Darwin presents several arguments to support his proposition that man originated from some form of lowly species. To begin with, he asserts that the embryonic development between man and other animals is similar. In other words, the growth cycle of man and other lowly animals or organism demonstrates a lot of distinct similarities that have never been disputed.
For example, conception is the first process of bringing forth life in both man and other animals. Second, the stages of embryonic development are similar in both cases because the embryo takes a particular period before it can transform into a new form of life or creation. Darwin notes that the conception period might be the only difference between man and other living organisms.
There is also a close similarity between man and other animals in terms of geographic distribution. Both of them have been spatially distributed in such a way that they can depend and co-exist with each other. The spatial distribution of man and other animals is also largely dependent on the availability of resources required for sustainable growth.
The evolutionist also stresses the point that even though man has been classified in form other races, it is similar to the case of other animals. Perhaps, the only difference is the wording pattern because animals are grouped into species while human beings are categorized in various races. Also, man retains the same rudiments as other lower animals because he descended from a lowly organized form. Darwin has used these pieces of evidence to support his theory of evolution.
Question of the Relationship Between Religion and Science
Although Darwin seems to refute the religious claim on the origin of man, it is apparent that both religion and science share a common hypothesis that man has a distinct origin. Nonetheless, the evidence provided above by Charles Darwin contrast the religious belief that man was created by the Supreme Being called God. Science does not recognize the presence of God as referred by Christians and other religions.
Also, it is prudent to underscore the fact that science relies on evidence that can be proven while religion revolves around various abstract belief systems with no evidence at all. This explains why the evidence provided by science on the evolution of man cannot be accommodated by religion. Therefore, religion and science will continue to offer opposite thoughts and perspectives due to the parallels that have been drawn between evidence and belief systems (Lualdi 182).
Darwin Voice the Concern for Realism and Concrete Facts
Darwin readily mentions that several critics will judge his theory of evolution on the origin of the species without giving key attention to the concrete facts and realism presented by the same theory. He appears to be quite aware that the theory may elicit a long debate afterward. Indeed, the evolution theory was not received warmly from all quarters because Darwin was sharply criticized by religious adherents and other scientists.
The evolution theorist emphasizes that he has offered adequate scientific knowledge on the origin of man because he is aware that the theory is bound to be the core subject of discussion for a long time. Darwin is also concerned that hopes and fears can hardly reveal the pertinent facts on the origin of man. He adds that truth based on scientific evidence should be the main guideline on all arguments presented from different viewpoints.
Works Cited
Lualdi, K. Sources of the Making of the West: Peoples and Cultures. Volume II: Since 1500. Boston: Bedford/St. Martin’s, 2012. Print.
Current essay deals with issue of relation between science, culture and philosophy in the doctrine of Anaximander who is known as the pre-Socratic philosopher. Besides this, we would try to find parallels and succession between Anaximander and Darwin as we believe that they do exist.
Anaximander philosophy of universe (cosmogony) can be described as essential departure from then dominant mythological approaches to understanding the creation of the world. He was one of the first proponents of science as the positive and pragmatic knowledge needed for understanding the world and manipulating different things and processes. He claimed that the nature is ruled by the same laws as scientific spheres. Everything that breaks the balance of natural laws does not existing for a long time since it is abnormal (Park, 2005).
As in the case of other Ancient Greek philosophers his scientific interests can be described as syncretism since they combined different spheres of knowledge and unified it in philosophical tradition. This can be understood also as one of the most crucial factors of his desire to make philosophy dependent on scientific truths rather than mythological revelations and traditions. One of the major contributions to astronomy was Anaximanders’ research of mechanics of the celestial bodies in their relation to Earth. What concerns physics, he thought that apeiron is indefinite and eternal sources of material existence of things. Besides this, his good knowledge of theoretical and practical geometry helped him to create world maps which was a great progress in the development of ancient geography.
As these examples show, Anaximander’s own positive scientific interests were among the crucial driving forces of his advocacy of science and departure from Myth and tradition. This is not to say that mythological motives do not play any role in his philosophy. They do but unlike other philosophers of that time Anaximanders shows that they should be used as cultural categories but not as map for the scientific development.
As the abovementioned facts show, Anaximander asserted the importance of real physical forces and implemented mythological explanation only in the case when he didn’t possess necessary knowledge for understanding material substances. Therefore, there is no denying the importance of the fact that Anaximander can be considered as the first positive scientist. Moreover, as Sagan (1985) shows Anaximander is famous for being the first person to conduct real scientific experiment based on theory, hypothesis and organization.
