










The Age of Darwin2. Comment #32121 by Fishpeddler on April 15, 2007 at 8:35 pm
3. Comment #32123 by Steve19 on April 15, 2007 at 8:55 pm
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.
4. Comment #32125 by Sittingduck on April 15, 2007 at 9:07 pm
5. Comment #32147 by bitbutter on April 16, 2007 at 1:54 am
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.
6. Comment #32169 by Newton30 on April 16, 2007 at 4:06 am
7. Comment #32172 by Logicel on April 16, 2007 at 4:21 am
8. Comment #32183 by Logicel on April 16, 2007 at 5:33 am
9. Comment #32192 by savroD on April 16, 2007 at 6:15 am
10. Comment #32195 by savroD on April 16, 2007 at 6:20 am
11. Comment #32203 by padster1976 on April 16, 2007 at 7:07 am
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.13. Comment #32211 by Logicel on April 16, 2007 at 7:44 am
14. Comment #32221 by poppythinks on April 16, 2007 at 8:27 am
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.16. Comment #32242 by jshuey on April 16, 2007 at 10:51 am
17. Comment #32244 by savroD on April 16, 2007 at 11:16 am
18. Comment #32245 by Logicel on April 16, 2007 at 11:34 am
19. Comment #32246 by Logicel on April 16, 2007 at 11:39 am
20. Comment #32249 by Fishpeddler on April 16, 2007 at 12:21 pm
21. Comment #32251 by Logicel on April 16, 2007 at 12:28 pm
22. Comment #32254 by Fishpeddler on April 16, 2007 at 12:43 pm
23. Comment #32269 by Fedler on April 16, 2007 at 2:48 pm
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.
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.25. Comment #32279 by Shuggy on April 16, 2007 at 4:24 pm
26. Comment #32290 by Frankus1122 on April 16, 2007 at 5:33 pm
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.
27. Comment #32301 by Yorker on April 16, 2007 at 7:18 pm
28. Comment #32303 by Yorker on April 16, 2007 at 7:34 pm
29. Comment #32310 by Patrick McArdle on April 16, 2007 at 8:50 pm
'It is true that a star like the sun contains30. Comment #32605 by the great teapot on April 17, 2007 at 2:57 pm
I've just remembered why I don't read broadsheets.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."32. Comment #33078 by Philip1978 on April 19, 2007 at 5:20 am
Send a letter to the editor of the original media outlet.
letters@nytimes.com
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