The Effect of Christianity on Informing the Teleological Aspect of Lamarckian Evolution

Transcription

1 RandySofia ScienceandDifference TheEffectofChristianityonInformingtheTeleologicalAspectofLamarckianEvolution Introduction Bytheageofenlightenment,Christianphilosophyhaddevelopedarobustworldview andtheologicalframeworkthathadmajorinfluenceonwesterncivilization.thebiologicaland naturalscienceswere,underthechristianworldview,theteleologicalstudyoftheomniscient wisdomofgodincreationandthenaturalorder;thosewhodidscience,didsobysubjecting naturalrevelationtothepurposesmademanifestbygod sspecialrevelation.accordingtothe culturalmandate,scienceandthehumanitiesservedthepurposeofbringingallthingsunder theheavensintosubjectiontochristandhiskingdom.bythetimeoftheenlightenment, thinkerscontinuedtoquestionnotjusttheclaimsofthechurch,butalsotheelementsof religionitself.asthegodofthebiblewasevictedfromsociety,anew,western,secular worldview,distinctfromthesecularismoftheclassicalerawasborn.tarnas(1993)notes, Just astheevolvingchristianunderstandingdidnotfullydivorceitselffromitshellenicpredecessor but,onthecontrary,employedandintegratedmanyofthelatter sessentialelements,sotoo didthemodernsecularworldview oftenlessconsciously retainessentialelementsfrom Christianity (p.321).asaresult,answersthatwereonceprovidedbytheclaimsofscripture werenolonger,consciously,accepted.theenlightenmenthadremovedthebibleasthe overarching,authoritativesourceofknowledgeandsetouttoreplaceitwithaneutralformof rationalismandempiricism.anew,secularreformation,whichhadmaintainedmanyofthe Christianpresuppositions,hadbegun. 1

2 Thequestionsoforiginsandofpurpose,whichwereoncedefinedbyscripture,were nowunderexamination.becauseworldviewsarepresupposed,communicatedandinformedby culture,theprocessofdevelopinganewworldviewwouldbeslowandwouldspanmany centuriestocome.byexaminingtheprimarysourcesofevolutionarythought,especiallythose priortodarwin s OriginoftheSpecies, wecanobservethisnewworldviewincrisis.thereis nodisagreementconcerningtheteleologicalnatureoflamarckianevolution.whatmaynotbe readilyapparent,however,isthedegreetowhichthechristianworldviewhadworkedto informeventhescientistswhohadopposedtheassumptionsofchristianityitself.itismybelief thatthepre Darwinianevolutionists,asdemonstratedbyLamarck,hadactuallybeeninformed bytheworldviewtheywereworkingtoeradicatefromthesciences.theneutralityoftheir observationsandinterpretationswereonlyamyththattheyhadpaidlipserviceto.assuch, Lamarckhaddisseminatedthenon materialisticelementsoftheworldviewhehadopposed.he soughtempiricalanswersconcerningthequestionoforigins,butimplicatedtheteleological answersexpectedofdesign;this,inassumingpurpose,affectedtheethicalconclusionsdrawn inthebeginningofthemoderneraofscienceanddifference.itshouldbesufficienttoshow thisinthreesteps.first,iwillshowthatlamarckwasoperatingunderthespiritof enlightenmentempiricism.hehadthegoalofconvincingthereaderagainstspecialrevelation, creationanditsensuingworldview.secondly,iwillshowthathestillmaintainedthechristian conceptthatthecosmoswasworkingaccordingtoaparticulargoal,orderandplan.eventhe naturalisticcausesproposedbylamarckserveasameanstowardsanendratherthanthe mechanicallyneutralprocesshesupposesthemtobe.thirdly,iwillshow,inconclusion,how 2