Anaximander predicted some major findings of the future since. This mainly concerns his philosophy of life origin where he rightly claims that animals had sprang out of sea long ago. He thought that the first creatures were trapped in the spiny bark which then would break (Russell, 1946). As the 3rd century Roman scientist Censorinus states: ‘Anaximander of Miletus considered that from warmed up water and earth emerged either fish or entirely fishlike animals. Inside these animals, men took form and embryos were held prisoners until puberty; only then, after these animals burst open, could men and women come out, now able to feed themselves’ (Russell, 1946, p. 76).
Another important idea concerns human beings as Anaximander claims that given human inability to protect themselves in the infant conditions they would have survived in the primordial times and hence they had changed from then on. Here we come close to the alleged sequence or succession between Anaximander and Darwin. It should be claimed that though Anaximander didn’t create a theory of natural selection he may be considered as the proponent of evolution theory.
For instance, as it was noted above, the theory of the aquatic origin of man and life was reconfigured many centuries later in a aquatic-ape hypothesis. These pre-Darwinian theories are ungrounded since they use broad generalization without necessary factual and experimental data. But these ideas show the example of Anaximander phenomenon as he tried to explain the reasons of life not with the help of some speculative claims but with the help of material life itself.
Hence, the history of philosophy shows that evolution theory and natural selection concepts were first develop in crude form by Anaximander who claimed that long period of human infancy can be explained by the fact that no existing animal was our ancestor.
This material approach to life is very strange if we remember that even today in our scientific era people often explain things from some mythical and supranational standpoint avoiding natural scientific explanation. Anaximander as a first scientist to break with still prevailing tradition shows us that our contemporary world is even more mythical than in the era of Anaximander.
References
Park, David. The Grand Contraption, Princeton University Press, 2005.
Russell, Bertrand, A History of Western Philosophy and Its Connection with Political and Social Circumstances from the Earliest Times to the Present Day. New York: Simon and Schuster, 1946.
John Stuart Mill and Charles Darwin can be regarded as the thinkers that shaped the intellectual history of the nineteenth century. To a great extent, they profoundly influenced people’s views on the origins of life, the transformation of society and the behavior of an individual within the community. This paper is aimed at discussing Mill’s work On Liberty and Darwin’s book On the Origins of Species. In particular, it is necessary to discuss the degree to which the ideas of these scholars are consistent with cultural and intellectual trends that emerged in the nineteenth century, for instance, positivism, Marxism, and existentialism.
Furthermore, it is vital to show whether one of these thinkers proved to be more farsighted. These are the main questions that should be examined. On the whole, it is possible to say that these works reflect the principles of positivism; moreover, they profoundly changed many areas of study, for example, biology, political science, or even psychology. Mill and Darwin are equally important for the development of modern science and philosophy; however, they have often been misapplied and misinterpreted by other people. These are the main arguments that can be put forward.
The relation of Darwin’s and Mill’s works to cultural and intellectual trends
It is possible to say there is a common theme that these thinkers explore. In this case, one should focus on the process of transformation. Charles Darwin (2003) examines the changes that living organisms undergone in order to adjust to natural environment. In particular, this scientist attempts to show that species acquired certain physical or behavioral characteristics during many hereditary modifications that were necessary for adapting to the environment (Darwin, 2003, p. 97). In his turn, Mill focuses on the transformation or evolution of human societies in the course of history. In particular, he argues that some of the societies became sufficiently advanced in order to limit the authority of rulers (Mill, 2010, p. 5).
Moreover, such people believe that they are competent enough to control of their own lives. Such individuals do not have to be “protected against their own will” (Mill, 2010, p. 6). Furthermore, despite their differences various societies tend to gravitate toward the democratic form of government. However, there are several important distinctions that should be considered. In particular, Darwin describes the evolution of species as a form of adaption to various external forces. However, he does not say that this process is inherently good or bad. In contrast, Mill believes that the transformation of societies can be compared to progress or improvement. These are the main details that should be taken into consideration. So, it is important to demonstrate the relation of their works to other intellectual and cultural trends.
The nineteenth century was marked by the efforts to develop the theory of knowledge which can help philosophers and scientists to evaluate the validity of information. For example, it is possible to speak about positivism according to which empirical observation could be the only sources of knowledge (Comte, 1998, p. 28). These idea has been advocated by such thinkers as August Comte who believed that speculative claims had to be verified (Comte, 1998, p. 39).
