Re: [asa] Moral law - Francis Collins

Darwin recognized cooperation. But this recognition was drowned out by his focus on competition. He did agree with/assent to Herbert Spencer's phraseology (‘survival of the fittest’) and accepted that 'natural selection' was a fair description of 'struggle for life' (which he got from Thomas Malthus) However, Darwin's and Wallace's NS coinage stuck – there is a linguistic element here too.
   
  Likewise, with the concept duo of 'mutual aid' (vzaimno-pomosh) coined by Karl F. Kessler, even though Peter Kropotkin is more closely associated with it in ‘the west’ (more for his anarchism than for vast geographical studies or his Prince-hood!). Mutual aid has an integral role to play in contemporary discourse between science and religion. As in the past, it didn’t/doesn't make sense to focus on competition and struggle in a vast territory like Russia where cooperation is much more important. A more integralist philosophy of science is necessary and perhaps overdue.
   
  “As everyone knows, common dangers and obstacles do not stimulate struggle between the individuals subject to these misfortunes, but rather cause them to unite in one society, to resist more successfully the obstacles facing them through joint action.” – Iliya I. Mechnikov (“Some Words on the Contemporary Theory of Articulated Vision,” 1863)
   
  England is geographically small (once again), and Darwin voyaged in the tropics and not in Siberia! Darwin's leanings toward struggle and competition can be seen as an outgrowth of a particularly British mentality (A. Smith, J. Bentham, Malthus, J.S. Mill, et al.), as much as it is a solid contribution upon which modern natural and/or social science can be based. Please excuse the digression into sociological language.
   
  “The essential, dominating characteristic of the English national character is love of independence, the all-sided development of the personality, and individualism; which manifests itself in a struggle against all obstacles presented by external nature and other people. Struggle, free competition, is the life of the Englishman: he accepts it with all its consequences, demands it as his right, tolerates no limits upon it.” – N. Danilevskii (Darwinism, 1869)
   
  It should be openly acknowledged that Darwin focused on struggle for life and struggle for existence. This is evidenced even in the last three words in the title of his main work! When people sidestep this aspect of his work or speak of more contemporary forms of evolutionism that downplay the 'struggle' or 'competition' aspect (as sociologists like to say ‘Some do, some don’t’ downplay struggle and conflict), they are departing from Darwinism.
   
  “However great the struggle between people, one cannot forget that cooperation is also an essential aspect of their mutual relations.” – Mikhail M. Filippov (“Darwinism,” Scientific Review 32, 1894)
   
  The term 'altruism,' coined by August Comte, who also defined the field 'sociology,' developed his positive science and late in his life sought a ‘religion of humanity.’ The concept duo 'reciprocal altruism' was coined by Robert Trivers in the last part of the 20th century. Trivers is now writing about the ‘evolutionary basis of self-deception’ (e.g. http://www.itconversations.com/shows/detail787.html). I would hope that people would be careful with Pim van Meurs' enthusiasm for Trivers' work (check the warning given before the above speech!), given the controversial ‘nature of’ Trivers’ work (e.g. that he has ‘solved some of the most important problems that have ever existed’!). ‘Altruism’ is a hotbed for non-Christian as well as Christian values, just as with evolutionary theory these days. Natural sciences hold no monopoly of neo-Enlightenment superiority over altruism and theologians contribute valuable perspectives (which are probably completely ignored by Trivers)
 too!
   
  If religious thinkers are to find ways of moving beyond the warfare model between science and religion, then acknowledging the competitive and struggle-based aspects of (traditional) evolutionary theories should be part of their/our collaborative agendas.
    
  For more contemporary views: “Conflict between civilizations will be the latest phase in the evolution of conflict in the modern world.” – Samuel Huntingdon (“Clash of Civilizations,” 1993, 1996)
   
  “…a Darwinian world emerges – it is the struggle of all against all at all levels of the hierarchy, which finds support through everyone clinging to their job and organisation under conditions of insecurity, suffering, and stress.” – Pierre Bourdieu (“The essence of neoliberalism: UTOPIA OF ENDLESS EXPLOITATION,” Le Monde Diplomatique, trans. J. Shapiro, 1998)
   
  Arago
   
  p.s. Wayne, still curious about your further elaboration on this statement:
  "It depends. If you examine the world and see that evolution is a process that appears to occur, and then try to reconcile that with what is revealed in scripture, then you are accepting it as a fact that you must grapple with in your theology. / If evolution becomes your "theology", then this charge could possibly stick."
   
  What could it mean - 'if evolution becomes your theology'?
   
   
  Robert Schneider <rjschn39@bellsouth.net> wrote:
  I'm not convinced that altruism is to be explained solely in evolutionary terms, but I should like to point out that Darwin recognized cooperation as well as competition in animals ("survival of the fittest" in the competitive sense was primarily Spencer's concept), and that this cooperation can even extend outside one's species. Around the turn of the last century Prince Kropotkin picked up on the "cooperation" side of evolution and developed it in his book, "Mutual Aid." Wildlife biologists can tell you stories of animals of one species coming to the rescue of those of another. I believe that in "The Descent of Man" (if memory serves me well), Darwin speculated that moral sensibility and sympathy was a product of evolution. While human beings may have freely developed moral codes (e.g., the Athenians) or worked them out under divine guidance or seen them as divinely bestowed (e.g., the Hebrews), I do not see that this militates against the contribution of evolution to
 ethics.

----- Original Message -----
From: "Alexanian, Moorad"
To: ; "ASA Discussions"

Sent: Tuesday, January 02, 2007 12:53 PM
Subject: RE: [asa] Moral law - Francis Collins

>I agree totally that the Christian faith is 100% on the side of the
>individual versus society. "What man among you, if he has a hundred sheep and has lost one of them, does not leave the ninety-nine in the open pasture and go after the one which is lost until he finds it?" Luke 15:4.
>
Surely, evolution deals always with the group rather than individual survival. Hence, I do not understand those who attempt to derive something like the Christian faith from evolutionary theory. In fact, the Christian faith has all to do with a particular historical event, viz. the death and resurrection of Jesus the Christ, rather than the history of life on earth or throughout the universe.
>
>
>
> Moorad

 __________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Tue Jan 2 19:37:20 2007