Skip to Main Content (access key 1)
Skip to Search (access key 2)
Skip to Search GO (access key 3)
Skip to comments (access key 4)
Skip to navigation (access key 5)
Skip to top of page (access key 6)
Sunday, April 15, 2007 | Reason : Commentary | print version Print | Comments

Document The Age of Darwin

by David Brooks

Reposted from the NYTimes.


Jerusalem

Standing on a hill in East Jerusalem, amid the clash of religious and political orthodoxies, stands a musty old museum devoted to human progress. When you walk into the Rockefeller Museum with its old-fashioned display cases crowded with ancient pottery shards and oil lamps, you can begin by looking at the stone tools of early man. Then you proceed room by room through the invention of agriculture and cities, winding up finally with the statues and reliquaries of the medieval era.

What you're really looking at is a philosophy of history. The museum was set up in 1938, when scholars still spoke confidently of mankind's upward march from primitive culture to higher civilization. History is portrayed here as a great, unified story, with crucial pivot moments when humanity leapt forward — when people first buried their dead, when they moved from animistic faiths to polytheism, when they learned to cultivate reason and philosophy.

These days, historians hate those kinds of unifying grand narratives, and the idea that history is a march of progress upward to the present. Yet I have to confess, I loved the Rockefeller Museum. Though it's dense and dry, it rekindled the University of Chicago flame that lingers in every graduate's soul and got me thinking all sorts of Big Thoughts. I also had the sensation — which I used to get during those sweeping old Western Civ courses — of seeing my own time from the outside, from the vantage point of some ancient spot.

And it occurred to me that while we postmoderns say we detest all-explaining narratives, in fact a newish grand narrative has crept upon us willy-nilly and is now all around. Once the Bible shaped all conversation, then Marx, then Freud, but today Darwin is everywhere.

Scarcely a month goes by when Time or Newsweek doesn't have a cover article on how our genes shape everything from our exercise habits to our moods. Science sections are filled with articles on how brain structure influences things like lust and learning. Neuroscientists debate the existence of God on the best-seller lists, while evolutionary theory reshapes psychology, dieting and literary criticism. Confident and exhilarated, evolutionary theorists believe they have a universal framework to explain human behavior.

Creationists reject the whole business, but they're like the Greeks who still worshiped Athena while Plato and Aristotle practiced philosophy. The people who set the cultural tone today have coalesced around a shared understanding of humanity and its history that would have astonished people in earlier epochs.

According to this view, human beings, like all other creatures, are machines for passing along genetic code. We are driven primarily by a desire to perpetuate ourselves and our species.

The logic of evolution explains why people vie for status, form groups, fall in love and cherish their young. It holds that most everything that exists does so for a purpose. If some trait, like emotion, can cause big problems, then it must also provide bigger benefits, because nature will not expend energy on things that don't enhance the chance of survival.

Human beings, in our current understanding, are jerry-built creatures, in which new, sophisticated faculties are piled on top of primitive earlier ones. Our genes were formed during the vast stretches when people were hunters and gatherers, and we are now only semi-adapted to the age of nuclear weapons and fast food. Furthermore, reason is not separate from emotion and the soul cannot be detached from the electrical and chemical pulses of the body. There isn't even a single seat of authority in the brain. The mind emerges (somehow) from a complex light show of neural firings without a center or executive. We are tools of mental processes we are not even aware of.

The cosmologies of the societies represented in the Rockefeller Museum looked up toward the transcendent. Their descendants still fight over sacred spots like the Holy of Holies a short walk away. But the evolutionary society is built low to the ground. God may exist and may have set the process in motion, but he's not active. Evolution doesn't really lead to anything outside itself. Individuals are predisposed not by innate sinfulness or virtue, but by the epigenetic rules encoded in their cells.

Looking at contemporary America from here in Jerusalem and from the ancient past, it's clear we're not a postmodern society anymore. We have a grand narrative that explains behavior and gives shape to history. We have a central cosmology to embrace, argue with or unconsciously submit to.


