Social Darwinism As A Controversial Issue In The Topic Of Evolution

downloadDownload
  • Words 1425
  • Pages 3
Download PDF

In Light of Evolution

Is man really a descendent of the ape? This question has been at the centre of intense debate and controversy throughout history and still remains a topic of dispute today. The question falls under a larger domain of investigation; whether evolution is a real phenomenon or not. Evolution is a theory explaining the mechanism by which later life forms have arrived from earlier ones through processes such as natural selection and mutations in genes (Lenski 2017). Natural selection is the fit of an organism to its environment; with those being better fit increasing the probability of their survival and reproduction to pass on their genes to the next generation. On one side of the debate, we have individuals who believe that evolution is one of the greatest scientific revelations of all time; referring to the overwhelming amount of evidence in various scientific fields. Even though scientists have a firm belief in evolution, some individuals are under the impression that evolution, simply, does not occur. The basis of these individual’s arguments lie under misconceptions regarding evolution. One of the most common misconceptions as indicated by Harris (2010) are that humans are the direct descendants of apes. These individuals follow the subsequent logic; since there is no evidence that indicates the step by step morphological change of ape into man, evolution must not exist. On the flip side, scientists do not necessarily believe that man is a direct descendent of the ape, but rather man and ape share a common ancestor. This is to mean that the individual from which humans and apes arose can be traced back along two independent lines of descent. The common ancestor in this case, would be the individual from which the Great Apes (monkeys, gorillas, orangutans) and the early hominids (humans and their ancestors) diverged into two separate lines or lineages (Sereno and Tootell 2005). The misconception that man is a direct descendent of the ape was introduced in an article written by William Harris (2010) titled “Are Humans Really Descended from Apes?”. The analysis, scientific content and political implications of this article will be discussed in this essay.

Before I delve into an analysis of Harris’s work, I will explore why a sound understanding of evolutionary principles can potentially serve a great role in society today. Understanding evolutionary principles can be of profound significance in the field of medicine, particularly in disease. For instance, knowledge in the domain of how a pathogen evolves with its host is important for the development of new drugs able to cope with the progression of the pathogen’s physiology. The pathogen and host are involved in what is referred to as an evolutionary arms race (Bliven and Maurelli 2016). The evolutionary arms race, in terms of disease, refers to the pathogens ability to adapt to the host’s defences and the host in turn, producing counter adaptations. The recognition of evolution’s role in disease is often overlooked by physicians, medical researchers and educators (Gluckman et al. 2011). There is a focus on the mechanistic basis of disease, leaving out the possibility of an evolutionary basis. This greatly narrows the lens through which medicine is approached in the modern world. A more cohesive understanding would require the integration and understanding of the evolutionary perspective.

Click to get a unique essay

Our writers can write you a new plagiarism-free essay on any topic

Harris (2011) has set up the article “Are humans really descended from apes” by presenting the two sides of the evolutionary debate; evolution vs. no evolution. Harris does try to create a sense of balance in the article by explaining the rationale behind both sides of the argument; however, he does so in a biased fashion. He first presents one of the three common “myths” that are present among those that do not believe in evolution and then counterbalances these “myths” with counter-arguments. The use of the term myth to describe the “no evolution” side of the debate reveals Harris’s standing on the issue and also predisposes the reader to disregard the argument following the use of the term “myth”, going against the journalistic norm of objectivity (Davidson 2019). Although Harris’s counterarguments against the “myths” are logical, it often seems as though he has rushed the counterargument without providing credible evidence. For instance, Harris (2010) presents the “myth” that individuals who do not believe in evolution defend their beliefs by asserting the following; since evolution can’t be tested, it is not a valid theory. Harris presents the counterargument that scientists have successfully run many laboratory tests that support the propositions of evolution. Harris’s counterargument against the myth is simplistic, vague and a general sweeping statement. He does not delve deeper into which laboratory tests were conducted by scientists, which scientists were involved, nor does he reference any reliable source supporting the statement. An absence of reference to reliable sources is a recurring pattern found throughout this news article and represents as a cause for concern. Since the media is a main vehicle for sharing information and shaping public discussions, it is important that when science is presented in a story, it is backed by referring to reliable, non biased scientific sources (Davidson 2019). Unfortunately, this is not always the case and can result in misinformation guiding public debates which can have profound impacts.

A prime example of the potential danger arising from widespread misinformation due to the selective employment of science in media, is that it easily allows for the rationalization of appalling movements such as eugenics, which took place in both Nazi Germany and the United States (Davidson 2019). The eugenics movement encouraged the breeding of individuals that possessed “desirable traits” and discouraged the breeding of individuals whose traits were regarded as “less desirable” (Gaver and Gaver 1991). Eugenics was employed in Nazi Germany at a time when social darwinism was on the rise (O’Manthùna 2006). Social Darwinism deemed that the concept of “survival of the fittest” could be applied to humans and rejected a belief in the dignity of human life. The Nazi’s exploited the rise of social darwinism, using the media to propel propaganda about the establishment of a “superior race”. As the ideas behind the establishment of this race were seemingly based in Darwinian theory, a sense of legitimacy was given to racist Nazi ideologies. According to Freudenburg, Gramling and Davidson (2008), “most scientific findings are inherently probabilistic and ambiguous” and the Nazi’s played on this ambiguity to rationalize atrocious acts. The Nazi’s effectively used “science” to fuel racism, segregation, sterilization and the brutal murder of millions of Jewish people. This represents an extreme case of how effectively individuals can use science in the political arena to serve their own interests, even going as far as the justification of killing millions of individuals (Davidson 2019).

I will conclude the analysis of Harris’s article (2011) by critiquing the manner in which scientific certainty and proof is discussed using the context of SCAMs (or scientific certainty argumentation methods) as presented by Freudenburg, Gramling and Davidson (2008). SCAMs represent an attempt by an individual to seem scientifically certain of a matter in order to give legitimacy to their argument, often serving vested interests. This is a strategy that works on members of the general public who are ignorant of the fact that there is no such concept as complete scientific certainty. The author does a good job of avoiding SCAMs. For instance, he explains how scientists believe that humans and apes possess a common ancestor that shares features of both of the aforementioned species; however, he admits that the fossil record is stingy in regards to this question. He does not attempt to assert that the fossil record clearly shows evidence that points to an ancestor possessing traits of both humans and apes just for the sake of appearing to have a stronger argument; hence, successfully avoiding the use of SCAMs.

In summary, I have explored the topic of evolution, the two sides of the heated debate and then explained the relevance of understanding evolution to the broader society. I then analyzed Harris’s article discussing the evolutionary debate within which I briefly discuss a case study in which the media and the selective employment of science was used to justify atrocious acts. I concluded this essay by discussing the absence of SCAMs within Harris’ article. Close reading of the manner in which science in the media is presented is extremely important as journalists and news reporters often have their own biases and interests, and we need to be able to identify these in order to be adequately informed members of the public, avoiding being swayed by the manner in which science is portrayed.

image

We use cookies to give you the best experience possible. By continuing we’ll assume you board with our cookie policy.