Chapter 16 Chapter 8 Darwinism: Religious and Moral Issues-2

Therefore, the fossil record does not provide solid evidence of human evolution, so Darwin's followers are forced to discuss the process of human evolution in a purely hypothetical way.It was only in the last decade of the 19th century that fossil evidence was successfully found.Darwin once predicted that Africa might be the cradle of human beings, but Dutch naturalist Eugene Dubois decided to try his luck in the East Indies, home of orangutans.After a period of exploration in Java, Dubois unearthed a skull in 1891. This is the skull of a humanoid animal with thicker bones and more primitive than Neanderthals.Because he was convinced that what he discovered was at least the link between apes and humans, he named it Homo erectus, but the world calls it "Javanese".Yet at a zoological conference in Leiden in 1895, the scientific community welcomed the discovery but expressed skepticism.Only Ernst Haeckel - from whom the name of the new type was borrowed for the supposed link between the ape and man - claimed that the Javanese finally proved the evolution of man (Haeckel, English translation , 1898).Dubois became engrossed, unwilling to let others examine his findings.The meaning of his discovery was thus obscured until the 20th century, when other specimens were unearthed.

The lack of fossil evidence has been cited as another example of incomplete records.At least archaeological evidence about ancient humans and the state of their primitive technology in ancient times is constantly increasing. In the 1840s, traditional beliefs about human origins were challenged with the discovery of stone tools and weapons alongside the remains of extinct animals, such as mammoths.Of particular importance were the discoveries made by Bircher de Pers on the gravel flats of the Somme.The implications of these discoveries were initially largely ignored by a scientific community bewildered by Cuvier's reputation, but discoveries in the 1850s clearly showed that humans had indeed inhabited the Earth for a very long time.Charles Lyell, who had originally supported the theory of the modern creation of man, also published an analysis of this new evidence at this time in The Ancient Man (Lyell, 1863).John Lubbock (Lubbock, 1870) and others describe the modern view of prehistory.Archaeological evidence shows that, from the earliest crude stone tools, to the discovery of bronze and iron, human technological capabilities have undergone continuous improvement.In the absence of fossil evidence of human〖HTH〗biological〖HTSS〕improvement, evolutionists have used evidence of 〖HTH〗cultural〖HTSS〕advancement, at least indirectly, to support their claims. Significant advances in prehistoric archeology at the end of the nineteenth century made it possible to reconstruct the sequence of cultural periods and propose that cultural periods underwent constant replacement as humans progressed.But no one has yet suggested that different cultures co-existed at the same time in history.The work of Gabriel de Mortier, in particular, links the strict sequence of cultural development to the biological evolution of humans, concluding with Homo erectus and Neanderthals as a sequence of ape-to-human evolution. stages (for the development of archaeology, see Daniel, 1975; Grayson, 1983; Hammond, 1980).At the same time, anthropologists such as Edward B. Taylor and Lewis H. Morgan began to demonstrate, based on studies of modern-day savages, why they believed that early human culture had developed through distinct stages.

Thus, anthropologists and prehistoric archaeologists have proposed a linear model of cultural development that has greatly influenced Victorian evolutionary thinking (Burrow, 1966; Stocking, 1968, 1987).Many perspectives in the debate about man's place in nature have failed to appreciate the significance of these field studies, perhaps because this linear pattern of progress feels distinctly un-Darwinian.According to Rabbac, Taylor, and Morgan, culture necessarily passes through predetermined, hierarchical stages.Every race has its own rate of progress, so the slow progressing races are still at the primitive level, and based on their current lives, it can explain the living conditions of the ancestors of the Caucasians in the prehistoric period.For those trying to understand how the lowest form of man evolved from an animal ancestor, a linear model of progressive evolution may be more useful (Bowler, 1986).