Comments 1 - 32 of 32 |

Reload Comments | Back to Top | Page Numbers

1. Comment #32110 by Patrick McArdle on April 15, 2007 at 7:38 pm

Here's a copy of my letter to The New York Times:

Thank you for printing David Brooks' essay, "The Age of Darwin". He makes a good point, that evolution has become the paradigm for modern thought, but he does not go far enough. All of modern biology works only within the frame that Mr. Charles Darwin discovered, and now all of science has adopted evolution as the basic model.
Astronomers think in terms of "stellar evolution", while cosmologists talk about the evolution of the universe itself.

Interestingly, Mr. Brooks believes that the Rockefeller Museum does not show such thinking, but his description of it sounds very modern indeed: "History is portrayed here as a great, unified story, with crucial pivot moments when humanity leapt forward ..." If we substitute 'species evolved' for 'humanity leapt forward', we have an excellent description of the 'punctuated equilibrium' concept, which Steven Jay Gould applied to Darwin's theory of evolution.

As Mr. Brooks admits, the old worldview causes pointless suffering, while modern thinking explains our world remarkably well. Believers in revealed truth "still fight over sacred spots like the Holy of Holies a short walk away," while "[t]he logic of evolution [...] holds that most everything that exists does so for a purpose."

I don't know if Mr. Brooks intended to write such a paean to the beauty of modern thought, or such a scathing indictment of religiously-based thinking, but I thank him for so doing, and you for publishing it.

Other Comments by Patrick McArdle

2. Comment #32121 by Fishpeddler on April 15, 2007 at 8:35 pm

 avatar"I don't know if Mr. Brooks intended to write such a paean to the beauty of modern thought, or such a scathing indictment of religiously-based thinking..."

I can't help be suspicious of another possibility: that this is less about evolution science and more about rebuilding the heretofore devastated credibility of grand narratives. Patrick McArdle is right, though, that whatever precisely was the author's intent, the result was a very favorable portrayal of Darwinism, and I am glad for it. And this is a wonderful example of 'framing' for people put off by science's (seeming) inability to provide a clear, uncomplicated framework for an understanding of the world.

Other Comments by Fishpeddler

3. Comment #32123 by Steve19 on April 15, 2007 at 8:55 pm

 avatarWell I enjoyed and largely agreed with that article (a pleasant change), but there was one statement that seemed a little suspect:
According to this view, human beings, like all other creatures, are machines for passing along genetic code. We are driven primarily by a desire to perpetuate ourselves and our species.

I have no problem with the first sentence, but I disagree with the second. As RD outlines in the Selfish Gene, the driving force of evolution is not centered on the species or even the individual, but on the replication of genes. Not many people I know are really driven to perpetuate themselves by having heaps of children. We have desires to do things that may result in producing many offspring and perpetuating the species, but these developed as a means to perpetuate our genes. And I think caring about the fate of the species is simply a human cultural trait, which I guess you could argue is still a result of Darwinian evolution. I think, depending on the person, we are driven more by a lust for things like pleasure, knowledge and power, rather than propagation.

Other Comments by Steve19

4. Comment #32125 by Sittingduck on April 15, 2007 at 9:07 pm

 avatarI think this is a pretty amazing piece from David Brooks. He often pleads the position of a moderate conservative but actually follows pretty far right convention - at least when employed as a pundit on the many talk shows on which he appears.

There may be a glimmer of hope for the US if someone who leans pretty far to the right can accept such an evolutionary worldview.

I wonder what the reaction will be to Mr. Brooks article.

Other Comments by Sittingduck

5. Comment #32147 by bitbutter on April 16, 2007 at 1:54 am

 avatar
If some trait, like emotion, can cause big problems, then it must also provide bigger benefits, because nature will not expend energy on things that don't enhance the chance of survival.
Or of course the trait itself might not bestow any survival advantage, but be the accidental byproduct of something else that does.

Other Comments by bitbutter

6. Comment #32169 by Newton30 on April 16, 2007 at 4:06 am

 avatarI'm a little suspicious about this article. To me, it's not such a scathing indictment of religiously based thinking. Ever so subtle, ever so slight, it seems tinted with religious extremism of a particular kind.

The mere title of the article "The Age of Darwin" is suspect. To him, it seems as if 'belief' in science is a reasoned, but fashionable and ultimately limited 'age' that will eventually come to an end, presumably to be replaced by something more grand, more enlightened.

