"The Unintended Darwin"

[Cyril]

I believe your friend would do well to actually learn something about evolution. I can recommend the book "Why Evolution is True" by Jerry Coyne as an easy to read overview of evolution. A lot has changed since Darwin first proposed his theory of evolution by way of natural selection. Much Darwin got right, some he got wrong, and we now have a much better understanding of evolution.


A few points. First, "Darwinism", as some refer to the theory of evolution by natural selection is a scientific theory. It is not a philosophy, religion, political view, ideology, a moral guide, etc. It is a theory that explains the diversity of life on our planet. It is not a mechanism that produced life. How life started is the realm of abiogenesis. Evolution starts once there is a self-replicating organism. How that first self-replicating organism first came about is certainly interesting, but not relevant to Darwin's theory. That first organism could have come from natural means (e.g., the primordial soup), god, aliens seeding the plant, meteor strike bringing single celled organisms, etc. Once that first self-replicating organism is present, then natural selection can take over. Natural selection is completely silent on the existence of god. It deals completely with the natural world, not supernatural.


"If human existence is of Darwinian origin, what is the anchor used for ethics and morals?”


Humans are social animals. For humans to live in groups some order is needed. In short, "morals" evolved along with humans to allow them to live cooperatively. Think about it. If everyone thought it ok to kill others, steal from their neighbor, covert their neighbor's goods or wife, and commit adultery, then it would not be possible for humans to live together peacefully as a group. Further, in early human societies, parents were a great source of information on game patterns, location of other food sources, water, and shelter. All the things that make survival easier, so respecting them helps you to survive too. Yep, you can get the basics of the 10 commandments without a god.


Let me throw this question back at you. I hear many religious folks suggest that without a higher authority (God) to answer too, we would all be running around raping, killing, pillaging, etc. Seriously??!!! That says so much more about the person making that ludicrous statement than those who they are saying it against. Think about it. That person is admitting that the only reason they are not running around raping, killing, etc. is through extortion (have to answer to God). I believe that the vast majority of people, religious or not, would behave with respect to others even without the threat of damnation. Morals do not come from god, they evolved along with humans.


"Darwinian imperatives not only suggest, but also almost demand the possibility of a “super-race.”


No, they absolutely do not! We know that all modern humans (Homo sapiens) first arose in Africa. Around 100,000-120,000 years ago these first modern humans started migrating out of Africa. Slowly, these groups spread out to all corners of the globe. Biologically speaking, there are no races of humans. We are all the same species. Race is merely a social or political term and has no place in natural selection. Further, evolution does not suggest superior or inferior species.


The rest of that paragraph (example using three races of humans) is so incorrect it is beyond wrong and really shows how little your friend understands evolution via natural selection. The only thing that your friend got right was that there is only one race of man. A very brief summary. Modern humans evolved from an earlier ancestor. At various times in the past there were multiple "humanoid" species on the planet at the same time. For example, when the first modern humans (Homo sapiens) left Africa, you have Neanderthal, Denisovans, and possibly Homo floresius (the "hobbit" species) in parts of Europe and Asia. All of these species, including Homo sapiens, evolved from a common ancestor (probably Homo heidelbergensis or Homo erectus). There is also evidence that Homo sapiens mated with Neanderthal and Denisovans at least occasionally. DNA analysis has shown that we have some minor Neanderthal and Denisovan DNA in humans today. This is the only time in human history that there is only one humanoid species on the planet.


"Two things, one, it was “from one man,” not one slightly sub-human ancestor, and two, the Bible tells us that “one man” was Adam, a special creation of God, formed in His image and likeness.


Actually, there are two different versions of this in Genesis, at least in the King James version that I have. In one version, God makes man and woman at the same time. In the other version, he makes Adam first, and then Eve from Adams rib. Which version is correct, and how do we know? Actually, a rhetorical question. Neither is correct. There is no evidence at all that there were ever only two humans on earth. At one time in the past there was a bottle neck where human populations were estimated to be as low as 1200 people. I won't get into the problems with inbreeding if only 2 humans were involved.


We've discussed the gay part plenty of times before. No need to go there again.


Oh, and our national motto, that was made official in the 1950's. Certainly not something from the founding fathers. And many of us on the left see the government as a necessary evil. I would be quite happy with smaller government.

