Biology Reference
In-Depth Information
people commonly mistook hierarchical notions of race for scientific truths.
Seized by enthusiasm for the scientistic implications of evolutionary biology,
they failed to recognize that they had appropriated an idea that imposed a
metaphysical
scala naturae
upon this Darwinian picture.
That specific danger has now passed out of the mainstream, but simi-
lar evils are likely to arise so long as this more rudimentary error persists.
These threats are easy enough to spot in the messages of the most extreme
Darwinists. Daniel Dennett, for instance, has proposed under the head-
ing of “universal Darwinism” a framework of evolutionary causality that
takes no metaphysical prisoners. Since Darwinism is that “universal acid”
of legend that eats through everything it touches, even the sorts of ques-
tions that more moderate proponents of evolution might leave to others are
taken away. In principle, this might seem to mean that questions about pur-
pose, meaning, and value would simply no longer be raised; if Darwinism
explains all things, all things must be reduced to their mechanistic proper-
ties. But what Dennett clearly rejects in principle, he does not refrain from
doing in practice. One still finds him making proposals that appear to the
ordinary reader's sensibilities as teleological and ethical. Dennett's vision of
the future, for instance, is typical of evolutionism. Like Condorcet, Saint-
Simon, and Comte before him, he presumes that the pattern of history is
the pattern of scientific growth, and this means that Darwinism is destined
to realize a universal scope of command—or at least nearly so. There are
bound to be a few religious holdouts, and so we face a moral dilemma.
As the full force of evolutionary truth takes hold, we will be “faced with
a difficult choice” about what to do with the few dissenters who remain.
While the scientific rulers of the future will certainly be “eager to preserve”
religion in some appropriate “ 'denatured' state—in churches and cathedrals
and synagogues, built to house huge congregations of the devout, and now
on the way to being cultural museums”—they will also need to protect soci-
ety from those who refuse to accept its peaceful retirement. These holdouts
may need to be set apart in “zoos” where they will be less likely to harm
themselves and others.
50
I am not particularly worried lest Dennett's vision should soon come
to pass. Although we should not be tempted to forget past instances in
which scientifically authorized social engineering of this kind became pub-
lic policy, there seems to be little danger that the Supreme Court will soon
be accepting briefs from the likes of Steven Pinker, E. O. Wilson, and Dan-
iel Dennett when it interprets the Bill of Rights. Oliver Wendell Holmes
Jr. may have let down his guard a century ago when he upheld the state of
