Charles Darwin and purpose

This year we celebrate Darwin's bicentenary. He was born on 12 February 1809. The widespread media coverage has given us a greater insight into the man and his theories. As we know, at the centre of his revolutionary theory of evolution is his concept of the survival of the fittest. Organisms which are slightly different to others of their kind will have a different probability of survival - whether better or worse. Those which have the better chance of surviving, by being better adapted to their surroundings or being better able to compete with other organisms, will be more likely to live long enough to reproduce. It's as simple as that. That such a simple concept was so revolutionary is surprising to us now.  Darwin though amassed a tremendous amount of evidence during his years of voyage on the Beagle and then for many years after that. It showed the vast number of subtle variations which existed within the same species and which spread in a continuum across to other species. Up until then, it had been accepted that there was little variation within species and that there were clear differences between the species. This was despite the obvious evidence from plant and dog breeding which showed that major changes in a species could be brought about quite easily and quickly. But there was something else. The pre-Darwinian world was supposed to have meaning, to have purpose. Darwin's world had no need of purpose. By definition, evolution was not aiming at any particular goal: it just happened. This seemed to most people to be completely unnatural. And recent experiments on young children reveal the idea of a purposeful world to be their normal state of mind. According to the researchers, children as young as three attribute purpose to things. When 7 and 8-year-old children were asked questions about inanimate objects and animals, it was found that most believed they were created for a specific purpose. Pointy rocks were there for animals to scratch themselves on. Birds existed "to make nice music", while rivers exist so boats have something to float on. "It was extraordinary to hear children saying that things like mountains and clouds were 'for' a purpose and appearing highly resistant to any counter-suggestion," said the researchers.* Of course whether this ‘normal' state of mind is innate or comes from upbringing is unknown. But a purposive way of looking at things is natural for adults as well. It is though more a wish to see purpose in what befalls us in life, rather than accepting that our lives are simply the subject of chance events. This wish to see purpose in seemingly random events is exemplified by the astonishing pronouncement of a recently promoted catholic bishop that the devastation and deaths caused by Hurricane Katrina were the result of the sexual immorality of the people in Louisiana. I wonder what he will make of the bush fire disaster in Southern Australia this week. But his pronouncement also illustrates the quite logical consequence that such a belief in ‘purpose' means that we are more likely to believe that we have a reasonable prospect of controlling our ‘destiny' by non-rational means. We can become more moral people, pray or head the warnings of our horoscopes. And it seems that in hard times, when human beings feel that they are losing the normal sort of control they have over their lives, they do indeed rely more on superstition, spiritual searching and conspiracy theories. Studies show that people in risky professions - deep-sea fishermen for example - perform a greater number of superstitious rituals than those with desk jobs. Those living in high-risk areas of the Middle East are far more likely to carry a lucky charm or avoid walking under ladders than others. A 2007 study showed a 50% increase in the growth rate of evangelical churches in the US with the downturn of each economic cycle. Uncertainty about our lives, whether at work or at home, tends to makes us unhappy and so it is not surprising that we look for ways, whether real or imaginary, to take back control. Although whether this genuinely gives us all happiness or just makes a large number of us more neurotic is, in my view, open to debate. So then, whilst Darwin showed us a new way of looking at life and death, many people have a real problem facing up to the consequences. For them there seem to be two options. The first is a refusal, mainly by the very religious, to accept the validity of the overwhelming evidence in its favour. For the others there is the possibility of accepting the theory without ever thinking about its consequences, something which experience tells me is quite widespread. Perhaps in another two hundred years time, we shall as a species, have evolved the ability to live with reality? Maybe. Perhaps by then pigs might finally have acquired the ability to fly.   * see New Scientist , 7th February 2009 - "Natural born believers"

 Home      Caro Diario     Philosophy     Who am I?      Links     Photos of Annecy