- Darwinism as a scientific revolution...like Freud, Galileo, and Marx, Charles Darwin is often considered to have revolutionized the way in which we think about ourselves and the world. In what revolutionary ways did Darwinism change our conception of our place in nature?
- What is the significance of variation in Darwinian theory? From where does variation arise (at the biological or genetic level)? Can the presence of variation alone explain evolutionary change or adaptation? If not, what else is necessary?
- What historical event "forced" Darwin to complete and publish The Origin, in spite of his worries that he needed even more evidence, and a much longer book, to be able to convince a skeptical world? Did the first edition of The Origin sell well?
- Jones states (on p. xxv: "The Origin is two things: a bold statement of the idea of evolution, and a work of persuasion as to how it took place". Explain these two aspects of the book.
- Jones is dismissive of the attempts by social scientists to utilize evolution and Darwinism to explain aspects of human society and social life. Can you think of and describe some of the things he is probably referring to? What kinds of uses have anthropologists put evolution to? Can you evaluate the success or failure of some of these ideas?
Saturday, September 12, 2009
Some Questions to Consider About Darwin
Some Questions based on my reading of the Historical Sketch chapter.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I just received the blog information a few hours ago.
ReplyDeleteIn what revolutionary ways did Darwinism change our conception of our place in nature?
ReplyDeleteCharles Darwin, directly and in some cases indirectly, transformed modern man’s ideology of the natural world. Having no concept of the science behind heredity, genes, and DNA, things we now take for granted as Jones mentions, he was able to explain why plants and animals change over time. He put forth the conclusion that “the whole of life is kin,” a drastically new theory in the discourse behind animal breeding and variation. No longer are animals seen to come from their own unique ancestors. We now live in a world and work in different fields that absolutely require knowledge of what Darwin presented in Origin making it both revolutionary and necessary.
Indirectly, Darwin changed the course of religion in America. Though initial clerics did not feel threatened (news to me), over time the debate over evolution education became a political nightmare. Jones presented an accurate explanation to the argument that denying the truth due to faith “debases both science and religion,” forcing people to have to choose sides. Furthermore, the fact that more philosophy students read Origin than those in Biology makes it clear that the book has transcended its initial motives and has influenced a great many audiences.
Why would Jones be dismissive of attempts by social scientists to utilize evolution and Darwinism to explain aspects of human society and social life? Take Herbert Spencer’s interpretation of natural selection as a “right” to dominate cultures that were less “advanced”. Survival of the Fittest to Spencer meant superiority of “fitness “of one society over another. Spencer’s ideas helped popularized Social Darwinism (Western Ethnocentrism), which supported the justification of European expansionism (colonialism); as well as argument for capitalism and free enterprise in the U.S. Additionally, it was used as an argument against welfare and a reason to support social classes. Today, scientists and anthropologist are using evolutionary principles for: DNA Fingerprinting (genetic variation in human population; no two people have the same genetic sequence), to produce vaccines through attenuation, to slow the evolution of resistance in medication by using an combination of drugs, or finding the prefect dosage , in agriculture creating pesticides and herbicides that have not evolved resistance, and reconstruction of evolutionary history to estimate patterns such as tracking the infectious disease know as AIDS. The use of evolution and Darwinism has brought both pros and cons to the playing field. Cons are: the idea of superiority over another society or race, financial cost of creating a new ant-virus or pesticides and the cost to the consumers, and lastly not knowing the effects positive or negative from artificial selection. Some pros are: able to produce more crops in a limited area, the ability to find cures for illnesses; which prolongs our lives, and the ability to understand our history. Only through time can one be able to evaluate the overall success or failures.
ReplyDeleteTyler's point on Herbert Spencer using Darwin's work to justify class structure and racial difference proves the dangers of interpretation in the social sciences. Spencer was an important figure for social science, though. He proved the subjectivity that could be used towards his own 'scientific' study based on Darwin's factual base. He essentially allowed us to learn from his mistakes (however dangerous his studies proved to social relations at the time).
ReplyDeleteToday, Darwin's work is used in the social sciences towards objective means: studying disease, genetics, migration, etc. and correctly so. If Spencer proved one thing, it is how not to use Darwin's work in the social sciences.
Although it has been a century and a half, the conflict between evolutionary theory and and "other' theories continues to generate debate and inquiry into science and philosophy. Whether Darwin's work is utilized with neagative or positive results, it still is a valuable theoretical framework for new discoveries. Scott mentions that Spencer was an important figure for social science. The paradigm for specific periods are reflected in subjective works such as Spencer's. Sometimes outright failures of reason or thought have been the catalyst needed for change.
ReplyDeleteIn what revolutionary ways did Darwinism change our conception of our place in nature?
ReplyDeleteIt seems to me that Darwinism effects our view of ourselves first prior to allowing us to evaluate our place in nature (see p. 70). As I mentioned in class on Monday and is discussed in the book briefly in this last section, Darwinism shook the foundation of people's psyche. If we are merely a clock without a clockmaker, then we have no guarantees for what follows death (probably the heaviest blow), nothing watching over/protecting us and nothing to ask for guidance or help from. If after confronting these realities, or at least mitigating them by including evolutionary theory to some watered down version of ID that satisfies the mind and the soul, one has positioned themselves better to reevaluate the humans place in nature. Darwinism is permanently pitted against the dominant Western view that is 'humancentrism'. It forces us to realize that nature does not revolve around humans, but we are just one spoke (and most likely a temporary one) in the evolutionary wheel.
Why would Jones be dismissive of attempts by social scientists to utilize evolution and Darwinism to explain aspects of human society and social life?
This question is problematic. Jones in places is dismissive about the application of evolutionary theory in the social sciences, but he also compares evolution to capitalism (97), or at least characteristics of each, as did Spencer which others have already pointed out above. Evolution has a place in many of the social sciences, including anthropology, psychology, sociology, but its range and absoluteness of application need to be kept in check. In any popular health and fitness magazine you will see an anthropologist on staff. Their work for the magazine focuses primarily on sexuality and, at least in my opinion, typically states sexual habits as total genetically based instinct. This is extremely problematic with humans because of the impact culture has on our habits.
Below is a link that discusses the evolution of 'molecular machines' which is a major point of contention for ID proponents.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/09/090914111102.htm