Two conflicting views influenced Darwin's own research on the question of human origin.On the one hand, the development of the theory of cultural evolution at the time seemed to suggest that development should be viewed as a linear progression along a predetermined hierarchy.His own theory, on the other hand, views biological evolution as a goalless process in which each branch of evolution is determined by unique events.Strictly speaking, the theory of natural selection does not hold that evolution will necessarily develop towards a specific goal.If acquiring larger brains or more social behaviors would have been very useful to our own ancestors, why didn't apes seize the same opportunities?Darwin made the first important attempt in his book The Descent of Man (Darwin, 1871) to explain the origin of man from the perspective of evolution.But he appears to have vacillated between progressivism and true Darwinism in his approach to the problem.As we shall see, Darwin did not come up with what modern evolutionists call an "adaptive script" to explain the evolution of unique human traits.But in his interpretations he bowed in many respects to the prevailing enthusiasm for progress, and by incorporating a more optimistic view of natural development into his theory, he encouraged the progressive tendencies.

Darwin needs to convince readers that the mental difference between humans and animals is in the 〖HTH〗degree〖HTSS〗, not in the 〖HT H〗species〖HTSS〗.Those who want to insist on the unique spiritual status of humans argue that the emergence of humans did indeed introduce entirely new traits into the world.According to Darwin, there is no such discontinuity.Man may be superior to animals; but if man has evolved from animals, then his mental and moral faculties are nothing but the development of animal-like faculties.Darwin also had to show that these abilities could be improved by a natural process of development, based on selection and really with the help of Lamarckism.The guidance of supernatural factors should not be conceived, but merely the blind action of natural development.

Darwin was able to draw upon his own extensive observations in his efforts to narrow the apparent differences between man and animals.He tried to show that every ability we think of as unique to humans is already possessed, at least to some extent, by higher animals.He proposed that animals can display real intelligence, as well as instinctive behavior; they also have all the emotions, including anger, boredom, awe, etc.; they can also communicate with others of their kind through a simple form of language; and they also have Moral instincts, which allow them to work for the benefit of other individuals of the same species.Modern observers believe that Darwin greatly exaggerated the human-like qualities of animals; he hesitated to explain the problem in terms of evolution, and fell into the trap of obvious anthropomorphism.For example, it's hard to find solid evidence that animals actually use intelligence intentionally.Chimpanzees in the wild sometimes use sticks as tools, but in the lab there's little evidence that they can come up with a solution to a simple problem, and they usually rely on trial and error.Evidence for emotion based on facial expressions—for which Darwin devoted a book (Darwin, 1872)—could easily confuse casual similarities between humans and apes.As for language, Darwin and his followers equated the warning cries of many animals with the more sophisticated ways of using sound to express abstract concepts, the basis of real language.They also imagined that many hominid languages ​​were nothing more than a collection of babbling sounds, not unlike those made by animals.

Of course, moral sentiment is the most delicate issue.Darwin emphasized that the parents of many species are willing to sacrifice themselves for their offspring.A dog willing to go through fire and water to protect its owner shows that such instincts are common even among animals.But Darwin's opponents believe that this purely instinctive behavior is far less than human altruistic behavior, and it cannot be considered that the moral law is universal. Darwin felt that whether or not his comparisons had lasting value, he had to at least justify breaking down the gulf between humans and animals.He was thus obliged to face the second problem: how to explain how the encouragement of a helpless nature could raise man's faculties to such a high level that many people consider their faculties to be qualitatively different from those of animals.Moreover, even people like Wallace believed that some of the purely physical characteristics of humans cannot be explained from the perspective of nature.For example, how to explain the disappearance of body hair?There seems to be little biological advantage to this.Darwin attributed the disappearance of human body hair to sexual selection, his second theme in The Descent of Man.Because the degree of body hair loss differed between the sexes, Darwin proposed that the trait was associated with sexual attraction and strengthened in later generations.

In the case of human intelligence, Darwin was able to come up with a plausible explanation: because intelligence is useful, natural selection developed the trait.But he also realized that he would have to explain why this tendency had a stronger effect on our ancestors than on apes.He hypothesizes that human intelligence developed more because our ancestors adopted an upright posture that freed their hands to make tools.Switching to upright walking on the ground adds an additional stimulus to the use of intellect, thereby motivating the use of the mind in humans.Apes are restricted because they continue to use their hands to run in trees.Haeckel agrees that the upright posture was a crucial leap in human evolution, while Wallace (although he rejects an entirely naturalistic theory) proposes that our ancestors moved away from tree life as a result of climate change.Darwin and a handful of his followers prefigured a modern idea: that switching to bipeds, rather than gaining larger brains, was a crucial step in the emergence of the human family.With this view in mind, however, Darwin had to go on to argue why the enhancement of our mental abilities is the inevitable result of natural selection.

