Because nature isn’t really that tidy, they say. But then they go on to blame everyone but the Darwinists for keeping the idea going:
This misunderstanding is a holdover from before 1859, the year Charles Darwin first published his scientific theory of evolution via natural selection.
Until then, the traditional view of how the world was organized was through a “progression in perfection.” This concept is explicit in the idea of the “great chain of being,” or “scala naturae” in Latin: All beings on earth, animate and inanimate, could be organized according to an increasing scale of perfection from, say, mushrooms at the bottom up through lobsters and rabbits, all the way to human beings at the top.
Quentin Wheeler, Antonio G. Valdecasas, and Cristina Cánovas, “Evolution doesn’t proceed in a straight line – so why draw it that way?” at The Conversation
Amazing rewrite of the history of Darwinism! Nobody but Darwinists was doing this kind of stuff.
But guess they gotta claim something. And get this:
Given centuries of religious belief in a “great chain of being,” the idea of linearity was an easy sell. The iconic version of this concept is, of course, the depiction of a supposed ape-to-human “progression.” Variations of all kinds have been made of this depiction, some with a humorous spirit, but most to ridicule the monkey-to-man theory.Quentin Wheeler, Antonio G. Valdecasas, and Cristina Cánovas, “Evolution doesn’t proceed in a straight line – so why draw it that way?” at The Conversation
That’s flatly wrong. These descent of man graphics were not an easy sell. They were taken seriously by elite sources and they were hugely controversial elsewhere. Humorous versions riffed off the canonical Darwinian versions to be sure. But that was because, even today, most people are just not Darwinists, sorry guys.
If the biodiversity profs really need to muddy the history as much as this, maybe things are even worse than we knew. Stay tuned.
Hat tip: Philip Cunningham
See also: Cave art actually went downhill during the fabled ascent of man?
Follow UD News at Twitter!
19 Replies to “Three scholars of “biodiversity and biology” suggest ditching the Darwinian descent of man graphic”
This one is better anyway:
Better, as in a more comical kind of way, right?
Sometimes comedy is used to point out fundamental truths.
And most times it is just comedy for the sake of being comedy. Whatever your link depicted it definitely isn’t science.
Psychology is not a science?
Maybe when compared with astrology.
What? Astrology and Christianity don’t get along?
PK, really, now. Pardon, your prejudice is showing. KF
Actually, the key issue with humanity is that we are morally governed, starting with our intellectual lives; where such simply cannot be accounted for on a computational substrate.
If you doubt such moral government of our rational life, consider what it would mean to seriously deny our duties to truth, to right reason, to prudence (so, to warrant), to sound conscience, to justice etc: _____ . That’s right, utter, cynical nihilism. Likewise, Reppert pointed out the fatal flaw with computationalism:
If we are free enough to responsibly, credibly argue, reason, conclude and choose, we are not accounted for on the chemistry, biology or even the neural networks of our bodies. So, it is indeed relevant for us to ask questions as to what it means for us to be responsible, rational, knowing creatures. And serious answers to our being on both sides of the IS-OUGHT gap are going to require that the root of reality be sufficient to account for such rational, responsible, morally governed freedom.
The answer is not going to be, occult astral influences.
Nor, just- happened- to- be- so- and- to- be- reproductively- successful- genetic- programming (which itself is coherent functional complexity beyond the credible reach of blind chance and/or mechanical necessity acting on a sol system or observable cosmos scope).
Nope, the root of reality adequate to ground moral government (including of mind) is going to have to be not only a being independent of causal antecedents [i.e. a necessary being] but also inherently good and utterly wise. And that is an outline sketch, already of a figure ever so many are desperate not to have darken their doorsteps. Especially, those of temples of the lab coat clad priesthood.
Nope! In fact, Christianity dispensed with astrology and gave us astronomy in its stead.
That graphic, and others like it, were created before we knew much about human evolution (or evolution in general) and was significantly affected by Eurocentric and human exceptionalism biases.
We still don’t know that much about evolution, human or otherwise. Heck we don’t even know what determines form.
If astrology evolved into astronomy, why is there still astrology?
No one said astrology evolved into astronomy. Learn how to read.
Read the last sentence of BA77’s comment.
“Consequently, it was only in the West, rather than in Asia or the Middle East, that alchemy evolved into chemistry, astrology into astronomy.”
That’s the NY Times, Pater. Not exactly a bastion of science and reality.
77: “Nope! In fact, Christianity dispensed with astrology and gave us astronomy in its stead.”
I was raised in the Baptist church and at no time was I told astrology had been or was to be “dispensed with” by my religion. The idea that God would have or never would have designed human consciousness to have any phenomenology in parallel with heavenly bodies was never discussed in our church.
On the other hand you have the giants of the study of the human mind, Carl Jung, Joseph Campbell, and Stanslav Grof all self-assured of the more than just usefulness of astrology. In the case of Grof (M.D., Ph.D) you have a reverent scientist expressing in his autobiography a deep gratitude for this gift of the Creator to confused and blundering humanity.
As for myself, I have little practical interest in astrology beyond the phenomenon as it manifests in therapy sessions with psychedelics, and having liberal friends who study and apply it to their lives. Christianity is going to have to make some large adjustments to the application of psychedelics in alleviating human suffering, and I take no pleasure in Christians shooting themselves in the foot out of ignorance of mental phenomena, and the churches in the West being vacated in parallel
BTW Hopkins has opened a new clinic dedicated to the study of psilocybin and its psychotherapeutic applications: https://www.baltimoresun.com/health/bs-hs-hopkins-psychedelic-research-center-20190904-7ufx4b65zrfjpgetqwczr6eezy-story.html
Hopkins has been researching this field since Grof took a job at their Spring Grove psychiatric center in 1967 studying the application of LSD-25 to the alleviation of suffering in terminal patients, and wrote his second book based on that activity.
Around 1970, I saw Grof give a speech about the use of psychedelics and ways in which they were like non-drug-induced mystical experiences. I also know the use of low dose psilocybin in therapy is being used in conjunction with Jungian psychology.
So I appreciate Groovamos’ comments.
I guess Groovamos must have a bad moon rising. 🙂
Creedence Clearwater Revival – Bad Moon Rising (Official Lyric Video)
i.e. I would much rather have the astronomy of Hubble than the senseless hubbub of astrology, Thank Christianity for that!