Re: Social Evolution

It seems highly unlikely that one can be a "consistent Darwinian" with cultural evolution if "Darwinian" means that natural selection is the exclusive mechanism. Cultural evolution is almost by definition "Lamarckian" - i.e., education (in a broad sense) means precisely transmission of acquired characteristics (though not, of course, biological characteristics). Philip Hefner's description of humanity as a "symbiosis" of genes and culture (in The Human Factor [Fortress, 1993]) is helpful.

Shalom
George
http://web.raex.com/~gmurphy/
  ----- Original Message -----
  From: David Opderbeck
  To: mrb22667@kansas.net
  Cc: asa@calvin.edu
  Sent: Tuesday, January 24, 2006 6:40 PM
  Subject: Re: Social Evolution

  But it seems to me that somewhere in our human 'nature' has been encoded that law
  (or at least the possibility of recognizing it) that leaves us without excuse
  even in the absence of the externally given law.
  This is exactly the point Lewis makes in The Abolition of Man (and elsewhere). It's classical natural law theory that runs back through Aquinas, Augustine, etc. (I understand the shortcomings of "natural theology" of the Paley variety, but that's a different issue.) IMHO, natural law theory and the moral argument have a scriptural basis and are among the more compelling aspects of a case for the reasonableness of the Christian faith. In my view, there are a number of serious problems with a "divine command" theory of ethics (which suggests that the moral law is what it is only because God says so). It seems difficult, if not impossible, to construct an ethic based on any sort of natural law if one wants to be a consistent Darwinist by extending the implications of evolutionary theory into the social sphere. But maybe someone here has thought about this longer and harder than I and has some insights I'm missing?

  On 1/24/06, mrb22667@kansas.net <mrb22667@kansas.net> wrote:
    Quoting George Murphy <gmurphy@raex.com>:

> There would be some force in David's argument if a kind of social Darwinism
> were the only type of ethic that social evolution had produced & if we were
> then trying to impose some different ethic. But along with survival of the
> fittest ethics there have also developed altruistic ones. (The illustrations
> of the "Tao" which C.S. Lewis gives in the appendix of The Abolition of Man
> is helpful here.) & in fact the ethics of the Bible can be seen to have gone
> through a kind of evolutionary process. E.g., there is a definite
> development from the demand for unlimited vengeance of Gen.4:23-24 through
> the limits placed on rettribution in the lex talionis of Ex.21:23-24 to the
> move beyond any retribution in Mt.5:38-39.
>
> Shalom
> George

    Mennonites are pretty keen on that "evolution" you mention from the O.T.
    unlimited vengeance to the eventual N.T. prohibition of vengeance -- a useful
    thing to remember when people try to construct a 'just war' theology from the O.T.

    Regarding Lewis' Tao, he made a pretty good case for the evidence of some moral
    law built into creation. The verse comes to my mind in Romans 2:14 where the
    gentiles do by nature the things required by the law showing that the law is
    written on their hearts. Perhaps Lewis refers to that passage -- I can't
    remember. But this is the only thing that keeps me from whole-hearted agreement
    with Keith that no moral can be read from nature, but must be read into it.
    There may be two meanings of nature in use here confusing the issue for me. But
    it seems to me that somewhere in our human 'nature' has been encoded that law
    (or at least the possibility of recognizing it) that leaves us without excuse
    even in the absence of the externally given law.

    Altruism is another of those sticky issues in which something important seems to
    dissolve the moment you try to inspect it. Even if one was willing to cast away
    this entire life for the sake of the eternal Christ (the most noble thing we
    Christians can imagine), aren't we still acting in our own self-interest? So
    I'm chasing a heavenly carrot instead of an earthly one! Good for me. A wise
    old pastor of ours once referred to this as "enlightened self-interest". But it
    still seems to be one of those things that begins to stink when you ruminate on
    it.

    Regarding evolutionary explanations for moral development, one can read books
    like Dennett's "Freedom Evolves" to get some idea how the Dawkins type crowd is
    attacking. As much as I disagreed with his foundational assumptions, it was
    there that I was made acquainted with delightfully fascinating things such as
    the "prisoner's dilemma" which is a kind of dramatization one can enact in
    classrooms to make a point. I thought, though, that Lewis' Tao concept still
    anticipates and answers much of this evolutionary "moral-making" in an effective
    way. Thanks for reminding me of this, George.

    --merv
Received on Wed Jan 25 07:57:31 2006