March 27, 2008
Nature's Awful Beauty
J. Scott Turner in American Scientist:
Consider the swallow, which industriously builds its nest by gathering straw and mud and then molding the mixture. Who can watch this process and not wonder, as Aristotle did, whether there is a purposeful intelligence at work? I could offer hundreds of other examples of such behavior. For millennia, structures built by animals have fascinated us in our incarnation as Homo teleologicus—seekers of purpose, design and meaning.
To the Nobel prize-winning ethologist Karl von Frisch, animal-built structures were a source of "awe in the face of the workings of nature." In his view, biologists "convinced that they, or future generations of scientists, will ultimately find the key of life in all its manifestations" were obvious dullards "to be pitied." His target when he wrote these words in 1972 was an overconfident reductionism that was promising to provide an ultimate answer to life—but at a Mephistophelian price: abandonment of the quest for purpose and beauty. To von Frisch, to make such a promise was hubris. The living world is rampant with beauty and purpose—a fact that he believed demands an explanation.
There is irony in von Frisch's challenge, though, for he was speaking as a member of another tribe—Homo darwiniensis, if you will—which claimed to have discovered its own key of life. And so the problem could be put with equal force to Darwinians: How do they account for the living world's seeming beauty and purposefulness?
More here.
Posted by S. Abbas Raza at 09:31 AM | Permalink























Comments
Lamentably, Built by Animals will not satisfy everyone... But for its price ($19.77) I could not think of a better bargain to read leisurely --- if not by a crackling fire, at least while listening to the sounds of the sea at the beach
Posted by: Felix E. F. Larocca MD | Mar 27, 2008 12:25:13 PM
I must confess, I read this and was totally perplexed as to what the author was trying to say.
Darwinism is a theory which explains how traits appear in organisms over time.
The author first asks how darwin can account for the world's "seeming beauty"... what? Did Darwin ever attempt to explain why nature looks pretty? Maybe, but this surely is not the central issue of his work!
Then, Darwin is supposed to explain the world's "seeming purposefulness". I'm fairly certain that the theory of natural selection does this, showing how organisms adapt to their environments, giving the appearance that the environment is "designed" for the purposes of the organism (when it isn't).
THEN, the fact that we "build" and are thus "willing, intentional agents" is supposed to be totally inexplicable from a Darwinian standpoint, because "agency" plays no role in evolution. Again... what? Agency (the ability to reflect on one's choices and plan for the future) is an extraordinarily useful adaptation, probably the most useful of all. It doesn't DRIVE evolution, it's a PRODUCT of evolution on Darwin's model. What's so inexplicable about that?
Then "cognition and consciousness" - strangely linked to the concept of teleology - are supposed to be the things Darwin can't explain, because Darwinism is "reductionist". What? Reductionism is a theory in the philosophy of mind, and Darwinism is a biological theory about why organisms are they way they are. Nothing in Darwin's work commits him to the thesis that the mind can be reduced to the forces governing natural selection (that would be an insane theory), rather, just that whatever the mind is, it arose as an adaptation which helped us to successfully reproduce.
Finally, we come back to that supposedly inexplicable "awful beauty". No comment.
In summary: wtf?
Posted by: Nick Smyth | Mar 27, 2008 10:56:01 PM
Post a comment