LLU
School of Religion
Evolution and Ethics
Thomas Henry Huxley
Timothy
Prewitt
RELE
588 Explorers of the Moral Life
David
R. Larson, DMin, PhD
May
19, 14
Introduction
Self
proclaimed “Darwin’s Bulldog” Thomas Huxley is known today for his staunch
support of Charles Darwin’s theory of evolution. He spent much of his life
researching the relationships animals have with each other. His primary study
was on invertebrates and later vertebrates. He worked to classify animals into
groups that were previously not well understood. He also spent much of his time
in the study of human relationships to apes, and is also well know today for
his theory that birds have evolved from small carnivorous dinosaurs. What many
people don’t know about Huxley is that he also added much to the study of
ethics in light of the evolution of man, writing a series of lectures termed,
“Evolution and Ethics”. These lectures were combined in to a single volume of the
same title.
Thomas
Huxley was born in 1825 to a middle class family. Huxley’s father was a
mathematician at the local school, but when Huxley was 10 years old the school
was shut down due to financial trouble and Huxley’s father lost his Job. As a
result, just 2 years after starting school, Thomas was forced to withdraw due
to financial difficulties at home. All of Thomas Huxley’s subsequent education
was self-taught. He taught himself German, and is said to have been the primary
translator for Charles Darwin when he read scientific material in German. He
also taught himself Latin and understood enough Greek to read all of Aristotle
in its original language. His studies in biology were also self-taught and he
became an expert on invertebrates and vertebrates. Huxley studied medicine as
well, tutoring under two of his brother-in-laws, and later studied at the
Charing Cross Hospital. At the age of 20, the Royal Navy accepted him as an
assistant surgeon based on references and experience alone even without his
degree. It was during his time as a surgeon with the navy that Huxley began his
work on invertebrates.
During
his time in the navy Huxley won many prestigious awards for his studies in
biology, and upon resigning from the navy in 1854 he became Professor of
Natural History at the Royal school of Mines. During his life he was also Fullerian Professor at the Royal
Institution, Hunterian Professor at
the Royal
College of Surgeons, President
of the British
Association for the Advancement of Science, President of the Royal Society, Inspector of Fisheries, and President of
the Marine
Biological Association. To
state that Huxley’s resume was impressive would be an understatement.
Huxley
is known as one of histories great debaters. The very first debate he ever took
part in was the debate with Samuel Wilberforce. Wilberforce was the Lord Bishop
of Oxford at the time and had a long history of opposition to the theory of
evolution. Though not much survives about the debate it did however stir the
population and revealed that evolution could not be so easily swept under the
rug as most religious persons formerly thought. It also inadvertently caused
there to be a shift from a literal interpretation of the Bible in England and
possibly begun the long history of creationism verses evolution debates that
have persisted even today. It is interesting to note that Huxley never saw a
contradiction between creationism and evolution, and in fact wrote extensively
on this subject throughout the book Evolution and Ethics.
Not
only was Huxley an expert in the sciences but was also well versed in theology
and religion. For instance, Huxley spent a lot of effort on reforming the
educational system in Britain, and the current curriculum used by schools
across the globe today was widely influenced by him. It might be surprising to
note then, that Huxley supported the reading of the Bible in schools. He
stated, “"I do not advocate burning your ship
to get rid of the cockroaches".[1]
Thomas Huxley believed that the Bible was an important work for the modern
world, both in its use of language and in its excellent moral teachings. He
did, however, propose editing out everything not scientifically accurate
contained in the Bible, which was immediately voted down.
Though a strong supporter of evolution and science, Huxley did
have a belief in God. Huxley coined the term Agnostic, in describing his
beliefs on God. The word agnostic comes from the Greek term Agnost which means
incapable of being known.[2]
Huxley believed that on the subject of God, it was impossible to know whether
or not God existed, since he does not reveal himself and cannot be tested or
explored. It is safe to assume then, that had he won his case to alter the
Bible, not much of the current Bible we know today would have been left for his
school children to read.
Evolutionary Ethics
In 1893 Thomas Huxley wrote a series of lectures entitled, Evolution and Ethics. This book looks at
how ethics might have evolved with the evolution of man. The first part of his
manuscript starts with a description of evolution and it’s processes. Huxley early
on lays down his belief of how God fits in to the evolutionary processes, not
only the processes of our world, but the evolutionary processes of the galaxies
as well. Huxley believed that space, and everything contained in it, follows
its predetermined path of evolution. Huxley states,
“As a natural process, of
the same character as the development of a tree from its seed, or a fowl from
its egg, evolution excludes creation and all other kinds of supernatural
intervention.”