I believe your friend would do well to actually learn something about evolution. I can recommend the book "Why Evolution is True" by Jerry Coyne as an easy to read overview of evolution. A lot has changed since Darwin first proposed his theory of evolution by way of natural selection. Much Darwin got right, some he got wrong, and we now have a much better understanding of evolution.


A few points. First, "Darwinism", as some refer to the theory of evolution by natural selection is a scientific theory. It is not a philosophy, religion, political view, ideology, a moral guide, etc. It is a theory that explains the diversity of life on our planet. It is not a mechanism that produced life. How life started is the realm of abiogenesis. Evolution starts once there is a self-replicating organism. How that first self-replicating organism first came about is certainly interesting, but not relevant to Darwin's theory. That first organism could have come from natural means (e.g., the primordial soup), god, aliens seeding the plant, meteor strike bringing single celled organisms, etc. Once that first self-replicating organism is present, then natural selection can take over. Natural selection is completely silent on the existence of god. It deals completely with the natural world, not supernatural.


"If human existence is of Darwinian origin, what is the anchor used for ethics and morals?”


Humans are social animals. For humans to live in groups some order is needed. In short, "morals" evolved along with humans to allow them to live cooperatively. Think about it. If everyone thought it ok to kill others, steal from their neighbor, covert their neighbor's goods or wife, and commit adultery, then it would not be possible for humans to live together peacefully as a group. Further, in early human societies, parents were a great source of information on game patterns, location of other food sources, water, and shelter. All the things that make survival easier, so respecting them helps you to survive too. Yep, you can get the basics of the 10 commandments without a god.


Let me throw this question back at you. I hear many religious folks suggest that without a higher authority (God) to answer too, we would all be running around raping, killing, pillaging, etc. Seriously??!!! That says so much more about the person making that ludicrous statement than those who they are saying it against. Think about it. That person is admitting that the only reason they are not running around raping, killing, etc. is through extortion (have to answer to God). I believe that the vast majority of people, religious or not, would behave with respect to others even without the threat of damnation. Morals do not come from god, they evolved along with humans.


"Darwinian imperatives not only suggest, but also almost demand the possibility of a “super-race.”


No, they absolutely do not! We know that all modern humans (Homo sapiens) first arose in Africa. Around 100,000-120,000 years ago these first modern humans started migrating out of Africa. Slowly, these groups spread out to all corners of the globe. Biologically speaking, there are no races of humans. We are all the same species. Race is merely a social or political term and has no place in natural selection. Further, evolution does not suggest superior or inferior species.


The rest of that paragraph (example using three races of humans) is so incorrect it is beyond wrong and really shows how little your friend understands evolution via natural selection. The only thing that your friend got right was that there is only one race of man. A very brief summary. Modern humans evolved from an earlier ancestor. At various times in the past there were multiple "humanoid" species on the planet at the same time. For example, when the first modern humans (Homo sapiens) left Africa, you have Neanderthal, Denisovans, and possibly Homo floresius (the "hobbit" species) in parts of Europe and Asia. All of these species, including Homo sapiens, evolved from a common ancestor (probably Homo heidelbergensis or Homo erectus). There is also evidence that Homo sapiens mated with Neanderthal and Denisovans at least occasionally. DNA analysis has shown that we have some minor Neanderthal and Denisovan DNA in humans today. This is the only time in human history that there is only one humanoid species on the planet.


"Two things, one, it was “from one man,” not one slightly sub-human ancestor, and two, the Bible tells us that “one man” was Adam, a special creation of God, formed in His image and likeness.


Actually, there are two different versions of this in Genesis, at least in the King James version that I have. In one version, God makes man and woman at the same time. In the other version, he makes Adam first, and then Eve from Adams rib. Which version is correct, and how do we know? Actually, a rhetorical question. Neither is correct. There is no evidence at all that there were ever only two humans on earth. At one time in the past there was a bottle neck where human populations were estimated to be as low as 1200 people. I won't get into the problems with inbreeding if only 2 humans were involved.


We've discussed the gay part plenty of times before. No need to go there again.