Can the development of moral faculties also be explained from a natural perspective?At first glance, it would appear that natural selection would not develop any instincts that lead individuals to sacrifice themselves for the benefit of other individuals.Darwin attempted to solve this problem by citing an idea first proposed by Wallace that is roughly analogous to the modern term "group selection."In animals in which the parents must care for young, family organization becomes important, and selection favors the development of the instinct to maintain family organization and protect offspring.In humans, Darwin proposed, this instinct had been developed to include an individual's willingness to work for the benefit of his tribe.Perhaps there was a struggle for existence for the good of the group, in which tribes with close cooperative instincts would prevail over those with looser families.Inherited effects of habit, consistent with Lamarckism, may also contribute to this tendency.Darwin believed that early man realized that he was responsible only to members of his tribe, just as some savage tribes do today.It was only when man developed the intellect and had the leisure to use it to solve abstract problems that philosophers began to develop social instincts into general moral laws, bound by religion.

In this way, Darwin allowed his followers to argue that moral values ​​are an inevitable product of the evolution of human society.Because social living is natural to many species, it led followers of Darwin to believe that the evolutionary process itself was destined to lead to morally meaningful outcomes.The development of the intellect merely makes the moral instincts clearer.But Darwin suggested that our intellectual abilities were simply the result of a switch to bipedalism, thus destabilizing the logic of those who tried to view evolution as a purposeful process.In fact, Darwin's own arguments for cultural evolution followed the progressive model advanced by anthropologists and archaeologists such as Rabbak.Not surprisingly, most of his contemporaries ignored his view of this turning point in human evolution, and the general view of mental and moral evolution was progressive (RJRichards, 1987) .G. J. Romanes, a Darwinian successor in the evolution of mind, elaborated a system of development in which social activity, through the emergence of language, was the real cause of mental progress (Romanes, 1888). In the late nineteenth century, most writers on the question of human origins ignored what modern evolutionists saw as the key implications of Darwinism, focusing instead on the inevitable progress leading up to the emergence of the human mind (Bowler, 1986).

The anthropologist's decision to use modern savages to illustrate how the ancestors of the white race lived in the distant past is an apparent Victorian attitude to race (Chapter 10).For Rabbak and most evolutionists, careful use of this idea is one way to fill in the gaps in the human fossil record.In fact, paleontologists believe that modern-day primates are the missing link they're looking for.And people identified the cultural and racial hierarchies that evolution resulted in as the ladder of progress along which the most active branch of human evolution (caucasians) ascended.Even when human fossils were discovered in the second half of the nineteenth century, they were interpreted to fit them into this progressive model (Chapter 11). In order to be able to conceive of the human past in this way, Rabbac destroys the traditional belief that the history of human beings is seen as a degeneration of the living being, and can only be seen as a process of degradation.It was once widely believed that man could not become civilized on his own: he could only be taught his arts by supernatural means; since then, many races have continued to fall.Inspired by this view, Archbishop Richard Whiteley of Dublin publicly attacked Rabbac's evidence of human progress at a meeting of the British Association in 1868.Rabbac had little difficulty in dealing with degeneracy, but Argyll soon challenged him on some ingenious points (Argyll, 1868; Gillespie, 1977).Argyll readily admits that humans have