The New Theory Versus the Old Story

48 T I K K U N W W W. T I K K U N . O R G N O V E M B E R / D E C E M B E R 2 0 1 0 SCIENCE&SPIRIT A re humans an organism primarily ruled by the inescapable biological dictate of “survival of the fittest”and“selfishgenes”?Ordowehavetheinbuilt drive and ability to choose to live by an ethos of mutualaid,caringforothers,ultimatelylove? AnumberofrecentarticlesinTikkunhavesetinmotionavital new probe of this question, which I believe is the single most important query facing our species at this pivotal juncture in human evolution: Peter Gabel’s call for sacred biologists, Art Green’s call for sacred evolution (Tikkun March/April 2010), and David Belden’s earlier review of Joan Roughgarden’s book The Genial Gene (September/October 2009). I am happy to join the conversation and share my perspective as an evolutionary systems scientist. The idea of an inbuilt drive to care and love is really nothing new, of course. It’s been the underlying message of Jesus, Gautama, and countless other practical visionaries over the ages. It’s only new to us in trying to scientifically grope our way out of what became the prison of the old scientific mindset into the liberation of a new world allied as friend rather than enemy to spirituality. Theotherthingthatsadlycomesacrossformeishowwecould have been a century ahead, rather than a century behind, in the evolution of both our psyches and our social policies had we been able to understand, teach, and celebrate all that Darwin really believed and wrote. It’s not as if his ideas were lost in some obscure place like the Dead Sea Scrolls. Rather, there they have been staringusinthefaceforoveronehundredyears ,laidoutclearly,andat length, in The Descent of Man, in his early notebooks and letters, andinhisownhighlymoral,cooperative,andlovingfamilylife. GowithanopenmindtothebookinwhichDarwinspecifically tells us he will deal with human evolution, The Descent of Man, and here is what you will find: in the 828 pages of this book—into each of which on the average 980 words are crammed—you will find that Darwin wrote only twice of “survival of the fittest,” but ninety-fivetimesoflove. Youwillfindthatofselfishness—whichhecalled“abaseprinciple ”—he wrote only twelve times, but ninety-two times of moral sensitivity. Yetaftermorethanonehundredyears,ifyouasksomeonewhat they think or know about evolution, odds are you’ll get something about “survival of the fittest,” “selfish genes,” or what a CBS/New YorkTimespollin2004confirmed:thatofAmericanrespondents, 55percentbelieved“Godcreatedusinourpresentform.” Thisisafteracenturyofbillionsspentonscienceandeducation in the wealthiest and once supposedly most advanced country in theworld. What Did Darwin Really Believe? What I found still astounds me. Behind the arresting wordcountsforDescentisthebafflingrealityof“twoDarwins”that have divided Darwinians into three irreconcilable camps. On one hand is the “hard” Darwin of racist, sexist, and imperialist quotations. This for one camp is the ugly image for the man that comfortably fits the celebration of selfishness and “survival of the fittest”atthecoreofthetraditionally“hard”Darwiniantheory.Itis also the Darwin who has provided the Creationists with a bogeyman, an excuse to bog down the mass mind in abysmal ignoranceforoveracentury. Ontheotherhand,staunchlydefendedbythewell-entrenched official camp—e.g., Dawkins, Dennett, Wilson, Pinker, and the Super Neo-Darwinians of sociobiology and evolutionary psychology—is the mystifying image of a really nice guy who somehowalsohappenstobethebloodypatronsaintforthetraditionally “hard”Darwiniantheory. Onstillanotherhand,however,iswhatbeganashardlyacamp at all—just growing numbers of puzzled people able to read past thebarrierofwhatwe’vebeentoldtowhatinfactDarwindidboth thinkandwriteofextensively. It may seem inconceivable, beyond belief. But what I found is the Darwin whose other great contribution was in providing the scientific grounding for the “love thy neighbor” ethos of Jesus. Indeed, he does this, as a whole, for progressive religion and progressivephilosophy . In other words, in the “lost Darwin” one finds a carefully reasoned, empirically grounded scientific expression of the supremacyofloveandmoralsensitivity,withevenagoodwordfor whatweknowtodayasprogressivereligion! Yes, in this man reviled as the enemy of religion, you will find that,althoughhefirmlydecideditwasnotforhim,heapprovedof David Loye is a psychologist, evolutionary systems scientist, cofounder (with Riane Eisler) of The Center for Partnership Studies, and the author of many books, most recently Darwin’s Lost Theory and Darwin’s Second Revolution. TheNewTheory VersustheOldStory by David Loye science.qxd:Politics 10/12/10 1:59 PM Page 48 N O V E M B E R / D E C E M B E R 2 0 1...