Evolution and Philosophy: An Introduction

Since Darwin first published The Origin of Species in 1859, evolutionary theory has had a tremendous impact on the study of biology, explaining formerly incomprehensible patterns, unifying formerly fragmented observations, and even giving rise to entire new disciplines and fields of inquiry. In more recent times, Darwinism has also expanded into the social sciences as memetic theory advances and matures, providing unique insights into the whys and wherefores of human behavior. But Darwinism is not limited to influencing these fields; indeed, it also has profound consequences for philosophy itself, which provides us with the overarching framework unifying all the many diverse areas of study.

What is Philosophy, and Who Needs It?

Philosophy is, to put it simply, a system of fundamental principles and concepts that form the framework for future inquiry. Numerous philosophies have been created over the course of human history, and they are as diverse as the people that created them. Almost every philosophy has contained declarations of certain basic assumptions: some philosophies argue that the world is fundamentally mysterious and unknowable; others state that the world can be known through peaceful contemplation; still others maintain that the world can be analyzed through systematic inquiry.

Who needs philosophy? Though philosophy as an area of study has acquired a bad reputation in the modern world as being removed from reality, the answer to this question is: everyone. Everyone possesses basic philosophical premises, whether implicitly or explicitly, subconsciously or consciously acquired. Without certain philosophical premises, no one could have an opinion on abortion, argue about a government plan, or even be sure that the sun would rise tomorrow.

Science and Philosophy

Since philosophy is at least implicitly at the core of every decision we make or position we take, it is obvious that correct philosophy is a necessity for scientific inquiry to take place. Indeed, there are certain philosophical assumptions made at the base of the scientific method - namely, that reality is objective and consistent, that humans have the capacity to perceive reality accurately, and that rational explanations exist for elements of the real world. These assumptions are the basis of naturalism, the philosophy on which science is grounded.

Science rests most fundamentally on the fact that reality is both objective and consistent. Scientific inquiry could certainly not proceed if reality was created at the whim of each individual, or as an effect of group consensus. Science depends on the universe to be independent of consciousness - that is, the universe obeys certain physical laws that cannot be circumvented by individual wishing or by group agreement. As a corollary, science relies on the consistency of the universe it studies: what exists today will not disappear tomorrow for any reason except the actions of physical laws.

Second, science depends on the idea that humans have the ability to perceive reality. The argument that humans do not perceive what is "really" out there has come up in philosophy from time to time, but science cannot stand on that framework. Science relies on human perceptions to test hypotheses and to confirm or disconfirm ideas about the natural world.

Finally, science relies on the fact that rational explanations exist for the elements of the real world. If a certain phenomenon is observed, science must proceed by assuming a rational explanation for it, even if none is readily available or forthcoming; invoking magic or fundamental mystery is simply not a scientific explanation (though it may be a philosophical one).

Truth, Falsehood, and the Scientific Method

All the philosophical foundations of science can be seen to be true, since we have overwhelming evidence that science works. If these basic axioms were false, then science would not work at all; explanations derived and phenomena discovered one day would disappear in a puff of smoke the next. (Of course, some argue that these assumptions are not always true; this will be discussed in Evolution and Religion.) Since these things do not happen, we can be sure that science rests on a firm foundation.

The scientific method is a set of memes that has evolved to become the predominant process by which scientific hypotheses are tested and evaluated. This method is the way in which science distinguishes true and false memes. Of course, the scientific method does not always lead to a correct identification; plenty of scientists in the past have upheld false beliefs and rejected true ones. Indeed, these errors have occasionally misled and confused the scientific community for years, decades, or sometimes centuries (as in the rejection of the Greek atomists). But the appeal to reality as the final arbiter of the truth or falsehood of scientific claims allows false beliefs to be weeded out and true ones confirmed.

It is important to note here that personal "revelations", premonitions, etc. are not scientific. They may be philosophical, and may form a fundamental part of many philosophies, but I just felt it or A spirit told me or any other, similar statement is not a scientific explanation, and does not meet the scientific standards of proof. While legitimate research continues to analyze why humans have certain intuitions and hunches, and hunches can certainly turn out to be true sometimes, they are not in and of themselves scientific evidence of anything. Untestable hypotheses are simply not in the domain of scientific inquiry. It is only when such things begin to make testable, reality-based claims that they can be considered elements of science (though precedent shows that these claims are unlikely to be true).

Evolution's Effects on Philosophy: Historical Contingency

Evolutionary theory is part of science and therefore rests on as firm a foundation as does any other scientific theory. However, evolutionary theory also has some important implications for philosophy as well. First of all, evolution is historically contingent - that is, its products in one time are the consequences of events, perhaps relatively insignificant ones, that took place long before. Evolutionary theory carries with it a strong implication that, if it were to start over at the beginning again, its products would be vastly different. Scientists have agreed that there would be some general similarities between the organisms we observe and the organisms that would appear if evolution had another chance. Some examples are bilateral symmetry; cephalization (development of a head region with central nervous processing); eyes, ears, and noses; flight, etc. It is even possible - perhaps probable - that intelligent behavior such as that observed in humans would once again come about. But certainly the upright-walking, hairless apes we call humans would not reappear.

Consciousness

Consciousness has long been a major hurdle for philosophical systems, leading many into a dualist position that consciousness is something entirely separate from the brain (and usually, outside the domain of science). Creativity, intelligence, empathy, and many other functions of consciousness have been cited as inexplicable phenomena invulnerable to scientific inquiry.

Evolutionary theory provides a possible explanation for the problem of consciousness. Standard biological evolution produced the capacity to think symbolically or to imitate others' actions. With these innovations, new replicators - memes - came into existence, competing among themselves for adherents. Memetic evolution allowed memes to form groups of co-memes, then meme sets, then entire memeplexes. As they grouped together, they found themselves sharing human brains; what we would today recognize as a human mind is a derivative consequence of many memes coexisting in a human brain. A mind is, indeed, the sum total of all a person's memes interacting with each other and with the brain's physical and chemical structure.

There are gaps in this theory, and it is still too new to have produced much in the way of real research. But it is the first truly scientific theory of consciousness, and as such it will be researched much further in the future.

Express Yourself!

Would you like to express you opinions on the relationship between evolution and philosophy? Please feel free to share your opinions with other users - just visit the Replicators Forum!

Looking Further: Links and References

The following links and references are useful in the examination of evolutionary theory's implications for philosophy.

• Books
  • Consciousness Explained by Daniel C. Dennett
  • Darwin's Dangerous Idea: Evolution and the Meanings of Life by Daniel C. Dennett
  • The Meme Machine by Susan Blackmore
  • Unweaving the Rainbow: Science, Delusion, and the Appetite for Wonder by Richard Dawkins
  • How the Mind Works by Steven Pinker

• Websites
  • Principia Cybernetica Web (highly recommended)
  • Evolution and Philosophy by Kent Van Cleave (somewhat technical)
  • Online Papers in Philosophy
  • Evolution from The Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy
  • The World of Richard Dawkins

Biological Evolution | Cultural Evolution | Languages Philosophy | History of Evolution | Interactivities FAQ | Forum | Guestbook | References | About Us Home | Search | Index | Features | Newsflash! Site News | Our Awards | New!  Featured Links