Notice also how he equates Darwin to a bunch of pagan religions as well as the bible itself, Karl Marx, Freud, etc. The tone of the article (and the fact he's a right-wing extremist, as Sittingduck points out) makes it seem clear to me that he has contempt for all those people, as if they were individual false prophets.

The final paragraph, about a grand narrative and a central cosmology seems a dead giveaway to me. Some postmodernism may be full of quackery, but in no way is our history (nor our future) part of some grand narrative, or someone's 'Plan'.

Other Comments by Newton30

7. Comment #32172 by Logicel on April 16, 2007 at 4:21 am

 avatarExcellent article. Particularly appreciated the following quote:

Human beings, in our current understanding, are jerry-built creatures, in which new, sophisticated faculties are piled on top of primitive earlier ones. Our genes were formed during the vast stretches when people were hunters and gatherers, and we are now only semi-adapted to the age of nuclear weapons and fast food. Furthermore, reason is not separate from emotion and the soul cannot be detached from the electrical and chemical pulses of the body. There isn't even a single seat of authority in the brain. The mind emerges (somehow) from a complex light show of neural firings without a center or executive. We are tools of mental processes we are not even aware of.

Brother, that's righteous.

Other Comments by Logicel

8. Comment #32183 by Logicel on April 16, 2007 at 5:33 am

 avatarI just read Brooks Wikipedia's entry, sounds like an interesting bloke. Excerpt from the article:

"Brooks also broke with many in the conservative movement when, in late 2003, he came out in favor of same-sex marriage in his New York Times column. He equated the idea with traditional conservative values: "We should insist on gay marriage. We should regard it as scandalous that two people could claim to love each other and not want to sanctify their love with marriage and fidelity.... It's going to be up to conservatives to make the important, moral case for marriage, including gay marriage." (New York Times, November 22, 2003, A-15.)"

Other Comments by Logicel

9. Comment #32192 by savroD on April 16, 2007 at 6:15 am

 avatarPretty good Mr. Brooks. I suspect however that this was written as a moderate. This thing would have been attacked for sure if Brooks acknowledged any kind of meaningful Atheism or anti-theism. I would like to this opportunity thank Darwin and all the scientists and teachers who work every day to show their fellow man the best explanation so far of from whence we came!

Other Comments by savroD

10. Comment #32195 by savroD on April 16, 2007 at 6:20 am

 avatarLogicel #37172

This mixing of the language of "souls" with science either speaks to his limited scientific understanding or he's a moderate/agnostic. In either case, the way the word "soul" was employed seems worthless, and not worthy of the thrust of the article.

Other Comments by savroD

11. Comment #32203 by padster1976 on April 16, 2007 at 7:07 am

 avatarHe still used the 'g' word.

He seems to take advantage of an ambiguous definition of god. He 'may' have existed and he 'may' have started it. Brooks would've look a complete twat if he then said anything else other than 'he's not active' because it would clearly have contradicted the general jist of the piece. That the way the world works, a 'supreme being' isn't necessary.

Or maybe he's genuine and thinks there is a weakness in the Theocratic rule of the Bush Taliban.

Other Comments by padster1976

12. Comment #32204 by willerror on April 16, 2007 at 7:15 am

I was frightened when I saw that well-known rightist Brooks was taking on Darwin, expecting another "Darwin doesn't know everything!" kind of conservative blather, but was pleasantly surprised by this article. Well done. I like how he dismisses creationists as "like the Greeks who still worshiped Athena while Plato and Aristotle practiced philosophy." Nice.

Other Comments by willerror

13. Comment #32211 by Logicel on April 16, 2007 at 7:44 am

 avatar"...the soul cannot be detached from the electrical and chemical pulses of the body."
________

savroD, I find the above quote to be a heavy weight despite the word 'soul.' So many religious believers say that they know God has touched their supernatural souls because of the way they 'feel.' This moderate author is opening the door to reason by connecting the two, and by this connecting, not necessarily giving validity to the 'soul', but giving validity to the sensation of one.

I am one of those 'spiritual' atheists that encourage us to reclaim that word, which does not always or have to mean beyond the natural. My own definition of my soul is the union of body with my mind. I have been chastised in regarding myself in this way, because the soul apparently must be defined only in supernatural terms. Bollocks.

