Reply to comment

Even if it doesn’t aim to, evolution as Mayr describes it affirms our human perfection. We are the endpoint of what began as prokaryotic bacteria 3,800 million years ago. We have attained the highest level of evolution because none of the factors leading to evolution are available to us. No long-term isolation in which to foster speciation, and no evidently superior genotypes. In the end, it is a rather self-serving theory in which man is the natural star. To return to the “seriously loopy science” we have our summary of observations, and their implications, and in this story I think the crack of subjectivity is huge.

We were speaking about subjectivity in our small group meeting with Dalke and how we couldn’t view evolution from any other perspective really because we were human. I find it interesting that in the end, this theory is a way to describe humans and their superior position on the planet. And it is described as a series of natural and random events. I am amazed. With this view there is no need for a Creator, so I see now why many people are so disturbed. I was also thinking about the imaginative stories behind life on other planets. The aliens that I always knew looked like humans but their brains were even larger and their bodies wasted. I assumed that aliens were like us, though more highly evolved. Is this part of the story that we’ve created about evolution?

Mayr presents us with “a sequence of historical narratives… that may be refuted at any time,” as he shows us the ascent of man. This is not what I thought science was, but I have been instructed that science is not truth, so I follow along. In the end I don’t think that it will hold up in front of the judge; it’s all circumstantial evidence.

My favorite quote: “It would be quite irrational to question this overwhelming evidence.” (p 236)

Danielle Joseph