Provided that this task is not done properly, such assumptions cannot be viewed as valid. This intellectual trend downplays the role of religion because it lies outside the realm of empirical observation and reason. To a great extent, Darwin’s book exemplifies the use of positivist principle. This author supports his arguments with various examples which demonstrate how different species evolve in the course of natural selection process. For instance, he examines physical and behavioral traits of various birds or animals (Darwin, 2003, p. 9). This is one of the main details that can be identified.
Furthermore, this author does not refer to religion as a method of explaining the hereditary transformation of species. Certainly, one should keep in mind that Darwin does make speculative claims that cannot be falsified. The author admits that in some cases, he lacks evidence that can fully demonstrate the validity of evolutionary. This is why he acknowledges that his ideas may not be true (Darwin, 2003, p. 373). So, On the Origins of Species is quite consistent with the principles of positivism which forms the basis of intellectual thought in the nineteenth century.
In contrast, John Stuart Mill does not try to substantiate his claims with the help of empirical observations. In the first two chapters of his book, he describes the confrontation between the state and an individual (Mill, 2010). He describes this process as the ‘struggle between authority and liberty’ (Mill, 2010, p. 5). Moreover, he constructs a speculative model which can minimize the risk of totalitarian oppression against individual citizens. Yet, he does not say that his arguments lack empirical evidence. This is one of the differences between these thinkers. Yet, it is critical to remember that like Darwin, Mill does not believe that religion should affect the work of government (Mill, 2010, p. 133).
In his opinion, separate individuals do not require religion in order to design a government that can efficiently protect their interests. There is another principle of positivism affects Mill’s work. For instance, this thinker is firmly convinced that separate individuals are able to take rational and impartial decisions. To some degree, these examples indicate that in the nineteenth century, various philosophers adopted the legacy of the Enlightenment, especially the belief in reason or rationality. This is one of the main details that can be distinguished.
Additionally, it is critical to examine the works from the perspective of communism which also became very influential in the nineteenth century. In particular, one should pay attention to such a book as Communist Manifesto written by Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels (2012). These philosophers believe the history of humankind can be described as the struggle between social classes that have conflicting and irreconcilable interests (Marx & Engels 2012, p. 46). In particular, one can speak about workers and people, who owned the means of production, or bourgeoisie (Marx & Engels 2012, p. 40). It should be noted that Marx and Engels use the concept of natural selection as a scientific basis for their class theory (Harris, 2001, p. 223).
They concentrate on the notion of competition between and within species. In Communist Manifesto, this notion of competition is transformed into class struggle which shapes the course of history (Harris, 2001, p. 223). Additionally, social evolution must result in the eventual victory of proletariat. This case shows how Darwinian legacy can be misused by intellectuals. The main problem is that Darwin did not want the principles of evolutionary science to be applied to social development and politics because the actions of human beings are much more complex than the behavior of other species. Moreover, it is not permissible to use biological concepts to the questions related to social justice and ethics. This is one of the aspects that can be singled out.
Similarly, the ideas of John Stuart Mill are also not consistent with communist ideology because this philosopher does not believe that social transformation is driven only by conflicts (Mill, 2010). In his view, struggle is primarily related to the confrontation between an individual and the state. In addition to that, he believes that different groups can reach a compromise and find a solution that can benefit both sides. Thus, one can argue the works of Mills and Darwin are not fully compatible with Marxism. Nevertheless, Marxists often use the idea of these thinkers in order to justify their arguments.
Apart from that, in the nineteenth century, many thinkers, scientists, and writers focused on the experiences of an individual and his attempts to adjust to the community. For example, such advocates of existentialist philosophy as Nietzsche, Kierkegaard, or Dostoevsky believed that the unhappiness of an individual could be explained primarily by his/her inability to fit into society (Tannenbaum 2011). From this perspective, a person is bound to feel frustration, if he/she does not experience the sense of belonging to a larger group. From Mill’s viewpoint, this phenomenon can be attributed to the failure of the community to secure the liberty of individual citizens.
In turn, in his work, Darwin’s work does not account for the differences in individual behavior. On the Origins of Species is only suitable to describing the qualities of the entire species, but not separate representatives of this species. Overall, it is possible to say that in some cases, Darwin’s and Mill’s works reflect some of intellectual and cultural trends that emerged in the nineteenth century, especially positivism. However, they cannot be used to elaborate communist or existentialist rhetoric because such use can significantly distort the ideas that Mills and Darwin express in their books. This is one of the key points that can be made.
