Stephen Jay Gould Nonmoral Nature

Depending on your school of thought, the phrase “Creation Myths” may be threatening or provocative. Using it was a powerful mechanism for bringing in and holding any reader’s attention. Creationists and Evolutionists (along with everyone in the middle) are likely to be entertained by the essay, but they won’t realize it until they have absorbed multiple points in support of evolution. The mention of hoaxes opened the essay up to a variety of readers: those who are interested in baseball, scientists and nonscientists alike, those who love a good exposé, and even those who despise sports all together. The essay candidly tells the tale of George Hull’s gawky and outlandish creation as a preface to a much larger hoax. Gould is unabashedly critical of the hoax and those who perpetrated it, but his harsh tone slightly subsides when addressing the human “psychic need for an indigenous creation myth” (263 Gould).

In Science and Religion: Are They Compatible?, Alvin Plantinga argues that proponents of naturalism, like Richard Dawkins and Daniel Dennett, tell us that, according to the theory of evolution, neither God nor any other agent has designed or created the living world, and that evolution, therefore, clearly contradicts the central tenant of theistic religion (which Dennett labels “entirely gratuitous fantasy” ). If what these experts say is true and we must understand evolution only in the context of naturalistic, unguided evolution, “then evolutionary theory is deeply incompatible with theistic religion, whether Christian…or Jewish.” However, Plantinga stresses that evolution does not need to be interpreted in this way, and that, because of this, religion does not have to be held in such opposition to science at all. Christian and Jewish doctrines require only that “God intended to create creatures of a certain kind…planned that there be creatures of that kind…and acted in such a way as to accomplish this intention,” and such a claim is clearly consistent with evolutionary theory in that naturalism is not a necessary requirement of the theory itself. In this paper I will explore the positions of the Jewish faith with respect to the question of evolutionary theory, and, more explicitly, will draw comparisons between Judaism and Christianity to investigate whether popular religion is as staunchly opposed to evolutionary theory as Dawkins and Dennett propose. If the work of

Throughout “Nonmoral Nature”, Gould explains that we need to look at nature without personifying it or putting human values on it. He believes that those who approach a scientific situation with a pre-established view in mind are preventing the kind of objectivity and fairness that scientific examination is supposed to produce. Gould explains that the existence of what seems to be evil in nature creates an argument between scientists and creationists. Many phenomena that occur in nature seem to be wrong or disturbing, and go against the idea that God creates everything and that everything is benevolent. One such creature is the ichneumon wasp. The ichneumon wasp is the stuff of nightmares; the larva are planted inside of a caterpillar or other

Robinson, in her essay, claims that while Creationism is owned by “Religious Right”, Darwinism is owned by “Irreligious Right”2. She writes that the differences between the two are meaningless and that the people who defend religion make religion seem foolish while the defenders of science attributed to objectivity. Many people believe that Creationism and Darwinism do not belong together and are about as similar as cats and dogs. Just as there are cat people and dog people, there are people who stick to one belief or the other in the creation versus evolution debate. Robinson disagrees, however, and says that Creationism is probably the best thing that has happened to Darwinism. Darwinism, she writes, is “the caricature of religion that has seemed to justify Darwinist contempt for the whole of religion”3.

In L. Russ Bush’s Christian apologetic work, The Advancement: Keeping the Faith in an Evolutionary Age, he details the development and apparent fallacy associated with the modern naturalist worldview. Bush, a professor at Southeast Baptist Theological Seminary, focuses on the idea of inevitable progression within the modern worldview and provides an overview of this view’s promulgation within epistemology. Bush asserts

Hook. Both John Stuart Mill and Peter Singer approach moral philosophy from a utilitarian perspective. In this paper, I will argue that Singer’s and Mill’s utilitarian philosophies share numerous similarities but also differ. Singer and Mill agree on the importance of selflessness, the idea that we can end human suffering, and the significance of consequences. However, their views conflict concerning the relevance of motivation. I contend that Singer improves upon Mill’s utilitarianism since Singer accurately recognizes the discrepancy between a life of absolute affluence and absolute poverty and also wrestles with the intricate concept of motive.

The focus of this paper will be R. G. Frey’s passage in “Moral Standing, the Value of Lives, and Speciesism”. The intended objection of the focus will be two moral theories, Kantianism and Act Utilitarianism. Act Utilitarianism being the rebuttal of the Kantianism view on the moral issue at hand.

