EssayWriting.org ... Free Database ... Philosophy

Be sure that our writers will gladly develop a paper for you on any topic. Access our essay writing section to get your paper right now! Our professional writing team brings forth ideas, offers better ways of exploring a topic, and provides general study reference.

... Our Free Sample on Philosophy

Topic: The widespread scientific rejection of Natural Selection in the late 19th century shows the powerful influence of religion on biology at that time.

Description Provided by Customer:

Present one good argument for or against the following claim: "The widespread scientific rejection of Natural Selection in the late 19th century shows the powerful influence of religion on biology at that time." Please, use quotation marks when quoting directly from a source. Acknowledge when the source has been closely paraphrased. Acknowledge the source of the ideas you use in your essay, even if you do not quote or paraphrase, unless the information could be considered common knowledge.

Project Developed: 

NATURAL SELECTION AND CHURCH AUTHORITY.

Introduction.

Darwin's theory of natural selection continues to stand out as by far the most prominent development in the scientific and philosophical thought of the 19th century that undermined the foundation of a paradigm that had rested largely unchallenged for some fifteen hundred years at the time. His proposition did encounter enormous inertia which even forced him to postpone on publishing it for another twenty years. One instantaneously begins to incorporate the then-influential status that Church had in either setting or controlling societal values. Yet, could we assert that its authority was the single biggest stumbling block in the way toward a more satisfactory theory? In this analysis, I will dwell on some key historical and institutional context that could prove instrumental in delineating a cut-off mechanism underlying scientific advancement at large, applicable to this particular case study. 

Analysis.

The emergence of an evolutionary theory was, per se, in no manner a major rethinking of the doctrine. After all, the scientific annals of the time point out to a large and mounting body of theoretical work hypothesizing non-steady-state scenarios for the existing variety of biological species. Some of the approaches did suggest that matter (biological included) probably exhibited self-organizing properties, while others denied such possibility on grounds pretty much consistent with the law of energy-mass conservation. Moreover, there had long existed a legacy of parallel if competitive co-existence of alternative schools of though, evolutionists versus creationists. It would therefore be an awkward attempt maintaining any kind of gradual transition from creationist to evolutionist outlook as pre-mediated by the Church. It could, in fact, be more correct to begin a discussion with gaining a clear insight into the ideological stance of the Church per se. For one, obviously it large built on the teaching of the Genesis books of the Old Testament. 

Literally read, this body of postulates would assert that the whole of the Universe and its every level, facet and species was created by God in six distinct or even subsequent stages, and more importantly that the primordial species were, at least in Eden, perfect in their kind. To address some intricacies to this teaching, we have to acknowledge the absolute authority of philosophic essays by Aristotle, Plato, and some other Hellenic thinkers whose impact was just too profound to be supplemented with anything genuinely novel for many centuries to come. In fact, Aristotle who delved into many an area of natural philosophy or metaphysics, was the first keen observer and grand systematizer of biological forms. Now, he did admit some common origins to species, as well as a possibility that they changed, yet as an Hellenic thinker he believed that perfection and harmony are the inherent traits of divinity and for that matter of its every derivative projection. If the world was created, then it must be perfect at least in some sense, and certainly in its every facet. 

One should therefore exercise caution when testing the direct hypothesis of Church's ultimate bargaining or veto power, or for that matter censoring propensity, as the single most significant constraint on evolutionary revision. As any institution, the Church perhaps could hardly have any embedded mechanisms allowing for voluntary reform, as it comes at odds with sustainability. But then it happens that neither does the mainstream scientific method at large, which scrutinizes the ways of testing hypotheses, yet proves totally immune against questioning its very own premises. What we need to see here is that the Church's own power might be of lesser relevance here than the unquestioned authority of Aristotle, his methods and assumptions. 

Darwin's genuine innovation perhaps amounts to the natural-selectionist emphasis he undertook in the large and far from homogeneous body of evolutionary thought. In his Origins of Species, he maintained that individuals competed with individuals within as well as across species, but more importantly it was the optimal traits that determined the group that eventually constituted a dominant species passing these properties on to their next generations. Radical as it was ascribing evolution and mutability to rivalry (rather than to local idiosyncratic exposure), I would hasten to place this rethinking within the more general context of thought in natural and moral philosophy alike, the former likely to have facilitated the development, and the latter yet to emerge at the time. What I am talking about might on the surface have little to do with biological studies, yet prove to be the milieu within which the Darwinism could best be viewed. In particular, I believe his insight was largely shaped by the 'invisible hand' principle credited to Adam Smith, and should in addition be qualified by the Big Bang theory yet to evolve in the 20th century. Smith surmised that the purely selfish behavior of individuals could nonetheless secure an efficient social and economic equilibrium. 

The Big Bang theory could somewhat loosely be viewed as looking into the origin and evolution of the non-biological universe, and for that matter of any macro-level natural systems. In essence, both could be consistent with the teaching of Genesis, when it comes to either tracing the origin (which Darwin did not exactly dwell much upon) or agreeing that the originally-perfect place at one point became a distorted environment, with scarce resources and wants, species competing and consuming improper foods, and one which underwent a different development trajectory subject to distorted laws and properties. Eternal wants beget the potential for convergence, instead of the harmonious steady state. Moreover, Genesis does not directly maintain that The Creator introduced forms and species devoid of potential for further evolution. 

...

---------

We kindly thank you for using our database. We hope that all papers posted online will help you successfully develop highest quality projects!

Copyright 1998 - 2005, All Rights Reserved
EssayWriting.org: Expert Essay Writing Service