Other Comments by Logicel

14. Comment #32221 by poppythinks on April 16, 2007 at 8:27 am

 avatarbit sceptical about this piece like newton30...
starting off in jerusalem and going on about a 'grand narrative' smells a little 'biblical' to me...
and when it got to the 'soul' being undetachable from electrical and chemical impulses.... he lost me. sounds like the guy wants a 'substitute' for
'religion' so he decided to 'worship' darwin.
and logicel - you say your 'soul' is a union of
your 'mind and body'. can you explain what this feels like exactly or how it manifests? and how come you have a 'soul' but i am without??

Other Comments by poppythinks

15. Comment #32224 by cassdenata on April 16, 2007 at 8:32 am

This is actually a great article, though I am no fan of Brooks. I interpret it as a pretty concise, devastating blow to the traditional homo sapien narrative of the independent "ghost in the machine". We are what we are precisely as a result of evolution. But the flexibility and complexity of our nervous system does a very good job of mimicking complete freedom because it is evolutionary advantageous. At the end of the day, it is a fine line between complete freedom with a rational actor and an extremely complex system of numerous but finite neural networks designed to maintain a flexible strategy. If we designed a robot that we could make to feel pain, happiness, intellectual stimulation and love, would that not be the exact same thing. The only thing that is missing from this article is concrete examples, that help elucidate the abstractions to the general public. Maybe a good example of brain-damaged patients losing some function that is directly traceable to portions of their brain.

Other Comments by cassdenata

16. Comment #32242 by jshuey on April 16, 2007 at 10:51 am

 avatarMr. Brooks has always been a thoughtful conservative, well within the American mainstream.

In order to consider him "pretty far right", one would have to be looking from "pretty far left".

Other Comments by jshuey

17. Comment #32244 by savroD on April 16, 2007 at 11:16 am

 avatarLogicel
I understand your point; however, there can be no soul without either you having the kind of faith described in TGD, or some actual evidence. You choose what line you prefer. Let me remind you of one thing. No matter how you want to add up the mix, spirits and souls could almost never be exclusively human. Where does one then draw the line. Would you cut off the fly but believe the dog has spirit? It seems to me you are grasping at straws and looking for some greater meaning for life by attaching an arbitrary meme.

Other Comments by savroD

18. Comment #32245 by Logicel on April 16, 2007 at 11:34 am

 avatarpoppythinks, it is just the way I look at the union between my body and my mind. Nothing special, really on one level, but then again, it is very nice to be grounded in the recognition of your body and mind as working together in unison. I have been mediating for decades--just plain, simple yoga postures which I regard as deep muscle massage and breathing which slows down the rate of thinking and is very calming to the mind. Biofeedback, and certainly the recent forms available, can accomplish similar results.

Some eastern practices are absurdly punishing to the body in order to control the mind. And in the west, the body again is regarded as a detriment to having control over your mind, as being just some wild, often 'disgusting' aspect to hide, suppress, and whip into shape to the best of our abilities.

I often think of the African American use of the word 'soulful' which does not necessarily denote the supernatural. Soulful in that context signifies both the mental/emotional/physical appreciation of one's senses as in soul food and soul music. Soul is sensual, comforting and grounding, but in my sense it is not eternal, it does not exist after my life is done. The effects of my 'soul' however could perhaps, in the sense, that memories of a grounded person can positively influence posterity in often unexpected ways.

Other Comments by Logicel

19. Comment #32246 by Logicel on April 16, 2007 at 11:39 am

 avatarsavroD, non-hominids are intriquing because us humans have limited knowledge of their mind/body experience. I regard my cats as being soulful.

It is very difficult to talk about spirituality with atheists because they are so skeptical about spirituality as being equivalent with the supernatural. But as Anne Druyan, has mentioned, us atheists need to recapture the word spiritual from the believers in the supernatural. Spirituality can be natural.

Other Comments by Logicel

20. Comment #32249 by Fishpeddler on April 16, 2007 at 12:21 pm

 avatar"It is very difficult to talk about spirituality with atheists because they are so skeptical about spirituality as being equivalent with the supernatural."