Evaluation
It is rather difficult to argue that one of these thinkers proved to be more or less farsighted. Such a comparison can lead to the misinterpretation of the works discussed in this paper. Overall, each of these thinkers made a significant contribution to contemporary science and philosophy. The most important issue is that their ideas can sometimes be misused or misinterpreted. For example, Charles Darwin’s views play an important role in biology, physiology and psychology. For example, his ideas can be used for explaining the behavior of males and females. Moreover, many aspects of his theory were verified only with the help of DNA tests. To a great extent, they transformed the way in which scientists explain the origins of life.
Moreover, he was far ahead of his time. When On the Origins of Species was published, this book was perceived with outrage and skepticism. Yet, nowadays, modern natural scientists regard it as a classical work. Certainly, this book is evaluated more critically by modern researchers, but Darwinian concept of evolution still retains its validity. However, it is vital to remember that Darwin’s ideas could often be misused. In particular, one can mention such an ideology as Social Darwinism according to which the principles of natural selection are applicable to the interaction human beings and nations (Radick, 2009, p. 219).
For example, this ideology implies that people must compete with one another as biological species (Radick, 2009, p. 2190). Later, this theory was used to justify the belief that some races could be superior to others. This case shows how Darwin’s work could be misinterpreted because Darwin did not apply such notions as superiority and inferiority. This is one of the details that should be considered by the readers of Darwin’s books.
Similarly, one can say that John Stuart Mill shaped such areas of philosophy as ethics and political science. There are several examples that can be used to elaborate this argument. First, this philosopher was able to predict such a risk as “the tyranny of the majority” (Mill, 2010, p. 7). This argument is particularly relevant if one speaks about the discrimination against people on the basis of their religion, sexuality, or ethnic origin. In many cases, this discrimination takes its origins in populist ideology according to which the will of the majority should be the main priority for policy-makers.
It should be noted that in the course of history, many people were persecuted or marginalized only because they were not a part of the majority. This is one of the main pitfalls that should be avoided. Therefore, Mill could foresee the risks that fully manifested themselves only in the twentieth century. Moreover, in his treatise, this author identifies the necessity to protect the rights of minorities. In particular, he speaks about the main freedoms which must be guaranteed to every individual. For example, one can mention the freedom to unite or the right to express one’s opinion (Mill, 2010, p. 11).
To a great extent, these ideas shaped the legislation of many countries, especially after World War II, when it became apparent that the authority of the state had to be limited; otherwise it could turn into a dangerous machine of oppression. So, Mill’s legacies should not be disregarded. On the whole, one can argue that the contributions of these thinkers are related to different areas, but they are equally significant. These thinkers changed people’s conceptions of society, individual, and living organisms, in general. These are the major contributions of Darwin and Mill.
Conclusion
This discussion shows that the works of John Stuart Mill and Charles Darwin have profound implications for many areas of study. To a great extent, they reflect the principles of positivism, according to which scientists and philosophers should search for empirical confirmation of their claims. Overall, these books can be helpful for explaining the behavior of various biological species, including human beings. For example, Darwin’s ideas can be applied to biology or evolutionary psychology. On the Origins of Species significantly contributed to the development of natural science. In turn, Mill’s views shape the work of legislators and policy-makers. The treatise On Liberty is useful for creating a system of checks and balances that limit the authority of the state. These works can be viewed as important landmarks in the history of ideas. More importantly, they continue to affect the work of contemporary intellectuals who may represent different areas of study.
Reference List
Comte, A. (1998). Auguste Comte and Positivism: The Essential Writings. Boston, MA: Transaction Publishers.
Darwin, C. (2003). On the Origin of Species. New York, NY: Broadview Press.
Harris, M. (2001). The Rise of Anthropological Theory: A History of Theories of Culture. Bostom, MA: Rowman Altamira.
Marx, K., & Engels, F. (2012). The Communist Manifesto: A Modern Edition. New York, NY: Verso Books.
Mill, J. (2010). On Liberty and Other Essays. New York, NY: Digireads.com Publishing.
Radick, G. (2009). The Cambridge Companion to Darwin. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Tannenbaum, D. (2011). Inventors of Ideas: Introduction to Western Political Philosophy, 3rd ed.: An Introduction to Western Political Philosophy. New York, NY: Cengage Learning.
