The Language of Natural Selection

Natural Selection

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Natural selection is the process by which favorable heritable traits become more common in successive generations of a population of reproducing organisms, and unfavorable heritable traits become less common, due to differential reproduction of genotypes. Natural selection acts on the phenotype, or the observable characteristics of an organism, such that individuals with favorable phenotypes are more likely to survive and reproduce than those with less favorable phenotypes. The phenotype's genetic basis, genotype associated with the favorable phenotype, will increase in frequency over the following generations. Over time, this process may result in adaptations that specialize organisms for particular ecological niches and may eventually result in the emergence of new species. In other words, natural selection is the mechanism by which evolution may take place in a population of a specific organism.
Natural selection is one of the cornerstones of modern biology. The term was introduced by Charles Darwin in his groundbreaking 1859 book The Origin of Species[1] in which natural selection was described by analogy to artificial selection, a process by which animals with traits considered desirable by human breeders are systematically favored for reproduction. The concept of natural selection was originally developed in the absence of a valid theory of inheritance; at the time of Darwin's writing, nothing was known of modern genetics. Although Gregor Mendel, the father of modern genetics, was a contemporary of Darwin's, his work would lie in obscurity until the early 20th century. The union of traditional Darwinian evolution with subsequent discoveries in classical and molecular genetics is termed the modern evolutionary synthesis. Although other mechanisms of molecular evolution, such as the neutral theory advanced by Motoo Kimura, have been identified as important causes of genetic diversity, natural selection remains the single primary explanation for adaptive evolution. (Emphasis mine)

The above text as indicated has been taken from Wikipedia the free encyclopedic reference on the world wide web.

What I want to illustrate using this text as an example, is how certain forms of language are smuggled in and borrowed in subtle ways, and sometimes not so subtle which show the underlying presuppositions and assumptions of the writer and all who are influenced by him/her.

Remember although this is an elementary and basic piece of free information on what is an exceedingly widely accepted theory which in point of fact has gone well beyond the realm of theory in most peoples minds (scientific community especially), it is still an accurate reflection, and representative of what more sophisticated proponents of the theory espouse. I am sure the same tendencies would be apparent in more stringently edited scientific papers of the same ilk. Remember- this is science, neutral, objective,impartial, interested-only-in-the-facts-science.

In the first two words of the piece the underlying assumptions are immediately apparent.

Natural selection- how often has that phrase been bandied about! What is selection? How is the term ordinarily used? Ordinary people use the term when they describe how they might choose a watermelon at the supermarket. Some people check the withered stalk, you will find others smell it, yet others take to tapping it and listening intently. The one thing that all these methods have in common is: someone is distinguishing a valued one, from one to put back by using their minds in different ways to find how ripe it is and therefore its suitability to eat. What is important to notice is that "selection" is a value judgement- a function of a mind.

But of course we all knew that, that’s why the word Natural needed to be planted in front. The word natural dare I say naturally means: of nature. Its purported meaning may be more contextually gleaned from a bit further down the piece where we have a comparison with artificial selection.

Natural selection is one of the cornerstones of modern biology. The term was introduced by Charles Darwin in his groundbreaking 1859 book The Origin of Species[1] in which natural selection was described by analogy to artificial selection, a process by which animals with traits considered desirable by human breeders are systematically favored for reproduction

So Darwin intended, by introducing this phrase, to show that a process similar (by analogy) to that of human breeders was taking place all by itself, that is without a mind. I would venture to say that the really novel thing about this phrase is that never before had the word selection been used without reference to some mind except perhaps as a metaphor.
When human breeders of animals practice their skills they must start with certain things in mind- and I italicize those words deliberately and emphatically. They have in mind deliberate standards to which they are aiming. As cow breeders we were looking for and indeed aiming for by choosing, selecting bulls with certain favourable characteristics to breed with cows who had favourable characteristics that we wished to enhance or maintain. Now look at the words that have been used with reference to breeding. But not just my words, those that have appeared in the above piece also.
Favourable or favoured: again we see that this is a word borrowed from cognizant beings, never before used without reference to God or man. To favour means to look upon with favour, that is either to bestow some benefit with respect to and because of something that the recipient has done or because of what it is. Another form of favour is to bestow some benefit unconditionally, that is for nothing the recipient has done or not for any state of being in the recipient. Nevertheless favour is a word always (at least until Darwin) used in conjunction with reason- a faculty of mind.

Desirable: Here again the word is never ordinarily used without reference to a mind or at the least an animate being. But in Darwins terms an inanimate, mindless entity called nature is expressing not only an ability to select but desire and favour. It does not end here, these ideas are all tied up with a master plan, another term which goes hand in hand with a reasoning, cognizant mind.

Systematic: We have got so used to using these words in the context of science as in solar system but they have been divorced from their original context of a machine or process which stemmed from an idea or design from a designer in short from the workings of rational being or beings.

So we have these words and phrases used in the context of a mindless entity which in any other context are always used in conjunction with rational, reasoning minds.
· Selection
· Favourable
· Natural selection acts on the phenotype, or the observable characteristics of an organism. Whatever acts as a response in the form of favour or selection is accorded under normal uses of language the dignity of rational mind.

All of this is ascribed in Natural Selection to a mindless entity called nature.

In plain language a mindless something had a plan and a goal for achieving better and better bred creatures and was achieving it by favouring creatures with survival as a reward for the recipient having certain desirable characteristics that the mindless thing could recognize and reward and favour. One wonders why Richard Dawkins used the analogy at all in his book the "Blind Watchmaker". After all if the watchmaker is blind as well as mindless he can hardly be called a watchmaker, why even the gender specific "he"? Oh that is just his point you say- Well why then is the language employed in Evolutionary Theory inseperable from the identical sort of language one ordinarily employs in the description of a complex goal oriented, rationally designed, mechanically orchestrated, purpose driven process or system? The short answer is because it cannot be seperated. The microsm as in the macrocosm is so complex and yet so accessible and intelligible because they have a common ultimate origin which is also (to a degree) intelligible- the Logos. And therefore we, endowed with intellect are able to know even as we are known. It takes one to know one.

