D’Souza worth reading.
Whether evolution belongs to the right or the left is a nonsensical argument. Simply evolution belongs to us all as we are all one part of the chain of life.
I don’t know if they’re waking up to reality so much as looking for ways to interpret science such that it appears to support their ideological presuppositions–as D’Souza makes so apparent.
I guess if the likes of D’Souza promoted “survival of the fittest” as a conservative value (of a lying cheating but successful business mogul for example) there might be an arguable case. It would however be negated by the empirical evidence that genetically based altruism — ’scratch my back and I’ll scratch yours’, intra species at least, acts against selfishness.
Evolution today is not Darwinist. This is because Darwin himself was a bit too ‘ social-Darwinist’ with the emphasis being on natural selection by competition. It took the work of Peter Kropotkin and others to balance the ‘nature-red-in-tooth-and-claw’ side of it with the altruistic side of it. Mutual aid is a factor in evolution as much as stress selection and the classic ‘ Selfish gene’ book mentions this.
Then came Mendel. This throws chance into the mix - even at the sub-molecular quantum level. Not that its all chaos. There is a lot of very predictable and even progressive mathematical reasoning in molecular genetics ( sear ‘ Mendels demon’ amazon )
So to sum up Darwinism is not only not progressive ( much like great art)it ain’t even Darwinian anymore. Now if God existed it would be necessary to destroy it so long live evolution.
Actually, if you count Anaximander, the idea of evolution predates the birth of Jesus by six centuries. It’s not it’s some Charlie-come-lately thing!
Anyway, I live in Darwin. We’re always bloody right
Since the current social order has evolved it must be better than any potential rivals. That which is is always the best, as in Kipling’s ‘just so’ stories. This evolutionism can unite liberals and conservatives. Hayek comes close to this
I am not surprised by the response of the republican hopefuls on evolution.
Listen to the words of a ‘player’ like Gordon Ghecko in the movie ‘Wall Street’ from the late 1980’s.
“Greed, for lack of a better word, is good. Greed is right. Greed works.
Greed clarifies, cuts through and captures the essence of the
evolutionary spirit. Greed in all its forms. Greed will save the USA”.
So you can see why they dithered.
The ability to distribute wealth evenly to the masses will always outstrip the ability of one greed-driven entity hoard to itself, since the hoarder will eventually alienate the masses and become a victim of their need if it is not supplied. Need, when unified under a cause, can sometimes become more powerful than greed, and is not dependent on having anything but the will to change the system through coordinated uprising. So greed tends to control which can only be maintained through force. Wealth managers of any substance know that the wellbeing af the majority is a far better option in the long run.
(Just so you know when the lazer-eyed squid show up at your door, it’s spelt PZ Myers)
Billions of years of sex is an intellectual achievement?
Thanks kim, error corrected. As for the Myer’s squid minions “Arr, squiddy, I got nothin’ against ya. I just heard there was gold in yer belly.”
Btw, I was referring to the idea of evolution after Wallace and Darwin not the process.
Oh I know. Just entertaining the notion that I’m smarter than I thought
Did you mean that thinking about ( as a discovery) evolution was a great intellectual achievement, or thinking up evolution (creatively) was an intellectual achievement?
There is no necessary connection between acceptance of the essential truth of Darwin’s description of the evolution of species — and their extinction — and any ethical framework that an individual may hold to.
Non-humans are utterly subject to the physical environment. They are incapable of understanding the conditions of their own existence.
Human beings do not have the luxury of ignorance. Eventually, we’ll be obliterated by a huge asteroid strike. But the point is that we know this. We are also capable of manipulating many (but not all) of the physical conditions of our existence. What we choose to manipulate and how is determined not by the physical environment (although it will be limited by it) but by culture.
Some social darwinians may claim that our brains are hardwired to behave in certain patterned ways, but the fact that this proposition is the subject of so much passionate debate makes a lie of this glum, deterministic view of human potential.
Many fundamentalist monotheists appear to be very disturbed by the notion of a pattern of development that adheres to its own internal logic. They also appear to be outraged that societies can achieve order and an ethical framework without reference to the supernatural.