He then goes on to explain that if it turns out that indeed a
supernatural being did create the universe, then everything inside of it,
including its processes, such as evolution, are created by the supernatural
agent and are not interfered upon by the creator because the universe has been
created to operate by these fixed laws. Not that a god could not interfere, but
that he wouldn’t simply because he would not need to. This argument comes from
the idea that God has created the universe to run a certain way, had he desired
it to run differently He would have created it that way in the first place.
Huxley gives a description of a cultivated garden, describing
how its beauty and design can only exist because the human has kept the native
weeds out. The only reason why the garden can still live is because an
intelligent being has worked against the natural progression of nature that
select for that which grows best. This selection does not often select for what
we consider to be the most beautiful combination of things, or the most meaningful
design. Obviously, one cannot make up such an allegory without plainly seeing
its implications for the existence of man. Natural selection and the
progression of evolution does not select for a highly ordered system. Nature is
order because of a constant battle between the disordered selections of
species. Thus the evolution of man, and indeed any complex organism is the
equivalent of Huxley’s exotic garden arising on its own without the need of a cultivator,
in other words, it is impossible. In Huxley’s own thought process the creation
of man is not likely to happen because nature selects for that which works best
in a given environment. A highly ordered, highly complex system that does not
follow the laws of natural selection can only come from something with
autonomy, such as Huxley’s human gardener.
Huxley points out that human society is not a mimic of
evolutionary progression. Inside society the fit can just as easily become
unfit because of the way in which we construct our system. The thief does not
come from the best, or the worst of society. The majority does not rule, but in
fact supplies the ability for a minority to rule. The prowess of a shroud
banker can just as easily land him in debtors prison as it can in riches. The
politician can just as easily find himself at the execution block for his
brilliance instead of in power. This is because our system is like the garden
that is constructed by humanity, and we disobey the rules.
Huxley describes the evolution of human society with the perfect
ruler determining all. In order to have a perfect system this ruler has to
decide who lives and who dies based on their fitness to survive and contribute
to the whole. The perfect society works much like a beehive, the fit survive
and the unfit die and all work together for a perfectly ordered system. Huxley
states though, that controlling society on the grounds of evolutionary progress,
although the most efficient system, is an impossible task, because there never
will exist a mere human who can determine who should survive and who should
die. No man has the mental ability to be that discerning. Not to mention that
at some point or another we would all find ourselves unfit for survival. If any
politician should look far enough back in his history, for instance, he would
find that at a given point in time his ancestors should have met with death
rather than life, such as the possibility that Hitler had Jewish and African
ancestry. Huxley argues for the need of ethics within an understanding of the
evolutionary process. He states that strict observance of the natural laws of
evolution cannot be used in society because it would mean banning everything
that our societies are constructed on, such as the practice of medicine and
healing, since to heal goes against the process of natural selection.
Ethics is a creation of this man made system. It is the product
of society, constructed to order the unordered. The Ethics of society goes as
far as to exterminate those that nature would deem the most fit, and to condemn
those actions that provide for the most success in the animal kingdoms. Those
passions that humanity shares with the tiger or the monkey we staunchly
suppress as immoral or unethical. This position is needed if society is to
successfully create an ordered system in an unordered world. Ethics is
necessary and thus the discussion of ethics often closely follows the
discoveries of science and the progress of culture. According to Huxley,
humanity recognized that in order to live the most fulfilled existence possible
they had to create a system contrary to that of the natural process. Foremost
in this system is the identification and agreement on issues of justice. For
instance, like in a wolf pack, while they pursue their pry there is an unspoken
agreement that they should not attack one another during the hunt, so it is
with us as we pursue our hunt for a fulfilled life, we generally agree not to destroy
each other in the process.
