Evolution: Its Role in Defining the Human Species

God is All and All is God

Although it may come as somewhat of a surprise to many, evolutionary parallels in thinking did in fact exist in ancient times. The Greeks, for example, were known to have formulated some very sophisticated theories of evolution (aided by the fact that Greece was a maritime country and there was a growing tendency towards objectivity occurring at that time). Blocking the path of evolutionary progress were some very powerful forces, however: the most influential being Plato and Aristotle.

Plato held that there was a finite number of pure forms, and that number was forever fixed. He also felt that the forms did not change over time. Aristotle believed that the number of species was set, and that the alteration of a species from one kind into another through a mutative process was not possible. Over time, basic Christian beliefs were added: divine creation--God created a certain fixed number of species, including humans, and this number could be modified only by another act of God, not by natural forces. (Hergenhahn, p.263)

It is widely acknowledged in Christianity that God is the sole omnipotent being. Omnipotence is defined in the dictionary as "Almighty or unlimited power. An agency or force of unlimited power and influence." Dr. Jakobovits, in a lecture on March 9, 1993, asks the key question: "What is the difference between an 'act of God' and 'natural forces?' Are they not one and the same?" Indeed, if God is the omnipotent being which Christianity professes Him to be, are not all forces of nature controlled by Him? Hence, there can be no such thing as a "natural accident"--nothing can happen without God's direct supervision. (Jakobovits)

This "paradox of omnipotence" fires up controversy over the issue of whether or not God truly cares for mankind. If God is everywhere and still loves us, then why does He allow bad things to happen to us? V-ihy does He allow people to become evil? Why is there even a place for evil (Hell)? Jakobovits responded to all these questions:

Through this concept of expressing love through freedom, Jakobovits states the paradox of omnipotence is made rational.

I realize this concept (omnipotence) is extremely difficult for anyone to comprehend. So much turmoil and injustice seems to exist in this world that it becomes hard to believe there is an all-powerful being exerting His force on us, influencing every situation. Right now, I am in the process of trying to grasp the concept, because it feels right and would make everything so much clearer--so much more rational. Hopefully, someday soon I will attain a level of understanding comparable to that of Dr. Jakobovits, so as to put the issue to rest once and for all.

Evolution & Religion: Friends or Foes?

The French naturalist, Jean Lamarck, was the first to propose a mechanism by which transformations of a species took place. In his inheritance of acquired characteristics, Lamarck stated adaptive abilities developed during an organism's lifetime were passed on to the organism's offspring. (Hergenhahn, p.296) One of the keys in this theory was that changes in a species were attributed to changes in the environment.

Herbert Spencer modeled his thinking after Lamarck, but applied his theory not only to animals, but also to the human mind and societies. (Hergenhahn, p.265) The main theme in Spencer's contention was that "The seed contains the entire force; everything begins as homogeneous, then breaks down from there, becoming increasingly differentiated."

On the point of evolution through differentiation, Jakobovits raises an interesting question: "VVhat drives this force of differentiation? The force cannot maintain itself without some sort of direction, motivation, or purpose." It does seem logical to assume there is a driving force from which all this differentiation originates. The obvious answer, according to Dr. Jakobovits, is divine purpose. God, in His infinite wisdom, has already mapped out the course which mankind will tread as a species, and the alteration of the human body and mind over time is simply one more piece in the big picture. Again, referring back to the initial definition of omnipotence, God is the force and influence behind everything--nothing occurs without the direction of God.

This seems consistent. It also brings the two schools of thought (evolutionary and divine) much closer together. I've always been taught that you cannot accept one without rejecting the other; but here we see the allowance of the concept of evolution within the boundaries of God's rule. Even Darwin, whom my mother has many times referred to in a rather "Satanic" context has been shown to acknowledge the existence of God by referring to man's "God-like intellect." (Hergenhahn, p.270) This comes as quite a shock to me because now, with Jakobovits' divine purpose amendment and Darwin's acknowledgment of God, everything begins to make more sense. Evolution is not a concept which should be used to disprove Christianity; rather, it is a revolutionary mechanism which must be instituted to abridge the gap between religion and science; its goal is to try to understand ourselves (as well as other organisms) and our environment, within the limits established by our Creator.