I'll go on record as one of those atheists who dislike the use of the word 'spiritual' to describe non-supernatural experiences. While I consider it a technically correct to use 'spiritual' in a strictly naturalistic sense, I feel this creates too much confusion and misunderstanding. I know no religious people who use or interpret the word without a supernatural component. When they hear me use the word, they invariably mistake my meaning. Rather than try to convince the entire English speaking world to ignore the supernatural connotations, I think we should just find a more precise word. I'm open to suggestions.

While we're at it, can we please come up with different words to describe romantic love, familial love, platonic love, etc. Since love is the primary obsession of our lives, you'd think we could be a bit more exact than to describe this emotion, in all its various forms, as simply 'love' every time.

Oh, and we need to invent two separate words for authentic Mexican food and crappy chain-restaurant Mexican food.

Maybe 'Mexithentic' and 'Mexicrappy' would work. Hmmmm. I'd better work on it some more.

Other Comments by Fishpeddler

21. Comment #32251 by Logicel on April 16, 2007 at 12:28 pm

 avatarFishpeddler, am I being telepathic here or do you really adore food?

Using spirituality to describe a positive state of being which is subjective though can be shared in part and perhaps can be confirmed by some evidence--brain scans can reveal which parts of the brain are being active when we are in various states of awareness, is problematic as this long sentence is, but it is late where I am and I am beat.

Have a nice dinner, Fishpeddler.

Other Comments by Logicel

22. Comment #32254 by Fishpeddler on April 16, 2007 at 12:43 pm

 avatar"Fishpeddler, am I being telepathic here or do you really adore food?"

I try to live by a general principle: When you have no idea how to make your point, make a food analogy. If nothing else, people will be distracted from arguing and go looking for something good in the refrigerator.

Other Comments by Fishpeddler

23. Comment #32269 by Fedler on April 16, 2007 at 2:48 pm

 avatar
Oh, and we need to invent two separate words for authentic Mexican food and crappy chain-restaurant Mexican food.

Maybe 'Mexithentic' and 'Mexicrappy' would work. Hmmmm. I'd better work on it some more.

Fishpeddler, you really have too much time on your hands in the Twin Cities, don't you? But, your comments are always enjoyable.

I shouldn't say too much, though. I'm in Iowa.

Other Comments by Fedler

24. Comment #32270 by Patrick McArdle on April 16, 2007 at 2:53 pm

'There are some cosmologists (or is it just one cosmologist?) that have talked about universes "evolving" in something a little bit like a Darwinian sense; it had something to do with black holes, but this theory is not at all widely accepted, or even popular.

'Stellar evolution has nothing to do with evolution in biology. Astronomers and biologist just use the same word for two completely different process.'

Thank you for providing that clarification, but I must stick with my original point, that the concept of evolution, wherein successive generations (of species, stars, universes) rely upon information generated in previous editions. This opposes the Biblical worldview, of an essentially static universe, created in toto by a god. I'm amazed at how backwards Brooks gets it; a grand universal narrative is not part of the Judaeo-Christian Bible; that document tells the story of a 'perfect' creation, polluted by disobedient humanity, doomed to destruction by an (incompetent?) god who repeatedly loses control of his creation. The 'rise of humanity' narrative Brooks cites comes from the Enlightenment, not Christianity.

Other Comments by Patrick McArdle

25. Comment #32279 by Shuggy on April 16, 2007 at 4:24 pm

 avatar"The logic of evolution ... holds that most everything that exists does so for a purpose."

WHOA! Whenever anyone says "purpose" and "evolution" in the same sentence, they're spreading confusion. Evolutionarily, structures and behaviours have functions. Only intelligence gives purpose.

As for "most everything that exists", no way! Just as overwhelmingly most of the universe is implacably hostile to life (I speak figuratively), so the great majority of what exists has nothing to do with life, of which only a tiny fraction has intelligence, of which only a small proportion involves purpose.

Other Comments by Shuggy

26. Comment #32290 by Frankus1122 on April 16, 2007 at 5:33 pm

 avatar
If some trait, like emotion, can cause big problems, then it must also provide bigger benefits, because nature will not expend energy on things that don't enhance the chance of survival.