3 maintainingthechristianpresuppositionsoforderandpurpose,whilerejectingthespecifically ChristianGod,servedasaplatformfortheunethicalexpressionofraceandinequality. Lamarck Rejects the Notion of Special Creation Thenotionofspecialcreation,atthetimeLamarckproposedhisthesis,consistedof severaldoctrines.specialcreationinsistedthatthespeciesexistingtodaywerethesame speciesthathadexisteduponinitialcreation;inotherwords,thespecieshadnotchangedsince creation.additionally,specialcreationmaintainedthatthespecieshadapurposeingod s createdorderandwere,assuch,immutable.lamarck,inthespiritoftheenlightenment,had soughttorejectthistheoryandconvincehisreaderslikewise.incontextofdiscussingthese doctrines,specificallytheuniformsuppositionofthespecies,hestates, Itisjustthisallegation thatiproposetoattack (Appleman,2001,p.46).Inthisremark,Lamarckwasattackingthe coredoctrineheldbyproponentsofspecialcreation.weseethisthemeinseveralportionsof his ZoologicalPhilosophy. Hehadmadethecasethathistheorywasbasedonempirical evidence.havingcriticizedbonnetfornotprovinghistheorybyfacts,lamarcklaterstated concerninghisowntheory, Nothingofallthiscanbeconsideredashypothesisorprivate opinion;onthecontrary,theyaretruthswhich,inordertobemadeclear,onlyrequire attentionandtheobservationoffacts (ibid.,p.45).lamarckwasneitherinterestedinreligious convictionnorpersonalinterpretation;hewantedfactsthatcouldbeclearlydemonstratedin evidence.inthissense,lamarckhadnotallowedthepossibilityforthegodofchristianitytobe thesourceoforigins.hehadadamantlyrejectedthenotionofspecialcreation. 3

4 Lamarck Implies Teleological Purpose InhavingrejectedGodastheanswertoorigins,Lamarcksetsoutapeculiarinterestin histhesis;hedesirestoanswertheproblemconcerningtheconditionsnecessarytolife.while defendinghisdesiretoinquireonthesubject,hepointsouttheimportanceofdiscoveringa solutiontothisproblem.itis,accordingtolamarck, notonlyforourknowledgeofzoologyand botany,butalsoforthehistoryoftheworld (Ibid.,p.45).Tothecasualobserver,this statementmayseemtobeaveryinnocentinquiryconcerningtheneutralsortofhistorythat answersthequestion, whathappened? However,asweknow,historyisnevertoldbya neutralobserver;itisalwayscommunicatedwithinterpretation.historyaccordingtothe Christianworldviewhasaspecificgoalandpurpose.TheChristianworldviewhadsoughtto interprethistoryfromateleologicalperspective;allhistorywaspartofgod sunfoldingplanin creationandredemption.weseethisinterpretationinthedivisionofourgregoriancalendar intobc,beforechrist,andad,annodomini.lamarckwasnotonlyattemptingtobringa neutral,naturalisticphilosophytoscience,buttohistoryaswell.instead,lamarckproposes oneteleologicalgoalinsteadoftheother.hedidnotembodythepurelyneutralobserverhe hadhopedtobe.weshallseethathistoryinterpretedbylamarckianevolutionhadaparticular goalinmind:complexity,theperfectionofspeciesandultimatelytheperfecthumanrace,as purportedbyhiscompatriotsinthewakeofneo Lamarckianism. Lamarck sunderstandingofevolutionwasunique.hehadproposedthatallthingswere evolvingtowardsaparticularend.inhisunderstanding,hadtheconditionsofnaturebeenthe sameeverywhere,allorganismswouldevolvesimilarlythroughoutallspecies.hehadmadethe caseconcerningaquaticanimals.itwasobvioustohimthathadaquaticanimalsbeenraised 4

5 underthesameconditions,depth,climateandwater,thenthetypesofanimalsfoundinthe waterwouldhaveevolvedinthesameway,everywhere.accordingtolamarck,thereasonwhy weseevariationisduetothedifferingconditionsprovidedbytheenvironment.indescribing this,henotes, Ifthefactorwhichisincessantlyworkingtowardscomplicatingorganization weretheonlyonewhichhadanyinfluenceontheshapeandorgansofanimals,thegrowing complexityoforganizationwouldeverywherebeveryregular (ibid.,p.46).inotherwords, Lamarckhadmadetheargumentthathadtheenvironmentalfactorsbeennormalized,onlyone factorwouldbeincessantlyworkingtowardscomplicatingorganization.thisbegsthequestion, whatisthisfactorthatwould,givenanormalizedenvironment,worktoproducethesame, regularraceandspecieseverywhere?lamarck steleologicalargumentforevolutionarystrands movingalongapredictablepathtowardsthegoalofmoreandmorecomplexityofthesame, predeterminedkindhasmoreincommonwithproponentsofnaturaltheologythanitdoes withthesortofempirical,materialscienceheclaimstobedoing.teleology,accordingtothe ancient,atomistgreeksecularists,ismutuallyincompatiblewiththeconceptofmaterialism (Berryman,2008).Theatomistnaturalphilosophyofthesecularclassicistseschewed teleologicalexplanation.inlamarck sexplorationofthequestionoforigins,hemaintainsthe teleologicalconcernsofpurpose;thiswouldbesomethingwewouldexpectfromatheist observingtheinputandoverarchinghandofgod.theteleologicalargumenthemadewasnot anobservationoffact,itwasapersonalinterpretationinformedbytheparental,christian worldviewthathadimpliedpurpose.accordingtogillispie,ascitedbygould(2002), Lifeis purelyphysicalphenomenoninlamarck,anditisonlybecausesciencehasleftbehindhis conceptionofthephysicalthathehasbeensystematicallymisunderstoodandassimilatedtoa 5

