Social effects of evolutionary theory
The social effect of evolutionary thought has been considerable. As the scientific explanation of life's diversity has developed, it has often displaced alternative, sometimes very widely held, explanations. Because the theory of evolution includes an explanation of humanity's origins, it has had a profound impact on human societies. Some have vigorously opposed acceptance of the scientific explanation due to its perceived religious implications (e.g. its implied rejection of the special creation of humans described in the Bible). This has led to a vigorous conflict between creation and evolution in public education.
Evolution and ethics
The theory of evolution by natural selection has also been adopted as a foundation for various ethical and social systems, such as social Darwinism, an idea popular in the 19th century which holds that "the survival of the fittest" explains and justifies differences in wealth and success among societies and people. A similar interpretation was one created by Darwin's cousin, Francis Galton, known as eugenics, which claimed that human civilization was subverting natural selection by allowing the "less fit" to survive and "out-breed" the "more fit." Later advocates of this theory would suggest radical and often coercive social measures to attempt to "correct" this imbalance. Stephen Jay Gould and others have argued that social Darwinism is based on misconceptions of evolutionary theory, and many ethicists regard it as a case of the is-ought problem. After the atrocities of the Holocaust became linked with eugenics, it greatly fell out of favor with public and scientific opinion (though it was never universally accepted by either).
The notion that humans share ancestors with other animals has also affected how some people view the relationship between humans and other species. Many proponents of animal rights hold that if animals and humans are of the same nature, then rights cannot be distinct to humans.
The theory has also been incorporated into other fields of knowledge, creating hybrids such as evolutionary psychology and sociobiology.
Evolution and religion
Before Darwin's argument and presentation of the evidence for evolution, Western religions almost unanimously discounted or condemned any claims that life is the result of an evolutionary process, as did nearly all scientists. Literal or authoritative interpretation of Scripture holds that a supreme being directly created humans and other animals as separate species. This view is commonly referred to as creationism, and continues to be defended by some religious groups, particularly among American Protestants.
In response to the wide scientific acceptance of the theory of evolution, many religions have formally or informally synthesized the scientific and religious viewpoints. Several important 20th century scientists (Fisher, Dobzhansky) whose work confirmed Darwin's theory, were also Christians who saw no incompatibility between their experimental and theoretical confirmations of evolution and their faith. Some religions have adopted a theistic evolution viewpoint, where the God provides a divine spark that ignited the process of evolution and (or), where the God has guided evolution in one way or another.
In countries or regions where the majority of people hold strong religious beliefs, creationism has a much broader appeal than in countries where the majority of people hold secular beliefs. In the west, the United States of America is the only country where creationist ideas are given serious consideration. From the 1920s to the present in the US, there has been a strong religious backlash to the teaching evolution theory, particularly by evangelicals. They have expressed concerns about the effects of the teaching of evolution on society and on the Christian faith.
For additional reading, see the creation-evolution controversy.
Evolution and the Roman Catholic Church
- Main article: Evolution and the Roman Catholic Church
The Roman Catholic Church, beginning in 1950 with Pope Pius XII's encyclical Humani Generis, took up a neutral position with regard to evolution. "The Church does not forbid that...research and discussions, on the part of men experienced in both fields, take place with regard to the doctrine of evolution, in as far as it inquires into the origin of the human body as coming from pre-existent and living matter." [1].
In an October 22, 1996, address to the Pontifical Academy of Science, Pope John Paul II updated the Church's position, recognizing that Evolution is "more than a hypothesis" - "In his encyclical Humani Generis, my predecessor Pius XII has already affirmed that there is no conflict between evolution and the doctrine of the faith regarding man and his vocation... Today, more than a half-century after the appearance of that encyclical, some new findings lead us toward the recognition of evolution as more than an hypothesis. In fact it is remarkable that this theory has had progressively greater influence on the spirit of researchers, following a series of discoveries in different scholarly disciplines." [2]
Evolutionary theory and the political left
Main article: Evolutionary theory and the political left
Some on political left, especially Marxists and communists have been criticial of aspects of the theory evolution by natural selection (Darwinism). Some of this opposition appears for ideological reasons; the concepts of "survival of the fittest", and "nature red in tooth and claw" appear not to fit with economic or social ideals. Conversely, the advancement inherent in Lamarckism did. This most notably manifested itself in Lysenkoism in the USSR, which caused economic and agricultural problems.
The majority of those on the left do not oppose Darwinism, but some have criticised interpretations of evolutionary theory that, in their view, overemphasize the role of competition and ignore elements of co-operation in nature such as symbiosis. For example, some the left such as Peter Singer in A Darwinian Left have embraced Darwinism but reach different political and economic lessons than more conservative observers.