A while back I thought of Antnio Damsio in relation to another article.
From Wikipedia:
"He argues that first, rationality stems from our emotions, and second, that our emotions stem from our bodily senses. The state of the mind, or feeling, is merely a reflection of the state of the body, and feeling is an indispensable ingredient of rational thought."
He seems to say (and have sound scientific evidence for saying) that the emotional centres of our brains are inextricably linked to our rationality. We cannot make rational, logical decisions if the parts of our brains that control emotions are not functioning properly.
I am not quite sure where I am going with this but there seems to be a breakdown in the logic of people who hold religious beliefs. Are they emotionally disturbed? Is there an evolutionary benefit to letting emotion hold sway over pure intellect? If you are religious do you get more action? Are we all a bunch of big brained wankers?

Other Comments by Frankus1122

27. Comment #32301 by Yorker on April 16, 2007 at 7:18 pm

 avatar23. Comment #32262 by Retha Pretorius

'Stellar evolution has nothing to do with evolution in biology. Astronomers and biologist just use the same word for two completely different process.'

Yes, I agree. However, if you want to attach a biological "feel" to stellar evolution, it would be the ongoing rebirth of one creature; the phoenix.

Other Comments by Yorker

28. Comment #32303 by Yorker on April 16, 2007 at 7:34 pm

 avatar20. Comment #32249 by Fishpeddler

"Maybe 'Mexithentic' and 'Mexicrappy' would work."

I'd go for 'Mexicrappy' but with reference to Mexico; I've had better so-called Mexican food in the USA than I ever had in Mexico. It's like Indian food here in the UK, it's very popular and much better than the Indian food in India! And it's not just a question of being accustomed to our Western version, the general quality here is far superior.

Other Comments by Yorker

29. Comment #32310 by Patrick McArdle on April 16, 2007 at 8:50 pm

'It is true that a star like the sun contains
heavy elements that were produced by an earlier "generation" of stars, but it
is not correct to think here of heredity, self replication, etc.'

Your points are all correct: stars are not alive, they don't replicate, in the biological senses. I wasn't trying for an overall take on the philosophy of science; my comments are directed at this one essay. Mr. Brooks examines how ideas have altered our way of thinking, in a very large and vague way, and I respond in that vein.

The concept of evolution generates very different results from the concept that a god created an essentially static universe. The concept of evolution permeates modern science, to the point where even non-biologists use it. The term has different precise meanings in different sciences, but the broad concept informs the sciences.

And, if the solar system 'inherited' heavy elements which the sun alone could not make, does that not constitute an evolution of sorts?

Other Comments by Patrick McArdle

30. Comment #32605 by the great teapot on April 17, 2007 at 2:57 pm

I've just remembered why I don't read broadsheets.
90 % of them are journalists producing pulp like this. Read me, how clever am I?,is the only thing this journo is trying to say. Nothing but hot air.
Ripe for radio 4s sunday supplement.( a comedy program that mocks the pretentions of the sunday papers in the UK)
As I am standing on the river tiber, history echoes between it's banks... yawn ,yawn.

Other Comments by the great teapot

31. Comment #32651 by Patrick McArdle on April 17, 2007 at 10:49 pm

"This is what I meant when I said that you don't need the same caliber of explanation for a star as for a dog."

As you noted, evolution has a much different meaning in those two sciences. Still, one needs some explanation for how a star like the sun could possibly have 'native' (not gravitationally captured) planets with uranium in their crusts. Mere fusion inside the sun cannot produce that result (or so we think!).

I apologize for any confusion caused by my vague use of scientific terms. Had I done so by commenting upon an article in a scientific journal, instead of in a general-interest newspaper, I might well have had my head handed to me, and rightly so.

One of the benefits of knowing some universal concepts is getting to apply them universally, and obtaining some interesting results. Mr. Brooks' attempt was one of the better ones I've lately read, although I think he got some of his results backwards, and others sideways. At least he tried, and wrote something complimentary about evolution -- even if he didn't intend to!

Other Comments by Patrick McArdle

32. Comment #33078 by Philip1978 on April 19, 2007 at 5:20 am

 avatarWikipedia is celebrating Darwin today! Woo Hoo!

Other Comments by Philip1978
Reload Comments | Back to Top

Comment Entry: Please Login

Register a new account

Username:

Password:

Send a letter to the editor of the original media outlet.
letters@nytimes.com