Your Email:

Subject:

Message:
Entry: The Right's Science Problem Link: http://www.takimag.com/site/article/the_rights_science_problem#17461 Post contents: Russel, Your statement " . . . question reflects neither what I think, nor what Darwin, as opposed to Herbert Spencer, wrote . . . " is false to facts. Check the end of "The Evolution of Species," where Darwin sums his thesis: " . . . Thus, from the war of nature, from famine and death, the most exalted object which we are capable of conceiving, namely, the production of higher animals, directly follows. There is grandeur in this view of life, . . . " As you can see, there may or may not be grandeur in "this view of life," but there undoubtedly and undeniably is war, starvation, suffering and death as essential parts of the production of higher animals. The above observation also responds to the doubts about science having moral implications: if you want species, including humans, to evolve to higher forms (which just about everybody wants), then, according to Darwinian theory, there are certain things you must do. This kind of science has inevitable and unavoidable moral implications. As to the argument that we should not discuss Darwinism's moral implications because the subject is boring, do you think that effort to avoid the subject will fool anybody? Keep in mind that as a scientist your task is to follow evidence wherever that pursuit may lead. Otherwise you run precisely the risk of picking and choosing whatever evidence supports your preconceived notions, that adriana warns about. The first reason why collision between the two moral systems deserves attention is that it was widely known and hugely influential at the time. Arguably the most effective "advertisement" for Darwinism's moral implications and their conflict with Christianity was Nietzsche. More influential, however, was Hitler, whose observation, ". . . The law of selection justifies this incessant struggle, by allowing the surival of the the fittest. . . . Christianity is a rebellion against natural law, a protest against nature. Taken to its logical extreme, Christianity would mean the systematic cultivation of the human failure." sums the conflict between the two moralities nicely. Note that this view formed the foundation of Hitler's attitude toward Jews, whom he accused of having invented Christianity to weaken Western Civilization. The second reason for investigating the conflict between Darwinian and Christian moralities comes from further back: arguably the most effective application of the Christian, "Darwinistically wrong" moral system in modern Western history occurred in Puritan 17th-century England. Analysis of publishing statistics shows that a deeply internalized form of ascetic Christianity spread to about 10-15% of population, i.e., to somewhere between one fourth and one half of the literate elite. 17th-century English leadership thus adopted a moral system that from a hard-line Darwinian perspective should have led to their annihilation. Yet, in reality that elite created one of the most "Darwinistically successful" states known to history, the British Empire. Something here does not make sense -- and thus definitely deserves to be investigated. This is particularly necessary, when we consider how relevant the question of what causes the raise and decline of empires is to today's US politics. Sent at: 2008 07 08