progressed in some way, but points out that technological sophistication—as all archaeologists can attest—is not necessarily a sign of mental or moral progress.Early humans may have been like us today, but they didn't make significant innovations at all. Although Argyle's real purpose was to suggest that man was suddenly created as he is, he precisely captured the weakness of the evolutionist view of society.Finally, the idea that cultural progress is a direct continuation of biological evolution has been challenged by the new social sciences of the 20th century.While modern anthropology is prepared to accept the idea that humans must have evolved from a distant past, this view is based on the belief that human traits were fixed at the beginning of culture (see Chapter 10; Cravens, 1978) .Argyll's refusal to accept the basic idea of ​​human evolution in a way made him prefigure some important principles of modern thought.Early evolutionists did misuse the biological principle of progress and confuse the distinct biological process with cultural evolution.  evolution and philosophy Those who wholeheartedly embraced evolution had to craft a new philosophy to replace the belief that humans lived only a few thousand years. In the late nineteenth century, active radical thinkers jumped at the opportunity.If man no longer thinks that he lives for God, he will find the meaning of his position from an evolutionary perspective.It would then be possible to introduce a new definition of morality in which evolutionary success would be the sole criterion of goodness.But is this improving morality, or is it abolishing all moral principles?Emphasizing personal success is all too easy to encourage the worst parts of a behavior.The only alternative hope is to claim that evolution itself has an ultimate goal.Thus, many evolutionary philosophers betray the true spirit of Darwinism and instead see man as a crucial step in the cosmic progress toward perfection.This view is held both by liberal theologians who view progress as the fulfillment of God's plan and by materialists who completely ignore elements of God's design.Only a handful of thinkers went on to break out of this mold, grasping as far as possible the essence of Darwinism, attacking any worldview based on inevitable progression along a hierarchy of complexity (Collins, 1959; Passmore, 1959; Randall, 1961; Mandelbaum, 1971). There is no shortage of inspiration for radical ideas.Some writers, such as G. H. Lewis, had introduced Comte's positivism and his view of the evolution of human knowledge to England.Tyndall and some materialists declared that their aim was to explain all things in terms of matter and motion.A similar momentum existed in Germany (Gregory, 1977).But among the many new philosophies, the most popular was that of Herbert Spencer, which combined evolution with British ideas of utilitarianism and free competition.Bentham had already challenged Christian morality by arguing that happiness was the only good; he characterized the human mind as a conditioned reflex machine governed by related thoughts.By the mid-nineteenth century, utilitarianism was in crisis: its leading figure, John Stuart Mill, had begun to question the viability of a moral theory based solely on stress and pain.The roots of associationism were also compromised as Alexander Bain attempted to incorporate impossible moral qualities together (Greenaway, 1973).The possibility of a truly materialistic psychology based on mental activity in the brain was just being recognized (Young, 1970a).In this way, Spencer, combining the philosophies of utilitarianism and universal evolution, became the most active response to that crisis. Although not many people read Spencer's books today, he was one of the most famous philosophers of his time.In his "synthetic philosophy," the theory of evolution was a key ingredient. Indeed, it was Spencer who popularized the word "evolution," and it was he who convinced the public that evolution was essentially a process of progress.Although the phrase "survival of the fittest" is often associated with Darwinism, it was Spencer who coined the term, and who actually didn't pay much attention to the details of