Oh, and our national motto, that was made official in the 1950's. Certainly not something from the founding fathers. And many of us on the left see the government as a necessary evil. I would be quite happy with smaller government.

I know enough about evolution to know that there are huge unexplained holes in it. Apb is correct in his summation in the first part of his reply, particularly that the study of biogenesis is the research into how life began. From my reading thus far, the research is not going well. "How organic wholes of this kind originally arose within an entirely inorganic environment remains a mystery." -Errol E. Harris So it is true that Darwinian Evolution only explains the diversity of life, not life itself. And of course, evolution is small change over time. But do not these small changes lead to speciation? Or maybe Apb believes in the theory of punctuated evolution where sometimes change has spurts of rapidity. As for his contention that Evolution is not a philosophy, I must take exception, it is the very definition of Philosophy garbed in the clothing of Science! Macro-evolution has never been observed, it operates to slowly to experiment upon, and the conclusions arrived at are speculative at best.

He misses my point completely on morals and ethics. Morals and ethics may be societal, just as the Nazi regime's morals and ethics. It is not that man cannot produce ethics without God, is it the the quality of those ethics, and the moral authority to implement them. Human ethics are relative and usually dangerous to some particular sub-set of society. If the best anchor for society is humanity, that sub-set faces a grave future.

"'Darwinian imperatives not only suggest, but also almost demand the possibility of a “super-race.' No, they absolutely do not!" (from Apb above) I stand by my statement! His refutation is simply a description of the evolutionary process of how man became a man! Then he writes, "The only thing that your friend got right was that there is only one race of man." Interesting claim! (I agree with him on this point but we are discussing evolution) I fail to see where he has the luxury to avoid the evidence that leads to racism in his philosophy of life! Evolutionarily speaking, how can he claim there is only on race? Race is determined on a genetic level and there are slight differences genetically in the diversity of Humanity. To ignore that then he would have to ignore the great diversity of the canine species, there is only one race of dog! (I speak from the Darwinian perspective here) But looking at it from a Darwinian perspective, how can that be? Is it not possible that minute change within Homo sapiens could lead to a new branch off the current limb? It is undeniable that they is diversity within the Human race (Home sapiens). Are not these differences genetically generated? Are they not "small difference" and changes from the original appearance of Home sapiens from whatever his ancestor was? Did he not "evolve" from that ancestor incrementally, in tiny "advances"? Is it not possible that each divergent step could lead beyond Home sapiens to a "more evolved" superior creature? To say that the branch of humanity is "set" genetically is to deny the progression evolution has made from the very beginning. If the progressive divergent step does not make the one who has taken it superior to those who have not, then what are we talking about? If procreation between the divergent groups within Homo sapiens is still possible to day does not mean it will be possible a million years from now!

As to his argument aimed at the Book of Genesis, that there are two creation narratives, as an unbeliever he does not see the purpose behind them. Just as he accused me of ignorance of evolution and natural selection, I can lay the same accusation at his door when it comes to Biblical hermeneutics. He sees what he wants to see, just as he said of me and evolution. A closer examination of Genesis One and Two causes the differences to evaporate. For example, to use his example, Genesis One says this about the creation of man, "God created man in His own image, in the image of God He created him, male and female He created them." (Vrs. 27) But Genesis Two says God created woman some time later. Where in Genesis One is the time frame given? Is Genesis One correct? Yes it is, did He not create both male and female? He is assuming many of the events around the creation of woman recorded in Genesis Two did not take place on the sixth day! Is it not possible that they did? How does he know that the information recorded in Genesis 2:5 do not revert to Genesis 1:9 time frame?

To may way of thinking Apb has done nothing to make me want to revise my original essay Bonefish published here. It is clear that Apb and I will never agree and just as I do not accept his argument, neither will he accept mine. I don't think He made his case. There are those who may still be on the fence about this argument, and it is for that reason the debate is good. He no doubt think I am an ignorant rube, a science denier, a religious fanatic, and that's okay. He is a lost soul groping in the dark trying to justify his atheism. My purpose is to bolster the faith of the believer and reassure him that all the barrage modern skepticism need not be overwhelming and is in fact a matter of faith as much as believing on God and the Bible is.

Charlie, Bonefish's neighbor and author of "The Unintended Darwin