Spencer & Darwin

Another key component of Spencer's theory was the fact that whatever licumulative associations" (Hergenhahn, p.266) parents learned would be passed on to the offspring. The logic here was that associations which facilitated survival were passed on as instincts or reflexes to subsequent generations. Jakobovits agreed partially, but then stated that, "Things that do not lead to survival are also passed on. This is not included in Spencer's definition." Therefore, the specificity and function of this process is in question.

Spencer and Darwin differed greatly in their doctrines. One of the main issues of conflict arose from whether or not evolution was progressive. In other words, did the concept have a purpose? For Spencer, evolution meant progress; Darwin, on the other hand, saw no relation between the two. At this point, Dr. Jakobovits discovered a very important inconsistency: There can be no purpose without an agency--this rendered Spencer's explanation useless, due to its irrationality. Who was the agency? Without first defining that the theory simply falls apart at the seams.

Another contrast between Spencer and Darwin involves the application of evolutionary principles to societies. (Hergenhahn, p.266) Spencer believed the evolution for organisms and societies occurred in the same manner; Darwin, again, preached nothing of the kind. Spencer's contention became known as social Darwinism: Freedom must be given in society so as to allow the most capable individuals to succeed, while the weaker ones fail, justice being served under the notion that "only the strong will survive." On this issue Jakobovits strongly disagrees: "This is extremely cruel; we must help the weak, not treat them as outcasts; social Darwinism is corrupt--it leads to a cruel, corrupt type of capitalism."

The Rationality of Darwin's Theory

There were three main points in the theory of Charles Darwin:

Although much of Darwin's theory was a result of observing animals, he related his doctrine to humans, and, as stated before, included the acknowledgment of God in his writings. I believe this displayed great intuition and foresight because it shows an attempt to give the theory a rational edge. Jakobovits states another instance of this kind on the issue of whether or not Darwin's theory implied progress: "The importance of Darwin is immense because, unlike Spencer, it appears he found a blind agency that doesn't require a purpose." Indeed, since Darwin did not include any connections between evolution and progress in his doctrine, he excluded both agency and purpose. Therefore, on this issue his theory also maintains its rationality.

Intelligence

Francis Galton (Darwin's cousin) stated that intelligence was based on sensory acuity; the higher the levels of sensory acuity, the higher the intelligence of the individual. Galton was also convinced that intellectual ability was inherited and therefore recommended eugenics, or the selective breeding of humans. (Hergenhahn, p.296) Jakobovits contrasts this perspective with a classic example--Helen Keller. If sensory acuity was the determining factor of intelligence, how does Galton's theory account for the wisdom of a deafiblind/dumb girl?

Galton also adopted a nature vs. nurture theory. He claimed that you have to apply yourself even though you inherit intelligence. According to Jakobovits, this implies an affective component. The self now comes into the picture; your motivation and how you apply yourself were just as important to learning as were your parents (nature) and your opportunities (nurture).

Alfred Binet corrected the errors Galton had made by overlooking the resolve of handicapped children. Binet measured what students needed in the classroom directly (mental abilities) and saw that affiliations between intelligence, sensory-motor skills, and cognitive skills made up personality. I feel this theory of intelligence was more complete than Galton's, and I find myself siding more and more with Binet in his contention that intelligence was-not one mental faculty, but many (I don't believe IQ is the best description of one's intelligence!).

The Final Line

This was probably one of the more interesting chapters in Hergenhahn's An Introduction to the Histofy of Psychology, Second Edition. It opened my eyes to many issues, and dispelled many of my long-held beliefs. What intrigues me the most is the usefulness and surprising believeability of Darwin's theory after you've acknowledged the omnipotence of God. It's simple, and it makes sense. However, I may be falling into the trap of trying to rationalize everything so as to include all theories simply to satisfy my peace of mind.

I'm curious also as to how and why something like the theory of evolution could be deemed "radical" by people (like my mother), when Darwin clearly honors the Genesis story in his writings. My guess is that it is more due to people like Spencer, who've devised twisted, inhumane theories, and through the public's ignorant association (and the shortcomings of the English language and our labeling process), have all been classified as "Darwinian." It is indeed a sad thing that a theory holding so much promise should hold such a negative stigma simply because people are afraid to think with a free and open mind.