science.In his view, evolution was only one aspect of cosmic progress, and he was convinced that Lamarckian mechanisms played a far greater role in evolution than Darwinian mechanisms.Although Spencer is seen as the leader of social Darwinism (Hofstadter, 1959), the link between his social philosophy and the mechanisms of evolution is tenuous.His philosophy did, however, produce a morality based on the idea that individual success leads to evolutionary inevitable progress. Spencer had little education; he was originally an engineer (Spencer, 1904; Duncan, 1911; Greene, 1959b; Peel, 1971; Kennedy, 1978).He didn't put together his new philosophy until he became a journalist. Social Statics (Spencer, 1851) elaborated on the utilitarian model and brought him fame.As early as 1852, Spencer had published an article in support of Lamarck's theory of evolution, and around the same time he began to transform von Beyer's concept of embryonic development into a concept of development from general to specific structures.He was convinced that in all natural processes there is a picture of development, which he called "evolution." In 1855, he published a study of psychology based on evolutionary models. In 1857 he published his proposals for a philosophy of progress in the form of a treatise (reprinted in Spencer, 1883). In 1862, "First Principles" came out as the first part of comprehensive philosophy, and in 1864 he published a treatise on the application of comprehensive philosophy in biology. Spencer classified the question of the ultimate purpose of the universe into the category of "unknowable", and philosophers cannot make irresponsible remarks on this question.As for the material world, it must be understood completely from the perspective of natural laws; the most basic parts of the material world are indestructible matter and eternal force.In order to answer whether these natural laws produce only random motions, or whether natural changes are in the direction of meaning, Spencer introduced his evolutionary thought, that is, evolution is a process of increasing structural complexity, and evolution presents There is a trend from homogeneity to heterogeneity.In his view, in the long run, the laws of matter dictate that all changes must follow such a process.The appearance of the original primitive life form is the inevitable product of the tendency of matter to constantly organize itself, and it is precisely because of this tendency that primitive life evolves towards a higher level of organization.Spencer was not simply a progressivist: he recognized that the evolution of life had branched, and that each branch was progressive.Progress, therefore, is slow and irregular and cannot be seen as a demonstration of a creative plan towards a specific goal.In the long run, however, progress is inevitable: evolution must gradually push life to a higher state of organization and lead to the emergence of new traits.Intelligence will continue to increase until a human-like type emerges, initiating a new period of social evolution. Since Spencer coined the phrase "survival of the fittest," one might easily think that Spencer supports selection in biology.In fact, however, he believed that Lamarck's inheritance of exhaustion was the main basis of animal evolution (Freeman, 1974).He also denies that competition among individuals played any role in the earliest social evolution, instead believing that the first complex societies were built along strictly militaristic paths.Only at a later stage, on the basis of the free development of individual enterprises, did modern industrial society emerge.These societies are more organized, and by combining the creativity of many individuals—each pursuing their own interests—these societies progress faster.Even so, the main purpose of free enterprise is not to weed out the weak in society, but to encourage them to make greater efforts in the hope of bettering their doom.While Spencer's entire philosophy is nothing more than the application of selection mechanisms to political economy, we should not fall into the trap of thinking of Spencer as a "social Darwinist." What does Spencer's theory of social evolution mean for traditional