Hopes of applying the findings and speculations of evolutionary theorizing to the problems of ethics have yielded a program with a bad reputation. At the level of norms – substantival ethics – it has been a platform for some of the more grotesque socio-politico-economic suggestions of our times. At the level of justification – metaethics – it has opened the way to some of the more blatant fallacies in the undergraduate textbook. Recently, however, a number of people, philosophers and biologists, (...) have sensed that a more adequate evolutionary ethics might be possible. United in the conviction that it simply has to matter that we humans are modified monkeys rather than the creation of a Good God, in His image, on the Sixth Day, they argue that recent developments in evolutionary biology, especially those dealing with the genetic basis of social behavior, open the way to a satisfactory biological understanding of morality. (shrink)

The most public-facing forms of contemporary Darwinism happily promote its worldview ambitions. Popular works, by the likes of Richard Dawkins, deflect associations with eugenics and social Darwinism, but also extend the reach of Darwinism beyond biology into social policy, politics, and ethics. Critics of the enterprise fall into two categories. Advocates of Intelligent Design and secular philosophers (like Mary Midgley and Thomas Nagel) recognise it as a worldview and argue against its implications. Scholars in the rhetoric of science or science (...) communication, however, typically take the view that Darwinism isn't a worldview, but a scientific theory, which has been improperly embellished by some; they uphold the distinction between is and ought and argue that science is restricted to the former. This prompts an is–ought problem on another level. I catalogue the ways in which Darwinism plainly is a worldview and why commentators' beliefs that it ought not to be distorts their analysis. Hence, it is their own worldview that precludes them from accepting Darwinism's worldview implications. (shrink)

Science is among the most crucial factors for the functioning of modern democracies, yet we tend to conceive of the science-system as mainly driven by its own internal logic and connected with the rest of society via input-output-relations. But does that mean that science is independent from the political system and the cultural life-form into which it is embedded, or is science intrinsically related to democracy? While authors like Hilary Putnam and Philip Kitcher have already tackled these questions, an important (...) part of the problem has hitherto been largely neglected: how is science related to the worldviews one may justifiably hold in a pluralistic society? Arguing with Dewey’s emphasis on the irreducible multitude of human experience, the paper defends a conception of wide “democratic experimentalism” (Frega), in which compatibility with science is crucial for the rational acceptability of worldviews and religions, but scientism is vigorously rejected. (shrink)

Stephen Jay Gould's Wonderful Life is a study of the fossils of the Burgess Shale of British Columbia. My concern is with the morals that Gould draws, with the ?new picture of life? that, he says, the reinterpreted Burgess animals compel. I conclude that his case is not established. (1) There may have been reasons to do with ?fitness? why most of the Burgess animals left no descendants, even if we cannot guess exactly what they were. (2) We do not (...) know that our past is dotted with the kind of mass extinctions that are needed for the random evolution that he proposes. (3) Even if what happened does rest on random variation and largely random selection, it does not follow that there are no standing forms that will be constantly re?instantiated. If Rational Life, in particular, is not special, then we have no right to think the world we experience bears any remote resemblance to a putative real world. (4) Even if there are no such forms, the fact that nothing in the state of things required us to exist is no good reason to say that No one requires us to. What Gould says does count against a simple progressivism, but not against an older and more orthodox theology. It also has implications for the Search for Extra?Terrestrial Intelligence (SETI). (shrink)

The history of the modern study of myth can be divided into two main categories: that which sees myth as the primitive counterpart to natural science, itself considered overwhelmingly modern, and that which sees myth as almost anything but the primitive counterpart to natural science. The first category constitutes the nineteenth-century approach to myth. The second category constitutes the twentieth-century approach. Tylor and Frazer epitomize the nineteenth-century view. Malinowski, Eliade, Bultmann, Jonas, Camus, Freud, and Jung epitomize the twentieth-century approach. The (...) question for the twenty-first century is whether myth can be brought back to the physical world, but in a way compatible with science. The case of the myth of Gaia will be considered as a possible way of doing so. (shrink)

Volume 27, Issue 1, February 2019, Page 73-102.

This article takes as its starting point and its main problematic the status of evolution as a ‘sterile belief’ in contemporary technoscientific culture. Focusing in particular on the role of evolution across the boundaries of art and science in the contexts of artificial life and transgenic engineering, it offers a critique of the belief in evolutionary possibility as an abstract process. The lack of what François Jacob refers to as a dialogue between the possible and the actual is seen to (...) account for the sterility of evolutionary possibility and for its status as myth. In particular, evolutionary possibility recalls the myth of metamorphoses, the conservatism of which is demonstrated in an analysis of two art/science works - Galápagos by Karl Sims and Genesis by Eduardo Kac. Lacking a dialogue with the actual, metamorphic evolutionary possibility here becomes self-referential and produces nothing new. Rather than a rejection of evolution per se, this article takes up Jacob’s critique of its over-extension by showing how this operates in two works representing the fields of artificial life and transgenesis respectively. (shrink)