THURSDAY, AUGUST 3, 2000
MORAL DARWINISM
The fittest conscience: new take on evolution
Jane Lampman
Staff writer of The Christian Science Monitor
Suppose you were on a prime-time quiz show and were asked: "What did Charles
Darwin see as the prime motivating force in human evolution? (1) survival of
the fittest, (2) natural selection, (3) the 'selfish gene,' (4) the moral
sense."
Most likely you wouldn't make it to No. 4 before pushing the button. But
alas, your run would end there, because the answer is "the moral sense,"
according to a rather astonishing and provocative new book by psychologist,
system scientist, and evolution theorist David Loye.
In "Darwin's Lost Theory of Love," written after a decade of research into
evolutionary theory and scientific foundations for morality, Dr. Loye
presents the dramatic story of the pioneer scientist seeking to pull
together near the end of his life his ideas on the "second half" or
"completion" of his theory of evolution.
Here the concern is human evolution, which Darwin explored in "The Descent
of Man," a dense book Loye says has been largely ignored over the past 100
years. His monumental "The Origin of Species" focuses on pre-human
evolution, and undergirds all subsequent evolutionary theory.
Delving deeply into "Descent," Loye finds Darwin not only exploring the
origins of morality and conscience but reaching the conclusion that in human
evolution, they are "by far the most important." Darwin says he "perhaps
attributed too much to the action of natural selection or survival of the
fittest."
For Loye the discovery is galvanizing because it provides hope for
developing a more complete and useful theory of evolution for the 21st
century, one that goes beyond the neo-Darwinist focus on selfishness as the
driving force of human nature and provides a scientific grounding for moral
action. It opens the way, he adds, to drawing a link between science and
spirituality. "Here is the granddaddy of them all, confirming that what your
heart tells you is right is really right," Loye says in an interview.
"Darwin is saying: Yes, we're selfish, but there is also this other
motivation system, this other thrust that is oriented to others and to doing
good for others."
Biology and morality
From his observations of the animal and human worlds, Darwin sees the
"social instincts," rooted in biology, as the foundation of morality. Loye
details Darwin's perceptions of the development of sympathy and caring, use
of language and reasoning about experience, community influence and the
power of habit, the capacity for choice, and the moral qualities leading to
what we call the golden rule, which appears in almost all cultures.
Although an agnostic, Loye says, Darwin speaks of "an ennobling belief in
God" as important for human evolution. Darwin specifically denies that "the
foundation of the most noble part of our nature" lies "in the base principle
of selfishness."
This flies in the face of the prevailing evolution paradigm, however, a form
of neo-Darwinism in which sociobiologists are vigorously pushing the idea
that even altruism must be understood as motivated strictly by selfishness.
Loye's book will not win any plaudits from that camp.
"The sociobiologists and evolutionary psychologists will probably hate it,"
says Bruce Weber, professor of biochemistry at California State University
at Fullerton, who teaches a course covering the range of views on evolution.
But "it will be well received by anyone familiar with systems theory, or
trying to look at human action in an interdisciplinary framework."
Loye himself is part of a 15-year-old international scientific endeavor
called the General Evolution Research Group (GERG), in which researchers
from many disciplines are working toward a general evolution theory that
would go beyond biology to find related concepts in many fields (i.e.
psychology, politics, economics, technology, brain research).
This broad perspective on new directions in scientific research helped Loye
find in Darwin intuitions far ahead of his time, he says. "The reason all
this material has been overlooked for so long," Loye says, is first, the
dominating influence of those pushing the "prevailing paradigm," and second,
that Darwin "was seeing at a level science has only reached in the last part
of the 20th century."
Dr. Weber - co-author with D.J. Depew of "Darwinism Evolving" - says it is
also probably because Darwin's views weren't as fully formed and clearly
presented as those in "Origin," or as they appear in Loye's book. He says
historians of biology are likely to be bothered by the book, as he initially
was, because Loye has pulled together ideas found scattered in Darwin's
volume, and put some quotations into more modern idiom to make the book more
readable.
But Weber says he then realized the process was one of "hermeneutic
recovery." From the perspective of 20th-century science and a
systems-science background, Loye is "putting Darwin's text in a new light,
using a new interpretive principle ... pulling things together into a
pattern that makes a lot of sense," Weber says.
This happens in religion and in science, he explains. "If you look at a
passage in Isaiah within an Old Testament context, you give it one sort of
interpretation. But if you look at it in the light of the New Testament, you
get a very different interpretation. In the light of later knowledge ...
suddenly you see a profound statement where before it seemed ordinary" or
obscure.
Weber says that within the Darwinian fold, Stephen Jay Gould and Niles
Eldredge did a similar thing when they came up with "punctuated
equilibrium" - the notion that evolution was not a very gradual process, but
that the fossil record showed that change didn't occur for long periods and
then new forms occurred within a short period. Criticized as un-Darwinian,
they found in Darwin allowance for their theory.
"Right now, sociobiology and evolutionary psychology are hot topics," Weber
says, "and they are dealing with really important questions about what human
nature is and what we are capable of. They have their own process of
interpretation using a very particular kind of Darwinism.
"The importance of this book" he adds, is that "Loye is saying we can still
have a Darwinian worldview but not be locked into the 'selfish gene' concept
of [Richard] Dawkins. It gives a legitimate alternative within the Darwinian
framework."
Correcting history of science
Some of Loye's colleagues in systems-science research say the work is very
significant. Ervin Laszlo, founder of GERG and the Club of Budapest, says,
"Everyone concerned with our understanding of evolution on this planet owes
Loye a deep debt of gratitude." According to mathematician Ralph Abraham, a
pioneer in chaos theory, "It corrects an oversight in the history of science
which has swerved the modern world off its track." He calls the book "of
urgent importance."
Loye, formerly on the faculty at Princeton University and UCLA Medical
School, is a prolific and award-winning author. Yet he found editors
skittish about publishing his new book, so he took it to the Internet
publisher iUniverse. He likes the idea of it being accessible worldwide to
break the stranglehold of neo-Darwinism and particularly its "social
footprint."
Loye, whose current work focuses on "moral transformation theory," says
social Darwinism and its successors pervaded 20th-century culture. Their
concept of human nature gave us movies, television, novels, and computer
games "full of a brutalizing diet of 'Darwinian' plots and characters." He
suspects such concepts helped produce the deadliest wars in history.
The idea that life is meaningless, governed by blind chance in a random
universe "has a horrible psychological effect on people," he adds. And that
it doesn't ring true for millions of people is evident in the continuing
battles over the teaching of evolution in American schools. "The
creationists are totally wrong to reject the findings of evolution," Loye
says, "but they are right in that their heart is saying that there is
something wrong with the idea that life is directionless."
The beauty of this Darwin material, he adds, is that it says life does have
direction, and that what moves evolution forward is love and education for
moral sensitivity. It tells us that morality "is fundamental in all human
beings, and we have to get serious about understanding what morality is,
about identifying moral codes and living by them."
Loye hopes borderline creationists will find this material helps resolve the
difficulty "by finding meaningfulness, not only in a scientific vision of
the future, but in a vision that happens to match with what they feel is a
legitimate spiritual vision."
The URL for this page is:
http://www.csmonitor.com/durable/2000/08/03/fp1s4-csm.shtml
Copyright 2000 The Christian Science Publishing Society. All rights
reserved.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Aug 03 2000 - 10:53:23 EDT