moral philosophy?Bentham's utilitarianism had clearly defined the way to redefine morality, that is, to judge behavior only in terms of its value in creating happiness.A good action is one that contributes to happiness, not obeying some higher moral law ordained by God.To some extent, under the protection of the law, individuals should naturally unite and work for the benefit of all; each person's self-help is helping society.By this time Spencer had adopted this individualism as an evolutionary condition.Human nature is not fixed, and there is no perfect social organization.The evolution of the race determines the psychological state of the individual, and as the social situation continues to change, so must the individual's psychological state.The individual is happy when he is the most adaptive and productive member of the society in which he lives, and the purpose of the moralist is to show how the vast majority of individuals can come to this state.It is not necessary to teach people some absolutely fixed laws based on outdated social formations, when religion was still strong, but to teach people how to adapt to the current changes in their society.The moralist must show men how to adapt in such a way that they are fully convinced that this is advancing the race towards a higher state. From a certain point of view, Spencer's philosophy sublates morality in the traditional sense.Individuals need not follow a priori ethical principles, but must instead adapt to the prevailing social conditions.Since we cannot predict the future course of progress, all the individual knows is that he is "right" if nature brings him success, and "wrong" if he suffers misfortune.Those who are punished for failure should be encouraged to make greater efforts in the future.In principle, this is a purely ethical naturalism: we are driven by our own interests and feel comfortable thinking that whatever nature does is right.Spencer considered himself a moral philosopher, and his commitment to progress meant that his ethical system was actually different from the cruder aspects of traditional religious values.The idea that nature rewards success is fundamentally a development of the Protestant ethic.Liberal Christians can then accommodate Spencer's evolutionary ethic by proposing that God rewards useful behavior on this shore and on the other (Moore, 1985b).So the divide between evolutionary ethics and traditional morality is not as great as some historians think.Spencer merely naturalized the moral values ​​that the middle class initially tried to justify in terms of religion.The view at this time was that nature, on behalf of God, rewarded the virtues of thrift and enterprise in the enlightened. Spenser's philosophy identified natural objects in line with Lamarck's earlier position.Both Spencer and Lamarck believed that evolution was, of course, progress, and that the development of human society represented a continuation of a biological hierarchy driven by essentially the same force.Spencer believed that nature goes through this process and is its essence, while Lamarck believed that human beings can already see the goal of progress and can therefore accelerate towards it.The religious beliefs of those Spencer's opponents helped to transform their more traditional morality into an evolutionary one, and they, like Spencer, believed in the idea that progress occurs and that the structure of the universe is hierarchical.However, it is Darwin's theory that attacks the notions of hierarchical sequences and progression in the most detail.Branching evolution makes it difficult to tell whether one type is superior or inferior to another, especially when the apparently "inferior" type has survived for a long time.Natural selection works to bring about adaptation, not progress, and organisms can carve out new paths only by chance.Even if this view were superficially accepted, much of the evolutionary philosophy of the late nineteenth century would have little value. Only a few thinkers recognize the directionlessness of evolution.Perhaps the most imaginative use of Darwinism is made by those who argue that the absence of direction guarantees human freedom.In general, we