Call it Darwinian Evolution or modern evolutionary synthesis, at bottom if people are going to use the terms: selection, favour, acting on observable behaviours, there is no getting away from the fact that these terms are all functions and capacities of a reasoning mind. How can non-mind reward, favour, or act on observable characteristics? If it is mindless nature then even if it had eyes to see observable characteristics it certainly could not reward them because it didn’t have a mind to! And if it didn’t have a mind how could it distinguish favourable from unfavourable characteristics. If it didn’t have a mind how could it even think of the term favourable? If it didn’t have a mind how could it (even over the sort of time frame commonly spoken of) reward favourable characteristics? These terms only have meaning within the context of reasoning minds.

No we have to look closer at the underlying reasons for the almost hysterical reactions from certain quarters when thoughtful people have attempted to offer another explanation for the vexed problem of origins. In a paper written by Alvin Plantinga ("When Faith and Reason Clash: Evolution and the Bible." University of Notre DameIN 46556) Plantinga relates this quote by the famous atheist Richard Dawkins-

"although atheism might have been logically tenable before Darwin," said he, "Darwin made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist."

Scientists with a naturalistic mindset have an axe to grind:

In other words Darwin finally made it possible to give a plausible explanation for the origins of complex life in such a way that intellectuals could thereby exclude the idea of God without compromising their intellectual credibility- which before then was not possible. As far as atheists are concerned "evolution is the only game in town". Here perhaps lies the clue to the religious nature and reason for the dogmatic tenacity of the theory of unguided evolution against growing evidence to the contrary.

Far from being scientifically neutral- evolution has deep religious and philosophical connotations.

Plantinga again- "among the secularists, evolution functions as a myth, in a technical sense of that term: a shared way of understanding ourselves at the deep level of religion, a deep interpretation of ourselves to ourselves, a way of telling us why we are here, where we come from, and where we are going."

From this it is clear that science has radically abandoned its territory of answering the "how" questions and blustered drunkenly into the realm of philosophers and theologians to ask the "why" questions.

In his book " The Biblical Philosophy of History" R.J. Rushdoony re-iterated the principle that   getting an "ought from an is" poses an insurmountable problem for naturalism:  There is no attempt to give the obvious answer,..., that meaning always escapes man when he seeks it in the realm of creation rather than in God. Because all things are made by God, nothing is understandable in terms of itself, but only in terms of God the Creator. Neither fact nor man can be understood in reference to himself alone, or to any created combination, but only in terms of God. Remove God, and, eventually, you remove meaning. John C. Greene has pointed out that the idea of evolution is philosophical and means progress, which is a value judgement. Attempts to "arrive at an objective, value-free definition of progress" soon fall. We can add that every attempt to do without God leads to an elimination not only of values, but also of meaning, as well. The issue is clear: no God, no meaning.

Finally what was there to decide that survival of the fittest was a goal (which evolution apparently accomplishes, or at least supposedly makes progress toward) worthy or better than anhilation? Mindless nature? One cannot even speak of something (survival of the fittest) being better or worse than another possibility (anhilation) without involking morality which again is a property of moral agents and rational minds (a question the philosophers and theologians should be better equipped to answer). The idea and language of evolution as progress toward a goal is replete with meanings that are inseparable abstractions of a mind or minds.

In all of this I have not once concluded that evolution isn't true but that in the current state of the continuing saga it seems to me to be much more reasonable given the sort of language employed by the evolutionists themselves that to posit a mind at back of their theory is much more cogent than to deny any semblance of mind altogether. And the reason for the denial is patently obvious- to posit a mind at the back of evolution is to run the risk of being thought a creationist! Something that most are irrevocably committed against.

According to the popular theory there is no mind working throughout the process, but the terms commonly in use are incongruous outside of a reasoning mind. It pretty soon becomes clear that when it is found impossible to describe the so-called reality of the origin of species without using language that is exclusive to rational minds then by default we ought to give up the charade and admit that nature is actually rational and has a mind. Maybe then they ought to revise their definition of nature.

It is a contradiction in terms to deem everything as the result of time plus matter plus chance while all the while using terms normatively reserved for a rational, logical, reasoning mind.

If nature has a mind and nature is non-material then how do you account for non-matter having rational being?

Perhaps evolutionists should give up the pretense of a mindless "Nature" that favours, designs, rewards et al and give the name countless others have: God.

One of the phrases employed in the piece refers to cornerstones.

"Natural selection is one of the cornerstones of modern biology…"

It is my understanding that this metaphor is speaking of an essential and foundational truth upon which a whole gamut of understanding is based. If the cornerstone is faulty then the whole building is likely to collapse.
Interestingly the source of this metaphor is most likely biblical.

(1 Peter 2:6,7,8) Wherefore also it is contained in the scripture, Behold, I lay in Sion a chief corner stone, elect, precious: and he that believeth on him shall not be ashamed. Unto you therefore which believe he is precious: but unto them which be disobedient, the stone which the builders disallowed, the same is made the head of the corner, (cornerstone) And a stone of stumbling, and a rock of offence, even to them which stumble at the word, being disobedient: whereunto also they were appointed.

Of course there is a ready answer but one which to many is too unpalatable to contemplate.

(Psalms 19:1) To the chief Musician, A Psalm of David. The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament sheweth his handywork.