going fishin,
Man's ability to affect, and to some extent control, his environment is a new element in the theory of evolution. I don't think it actually changes its explanatory power. We just have a more expansive method of surviving than other creatures.
Even so, take a look at the environment in which we live from the microcosmic to the macroscopic level, and I think you'll grant the issue of survival remains not just relevant, but critical.
Just take a look at the battle between man and unhelpful bacteria and viruses: all our intelligence is no match for a simple adaptation in a flu virus in birds; our antibiotics no longer function as effectively as they once did; we don't understand the protein-changing processes of KJD and BSE.
Or look at the effect man's control of his environment appears to have on that environment: we inadvertently create ozone holes, more extreme weather conditions, poisonous marine algae and extinctions.
Our frontiers are out there, even if we live longer and enjoy happier lives than many animals living on the cusp. And in addition: we now see how Darwin's theory operates at the genetic level, how well it comprehends complex mathematics (such as game theory), how it fits with behavioural science etc.
There's a loose version of the idea of evolution, which people take to be consistent with the notion of progress (read Michael Ruse's essay Richard Dawkins and the problem of progress). But this is controversial. Evolution actually doesn't explicitly compel progress. Just adaptation to changing conditions, which may, over time, result in the accretion of benefits, but may not. And it certainly doesn't imply linear progress: evolution is a bush, not an arrow. It does seem that in the case of mankind, we've taken a step forward in terms of intelligence, and we're learning what that means, both for good and ill, in the human experiment.
But I was using Darwin's idea in a slightly different form. I think the way Darwin explodes Locke is in this idea of Nature's benevolent reason. This just isn't Nature's way. Darwin didn't invent the idea of evolution. His theory of evolution was novel in providing a method which explained that change: modification through natural selection. A process that doesn't require benevolence or much in the way of reason. Whereas Locke and Jefferson need a creator to supply their benevolent framework. But this framework is basically a fantasy. And fixed ideas which might seem benevolent at some point in time, may be the exact opposite at another.
And then, if you have a point that is as fixed as a written Constitution, in the end you run into problems.
I know the US Constitution can be amended. But amendment is a rare event. And a fixed point that, say, half or even more of a country thinks is unreasonable, soon becomes the location of tremendous anger. Such was the case with slavery and the issues surrounding it. The arrangements the Constitution provides were unable to resolve the issue. We see similar situations where the Constitution frames "rights" which in time turn out to be hugely controversial: rights to life and to choice; security versus liberty; the right to self-protection versus fear of attack; even habeas corpus etc.
A Darwinian model would allow continuous gradualist change. It doesn't need a framework of rational benevolence to function. It changes to suit conditions. Like the common law.
So my question is, has the US Constitution successfully identified the kinds of things that need to be permanent? Or in the long run, will it cause exactly the kind of division it was intended to render obsolete? My guess is the latter. Though not any time soon!!
AI