think of the choice theory as a deterministic theory, according to which individuals cannot decide whether to succeed or fail.Yet the doctrine of inevitable progress is itself a deterministic theory, for it holds that organized hierarchies determine the path of future development.Darwinism fundamentally undermined the idea that all development necessarily leads to or departs from some goal by advocating the abandonment of hierarchical relationships.John Dewey (1910) suggested that this view requires us to ask new questions in philosophy.Darwin taught us that man has the freedom to determine his own destiny because there is no predetermined pattern of development.The concept of freedom was also important to pragmatists such as Charles Peirce and William James (Weiner, 1949).Both of them discovered that using Darwinism could destroy the whole idea of ​​determinism.Nature is inherently creative, and evolution has no limits, thus guaranteeing human freedom.Peirce also sees evolution as the development of "cosmic rationality," even though rational rules emerge from primordial, non-anthropomorphic chaos.The idea of ​​progress is reintroduced here, but on closer inspection it does not assume that there is a structure predetermined in terms of ultimate goals.Progress is possible, but there is no need to think that progress must go in a certain direction, because life has the freedom to create its own future. In the writings of the French moral philosopher Henri Bergson we find an example of an effort to grasp the unstructural nature of biological progress.The result of his efforts was the book he titled Creative Evolution (English translation, Bergson, 1970; Gallagher, 1970).Bergson recognized that there is neither a harmonious plan of nature nor the intervention of an intelligent Creator to be found in the creation of species.Life has progressed through history, but the lines of progress have been irregular.However, this can be explained if we imagine that there is a tension between the basic creative life force and the resistance of the inert matter against which the life force acts in constituting the living body.Creation [of life] is thus a process of ever-increasing vitality, diverging and re-differentiating into numerous branches in the process of actually having to adapt to the physical world.The creative impulse drives life to always try to move to a higher level, but this effort often fails because the life force cannot completely overcome the resistance of matter.If there is a God, then God should be understood not as a definite entity controlling evolution, but as the ongoing process of creation itself.Finally, the life force can be considered conscious, which penetrates matter in order to manifest its higher potentialities.Intelligence and moral emotion will naturally increase, which is the result of long-term evolution, and although man's ability in this area far exceeds that of other animals, he still maintains the entire life system with which he was created.While we can't comfortably believe that God cares for us right now, we can take heart if we recognize that our consciousness represents the spiritual core of the creative process, and that nature and God control the process itself. The term "emergent evolution" was coined by psychologist C. Lloyd Morgan (Morgan, 1927).Morgan, who initially embraced Darwinism, had always suspected that some more active force was assisting selection in guiding evolution.Emergent evolution emphasizes the creativity of the evolutionary process, but in a different way than Bergson advocated.Emergence refers to the spontaneous emergence of properties that are entirely new at a certain level of organization, and which cannot be predicted from studies at lower levels.Life itself is such an emergent characteristic. Life emerges suddenly after the complexity of the material structure reaches a certain stage, and thus possesses some abilities that purely material entities do not possess at all.Likewise, mind emerges as an emergent property as life develops to a certain level of organization.In this way, the human mind can be regarded as a unique characteristic of human beings. In fact, most of Morgan's book is