The Theory That Never Was

Darwinism Is Dead!

Long Live Ecology!

Darwin’s Theory of Evolution came into existence in 1852, more than 150 years ago.  Much has changed in that time.  Newton’s Laws were challenged by Einstein in 1923 and Quantum Theory took form in  .  The scientific field of Ecology has its roots in the 1800’s, but came into its own in the late 20^th century with concerns about pollution.  The eye opening book, Darwin’s Blind Spot  was published in 19. 

Darwin’s Theory has two aspects.  The first is change by genetic mutation.  This is basically a given, although Darwin himself knew nothing about genes and genetics.  Also while genetic change is real and important, I do not think that it is the engine of evolution as Darwin’s Theory would claim.  In any case geology has informed us that evolution of the species has taken place and genetics tells us how mutations have taken place.  Thus we really do not need the T of E to explain mutations and change.

That leaves the second aspect of the Darwin’s Theory is called Natural Selection, or more popularly the survival of the fittest.  This phrase was coined by Herbert Spencer, ally of Darwin, and eventually accepted by him.  Survival of the fittest appears to make sense in that a cheetah will more likely kill a slow gazelle, than a fast one.  However, fitness takes so many forms that it was not really defined by Darwinists, so what it boils down to is this:  If an organism survives it is fit, while if it does not survive, it is not fit.  The survival of the fittest is thus a circular argument and so Darwin’s Theory of Evolution is based on a fallacy.  

Looking at the alternative theory, the science of Ecology, we find that adaptation, not “fitness,” is the mechanism for survival.  An organism survives and thrives if it successfully adapts to its environment.  This can take many forms, including behavioral, not just genetic.  An organism will die or become extinct if its environment changes and it cannot adapt.  An organism is imperiled if it loses its habitat.  The dinosaurs died out because of a change in environment, caused, we think, by an asteroid impact, not because of competition from mammals.  The change of climate closed the door on the dinosaurs, and opened the door for new forms of plants and mammals.

Going back to our cheetah and gazelle, it is true that the quickness of the gazelle will help it escape and survive, while the quickness of the cheetah will help it find a meal and survive.  One can argue that the survival of the individual does help in the survival of the species, but Ecology, as opposed to Darwinism, makes clear that the key to survival is not based on completion as much as it is to cooperation.

The gazelle is not in completion with the cheetah for the resources of the grassland.  The gazelles flourish when there is plenty of grass to eat and the cheetahs flourish when there are plenty of gazelles to eat.  The cheetahs help the gazelles by culling the herd to help prevent overgrazing, while the gazelles provide the cheetahs with a source of food, thus they are interdependent, not competitive.  The gazelles are more in competition with other grazers, but this is minimized by different grazing habits.  Competition becomes intense when food becomes sparse, so feeding habits change.  The cheetahs follow a similar pattern with the other predators.

Darwinism is an atomistic worldview.  It spawned the view of Social Darwinism which was used to justify racism, imperialism, Marxism, and Nazism.  It also generated the pseudo-science eugenics.  On the other hand Ecology is an interdependent worldview.  It has led the concern for global warming against the cynical views of others.  Darwinism is not concerned about extinction of species.  It is not concerned about the environment.  It is not concerned about the earth, since heartless competition is just the way things are.  Darwinism is divisive and encourages competition, while Ecology has been uniting and encourages cooperation.     

Prepared by Rev. Roger A. Sawtelle

                    Email: relates7@earthlink.net

Author of The GOD Who RELATES

          and The Complex ONE and The Simple ONE

Darwinism and the science ecology

It is often held that the roots of scientific ecology may be traced back to Darwin.^[2] This contention may look convincing at first glance inasmuch as On the Origin of Species is full of observations and proposed mechanisms that clearly fit within the boundaries of modern ecology (e.g. the cat-to-clover chain – an ecological cascade) and because the term ecology was coined in 1866 by a strong proponent of Darwinism, Ernst Haeckel.

However, Darwin never used the word in his writings after this year, not even in his most “ecological” writings such as the foreword to the English edition of Hermann Müller’s The Fertilization of Flowers (1883) or in his own treatise of earthworms and mull formation in forest soils (The formation of vegetable mould through the action of worms, 1881). Moreover, the pioneers founding ecology as a scientific discipline, such as Eugen Warming, A. F. W. Schimper, Gaston Bonnier, F.A. Forel, S.A. Forbes and Karl Möbius, made almost no reference to Darwin’s ideas in their works.^[3] This was clearly not out of ignorance or because the works of Darwin were not widespread, but because ecology from the beginning was concerned with the relationship between organism morphology and physiology on one side and environment on the other, mainly abiotic environment, hence environmental selection.

Darwin’s concept of natural selection on the other hand focussed solely on competition.^[4] Despite most portrayals of Darwin conveying him as a non-aggressive recluse who let others fight his battles, Darwin remained all his life a man nearly obsessed with the ideas of competition, struggle and conquest – with all forms of human contact as confrontation.^[5][6]

^{A note from the Wikipedia, 03/013/2008}

September 26, 2007

Editor of the Boston Globe

letter@globe.com

Dear Editor:

I found the information in the article Why Are We Here? (Sept. 16) by Anthony Kronman disturbing, but hardly surprising.  He writes that colleges have stopped offering classes in which the big questions are examined, such as the meaning of life.  The reason he gives for this is the emphasis on research and the de-emphasis on teaching in academia, but I perceive a more basic issue.

Academia has committed itself to the position that life does not have intrinsic meaning in its effort to ward off the Intelligent Design attack on evolution.  Intelligent Design is an attack on evolution’s claim that life evolved by pure chance without rhyme or reason, and therefore life is not the product of a design or Designer and has no intrinsic meaning. 

While most treat this as a religious argument against science, it is in fact a philosophical argument, because it was Greek philosophy, which invented the idea that the universe is an orderly cosmos governed by the logos (reason).  Christianity adopted this view when it identified the Logos (Word) as Jesus Christ (John 1.)  When rejecting the Intelligent Design argument, the academia rejected the concept of logos central to philosophy.     

How can academia discuss the meaning of life if it is committed to the idea that life is without rational form or meaning?  How can philosophy be an alternative to religion after it has been trashed by those who are speaking in the name of science? 

Religion will never disappear, because people need meaning to live, and God provides meaning for living.  Philosophy will disappear if it affirms that life is without intrinsic meaning and thus all meaning is relative, that is, your guess is as good as mine.  

Yours,

Roger A. Sawtelle

Author of The GOD Who RELATES