This fact is slightly disturbing because the rest of us have to live with these perfervid characters. But it should not be surprising, given the close association between belief in a god and the strength of the authoritarian personality trait in these individuals.
Why the distinction between the discovery and creativity FL? The creativity often leads to the discovery.
Shaun,
I’m currently reading Steven Pinker’s excellent book “The Blank Slate” which is an excellent exploration and explanation of the academic and political aspects of the nature vs nurture battles.
He says that social darwinists come from both sides of politics: from the left (who champion a blank slate and thus complete malleability of minds, viz MaoTseDong’s pure white sheet of paper, and Khmer Rouge re-eductation), and from the right (who champion biological determism and thus destiny of some to greatness and others inescapably trapped in servitude).
“Since the current social order has evolved it must be better than any potential rivals. That which is is always the best…”
Is this meant as a joke?
If not, which social order is this - Australia, Russia, Brazil, North Korea, South Korea or somewere else?
Katz,
Would that be akin to the authoritarian personality trait of the bull declaring or defending his position against a challenging pretender for the task of siring the next generation?
You old romantic you, FL
by way of observation…
Quote1 D’Souza - the dream
Quote2 D’Souza - the reality
THE FIRST ONE NOW WILL LATER BE THE LAST
Shaun Cronin on 8 May 2007 at 11:03 pm
While it is great to see that elements of the right are waking up to the need to deal with reality (and I point out the traditional battlegrounds over evolution have never been an exclusively left v right conflict - just so many anti-evolutionists come from the right side of politics given the constituency they seek), it is amusing to see some commentators take to evolution with a misguided zeal.
Right. It is a category mistake (”naturalistic fallacy”) to ascribe intrinsic ethical validity to empirical verities.
Every political ideology wants to acclaim and defame Darwin. Darwin’s greatest friends are on both the Right and Left. But so are his greatest enemies.
Right Friends: Darwinism is supported by the socio-biological evolutionary Right, such as Galton, EO Wilson, Hamilton, Williams, Maynard Smith, the Derb and Steve Sailer. I call this push the “Old Adam” theorists.
Left Friends: Darwinism is also supported by the paleontological revolutionary Left, most notably SJ Gould and Eldredge. They have what you might call a “Life’s Rich Tapestry” view of evolution.
Right Enemies: Obviously the spiritual creationist Right oppose Darwinism as they deny that the sapient species evolved from non-hominid genus. They believe man’s evolutionary origins are non-biological. For them, man’s identity is essentially spiritual (”Ghost in the Machine”)
left Enemies: Less acknowledged is the fact that the social constructivist Left oppose Darwinism as they deny that the homo sapient species evolves into hominid sub-species. They believe man’s evolutionary destiny is non-biological. For them, hominid evolution stopped with the emergence of sapiens, and the sapient brain is exempt from diverse evolutionary pressures (”Blank Slate”).
The scientific core of the Culture War is the debate between the evolutionary conservatives and evolutionary constructivists. The former emphasise man’s rigid nature is a determinant of sub-specific social status whilst the latter emphasise man’s plastic culture as a determinant of sub-specific social status. Obviously the truth is somewhere inbetween since nature and culture determine nurture.
It is very dicey to ascribe ontological status, political partisanship or ideological valency to evolutionary process. Big Thinkers are always keen to hi-jack the laws of history to tether them to their pet political program.
So far not even the grandest thinker has been able to tell which way the wind is blowing when the times they are a changing. Some pretty heavy hitters, such as Hegel Spengler, Toynbee and Marx have tried to find a pattern in History. All pissing in the wind.
Evolution describes the rate of change in form over time. The notion of a law of progress or a hierarchy of beings is inapplicable to natural history.
Biological evolution both conserves and constructs identity. Obviously evolution is somewhat constructivist since the process developed to adapt a beings identity to pervasive and perpetual change.
But it is also profoundly conservative, since the basic chemical identity (nucleo bases) and biological identity (cyto structures) remains the same. At best one can day that evolution contains a dynastic tendency, and to that extent it is conservative over the short and medium-term.
