Darwin’s Language of Evolution

Darwin’s On the Origin of Species was a ground breaking book in many respects. Certainly what he was proposing was new. The implications for the future were enormous, particularly regarding genetic modification and the ethical issues we currently face in that arena. How he proposed it all though was firmly anchored in the harbour of Baconian science in terms of his language and methodology. He relies explicitly on inductive reasoning as Bacon proposes science should. His use of language and reason have an overtly anthropocentric bias as well.

 

Darwin uses anthropocentric language throughout the book. A typical example can be found in the chapter entitled The Struggle for Existence. The chapter title sets the tone. While he explicitly acknowledges that he is using the chapter title “…in a large and metaphorical sense…” (P 165) he does rely on this, and similar, metaphor throughout. I somehow doubt that plants are actually struggling to reach the sun. They simply grow to reach the sun successfully or they do not and die as a result.  He doesn’t go as far as ascribing a will to plants at least!

 

The metaphor of struggle though ties the conception of evolution to ‘man’s’ goals. If a plant struggles, then only the fit plants survive, as is the case with nations: a model of social advance if you will. There is an unspoken dark side with ethical implications to all of this. If our society has overcome many obstacles to living and has significantly lessened peoples’ struggle then how does natural selection continue its project? Perhaps by developing advanced medicine we are allowing the notion of helping the ‘unfit’ to live, which could be seen as going against ‘human nature.’ How many genocidal fantasies could this view fuel?

 

What is humankind’s role in evolution? Is there one at all? Is nature a machine that just runs on its own? Is there a role for God in all of this? Darwin regularly refers to the evolutionary process as attempting to achieve ‘perfection.’ In relation to what? Similarly he often associates beauty with natural complexity. Perhaps unwittingly there’s an aesthetic aspect to Darwin’s science. This science is presented as the ultimate story in opposition to previous creation mythologies. The mythology of science then, as the ultimate arbiter or revealer of truth. This could be an interesting avenue to explore. Darwin, like Bacon, present their science as dispassionate by nature. Perhaps we can see this dispassionate science as leading us to potential disaster and possible annihilation by being guided by a simply mechanistic model of the universe. Maybe the small aesthetic inklings in Darwin’s language constitute an unwitting recognition of the problem with a dispassionate science. 

 

Maybe an ‘aesthetics of science’ needs to be developed (I’ll do a search to see if this has been pursued by anyone: if anyone knows of any references regarding this please drop a comment!)! An aesthetics (or erotics?- let’s embody science!) of science would allow a non-instrumental view of science. Currently science and all of its associated technological development has an overtly instrumental bias. This narrow view may be at the root of some of the problems of the mechanistic, Baconian science that is Darwin’s pedigree. 

 

 

So Much For Gideon

If Paine’s ideas had been universally accepted then we wouldn’t see Gideon Bibles in motels everywhere! Universal Nature would be the only Bible any of us needed: not the paltry confused words of humans. Maybe we would have Paine’s The Age of Reason in those drawers instead.

 

Paine rejected the a priori method of reasoning and instead based everything on experience, and most importantly, evidence. He strongly believed in universals, for example “…upright and equal government…” (Intro P 6) His beliefs are clearly and simply laid out:

I believe in one God, and no more; and I hope for happiness beyond this life. I believe the equality of man, and I believe that religious duties consist in doing justice, loving mercy, and endeavoring to make our fellow-creatures happy. (Pt.1, P 2)      

So he’s a deist who believes in an afterlife and in the equality and intrinsic goodness of humankind. Interestingly he doesn’t extend his desire to “…make our fellow-creatures happy” to his enemies. He states that that’s absurd (citation?) and is in line with Freud on the issue. Tangential point though. 

