One of the unresolved- and rather bitter- disputes in evolutionary biology is between the creeps and the jerks. The creeps (so dubbed by the jerks) think that evolutionary change is gradual. The jerks (so dubbed by the creeps) think it happens in sudden jumps that are separated by long period of statis.
Probably, both are true. Work done a couple of years ago by Mark Pagel of Reading University, in England, suggests that about a fifth of evolutionary change happens jerkily at around the time new species form. The rest creeps in gradually over the millennia.
- The Economist (2008). Volume 386, No. 8565, Page 88.
The greatest stumbling block in my belief in evolutionary biology is its inadequacy in explaining the great disparity of humans and animals. Even if evolutionary change were to proceed wholly by jerks (clearly not true) it cannot account for such immeasurable differences. One can defend evolution using simple calculations, for example, determining genetic identity, yet these mathematical representations are flawed because they are nothing more than monofactorial models. The nature of these models puts the finger on the problem – the only thing similar between us and animals is our genetic/biological make-up. No other species can speak of culture and civilization, consciousness and thought, philosophy and self-reflection, spirituality and religion, society, politics and war. The list is inexhaustible. Perhaps, animals display motivation and emotion (c.f. Jane Goodall’s work), yet none with the same intensity as we do.
Any child will be able to inherently sense that we are different from animals. Remember the days in primary school, when we all thought that the idea of humans being collectively lumped together with “animals” was laughable. Perhaps you even felt uncomfortable and insulted. Animals are driven by their biological needs and environment. Humans exert a great deal of control over these. Richard Dawkins himself would agree. I vaguely remembering him illustrating how we triumph over our genes in acts as simple as using contraceptives.
It is however, questionable whether he will agree with the biblical reference that humans have “dominion over the fish of the sea, over the birds of the air, and over every living thing that moves on the earth”.
It is difficult to get around these thoughts. They haphazardly pop into my head along my walks to the supermarket, in lectures, and even at this unearthly hour. It is unlikely for evolutionary science to answer these questions any time in the near future. I suppose the only two domains that can address these issues are Philosophy and Religion. I find the latter more appealing.
2 responses so far ↓
Kris // 26 February, 2008 at 7:59 pm
I must respectfully disagree with the posture cited. I believe we are moving toward a day where man realizes that while he is certainly a part of God’s creation, he is certainly not all that matters within it. What I hear in the words above are those of speciesism. We are all intrinsically perfect within the plan and, make no mistake, we are all connected and what is done too the smallest of us, is done to all.
People of faith have long been at the forefront of social change. Last year, a group of such people assembled at the invitation of one of the nation’s most beloved animal sanctuaries, to tackle how to elevate the concept of compassion and kindness for animals as one worthy of becoming a core spiritual value. There journey has begun.
I think it can be agreed that understanding and expressing compassion and empathy, makes us better people. And who better to express that toward than those who have no voice? Animals and children are the most deserving among us.
To learn more about the aforementioned faith leaders and the Religious Proclamation for Animal Compassion they crafted, visit bestfriends.org/signproc . To, as Gandhi so beautifully said, ” Be the change you wish to see in the world,” we must begin to see ourselves as an intrinsic part of the fabric that comprises our world rather than one who stands at the hierarchial ‘tip’ of the body of creation. It’s a long fall from the height of that arrogance.
lifein553 // 27 February, 2008 at 8:07 am
Hi Kirs, really appreciate your insight (:
I suppose I did not express myself correctly. I totally agree with you that man is certainly not all that matters within God’s creation. I however, do maintain that we are at the center of God’s creation, after all, we are told that were created in nothing less than His image.
Must also agree that “compassion and kindness” are rightful spiritual values. We not only have dominion over the things which God has created, we are also called to be good stewards over them. Perhaps I sounded a little too dismissive of animals.
I am glad that you brought this up. In my opinion, you are not “disagreeing with the posture cited”. In fact, our opinions are in tandem because it reveals that people are the only ones capable of social change. We can improve the the lives of animals, and protect them by giving them a “voice”. We are the only “species” bearing such great a responsibility towards all of nature.
Will check out bestfriends.org!
Leave a Comment