Evolution's Roots Are Showing.

In the debate on evolution, scientists and their advocates like to say that the theory of evolution by random mutation and natural selection is pure objective evidence-based science, and bears no relationship to philosophy, values, or culture. As far as I'm concerned, this quote found by Camassia blows that claim all to hell -- at the theory's very source.

This week I’ve been reading a lovelyillustrated book that narrates the basic history of life on Earth, called The Book of Life. . . . It includes an interesting preface by the editor, Stephen Jay Gould, discussing the social context of scientific thought. If there’s anyone left out there who thinks scientific thought changes purely through advances in reason and knowledge, Gould sets them straight. But, he adds, the social context is not just an impediment. Darwin, for instance, “derived natural selection more by wondering how he might transfer the laissez-faire principle of Adam Smith’s economics into nature than by observing tortoises on the Galapagos Islands.” [Emphasis added.]

It was fascinating to read this, because I’d speculated about the Smith-Darwin connection already, but had no real proof. Hearing this from a pro-Darwin partisan like Gould is certainly compelling. Of course, Gould thinks this is a good thing, while I find it more troubling.

Me too.

Here's part of what Camassia said when she "speculated about the Smith-Darwin connection":

It doesn’t take any great powers of observation to notice that people tend to look at nature and see themselves. Pagan lore is full of anthropomorphized animals and humanlike spirits pushing around the winds and the seas. The Hebrews looked at God alternately as a tribal patriarch, a shepherd, and even a mother hen. Scientists tend to congratulate themselves on their ability to observe nature without such biases, and recognize how wholly different it is from us.

But is it? Darwin’s famous On the Origin of Species came out about 75 years after another seminal book, Adam Smith’s Wealth of Nations. Smith sought out the hidden system behind the emerging industrial society much as Darwin sought out the system behind the natural society. And what they saw is remarkably the same. Both saw a world of continual competition driving constant change, powered by material self-interest. Darwin’s natural world, in other words, looked a great deal like the capitalist society that had begun to develop in England well before he wrote.

Comments

[Adam]

It only seems natural that scientists would be deeply influenced by their culture in the questions they ask and how they conceptualize the problem. In the case of Darwin; it was at least a brilliant first approximation. A friend of mine who was an engineer at NASA, and deeply spiritual in a non-traditional way as well, considered evolution to be beautiful for it revealed the unity of all life. Scientists love parsimony, sometimes to a fault, there is something beautiful to the notion that all this complexity could possibly arise from mere environmental pressures acting on random genetic variation.

However life arose, there is something elegant and this self-assembly process. Nonetheless, there is no doubt a cruel aspect to it, and I do not doubt (or rather, like to think) that there was some subtle guidance. I prefer to imagine beneficient Buddhas in meditation operating just beyond the physical veil applying gentle pressure so that despite the world's deep flaws, that beauty would be not absent.

[wavemaker]

...deelpy influenced by their culture, and deeply prejudicial against those who don't share it.

[Sarah]

And how does any of this, if true, dispute the overwhelming amount of evidence in favor of evolution that's been accumulated since Darwin? Besides, it's not like ID propornents have any ulterior motives or anything.

[Chris Hallquist]

Anyone able to provide a longer quote of the passage? (I have to ask because I've seen one too many quotes from prominent scientists taken out of context.)

Darwin was, to my knowlege, liberally inclines, contrary to what you might think from hearing about "Social Darwinism." On the other hand, it wouldn't surprise me if he drew on a social thinker like Smith, he certainly drew on Malthus.

And I second Sarah's comment.

[Randy McGregor]

If Darwin had the good sense to agree with Adam Smith, more power to him.

But that neither supports nor detracts from the validity of the theory of evolution as an explanation of the process by which life has come to organize itself at this point.

The notion that culture influences science does not invalidate science. On the contrary, it pays a compliment to those cultures that contained the ingredients from which the scientific method was slowly put together over hundreds (thousands?) of years.

[dave]

It seems to me that any similarities between Adam Smith's theories and the theory of evolution are likely due to underlying rules governing success in competition for resources, and not due to the social prejudices of those making the observations.

There is a collosal amount of evidence supporting the theory of evolution which does not require any external 'guidance'.

Although I suspect that individual scientists certainly can be influenced by their prejudices and social environment, these prejudices crumble, with time, in the face of evidence.

Could it be that it is those unwilling to accept evidence or those whose theories cannot be tested (Intelligent Design) and are hence outside the realms of science, have points of view are most influenced by their personal prejudices?