In discussing natural selection,
Charles Darwin describes "a power incessantly ready for action, and...as
immeasurably superior to man's feeble efforts, as the works of Nature are to
those of Art" (40). This definition indicates that he views
creation as an “outside force” intrinsic to the universe and unreachable to
humans. Regardless of whether or not he ascribes this pattern to divine causes,
he sees it as strictly non-human. People may craft “Art,” but such endeavors
are “feeble” compared to what nature has to offer (40).
By frequently repeating the word “geometric,”
Darwin indicates that the workings of the universe are fundamentally mathematical,
objective, and separate from the emotional sphere of humanity (42). However, he
also sees them as “beautiful,” perhaps because
of these reasons (39). Without human intervention, systems of nature seem to
interlock flawlessly. Keeping in time with the flux of nature, “varieties…[continually]
become converted into new and distinct species,” and “complex relationships of…animals
and plants” flourish (38,39).
Tessellating all of these universally
inherent patterns, natural selection propels everything towards “perfection”
(39). In this way, it does not evoke a cold or chaotic world, but one of
systematic harmony—one that makes more sense than “a special act of creation”
(36). It does not degrade creation into something lowly and utilitarian; it actually
elevates it into something pure, something unadulterated by arbitrary whim.
Thus, Darwin indicates that
singular, divine acts of creation are not necessary in order for nature to be
beautiful or pristine. Nor must one necessarily associate his theory of natural
selection with atheism. In the system’s pure non-humanness, there is room for
both the nonreligious and the religious—something that his critics fail to
discern.
Emily's point on how Darwin sees nature, when undisturbed, has created its own perfect harmony is very interesting. Darwin seems to go on about how men try to somewhat manipulate nature to the more beneficial way for them. Darwin states "[t]he key is man's power of accumulative selection: nature gives successive variations; man adds them up in certain directions useful to him. In this sense he may be said to make for himself useful breeds" (30). Again, he says that the man's manipulation is "not indeed to the animal's or plant's own good, but to man's use or fancy" (30). Like Emily was stating, Darwin sees as nature's patterns and order are right and perfect for the world. I guess my point would be that maybe Darwin sees man interfering too much with the variations among the species of this earth, but maybe to let them change by themselves to nature's idea of perfection not man's.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteWhile agree with both Liezel and Emily that Darwin has faith in nature's ability to create harmony, I believe that the distinction between creating perfection and moving toward perfection is important to make. Natural selection is not a perfect process. In some cases, organisms without adaptive characteristics survive to reproduce. I think that Darwin's issue with human involvement in selection arises from people's inability to look into the long-term success of a species. As he exclaims "[h]ow fleeting are the wishes and efforts of man!" (84). Unlike the process of natural selection, humans do not adjust their desires in order to accommodate the organism's changing conditions; thus, they do not continue the progression toward perfection.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Emily's interpretation of Darwin's ideal evolution. Specifically the evolution of species towards a more perfect survival. I also like kyra's take on human manipulation of species. But I would like to shift the focus of her interpretation, yes human interference does decrease the species ability to survive. But the point of these actions is not for the adaption of the species for greater survivability within their natural environment. Rather its to facilitate an increased usefulness to humanity. The result being the now domesticated creatures are being bred and manipulated towards a new purpose of service.
ReplyDeleteWith this understanding the species is still being brought towards its most perfect form, but only in terms of its utility and not necessarily in its propagation.
I agree with Emily's idea that Darwin's concept of evolution has an element of, "non-humaness" and I feel that this point is often looked over when discussing the subject. His idea that evolution is singularly beautiful in its lack of emotion, and thus in its lack of human involvement. Overall I think Emily and later Liezel make excellent points about the ability of nature to do what is "naturally perfect" without the necessary intervention of humans.
ReplyDeleteI find Darwin to be interesting in that he embodies very modern scientific theories wrapped in an older philosophical view of the world. I find emily's insight to be fascinating because it shows the extent to which our views of nature were colored by the victorian idealization of nature. As I have been learning in my history of colonial America class the native americans did not view the natural world as a perfect system as we in the west did then and still a large extent do now. they rather saw the natural world as a system of spiritual interactions in constant ebb and flow. unlike in the modern west were writers like Thoreau have enamored us with this longing for the "unspoiled nature" free from the perversions of humanity the natives saw nature as a non-static and plastic web of interactions into which they could insert themselves to extract from nature what they needed. Rather than seeking some mythical perfect state of nature the Indians accepted themselves as part of rather than separate from nature. I believe that seeing through the rose colored glasses of our environmental romanticism we overlook the fact that Darwin did not see harmony so much as the colliding of forces. for example on page 62 he paints the natural world as a place of rather constant violence: "we do not see, or we forget, that the birds which are idly singing round us mostly live on insects or seeds, and are thus constantly destroying life; or we forget how largely these songsters... are destroyed by birds and beasts of prey". Here we see the view of nature not as a faultless harmony but as a ceaseless collision and conflict of forces achieving in the resulting turmoil some measure, not of harmony, but of dynamic equilibrium. Our cultural precepts of nature lead too often to over idealize it. I would caution us all to check those suppositions when reading Darwin.
ReplyDelete