6 theisticorvitalistictraditionwhichinfactheheldinabhorrence. (p.173).lamarckbelieved thathehimselfhadassumedapurelymaterialisticcauseofcreation,yethisteleological approachseemstobeinformedbythespecialpurposeandplanoftheparticularlychristian worldview. Lamarckdidproposeasetofmechanisticlawsthathesuspectedworkedinthisprocess oforganismsmovingfromlesserandlessersimplicitytowardscomplexity.thefirstlawstated thatthecontinualuseordisuseofanorgan,asdictatedbyenvironmentalcauses,contributed eithertothedevelopmentofthatorgan,oritscompleteannihilation.thesecondlaw establishedthatthemodificationsoforganswerepreservedbyreproductionandtransferredto newindividuals.partoftheseprocesses,orlaws,apartfromtheteleologicalaspectof Lamarckianevolutionarewhathisadmirershadappreciated.Theideathattheenvironment workedinsomewaytoeffectchangeinaspecies,andtheideathatthesetraitswerepassed downthroughgenerationsweresomeoftheideassharedbydarwin.however,darwin s conclusionwasparticularlydifferent;hehadrejectedthenotionofenvironmentaldeterminism whichmaintainedthatapeculiarclimate,foodandsoilwouldacttodetermineaparticular species.darwinrecognizedthatvariationexistedevenamongstspeciesthatsharedthesame environment.whilelamarckattemptstodescribeaparticular,mechanisticmeansofevolution, itmustbenotedthatthepurelyphysicalmechanismsheespousesareameanstowardsa predeterminedend.lamarckhadpaidlipservicetotheempiricalnatureofourexistence,yet hadprovidedatheorythatpresupposedameta physicalplananddesign. 6

7 Lamarck s Teleology in the History of Science and Difference Manypeopleinthehistoryofevolutionarythoughthad,inanattempttodiscoverthe calculusofbiology,alsoattachedtheteleologicalprinciplesofpurposetotheirtheoriesand findings.thisteleologicalapproachmostoftenresultedinconceptsofsuperiorityandthe unethicalconsiderationsofracism.itwasthesymbiosisoftwoworldviewsthathadmadeup thenew,western,secularworldview.thechristianworldviewhadprovidedtheteleological suppositions,andtherevivaloftheancientgreekclassicsprovidedtheatheisticsecular suppositions.bymaintainingthepurposeful,orderlyandteleologicalnatureofcreationasit existedinthechristianworldviewandrejectingthegodwhohaddictatedthosepurposes,men andwomenwerelefttothemselvestodeterminewhatthispurposeshouldbe.withoutthe commandmentsandbiblicalsuppositionsactingasarestraintonevil,humanitysawsomeofits worst.lamarck steleologyhadjustifiedtheconceptofrace.thedevelopmentoftheperfect raceofhuman,asdeterminedbyenvironmentalfactors,hadopenedthedoortodeclarethe Caucasianasthecrownjewelofcreationratherthan,asinChristianity,thewholeofhumanity itself.assuch,thebeginningacceptanceofevolutionarythoughtinadistinctlychristian heritageresultedinthejustificationoftheatrocitiesofimperialismandracialslaverywithinthe pastfewcenturies.thiscanbenotedincontrasttothepurelyeconomicalandmilitaryslavery thatwasacceptedpriortoenlightenmentthought. 7

8 Bibliography Appleman,P.(2001).Darwin: texts, commentary.wwnorton&coinc. Berryman,S.(2008). AncientAtomism,The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Fall Edition), EdwardN.Zalta(ed.),URL= < ancient/>. Gould,S.(2002).The Structure of Evolutionary Theory,Cambridge:HarvardUniversityPress. Tarnas,R.(1993).The passion of the western mind: understanding the ideas that have shaped our world view.ballantinebooks. 8