 

Paine has nothing good to say about the church: in fact quite the opposite when he states in unequivocal terms that “all national institutions of churches…appear to me no other than human inventions set up to terrify and enslave mankind, and monopolize power and profit.” (Pt.1, P 2) He does quickly follow up by saying that “I do not mean by this declaration to condemn those who believe otherwise; they have the same right to their belief as I have to mine.” (Pt.1, P2) This brings me back to Zizek’s Defenders of the Faith article from the previous post, regarding the modern role of atheism in fostering plurality. Provocative as that article may be, I see some truth to the claim. He continues right away in saying that “…it is necessary to the happiness of man, that he be mentally faithful to himself.” (Pt.1, P 2) (This reminds me of Heidegger’s requirement of ‘authenticity:’ something that I shall look into asap to make sure I’m remembering correctly. If anyone knows the reference I’d love some help!). For Paine the church is an abject institution whose purpose is the maintenance of power and order.  To wit, and in no uncertain terms, Christianity

as an engine of power,… serves the purpose of despotism; and as a means of wealth, the avarice of priests; but so far as respect the good of man in general, it leads to nothing here or hereafter…[and further] it has been the scheme of the Christian church, and of all the other invented systems of religion, to hold man in ignorance of the Creator, as it is of government to hold him in ignorance of his rights. The systems of the one are as false as those of the other, and are calculated for mutual support. (Pt.2, P35)  

 Reason, evidence and science are everything in Paine’s theology. Paine characterizes reason as “…the choicest gift of God to man…” (Pt.1 P 14) and further that “it is only by the exercise of reason, that man can discover God.” Paine rejects the Bible because it consists in the unverifiable words of men of questionable intent. Much of the book goes through detailed arguments (particularly in Part 2) showing the inconsistencies and the logical impossibilities of what is written in the Bible. Paine most certainly maintains a mechanistic world view which is consistent with this form of essentially Cartesian reason. He says, point blank, the “The Almighty is the great mechanic of the creation…” (Pt. 2, P36) For him, mathematics is the root of science and “…the offspring of this science is mechanics….” (Pt.1, P 19) Science cannot be an invention of man according to Paine, because science and mathematics are universal and “man cannot invent any thing that is eternal and immutable…” (Pt.1, P 18)

 

To Paine, the only Bible is the natural world, which it is our role to discover, thereby coming to know God. He believes that each person can discover this for themselves and need no intervention by a priest, pope etc. Man is to use the principles of science to discover the organizing principles of the natural world, and by this alone, commune with God. To Paine, Creation

…is an ever existing original, which every man can read. It cannot be forged; it cannot be counterfeited; it cannot be lost; it cannot be altered; it cannot be suppressed…. It preaches to all nations and to all worlds; and this word of God reveals to man all that is necessary for man to know of God.(Pt.1, P15)  

There is no mincing of words here! Paine believes that God is universal, and while he allows for everyone to have their own beliefs, he clearly asserts that one God, through Creation, speaks to all humankind. One wonders if he’d still hold this view today, with large scale environmental destruction, genetic modification and cloning? Maybe the world can be forged and altered after all.

 

Paine’s reason is that of a disembodied mind; it is mathematical and mechanistic. His criticisms of the Bible often point to its dependence on narrative, on the poetry of prophets and of the fictional nature of the Bible. Interestingly, his own model is very textually oriented! He refers to the Creation as a Bible which is “…inexhaustible in texts…[and further that it] is a text as well for devotion as for philosophy–for gratitude, as for human improvement.”(Pt.2, P 36) This strong textual bias is peculiar in comparison to his critique of the Bible’s textuality. Paine’s logic is essentially language-based: a discursive conceptual-propositional view of knowledge, and one that doesn’t admit of metaphor and poetry! He summarily dismisses the poetic and metaphorical aspects of the Bible as meaningless. But, isn’t science itself somewhat metaphorical? Doesn’t science posit models of the world and then create ways to show or transmit that idea? Is there not a (perhaps intrinsically) aesthetic aspect to human knowledge and understanding? The primacy of science perhaps doesn’t have to be at odds with a primacy of poetry. Both artistic endeavour and scientific endevour seem to offer models of experiencing, and thereby coming to know, our world.