Let's say for the sake of argument that evolution does happen on the community scale. That is, traits develop and change based on some combination of group genetic interchange and function. Whether it is according to classic Darwinian adaptationism or modern neo-Darwinian genetic influence as the source is immaterial to this discussion. Either one works. The question here is: How does one population group survive and surpass the other? What is it that allows one group to go further than the others -- to own more land and to wield greater influence?
It is easy to read a simplified idea -- a group develops a trait and then, though intermingling with adjacent groups, the trait is passed on until it becomes endemic within the race/species. That is all well and good -- if the world was at peace. Did not all of the North American Indians get along peacefully until the Europeans arrived? Were not all of the African tribes at peace until the arrival of the slavers? Was not all of this caused by religion and is not Christianity the worst of the religious influences? There is more than a hint of a "noble savage" and liberal optimism about human nature influencing "science" on this issue.
How does a trait get passed on? With any honesty we can look at human history and say conquest is the system and dominant group breeding control the mechanism for trait dissemination.
How quickly we have forgotten that the melting pot of culture, the liberal world of the west, is an anomaly in the world, even today. Cultural groups remain separate and often isolated, only mixing within themselves. Culture is important. We might even call it a sort of social federalism because it reflects a sort of self governance that is taken for granted. Culture is by its nature conservative. It preserves both the content of society as it provides definition and its context as it clarifies the distinctions between various cultures.
It was not uncommon that one culture would conquer another. Duh. There were many social managements used in conquest. The Assyrians and Babylonians, as we read in Daniel and other ancient documents, would take the young men away to both marry and be educated in their system. That provided a genetic improvement and cultural education.
The Romans would often leave a culture intact while demanding tribute. At other times (Gaul in particular) the men were killed or enslaved, the women were taken as wives, and the land was inherited by these new occupants. What we call occupation today amounts to a mere military presence. For the Romans it was to occupy the land and the culture. It was conquest at the most fundamental level.
Now back to the issue: How are traits spread through allotropic evolution? One need take only this brief look at history to understand that conquest and enslavement were necessary components of evolution. Strong insects take more resources from their weaker cousins, diminishing their numbers and forcing them to adapt or die. Wild animals do the same. But not humans? Why not?
Conquest and enslavement are part of history and they seem to be a real part of the evolutionary story. It seems to be a part of allotropic behavior.
Is this a legitimate reason to reject evolution? Well, not specifically. We are are not dealing with the detail of the model here, but with the framework of the model. To be a little clearer, this is not a reason to reject developmental reasons why we have tall groups, short groups, darker and lighter groups, redheads and blonds. It is however a reason to reject the models built around those things as perhaps naive. That thing called "evolutionary ethics" seems unwilling to accept that the framework of their ethic appears to be a system which would reject their core ethical principles.
Does evolutionary ethics teach the dignity of the person? If it is evolutionary and if conquest and enslavement are necessary evolutionary components, then the inclusion of a modern concept of dignity is wholly arbitrary. It is not consistent to deny it on one hand and accept it on the other. We might even, and this seems correct, conclude that the evolutionist still wants to borrow Christian theological concepts to make the system appear nicer to the masses even though it denies the reality.
0 comments:
Post a Comment