I’m sick of Darwin. I mean, Darwin was a genius, he devised our modern understanding of biology, and that’s great and all, but I’m sick of people using Darwin as proof of the end of biological development. You know, maybe Darwin wasn’t right about everything. Like the fact he basically ignored social homosexual behaviour in animals and focussed on sex as a purely biological function for the purposes of reproduction. I don’t think he meant for his theory to be taken to mean that we have stopped evolving, just as an explanation for how we’ve evolved thus far. Like the infamous argument about hunter/gatherer societies, and that humans evolved this way and so they must be stuck there somehow and that it proves men are superior to women in some twisted an inexplicable way. Maybe Darwin’s interpretation is fucked up, ever thought of that? Maybe women were actually revered as the bringers of life and were considered superior and so didn’t have to do all that hard work of catching animals.
Could/did Darwin predict that people would be evolving using non-organic materials, like those folks who are implanting computer chips into their arms so they can open their houses without using keys? (you know what I’m talking about, right?) Or technology like artifical parts that replace things like heart valves? And would he have predicted things like transplants using porcine and bovine parts? What did/would Darwin think of cyborgs? And why do people use Darwin to make believe that we have stopped evolving?
darwin’s theories are the best scientific theories that explain the origin and development of life on this earth – just as the big bang is the best scientific theory of the origin of the universe…the are not, or rather ought not be interpreted as “philosophical” or “ethical” or “moral” theories – they explain the mechanics of a process…
as i’ve said before, the gift that humanity has is see beyond the “natural” state of the world – and transform it – sometimes that works out well – sometimes not so well…
i am quite happy that i have a nice house to live in – esp. as, like clockwork, september hits and it turns chilly in ohio – i am less happy about other of humanities alterations to the natural states of things – damage to the environment, nuclear weapons, etc…
i object to any arguments about humanity ought to do this or that, because it is the *natural* thing to do…some folks claim that it is natural to eat meat and as such it is not healthy or beneficial to be a vegetarian… those are often the sort of folks driving around in hummers, which, near as i know, was not the natural form of transportation for our ancient ancestors… so people are often very selective about what parts of nature they choose to worry about…. like fundamentalists that selectively interpret the portions of the bible which, oddly enough, support their own biases… and secondly people have the capability of transcending their natural state – and as such, ought to be encourage to do so – when it benefits humanity…so yeah – maybe sex based roles made more sense when say, the issues faced by humanity were chasing down sabre-toothed tigers and wrestling them…heck, for such tasks, i think it would be in everyone’s best interest to have the faster, stronger person take the lead…the question today is, of course, is this relevant today – to which i’d argue, of course not…
so, my point, i suppose is that the problem isn’t really with darwin’s theory – which – good as it is, is still a theory – is not perfect and does not explain everything (though not in the way that say (un)intelligent design folks attempt to diminsh it by saying it is *just* a theory – and as such ought to be presented along side of other *equal* theories, such as (un)intelligent design…. sure evolution is a theory – but it is the best scientific theory on the topic – and quasi-scientific, religion-disguised-in-a-lab-coat explanations do not deserve a seat next to it in a science class…)
the real peoblem is when people try to twist the theory into something it is not – i.e. a moral imperative – whcih again, amazingly enough, is used to support people’s biases anyhow…
a rare comment by me – where i don’t think i am really disagreeing with you – just perhaps giving a different slant to it…
i must be slipping….
i totally agree with everything you just said.
lol – sheesh -what is this world coming to…
lol
personally I think humanity is always collectively evolving in a higher consciousness way. It is in our nature, I think.
I am optimistic about us. I love humanity. (one of the things I dislike about certain religions that make it a sin to be human)
i think that’s a good point ltart…people are more than their biology and while darwin did a good job with the biology part, we ought to look elsewhere for the other aspects…
I concur with many of Mike’s arguments and add that Darwin was merely the pioneer that actually coined some of the first phases of “the evolutionary theory.” There were others working on the same ideas during that time. His situation can be likened to that of Newton. Newton started something, but didn’t understand it fully…however, many more physicist/mathematicians came along and began perfecting the ideas..Einstein to name one. Also, Freud comes to minds as well. Many of the theories he came up with in developmental psychology have been disproven over time, by more thorough study practices, etc.
I’ll add to your statement “it proves men are superior to women” and it’s perverse relationship with Darwin theory that despite what darwin was willing to accomplish, he was still a product of hims society. It was a hugely patriarchal at that time…and really no different these days in many ways….however, long before the Church came along and changed popular spiritual belief, many cultures were still in that of a matriarchal mind-set.
“…And why do people use Darwin to make believe that we have stopped evolving?”
I think it is because popularized understandings of Darwin, are misunderstandings.
“The real peoblem is when people try to twist the theory into something it is not – i.e. a moral imperative – which again, amazingly enough, is used to support people’s biases anyhow…”
Yes.
“Despite what Darwin was willing to accomplish, he was still a product of his society.”
Yes.
this question has been bothering me. evolution was a process of natural selection, survival of the fittest. now, the fittest don’t necessarily survive. what traits are considered “fit” now? does “fit” even have a leg to stand on in the face of technological singularity (i saw waking life)?
i have always percieved intelligent design as dismissive, to the point of ignorance.