related to the study of psychology, and almost no biological evolution theory is involved.Several writers have also addressed emergencies, including Samuel Alexander (Alexander, 1920) and Roy Wood Sellars (Sel lars, 1922).This movement is about maintaining a belief in the values ​​of human nature, while believing that humans have been made by evolution.Rather than arguing that the mind is the driving force of evolution, they propose that the mind is simply an unanticipated outgrowth of biological progress.Evolution has ceased to be the unifying principle of the universe as early writers thought it to be, but merely an accepted fact.Morgan himself remained deeply religious, based on his inner belief that there was a higher quality in nature, and that nature could therefore be considered to have a spiritual purpose. Alfred North Whitehead's biological philosophy also has a strong religious color.Initially, Whitehead contributed to the new current of logical analysis, which began to replace the older study of cosmology in the early 20th century.In the 1920s he began to broaden his interests, seeking new solutions to traditional problems.In Process and Reality (Whitehead, 1929), he suggested that the world is best viewed not as a collection of individual objects, but as a complex dynamic process in which any object interacts with every other object in nature. Objects are associated.Atoms are organic-like entities that can interact with the matter around them at any time.Whitehead believes that the natural process is ultimately meaningful, regular and harmonious, and that man is the highest product of the natural process.Life and mind are not properties above matter, as emergent evolution suggests, but are essential constituents of a universe in which nothing is entirely "inorganic," or devoid of enlightenment.于是，怀特海比柏格森走的更远，他认为物质的〖HTH〗构成〖HTSS〗具有精神的特性，而不仅仅是存在不同的力量作用于物质。因此，在自然过程展示的途径中，应该仍有可能认识到一种柏拉图式的规则，这也是上帝存在的证据，上帝起到的是理念的作用，理念是万物希望达到的目标。按照这种观点，并不存在一个统一的、具有单一目标的创造计划，而是世界在其历史的不同时期，由于创造出自己的规则，而不断地取得进步。 这种哲学代表了某些人的观点，这些人试图脱离早期的发展呈固定等级序列的偏见。无论如何，他们提出的向着更高组织水平进步有可能发生在进化中，这样，他们就保留了自然是一个有道德目标的系统这一信念中的某些成分。然而，在一些达尔文主义者看来，即使这样也走的太远了。自然选择使得进化成为一种偶然的过程，进化的发生是由于机会的积累和生与死的斗争。进化怎么能够〖HTH〗有意图地〖HTSS〗导致更高的状态，或者显示出什么道德目标呢？即使达尔文也无法彻底接受进化会导致一个完全无意义宇宙前景的观点，他仍然希望进化最终会给万物带来好处。是T·H·赫胥黎首次探讨了自然界没有目的或道德意义的前景。 虽然赫胥黎抓住一切机会反对自然揭示出超自然设计存在的观点，但是他并不是一个无神论者。他提出，在有关造物主存在的问题上，科学是中性的，即科学既不能证实、也不能否定造物主的存在。他发明了一个词，“不可知论”，来说明对宗教问题的怀疑态度。但是确切地说，因为上帝的存在不可能得到证实，于是就不得不承认进化没有明显的目标。对于任何试图表明化石记录证实了生命历史中存在进步的做法，赫胥黎都表示反对。所有证明存在着这种进步的努力都是建立这对于生物学分类过于简单化的基础上，而达尔文主义的最大进展主要就是提出变化无需进步。然而，赫胥黎在抛弃进步的看法时，不得不面对自然失去方向和目标的前景。进化使生物适应变化的环境，但是这样就会导致大量的牺牲，而且显然不会使生命向着任何目标发展。 正是处于一种悲观主义，赫胥黎极为怀疑斯宾塞能够找到建立在进化论上的一种新伦理学。1893年，赫胥黎在罗马尼斯讲座上所作的“进化论与伦理学”的讲演中（Huxley，1894；Helfand，1977；Paradis，1978），对于斯宾塞进行了最尖锐的批评。在这个讲演中，他发展了自然无目标的思想，提出自然是一个大的机械系统，这个系统的运行根本无需参照人类的价值。给自然赋予一种精神价值的企图是徒劳的，这种企图来自于［人类］自大的希望和将自然拟人化的观念。但是因为从纯粹生物学的角度看，进化不具方向性，所以如果我们只是简单地顺从进化，并将进化残酷的价值作为我们人类的价值，那么未来就没有希望。斯宾塞基于自由竞争会改善人类的观点，倡导自由竞争的政策，而他所宣扬的人类必然会进步的观点却没有得到证实。为什么我们要为了其他目的，为了遵从没有什么意义的自然系统，而亵渎我们最深层的道德责任？ 赫胥黎相信人类心灵最高尚的特性就在于它在本质上是有价值的，尽管这种价值并不是自然造就的，也不是上帝制定的。由于宇宙间的偶然事件，人所被赋予的特性使之能够认识到造就他的系统并不存在什么意义。我们必须珍惜我们的道德情感，主要因为这种道德情感超越了自然界的范围，确立了行为的界限，并且成为我们人性中的组成部分。心灵可能是宇宙中的偶然事件，但是心灵的价值对人来说却是至关重要的，因为正是由于心灵的存在，人才成为人，正是由于心灵的存在，才使我们将没有意义的宇宙赋予了意义。文明之所以显得很有价值，是因为文明冒犯了自然的基本原则。人类为了坚持道德水准，就必须破坏一些进化法则，保护弱者，以免他们被淘汰。在这个充满敌意的世界中，我们只有通过斗争才能恪守正直，我们这样做并不是为了确保进步，我们这样做是因为我们是人。在现代社会中，由于同样认识到自然是无意义的，所以存在主义哲学在进行道德分析时，给人一种道德的界限难以确定的感觉。但是赫胥黎积极地为社会改良而斗争，他尽了最大的能力，与盲目和机械式自然作斗争。 然而，在反对斯宾塞的斗争中，由于完全不同的原因，赫胥黎成了创造进化论或突生进化论的支持者。从某种意义上说，这场争论涉及到道德哲学的真正性质。斯宾塞积极否定对与错的传统界定，并根据严格的功利主义标准制定了替代的界定：只能从对于个人幸福和推动社会发展的角度来对行为作出判断。他的反对者则承认人与自然之间的联系，而且希望通过这样或那样的方式保持传统道德情感的意义。道德律无论是从自然中衍生出来的，还是来自对自然的直接抵制，都应该通过确立独立于物质需要的标准，来自动引导后人的行为。然而从更加实际的水平看，有关道德的这场争论都关系到现实的社会政策。在斯宾塞看来，本质上道德等同于一种成功的社会政策；他相信只有消除对个人首创性的所有限制，才会取得成功。反对斯宾塞的人之所以攻击自由竞争，不仅因为自由竞争废除了社会的道德责任，而且认为自由竞争作为一种政治体系会给那些不能与更残忍的个人竞争的人带来不幸。 实际上，赫胥黎及其他人所反对的正是人们熟知的社会达尔文主义，通过探讨他们与斯宾塞的斗争，我们涉及到生物学理论在社会中的运用这一复杂的问题。不能将这个问题简单地理解成达尔文选择机制在社会中的运用。被视为社会达尔文主义领袖的斯宾塞在生物学上赞成拉马克主义；曾经作过达尔文主义者当然领袖的赫胥黎，反对所有根据生物学机制制定社会政策的努力。这其中所含的两个事实使得我们在探讨这个问题时要小心谨慎。在有关社会达尔文主义的讨论中，常常忽视一个事实，即其中的进化模式具有非达尔文主义的特征。在19世纪后期，达尔文主义并不是占统治地位的进化理论；最初对于达尔文主义的反对并没有死亡，而是得到了加强。出现了大量替代的进化机制，在我们探讨生物学理论的社会运用之前，必须大致论述一下那些替代的进化机制。