A chara, – Kevin Mitchell states that “most sensible people” believe “that evolution by natural selection is a sufficient explanation for the existence of life” (July 20th). Given that the vast majority of people believe in a creator God, the only conclusion I can draw is that Mr Mitchell does not regard most people as sensible. That must be very frustrating for him.
Still, I’m sure the approach of patiently explaining to people how “non-sensible” they are being is bound to bear fruit eventually. – Is mise,
Sir, – In his attempt to discredit the argument that evolution can provide a basis for morality, James Mackey repeats a gross misrepresentation of the theory as the “weakest to the wall”. It is a very crude rhetorical device to set up a straw man and then demolish it.
Evolution for humans is not just about numbers and survival; it takes place at the cultural level by the exchange and survival of skills and ideas at all levels, including the political and economic. A key element of the theory is diversity, and any morality based on an evolutionary view would place a high value on human individual and cultural diversity as the basis for survival.
The scientific method of continuous testing and refinement of our hypotheses about the universe offers the best, if not the only, method for realistic assessment of our place in that universe. Contemporary evolutionary theory – as opposed to the crude, outdated and bloodthirsty version that Prof Mackey portrays – includes altruism and the interaction between groups and between species and their environments. I suggest that is a very good basis for a moral code for our race. – Yours, etc,
Sir, – It is with some irony that I notice that the fittest facts typically don’t survive when the argument comes from a religious standpoint. James Mackey (Rite & Reason, July 19th) repeats a number of canards to support his argument that evolutionary theory is no decent source of a moral code.
The theory of evolution itself does not deal with the origin of life or the origin of the universe; it only deals with how life developed once it already existed.
Furthermore, it is not a reward system for the most ruthless, callous or selfish; it is merely an observation that at any given point in time, life is going to be most suited to the environment in which it finds itself.
If the environment changes, some species will inevitably die out and others that previously struggled will thrive, and those that develop and retain mutations that are beneficial to that environment have a natural advantage over those that don’t. There are many cases of species that have evolved altruistic tendencies (not least human beings) and this has conferred a survival advantage because of our resulting ability to work together for the common good.
The idea that a theory about how the world works in and of itself provides an example we should follow is clearly ridiculous, and my suspicion is that the same instinct to believe in God also confers a tendency to anthropomorphise nature, from which a moral interpretation of natural processes follow. – Yours, etc,
Sir, – Prof Mackey misrepresents the views of Richard Dawkins. Page two of The Selfish Gene(Dawkins, 1976) reads: "I am not advocating a morality based on evolution. I am saying how things have evolved. I am not saying how we humans morally ought to behave. I stress this, because I know I am in danger of being misunderstood by those people, all too numerous, who cannot distinguish a statement of belief in what is the case from an advocacy of what ought to be the case. My own feeling is that a human society based simply on the gene's law of universal ruthless selfishness would be a very nasty society in which to live." – Yours, etc,
Sir, – It is disingenuous on the part of James Mackey to link Darwinian natural selection and an ethos that shuns helping the weak (on the basis that “such senseless bonhomie serves only to dilute the fitness of the race by helping the unfit”).
Isn’t there the clearest evidence all around that, left to its own devices, nature fits the Darwinian mould that fosters survival at all costs?
On the other hand, is there a shred of evidence to suggest that either Darwin or Dawkins argue that mankind should be similarly focused, devoid of humanitarian values? – Yours, etc,