Charles Darwin revolutionized scientific world in the middle of the nineteenth century. He cast doubt on the idea of divine origins of the world. He also stated that people were nothing more than animals that managed to adapt better than the rest of species. Of course, his theory was like a bomb.
However, in the course of time people accepted this bold theory. Some people still do not understand why people did agree with Darwin’s assumptions. The answer to this question is on the surface. Darwin managed to provide really simple and meaningful examples that illustrated his theory.
His “Natural Selection” is one of those works that convinced people of his being right. Darwin provides a brief but comprehensive analysis of his theory in this work. His theory of natural selection is easily proved as the scientist provides examples which can be understood by everyone. Therefore, Darwin’s theory of natural selection was soon accepted by people as it was well-grounded and it was perfectly explained in simple terms by the scientist.
Definition of Natural Selection
In the first place, Charles Darwin (2011) provides a very simple definition for his term: “This preservation of favourable variations and the rejection of injurious variations, I call Natural Selection” (p. 81). The definition is really brief but comprehensive. The researcher manages to reveal the essence of his theory in a few words.
Thus, natural selection is based on two notions: preservation of important features and elimination of unfavorable ones. This explanation speaks to everyone as people often choose objects that have certain ‘favorable’ features, and do not choose things which have some unnecessary characteristics.
This comprehensive definition makes the theory more credible. Admittedly, people tend to believe in things which can be explained in simple terms. Unlike some scientists who use difficult terms and obscure explanations, Darwin gives a transparent definition for his term. He shows that natural selection is something really easy and logical. He shows that it is the fact that people have to acknowledge.
Simple Illustrations from the World of Plants and Animals
Apart from the simple definition, Darwin provides simple examples to prove his theory. For instance, the scientist mentions that “man can produce and certainly has produced a great result by his methodical and unconscious means of selection” (Darwin, 2011, p. 82).
Therefore, the scientist addresses all those who have known that people do resort to selection in farming. For instance, farmers have always tried to notice some favorable features in some plants. Those plants have been used for sowing. Thus, farmers expect that they can soon get plants which have the necessary features.
The scientist mentions that people often try to breed cattle as well. However, the author also states that the man “begins his selection by some half-monstrous form; or at least by some modification prominent to catch his eye” (Darwin, 2011, p. 82). Darwin states that nature is more precise and thoughtful. The scientist points out that various external factors influence the development of species to make them fit the world around them.
Simple Illustrations from the World of People
Furthermore, the researcher also provides a simple example from the world of people. Thus, Darwin (2011) notes that
all the inhabitants of each country are struggling together with nicely balanced forces, extremely slight modification in the structure or habits of one inhabitant would often give it an advantage over others. (p. 82)
This is a very precise illustration of natural selection manifested in human societies. Admittedly, people have learnt a lot about various countries and societies. There have been many examples of changes in countries which took place after some external factors (e.g. climate) had changed.
Many people had to leave their homeland because they could not adapt to new conditions. On the contrary, the area could be invaded by those who were accustomed to such conditions. Admittedly, when some people acquired certain features favorable for living in certain areas, these people had an advantage over others.
Conclusion
To sum up, Darwin’s “Natural Selection” is a brief but precise explanation of one of the major principles of the theory of evolution. The scientist introduces a new term (Natural Selection) and explains it in simple words. Darwin provides illustrations which are easy to understand.
Thus, people accepted the theory because they already had certain experience in selection and breeding. People noticed that they could modify certain species to fit certain purposes. Therefore, it is but natural that every species in this world is subjected to some kind of selection. People modify some species to make them fit human’s needs. Likewise, people are modified to fit various external factors like climate.
Darwin did change the world as he made people understand that everything in this world is undergoing continuous change. The greatest achievement of the scientist is that he managed to explain his revolutionary theory in simple terms so that people could understand and accept it. Nowadays many researchers lack this ability to explain their ideas in simple words.
Reference
Darwin, C. (2011). Natural selection. In R. DiYanni (Ed.), Fifty great essays (pp. 80-91). New York, NY: Longman.
It is hard to deny that power often goes hand in hand to strength. Though the ability to take control over the rest of the people and even entire states often depends on such qualities as diplomacy, intellect and strategic thinking, brutal force often actually turns out the pivoting point in the argument between opponents. The given phenomenon spawns a number of ethical questions concerning the situation when the strongest wins only owing to his/her single asset, that is, the ability to use strength to prove the point.