The underlying function of Right and Left parties is contested. I suggest that Leftists support low-status groups aspiring ascendancy/legitimacy. Whereas Rightists supports high-status groups entrenching ascendancy/legitimacy.
Evolution is mainly “interested” in the production and reproduction of genes for fitness. But even here evolution upsets the apple cart by randomly re-combining genes each sexual generation. The first one now will later be the last.
Evolution is not particularly interested in the relative status of species. Inter-species competition and co-operation is the exception rather than the rule. Most competition and co-operation is intra-specific.
The degree of competition and co-operation for several phenotypic embodiments mostly depends on random changes in their genotypic endowments and the ecotyptic environment. This process does not follow any discernible design.
The “winners” are that organism and relatives with the greatest population and most descendants. By that metric bacteria began and will ends as the “ruling class” of nature. This is not the sort of conclusion appealing to grand ideological narrators or morality playwrights.
Nor is there an obvious ideal social organisation from the point of view of biological efficiency. Fukuyama would have us believe that a romantic family, catallactic economy and democratic polity gives the End of History. Someone forgot to tell the Islamic fundamentalists about that. If anything it is high birthrates that get you the evolutionary poll position.
Some evolutionary theorists suggest that the emergence of sophisticated intelligence is a meta-adaption that allows a species to boot-strap itself to phylogenic dominance. This is obviously a pretty anthropomorphic view. No prizes for guessing how our species got to the top of the food chain.
In order to defeat Hitler and rule the world the Anglosphere had to join forces with Stalin.,during the time when the Gulag was at its most virulent and violent. Does this sound like History has a benign and intelligent design?
It remains to be seen whether or not hominid intelligence does put us at the apex of creation or whether it has made us too clever for our own good. To the extent that time has an arrow it points downhill, in the direction of entropy. Not good news for a species that likes to build.
Evolution is mainly “interested� in the production and reproduction of genes for fitness. But even here evolution upsets the apple cart by randomly re-combining genes each sexual generation.
Evolution is not random.
It has elements of randomness in it, but it is still bound by physical (especially chemical) rules. You won’t suddenly find random amino acids being roped into the GACT mix - or if you do the result does not survive.
Evolution describes the rate of change in form over time.
Describes more why things change, than the rate.
No prizes for guessing how our species got to the top of the food chain.
For most of the past 4.5 billion years bacteria have been alone in their dominance of the biosphere of earth. For the past half billion or so they have been joined by multi-cellular life. However they remain, and probably always will remain, the dominant form of life on earth. This is in terms of absolute mass, diversity of species, number of individuals and effect on the physical world and other species.
To be a bit blunt, almost all humans are consumed by bacteria. The reverse does not hold.
harry,
I read the ‘Blank Slate’ a few years ago and intrigued but not convinced. Especially when he goes political in the last third of the book. His dismissal of postmodernism because it allegedly is based on the “blank slate” is a good example. It is an over extension of his ideas.
I place myself in both the nature and nurture category. That obviously some behavior is the result of evolutionary hard wiring (whether it is the result of adaptive selection is another story). But society and culture do influence how we behave. The trouble is teasing out how both have combined to make us who we are.
One problem I have with some on Pinker’s arguments (and other sociobiological explanations) is that there is a hidden assumption that we have not evolved over the past 10,000 years or so. A quasi-mythical hunter-gatherer age is evoked as the source of our current behaviour. That is not to say that some traits are from that era (or even further in the past), but it tends to ignore culture. I have a suspicion that some research is driven towards explaining stereotypes of behaviour based on cultural assumptions rather than having any actual insight into evolution.
It is a bit sad when a debate on national leadership descends into the relatively absurd and small triviality of creationism vs evolution, which is practically purposeless in the contemporary world. The Republicans have been screwed up by letting persons like Ann Coulter off the leash with their rationale encouraging various degrees of ideological perfection in policy.
What concerns me is not so much whether a bloke believes in evolution, but the fact that it would be a question that is asked during leadership debate. This augours poorly for the future of western society.
“Billions of years of sex is an intellectual achievement?”
Sex is intrinsically intellectually driven. The mediocrity is boring.