Populist resistance to the concept of darwinism takes at least two forms: 1) skepticism, as seen in the writings of William Dembski and Michael Behe, and 2) moral opposition, as seen in Ben Stein’s movie “Expelled.” These two modes of attack often go hand-in-hand, but taken together they entail a contradiction. Before I launch into why this is, let me give some some brief definitions:
A summary of darwinism. Darwinism is improvement via natural selection. “Natural” in this context means non-teleological, undirected, blind, etc. “Selection” means that some things survive while others die.
A summary of the skeptical argument against darwinism. The skeptical argument emphasizes the “natural” aspect of natural selection. Natural processes are blind, lacking the foresight necessary to build the diversity and complexity of life.
A summary of the moral argument against darwinism. The moral argument emphasizes the “selection” aspect of natural selection. Darwinian evolution entails a morality of progress via the destruction of the weak, ultimately leading to a Holocaust situation.
So with that groundwork laid, consider these two scenarios: 1) A goat-herder selects the fattest goats to breed, and then slaughters the others. 2) A herd of wild goats gets thinned out during the winter, leaving only the most hardy to survive and mate. Both of these scenarios involve selection, but only scenario #2 involves non-teleological selection, a.k.a. natural selection, therefore only scenario #2 is a darwinian scenario.
Here are two more: 1) A person murders another person. 2) A person dies due to a congenital heart defect. The first scenario is teleological and therefore immoral, the second is non-teleological and therefore amoral. Because morality can’t exist independently of teleology, darwinism is by definition amoral. If a doctor had ended that person’s life because of the congenital heart defect, it would have ceased to be a darwinian scenario and become an immoral scenario. The two are mutually exclusive.
Okay, so back to the afore-mentioned contradiction. When someone wants to cast doubt on darwinism, they’ll emphasize the non-teleological nature of darwinism. Terms like “blind,” “mechanistic,” and “undirected” are used to great effect. “The blind laws of nature couldn’t have produced life,” etc. But when it comes to the moral implications of darwinism, this emphasis vanishes. Hitler planned to kill the Jews. Eugenics intends to kill the mentally challenged. Therein lies the contradiction: darwinism fails because it contains no telos, but darwinism fails because it contains telos. This is a disingenuous form of equivocation. It’s juggling premises to support a desired conclusion.
Let me drive the point home. Whether you know it or not, you, the reader of this essay, are very likely a proponent of social darwinism. You may think you’re opposed to social darwinism, but what you’re really opposed to are socialism and eugenics, which are forms of artificial selection. A government body chooses who lives and dies. A government body chooses how to distribute wealth. What’s the opposite of that? Natural, non-teleological selection. Laissez faire capitalism. Competition in the marketplace. Live and let live. Equal opportunity. In a nutshell, darwinism playing out in society. America is one big experiment in social darwinism, and its success speaks to the power and pervasiveness of the darwinian concept.
October 14, 2008 at 1:30 pm
This is a very interesting discussion; one that is over my head on a few levels but it is interesting nonetheless.
I would have to agree that most discussions of the implications of Darwinian Evolution are only looked at morally and not amorally. Drawing the distinction between the two really does put a different spin on it than what is seen on the surface.
On a slightly skewed note, human evolution in America seems to most often take its form in the breeding of bigger and bigger people. We are fatter people as a society than we were 100 years ago. Our lifestyles have, I would imagine, also affected the genetic code to all for more people to be overweight, which could cause them to die of congenital heart failure. Could that be a case of both the moral and amoral intersecting?
I would rather die of [i]congenial[/i] heart failure. It just sounds more pleasant to deal with. :-)
October 14, 2008 at 4:10 pm
“We are fatter people as a society than we were 100 years ago. Our lifestyles have, I would imagine, also affected the genetic code to all for more people to be overweight, which could cause them to die of congenital heart failure.”
As I understand it we’ve been genetically programmed to store fat all along since most of our evolution was spent in hard times and poverty. Now the tables are turned and we live in a land of plenty, so the extra fat tends to build up. We’re sort of running afoul of our own evolution.
October 14, 2008 at 4:11 pm
“I would rather die of congenial heart failure. It just sounds more pleasant to deal with. :-)”
Heh heh. They would write on your tombstone “Mr. Congeniality”
November 11, 2008 at 9:57 am
An organization that gives information about evolution and creation from a Biblical standpoint is called “Answers in Genesis.” Some very insightful, logical answers that bring to light some problems with darwinism and related topics. The website is answersingenesis.org.
November 11, 2008 at 10:13 am
Maybe I should have commented under “Evidence for Evolution” instead of “Telos and Social Darwinism.”
As for this essay, my comment would be that be calling a natural selection/progression “Social Darwinism” is just applying a “label” to something that happens naturally.
November 12, 2008 at 12:11 am
I’ve definitely heard of Answers In Genesis and seem to recall reading a few articles on their website. AIG are young-earth creationists (YECs). YECs have the hardest job in the world: reconciling staggering amounts of contradictory scientific data with a literal reading of Genesis, which goal they pursue doggedly. AIG is not taken seriously in the general scientific community, but they don’t care. Their primary audience (and source of income) is non-scientific folks who look to them for support against a universe of evidence that contradicts their belief system. I’m sorry but that’s my take on AIG.
AIG and YECism are not the only game in town when it comes to creationism. The intelligent design movement (ID) accepts many of the tenets of modern cosmology, geology and evolutionary theory, such as the big bang, an old earth, and even (in some cases) natural selection. ID’s position is essentially that evolution isn’t *enough* to explain everything. A YECist might not be able to tell much difference between the views of an IDist like Michael Behe and an evolutionist like Steven J. Gould.
In the intellectual realm, the battle is between ID and evolution. And even then, only a tiny minority of actual working biologists support ID. The number of peer-reviewed scientific papers published per month in support of evolutionary theory is probably more than the number of peer-reviewed papers published *per decade* in support of ID theory. So IDists have a bit of work to do before their views become accepted by the scientific majority.
November 12, 2008 at 12:16 am
“As for this essay, my comment would be that be calling a natural selection/progression “Social Darwinism” is just applying a “label” to something that happens naturally.”
But it’s a valid label, to the extent that darwinism is a naturalistic process.
November 12, 2008 at 12:29 am
I’m sorry I didn’t mean for my comment above to come off as harsh, I was just trying to explain my read on the whole situation. Even though I think they’re wrong, I don’t think YECists are non-intellectuals, I just think they’re in a difficult position to convince the scientific majority.
November 18, 2008 at 3:59 pm
“The number of peer-reviewed scientific papers published per month in support of evolutionary theory is probably more than the number of peer-reviewed papers published *per decade* in support of ID theory.”
–You don’t think this has the teensiest bit to do with bias on the part of the scientific community and the editors peer-reviewed journals who accept articles for publication?
November 18, 2008 at 5:20 pm
“You don’t think this has the teensiest bit to do with bias on the part of the scientific community and the editors peer-reviewed journals who accept articles for publication?”
Yes, but I’d argue that the test of a good scientific theory is whether it can overcome entrenched, institutional biases. Plus, I don’t think the scientific bias against ID is of a fundamentally different order than the scientific bias against any other underdog theory.