After reading Michael Stewart’s Nov. 14 article, “Morality v. evolution,” I feel compelled to discuss a few points from an alternative perspective.
The premises underlying many of Stewart’s points are improperly characterized. But before I address those, I think it is necessary to say a thing or two about evolution from one biologist’s perspective.
Evolution is a word that is cavalierly thrown about in the public forum with little regard to its actual biological context. Biologically speaking, evolution is a process that results in differences among generations in the frequency of occurrence of genes and the traits for which they encode. In other words, it simply suggests organisms change over time.
Evolution does not necessarily explain the origin of life nor does it address the existence of a spiritual being. It is quite simply an explanation for how organisms change over time.
As such, being convinced by scientifically derived evidence for the operation of a biological process does not preclude adherence to a religious faith.
In pitting morality versus evolution, Stewart incorrectly frames his debate. Evolution is not the lack of morality.
I believe that in his article, Stewart is attempting to debate whether morality arose in humans via evolution or via the intervention of a spiritual being. In framing the argument as morality versus evolution, Stewart unjustly attributes a strong negative connotation to a scientific process, which has no inherent positive or negative proclivity.
Stewart’s arguments hinge on the conclusion that evolution does not allow for morality to exist. There is nothing intrinsic to the theory of evolution that precludes the existence of morality. In fact, the evolution of morality receives extensive attention by evolutionary biologists.
If you read the quote attributed to Michael Ruse carefully, it states, “Morality is a biological adaptation no less than are hands and feet and teeth” (italics mine). Stewart further quotes Ruse as saying that morality is “just an aid to survival and reproduction … any deeper meaning is illusory.”
Stewart misses the point that Ruse is stating that morality not only exists, but it is a product of evolution. I am not sure how he takes that admission of the existence of morality and its potential to enhance survival and reproduction and responds, “Thus, with no such thing as morality, we are justified in the most heinous of crimes” (italics mine).
He continues the thought, “Genocide and racism cannot be called wrong. We may rape as we please.” Drawing this conclusion from Ruse’s statement is absurd. There is no basis for saying that accepting evolution means that rape, murder and racism are “justified” behaviors.
I hope that Stewart will place his future arguments in an appropriate context and justify his conclusions on an accurate understanding of the subject matter.
Acceptance of evolution as a biological process does not require or even suggest a lack of morality nor are evolution and belief in a spiritual being mutually exclusive.
In closing, I believe it is only appropriate that the introductory quote in Stewart’s article, “Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution,” be attributed to its proper author, Theodosius Dobzhansky.
Troy Mutchler is a graduate student in biology.