Huxley spends some time discussing the stoics and Buddhists and
comparing and contrasting their beliefs about good and evil. Both appealed to
nature to describe what was good and what was evil. The Buddhists say that
there is no “good” thing; there is just the Brahman, the collective whole. A
devout Buddhist who is intent on enlightenment will forsake certain things in
life such as food or comfort, in hopes of becoming one with the Brahman. A
Stoic believes that the key to enlightenment lies in rejecting all that is evil
and becoming a morally right person, because what is good comes from the
collective whole, and practicing that which is good will bring you in to
harmony with the natural process of reality. Huxley argues that though both systems
approach the issue from different perspectives, they arrive at the same idea. Neither
one is right because both that which is good and that which is evil evolved
alike equally. Because both are a product of evolution, we cannot actually
appeal to evolution to ascertain that which is right or wrong, since the ideas
of right and wrong were created by us to describe two natural processes. If
both evolved equally, evolution cannot help us determine which is most correct,
that is like trying to pick which one of your kids is most related to you.
According to Huxley, man creates Ethics in his natural
development. Ethics is not a product of the natural process of evolution, but
rather a product of our own making. Ethics does not conform to evolution but
rather is mans way of fighting against the natural processes. What is ethical,
then, does not stem from an understanding of what is “good” or “bad” according
to evolution, but rather stems from discerning what the natural course would be
and then to work in the exact opposite direction.
To bring this idea into my own field of dentistry lets make up
an example. Lets say that a man comes in to my office telling me that he has
$10,000 to spend on his mouth and is willing to do whatever I say he needs.
Upon examination, I discover that he only needs a cleaning and one filling
totaling around $300 worth of work. What am I going to do? Do I prescribe extra
work that he does not need simply to benefit myself? Huxley would tell me that
I should find out what the natural response would be. According to evolution I
ought to do that which is going to further me the most and provide for my own
survival, which would mean being deceitful and telling the man he needs more
work than he actually does. Because cheating the man is the “natural” thing to
do, I ought to do the exact opposite, suppress my desire for self assertion and
care more for the person than I do my own survival.
Huxley describes this process in the following quote:
“As I have already urged,
the practice of that which is ethically best—what we call goodness or
virtue—involves a course of conduct which, in all respects, is opposed to that
which leads to success in the cosmic struggle for existence.”
Huxley goes on to explain that evolutionary ethics isn’t
so much worried about the survival of the fittest, but the fitting of as many
as possible to survive. Instead of self-assertion, we should have self-restraint,
and instead of taking advantage of those around us, we should have compassion
for our fellow humans. The primitive man is concerned only with his own well-being
and it is appropriate for him to take what ever appeals to him or to kill
whomever opposes him. The ethical man is quite the opposite; his ideal is to
limit his freedom so that his actions do not interfere with the freedom of
others. This closely aligns with the ten commandments of the Bible. They are
structured to protect the freedom and rights of others. Thou shalt not steal is
a command to protect other peoples rights to own property, thou shalt not kill
respects the freedom of others to live.
Hitler appealed to natural selection as a reason for
exterminating the Jews, Blacks, and many more races of people, but this
argument would never work under Huxley’s interpretation of evolutionary ethics.
Neither would Huxley agree with the Utilitarianism of Peter Singer. Ethics
based on an evolutionary point of view does not lead us to support those most
likely to survive, or most likely to excel in life, but rather seeks for the
betterment of all alike. Evolutionary ethics, such as that proposed by Peter
Singer, is based on a system devoid of developed society. Since we do in fact
live inside a constructed society (our very own large-scale garden) different
rules apply than would apply in the jungles among the wild animals. This
protection of the weak is what separates us from being merely savages. Huxley
states:
“Let us understand, once
for all, that the ethical progress of society depends, not on imitating the
cosmic process, still less in running away from it, but in combating it.”
Huxley did propose population control however. His
population control would not take the course of some who suggest the euthanasia
of the disabled baby or the unwanted. Huxley believed that life should be
protected, no matter how feeble the individual was. It is societies way of keeping
the cosmic struggle at bay. However, unchecked population growth threatens to
reinsert the struggle for existence in to our garden sanctuary that is society.
Uncontrolled population inevitably leads to a shortage somewhere, which leads
to the struggle for those goods. The perfect society to Huxley then, is that
society that can supply to all according to their needs. It does not mean that
all will be equal, but that all will have what is needed for life so that the
struggle for existence never mimics the natural world.
Like all ethical systems, Huxley’s version of evolutionary
ethics has its inherent problems. It may be noted that determining what is and
isn’t the natural response to certain things may often be difficult to discern.