Understandably enough, the concept of force as the ultimate argument in a discussion has been a very low, if not the lowest, means of solving a conflict. For example, in his Magnum Opus, The Republic, Plato deliberately introduces a character that will represent the thoughtless, unreasonable, mean-spirited idea that the power belongs to the strongest and be opposed to Plato’s own concept of whose hands the power is supposed to be in.
However, with the appearance of Darwin’s famous work, The descent of man, the idea of the domination of the strong ones suddenly gained sense; moreover, it can be argued that in a way, Darwin’s work justifies the idea of power being given to the strongest ones.
Hence, Darwin’s work becomes a touch controversial. However, despite the seeming similarity between Thrasymachus’s point of view and Darwin’s concept of the strongest as the most possible survivors and leaders, there is a mile of small differences that sets Darwin’s idea of the strongest as the ones with the greatest amount of assets and Thrasymachus’s concept of the strongest is the beholder of brutal force thousand miles apart.
On the one hand, it seems that there are a number of similarities between what Darwin offers as the basic principle of survival and what Thrasymachus claims to be the key principle of existence.
Indeed, both philosophers believe that the strongest species have the greatest opportunities not only to stay alive, but also to reach the top of the social hierarchy within a specified group. Darwin insists that the principle “only the strong survive” works within a group of any living creatures, not only people, and is the basic rule of evolution that allows only the most powerful creatures who, therefore, have the opportunities to produce the healthiest posterity.
As Darwin puts it, “The stature and strength of the men of a tribe are likewise of some importance for its success, and these depend in part on the nature and amount of the food which can be obtained” (Darwin). Therefore, Darwin stresses that a man’s strength, as well as his behavior and manner of conduct affect his social status and shape people’s attitude towards him.
Thrasymachus, in his turn, argues that strength alone can be the source of everlasting power over the rest of the people: “My answer is that might is right, justice is the interest of the stronger” (Plato). Therefore, it is clear that Thrasymachus claims justice to be the privilege of the strongest. It is noteworthy, however, that both Darwin and Thrasymachus use the notion of strength in their argument. However, the use of the same word is as far as the similarities between the two arguments go.
To start with, it is necessary to explain that by claiming justice to be the prerogative of the strongest, Thrasymachus means that the beholders of the power choose what principles the system of justice must be guided by. According to Thrasymachus, the idea of the survival principle presupposes that those who managed to live through the changes of the environment will also succeed in playing the role of a community leader and establishing the system of justice: “An evil soul must necessarily be an evil ruler” (Plato).
An argument in favor of the difference between Darwin’s and Thrasymachus’s statement is that Darwin does not actually claim that the strongest necessarily possesses the advantage of justice. According to Darwin, the stronger is capable of getting used to the established system of justice rather than of creating his/her own set of rules: “With savages, the weak in body or mind are soon eliminated; and those that survive commonly exhibit a vigorous state of health” (Darwin).
Thrasymachus, in his turn, claims that the strongest also establishes the laws and sets the principles of judgment: “Justice is a man’s own loss and another’s gain” (Plato). Though both authors might seem to have a point depending on the perspective, it is still necessary to admit that in terms of intrinsic judgment system, Thrasymachus’s idea does not hold any water.
While Darwin explains that both the strongest and the weakest exist in the system of principles of the universal justice, Thrasymachus constitutes the concept of universal justice with the situational one, i.e., the principles that is not considered the ultimate manifestation of justice, but the ones that satisfy the demands of the beholders of the power. That said, it is hardly possible to consider Darwin’s and Thrasymachus’s arguments as equal ones; they simply concern different ideas of what justice is, not what power is.
The last, but definitely not the least comment to the famous argument concerns the very concept of strength and the qualities that Darwin and Thrasymahcus understand as strength. In Darwin’s opinion, strength incorporates both physical force and intellectual and moral advantage.
It is significant that Darwin stated at the very beginning of the chapter that strength in his interpretation involved not only the ability to destroy or threaten the enemy physically, though it was also an important aspect of becoming a leader, but also being intelligent, able to think fast and adapt to the changing environment. Only joined together, these assets could be viewed as strength, while physical force alone did not guarantee the chance to survive, especially in the primitive setting.