“In the Forest of Gombe” by Jane Goodall describes her own perspective of the correlation between religions and science through her experiences in the forest at Gombe where she finds comforting to recover from the loss of her husband. Developed several new concepts regarding life, Goodall comes up with the idea of the coexistence of science and religion. Agreeing with Goodall, however, the windows that Goodall sees through have no drawbacks.

‘I’m a deeply religious non believer.’ God Delusion by Richard Dawkins opens with the views of scientists like Darwin and Einstein about God and goes on a voyage against the falsehood of religion and its detrimental effect on the society. This book invites the reader to put religion under a microscope and scrutinize it. Firstly, something about the book title.

The idea of the existence of evil in nature many times creates arguments between creationists and scientists concerning not only the design of nature by a creator –God, but the actual benevolence of God. In Stephen Jay Gould's essay "Nonmoral Nature" (1984), he explores this highly controversial issue by posing the question: "If God is good and if creation reveals his goodness, why are we surrounded with pain, suffering, and apparently senseless cruelty in the animal world?" He uses the life span of the parasitic ichneumon wasp to illustrate a scientific view that the concept of evil is limited to human beings and that the world of nature is unconcerned with it. To some degree Gould may be

The theory of natural selection creates a harsher lenses in which man views fauna, one with only clinical observance and without emotion. Natural history seemingly becomes a chronicle of cruelty and triumph of the strongest and a eulogy for the weaker. Instead of being daunted by this, Charles Darwin’s reaction to this methodical cycle was relief. It can be seen throughout his ¬Origin of Species in which he uses double meanings in order to mediate the brutal perception of nature that comes from his theories. Darwin’s loaded language inconspicuously reminds the reader of moral norms and to consider nature as something separate from man and God.

Anthropocentrism, a recurring theme in Stephen Jay Gould’s Nonmoral Nature essay, defines humans as the most important part of society. It is believed by many ethicists that the origin of anthropocentrism is in the story of Creation, in the book of Genesis. In the story of Creation, it is interpreted that humanity has power and importance above all other inhabitants of Earth, including nature. However, different attitudes toward anthropocentrism over time have allowed for the belief that anthropocentrism connects to facets of morality, where only humans are considered moral. If only humans are considered moral, then why do people continue to describe nature in terms of morality? This is a question that Gould attempts to answer in his essay as he expresses his concerns about how nature should not be defined and described in terms of morality, yet we continue to do so nonetheless. Gould uses rhetorical devices to argue that the self-centered aspect of humans causes anthropocentric descriptions of the occurrences in nature to justify the cruelty that transpires.

Charles Darwin’s book “The origin of species” was undeniably a very controversial book at the time of its release. Published in 1958, when the world was still seen as a creation of someone with supernatural abilities, this book caused enormous backlash. One great cause of turmoil was from the Catholic Church, which was insisting that Darwin was trying to disprove the influence of a supernatural creator, which, in their opinion was “god.” Although most of the public perceived Darwin’s beliefs as absurd and inordinate, most scientists agreed with Darwin’s findings. Darwin’s discoveries were of such powerful relevance, that it changed most previously held beliefs. Nonetheless there are still multiple ideas, more or less widespread, which state

In Stephen Jay Gould’s essay “Nonmoral Nature” he feels that human beings should not be compared to animals when it comes to morality. Charles Darwin was an English naturalist trained as a minister, which Stephen Jay Gould mentions in his teachings. Charles Darwin famously known for his theory of branching pattern of evolution did not see conflict between his theories and religious beliefs. Gould feels that just like Darwin humans should separate that of scientific fact from religious beliefs and morals. (Gould 636) Theologians in the nineteenth century would disagree with Stephen Gould but that is only because their thought process was different. Nineteenth century theologians anthropomorphized such predators which made them look evil as if they were human beings acting out brutality, when in

In Creation Science is not Science, Michael Ruse argues that Creation science should not be taught in public schools because it is not science. Opposing this view, in Science at the Bar- Causes for Concern, Larry Laudan argues that Creation Science is science, but that it should not be taught in public schools because it is false. In this paper, I will argue that Michael Ruse had the better argument and that Creation Science is not science, but rather it is religion. First, I explain Ruse’s argument for why creation science does not meet the criteria for science. Second, I consider and briefly explain Larry Laudan’s opposing view that creation science is false science. I then argue why I believe Ruse has the better argument.