For instance, if I have the choice between saving a child, that has a 20%
chance of survival, from a burning building or saving an adult’s life that has
a 90% chance of survival, which do I choose? My instincts tell me to save the
child. That response is a built in response supposedly put there by evolution
to protect the young. However, my instincts also tell me that the adult is much
more likely to survive and could possible contribute more to society than a
burned child could. If I fully commit to fighting the “cosmic process” I would
be forced to leave both to fend for themselves, since to choose either one
would leave me obeying the laws of nature. Yet even in leaving them to themselves
I would be following a natural response. To choose any of the options would
force me to obey the laws of nature in some aspect. It could be a trivial point
that is grasping at straws, but Huxley never discussed the dilemma of what to
do when faced with two equally valid options.
Reflections On Evolution
Huxley’s
description of evolution is excellent. He describes a world that obeys certain
natural processes. Evolution describes behavioral patterns in man and animal
alike, and has revealed much about the development of species. It seems to me
that Evolution is a great theory. It may not be a complete theory, but the very
fact that man has recognized the natural progression of things in nature is a
leap in scientific understanding. Just as most theories are too narrow to
explain the whole, so is evolution to narrow to explain all there is to know
about our development and purpose in this world. I think that we as Christians
are often too afraid of theories. We do not recognize the importance of questions,
no matter what form they may take. If it challenges our understanding of our
faith it should not be counted a bad thing, but as an opportunity to re-examine
our understanding and realign our beliefs according to new knowledge.
Huxley
himself goes in to great detail in describing how evolution fits in to
understanding our origins in terms of supernatural creation. He never states
the creation story as a fact, which I believe is actually very wise, we do not
actually know the exact method used in bringing life into this universe, but he
goes as far as to say that an original cause is actually needed in the theory
of evolution. Huxley stated that specific creation in terms of supernatural
involvement might play its role in evolution. He even stated a theory that said
that man might have been created separately from the development of other
creatures. I find it rather hard to believe myself that humanity arose from the
slow evolution of a single celled organism over millions and millions of years.
To me it seems highly unlikely; the evidence for it just doesn’t appear to be
there. However, Huxley’s point is not necessarily that we all came from single
celled organisms, though he was not scared of exploring that theory, but rather
that the diversification of the species is a real event that has been observed
and tested.
On
the other hand, the 6-day creation story is a description of the mechanics of
our origins, but it does not actually tell all there is to know about creation.
Evolution is a description of the process of creation as well, but it does not
tell all there is either. Perhaps, as is often true, the truth does not lie
with either separately, but rather both together. Could it be that life was
started by spontaneous generation of a fully functional animal and then over
many years small changes and adaptations have occurred to give us the great
diversity we have today? For the staunch evolutionary atheist I would ask this,
is it any less believable to think that humanity was created functional, in a
spontaneous generation, than to believe that the entire universe came about in
an instant and all of the complexity of the universe expanded and settled in a
single event that we term the Big Bang? Both are ex nihilo (out of nothing) and
both create massive amounts of complexity. It seems to me that in denying this
possibility we may be placing ourselves in a position of trying to fit our
observations in a box that cannot contain them.
For
the Staunch creationist I would ask this, is it possible that perhaps the Bible
story only describes a very simplistic understanding of creation? Is it not
possible that God, in all his wisdom and love of beauty, freedom, and
diversity, would design in to creation the ability to change and adapt? Is it
not also possible that God would use methods of creation already designed in to
the universe? May there be a scientific explanation for the creation we see
around us that we can actually study and question and find? Something tells me
that both sides of this argument would have a hard time denying the possibilities.
I
believe that evolution and the idea of the survival of the fittest has much to
teach us about our own decisions, morality, and ethical ideas. Evolution
reveals many things about what we call sin. The self-assertion, desire for
dominance and selfishness of humanity can be explained in terms of the survival
of the fittest. We believe that God intended humanity to live in a perfect
garden home, that place of sanctuary, in which nature was bent to our will,
everything living in perfect harmony, while the cosmic struggle for life was kept
out. This idea, combined with the understanding of the progression of nature can
lead us to a clearer understanding of our duty to each other, our duty to the
natural world around us, and the development of our own ethical system. The
simple elegance and simplicity of Huxley’s system, though it may be lacking in
areas, may hold keys to helping us discern the validity of other, less obvious
and more abstract ideas of ethical systems.