That said, it is clear that the key difference between Darwin’s and Thrasymachus’s point of view is that Darwin does not join the idea of justice to the principle of natural selection, which is “the survival of the fittest” (Darwin), not the ones of the highest morals. While stressing that natural selection is reasonable and by all means predictable, Darwin, thus, explains that it is not always fair.
In fact, the very fundament of modern justice is completely opposite to the concept of natural selection – in people’s society, the strongest ought to help the weakest, thus displaying the ability to empathize, which is the core difference between social animals, which people are, and non-social ones: “It is certain that associated animals have a feeling of love for each other, which is not felt by non-social adult animals” (Darwin).
To Thrasymachus’s credit, one must admit that his point is quite clear and reasonable as well. Thrasymachus does not argue that the idea of justice being in the hands of the strong ones is how the justice system should be established; however, this is how the justice system works in the real world. Admitting that the given state of affairs is rather unfortunate, Thrasymachus still adopts a more realistic point of view on the system of justice.
Therefore, Darwin’s supposition concerning the strongest species as the ones that will most likely survive adapting to the changing environment and Thrasymachus’s idea of the strongest as the one who will prove his/her point with his/her force instead of developing other qualities, in fact, have very little in common.
Though both works introduce the concept of the strongest as the most capable of reaching for the top, the authors obviously use the given term with a slight difference in meaning. While Thrasymachus makes it clear that force is the ultimate argument in any discussion, Darwin states that “the strongest” does not necessarily mean “the one whose muscle system is the best developed.”
On the contrary, Darwin seems to incorporate a variety of qualities into the image of the strongest representative of the species, meaning “the most capable of adapting” by saying “the strongest.” Hence, it can hardly be regarded appropriate to put Thrasymachus’s ideas on the same level with those of Darwin. While both opinions have the right to exist, it would be wrong to claim that Darwin’s concept of the strongest has much to do with the one suggested by Thrasymachus.
In February this year, Moore and Cotner (2009) published in The American Biology Teacher the results of a college student survey that revealed the continuing chasm between evolution theory and creationism in the high school science classroom. The authors are Distinguished Teaching Professor of Biology and Associate Professor of Teaching (Biology Programs), respectively, at the University of Minnesota, whence they drew a sample of 1,000 Biology and non-Biology majors (from all those taking introductory Biology courses) for the recall survey.
The Facts
The two fundamental findings of the study are that: a) no better than two-thirds of students could report that only evolution was taught in their high school biology courses; and, b) from 11% to 41% of respondents consequently believed in something other than pure evolution to explain the physical characteristics of modern-day man, animals and plants.
The findings did not differ, either statistically or in any meaningful way, between Biology majors and those taking up other courses.
Why This is a Problem
Being educators primarily concerned with preparing college students to teach biology with a purist focus on biological anthropology, Moore and Cotner are unreservedly dismayed by these findings since, they hold, teaching creationism is illegal, conflicts entirely with evolution science, and is likely to perpetuate mixed teaching for a segment of high school students in the future.
The authors point out that the Supreme Court decision in Edwards v. Aguillard overturned attempts by creationists to include anything other than Darwinian theory in public school science classes. The plaintiff Aguillard had brought suit against Gov. Edwards of Louisiana because of a law passed by the state legislature (the “Balanced Treatment for Creation-Science and Evolution-Science in Public School Instruction Act”) requiring teachers to incorporate creation science with evolution.
Less than a decade later, in 2005, biological anthropologists had reason to hail another court decision that struck down attempts by creationists to have their own textbooks advancing “intelligent design” and advocating that this be adopted in schools alongside regular, evolution-focused science textbooks. In Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District, a U.S. District Court ruled in favor of plaintiffs who argued that intelligent design creationism was a patent attempt to introduce religious beliefs yet again.
The second point of Moore and Cotner, that creationism is wholly incompatible with the theory of evolution, is definitely borne out by their study findings. By using Rutledge and Sadler’s (2007) Measure of the Acceptance of the Theory of Evolution (MATE) as their study instrument, the authors showed their willingness to learn whether University of Minnesota students believed what they had been exposed to in high school. The results (Table 1) speak for themselves.
Table 1: Selected Survey results (Source: Moore and Rotner)
Further, the extracts shown from the 20 items that comprise MATE suggest that biology majors differ not at all from those pursuing other courses. For instance, from 13% to 22% of both student groups disagreed with the statement “modern organisms are the product of evolutionary processes that have occurred over millions of years,” a core tenet of evolution science. From 11% to 14% also affirmed that evolution theory could not possibly be true since it conflicts with the Biblical account of creation.
One concedes that these non-believers in evolution are in the minority. Moore and Cotner worry about this state of affairs because they believe all high school science teachers should teach only evolution. Regardless, as well, of whether a number of college students might change their beliefs as they proceed through more advanced biology courses, the survey findings do not bode well for changing the finding of Bandoli (2008) that one in six biology teachers admit to being “young-earth” creationists, the belief that God created the universe a scant 6,000 to 10,000 years ago. Moore and Kraemer (2005) also found that 15% to 30% of teachers believed creationism has scientific validity and therefore include the concept in their teaching.
The Alternative Viewpoint
The debate is far from dead. Moore and Cotner should not have been surprised at encountering college students who had been exposed to creationism alone or both views of the origin of man. After all, Edwards v. Aguillard effectively barred religious inroads only in public schools but left private independent schools, home schools, Sunday schools and Christian schools free to teach any mix of evolution, creationism and other theories they preferred.
It is easy to blame parents and administrators for putting pressure on biology teachers to at least acknowledge the Biblical creation account. But this is only part of the story. There is a deep religiosity in the American psyche. For instance, Moore himself could not fail to note that nearly half of Americans surveyed by Gallup in 1982 affirmed their belief in a form of young-earth creationism: that God made man in his image sometime in the last ten millennia. In five more surveys taken up to 2004, the beliefs of the populace did not change. At last count, no less than 45% of poll participants were in accord with this tenet of young-earth creationism (YEC) while just one-third (38%) believed in “theistic evolution” (man evolved over millions of years from elemental life forms but God guided this process) and a comparatively paltry 13% put their faith in pure evolution theory. A 2005 Pew Research poll revealed that 42% had an abiding belief in YEC (Ontario Consultants on Religious Tolerance, 2009).
Such belief in divine intervention rests partly on the fact that evolution explains the process of adaptation and change but offers no answers about the origin of life. The 1953 Miller-Urey experiment did produce organic molecules in a “primordial soup” of methane, ammonia, hydrogen and water. However, later studies contended that the earth’s atmosphere at the beginning of time may not have been composed of reductant molecules, after all. As well, the two researchers subjected the “soup” to continuous electrical impulses for which the closest substitute in earth’s early atmosphere, random lightning bolts, is an imperfect replication. Finally, there is the question of how the transition came about from organic molecules to cellular, living organisms (White, 2007).
Finally, against the 72 Nobel prize-winning scientists, 17 state science academies, and 7 scientific organizations that filed affidavits of support in Edwards v. Aguillard, we can only ponder the points raised by these great skeptics, including Darwin himself (Truth.ca, n.d.):
Charles Darwin: “To suppose that the eye, with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have formed by natural selection seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree possible.”
Albert Einstein: “Unfortunately, in the field of evolution most explanations are not good. As a matter of fact, they hardly qualify as explanations at all; they are suggestions, hunches, pipe dreams, hardly worthy of being called hypotheses. Everyone who is seriously interested in the pursuit of science becomes convinced that a spirit is manifest in the laws of the universe, a spirit vastly superior to man, and one in the face of which our modest powers must feel humble.”
Stephen Hawking on the reason for proposing “designoids”: “The universe and the Laws of Physics seem to have been specifically designed for us. If any one of about 40 physical qualities had more than slightly different values, life as we know it could not exist” (Austin American-Statesmen, October 19, 1997).
References
Bandoli, J.H. (2008). Do state science standards matter? The American Biology Teacher, 70(4), 212-216.
Moore, R. & Cotner, S. (2009). Rejecting Darwin: The occurrence & impact of creationism in high school biology classrooms. BioScience, 59 (5): 429-435.
Moore, R. & Kraemer, K. (2005). The teaching of evolution and creationism in Minnesota. The American Biology Teacher, 67(8), 457-466.
Ontario Consultants on Religious Tolerance (2009). Results of public opinion polls on evolution and creation science.
Rutledge, M. L. & Sadler, K. C. (2007). Reliability of the Measure of Acceptance of the Theory of Evolution (MATE) instrument with university students. The American Biology Teacher, 69(6): 332-335.
Scott E.C. & Matzke, N.J. (2007). Biological design in science classrooms. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A., 104 Suppl 1: 8669–76.
Truths.ca (n.d.) Scientist’s are admitting that the theory of evolution simply does not and cannot explain the origin of the earth.
