Evolution and Progress Are Not Synonyms

As a result of our instinctive exceptionalist inclinations, we have long misinterpreted Charles Darwin. One of the most telling illustrations of this is our tendency to conflate evolution and progress. From religious literalism and creationist thinking to the more secular minds of scientists and atheists, most of us think of evolution as inherently progressive and improvement-oriented. It is not.

Evolution is the word we use to describe the process whereby organisms that survive and successfully reproduce (within a complex relationship with a specific set of environmental variables) pass on to subsequent generations those traits that enabled them to do so. Traits are “good”—read: adaptively beneficial—in, and only in, relation to a given environmental context. There are no intrinsically adaptive traits, no traits that are good independent of context. Tentacles would not help an ostrich, nor feathers an octopus.

Consider the whale. The lineage of cetaceans includes the development of hind legs, enabling ambulation upon dry land. Millions of years later, the precise opposite proved beneficial for this lineage, as it returned to the sea.

This process—from fins to legs and back again—is evolution. Devo is not a real thing. Well, it’s a cool 1970s punk band. But, other than that, “devo-lution” is pseudoscience. The concept falsely assumes that evolution has a linear, progressive quality, so that moving in the opposite direction would be a negation of that process. It’s not. It is evolution both coming and going. Our base assumption, that evolution and progress are one and the same, is the error.

These are the kinds of creatures that evolved to become modern cetaceans:

• Eusthenopteron; 385 million years ago.

• Tiktaalik; 385 million years ago.

• Morganucodontids; 210 million years ago

Somewhere around 65 million years ago, our lineage and that of the Cetaceans diverged, then came:

• Indohyus; 50 million years ago.

• Pakicetus; 45 million years ago.

• Ambulocetus; 43 million years ago.

• Albertocetus; 29 million years ago.

Today there are over eighty extant species of cetacean. We named this species Megaptera novaeangliae, more commonly known as the humpback whale.

In the water. Out of the water. On the land. Back into the water. Which part is the progress? The out? The back in? Land or sea? Fins or feet?

Evolution is the term used to describe a continuous biological process whereby species adapt, changing in a nonlinear, non-directional manner, in response to their specific environmental context. Progress, on the other hand, describes a specifically linear, unidirectional process characterized by movement toward a specific goal, ideal, or end point. They are not the same thing.

Despite what Abraham or Aristotle may have believed, human beings are not the goal, ideal, or end point. Our form and content are merely a result of evolution. We are organisms adapting to survive and successfully reproduce within a specific context, just like the dragon fly, snapdragon, or Komodo dragon. Conflating the two is a result, and perpetuation, of our fallacious and problematic human exceptionalism.

Getting It Right: Human Intelligence

Human exceptionalism also explains our tendency to identify ourselves—to understand our nature—entirely in terms of that which differentiates us from other animals. Despite Darwin, we still tend to ignore or misinterpret a great deal of shared common ground. Tool use, emotion, culture, language, “ensoulment,” self-awareness, intelligence: each takes its turn as that which both distinguishes us from the (other) animals and, in so doing, defines us.

Understanding human nature solely in terms of that which distinguishes us from the other animals is problematic in at least two ways: The first is that we do not define something simply by observing what it is not. We can unequivocally assert that an apple is not an orange, a piece of charcoal, a ‘67 Mustang, or a supernova. But we are still a long way from saying what an apple is. Distinguishing and defining are not synonyms.

The second is that human beings are very much composed of that which we do have in common with other animals. Though the exceptionalist tradition inclines us to ignore or minimize the fact, much of human nature consists precisely of traits—attributes and qualities that we do indeed share with other evolved organisms and beings. Darwin himself recognized this commonality when discussing human and animal intelligence, famously observing that the difference is “certainly one of degree and not of kind” (The Descent of Man, 1871).

Despite Darwin, intelligence is still commonly understood as a wedge, as something separating us from other natural beings. Our freakishly large brains enable us to make increasingly complex tools and toys; practice intensive cooperation and teamwork; manage complex tasks and social structures; learn from mistakes, from experience, from others; imagine and perform symphonies; create satellites and global communications; cure diseases; build cities; feed the world; fly to the moon, then return home. But we tend to exaggerate its import, even ascribing our very specific kind of intelligence to the cosmos itself, or to the force or entity that we imagine created everything.

Again, we have things epistemologically reversed. A Darwin fan asked me a question once regarding the nature of intelligence. According to him, some form of intelligence was ultimately responsible for life, the cosmos, and human existence. I suggested that he had the cart before the horse: intelligence, so far as all the evidence suggests, is merely an evolved trait of biological organisms. We have no good reason to think it anything more. It is highly unlikely to precede the evolution of such beings that possess it, just as there is no rational reason to imagine vision preceding the evolution of sighted beings, or flight preceding the winged.

We think of human intelligence as profoundly special in kind. We value many things associated with our own form of intelligence. But from an objective point of view, is it actually superior to any other evolved trait? To camouflage? Echolocation? To sight or the capacity for flight? Certainly human intelligence is more complex than many other traits, perhaps more complex than that of any other earthly animals. But the eye of the fly is also more complex than that of the worm. That does not make it better in any objective sense. Complex and better are also not synonyms.

Even should we set aside for the moment the problem of its tremendous price tag, the truly gargantuan amount of energy required to develop and sustain the three-pound ball of gray goop that constitutes, quite literally, the center of our universe, why imagine that our particular type of brain would offer a bacterium, mole, tiger, or starfish any adaptive advantage? We have no objective, rational reason to think human intelligence is superior to any other evolved trait. Yet such baseless claims continue to be asserted as if self-evident. Describing human intelligence as superior is the very epitome of pseudoscience.

At this point one might well be disposed to argue: “But surely, Adam, we are different somehow from the rest of the animal kingdom. Language, culture, technology, and all of that. We write symphonies and books, build skyscrapers, fly people to the moon, and so very much more. Nothing does quite what we do!”

This is true; clearly, we are unique. But, first, we are not as different as we generally suppose. We exaggerate and imagine differences to affirm our anthropocentric perspective. Second, I would argue for a value-neutral conception of uniqueness rather than the old value-laden one. Every species is equally—and literally—unique by definition. Ours only feels especially so, and it feels so because of what is essentially a cognitive bias, perpetually reaffirmed, encouraged, and perpetuated by outdated pseudoscientific origin stories.

Our brain is different mostly because it has uniquely adapted to do two specific things, things that other organisms’ brains do not do—or do not do as much as ours. Human intelligence is unique in that it is both accretive and mutualistic.

Accretive means that our knowledge accumulates over time, through ongoing experience. By virtue of this uniquely long-term, cumulative form of knowledge, we grow and change, as our knowledge is not merely quantitatively accumulative but is also qualitatively transformative, changing itself, and changing us, with each accretive layer. Knowledge adds to and transforms previous knowledge, and everything changes.

At the same time, human knowledge is uniquely mutualistic, meaning that we share it throughout the entire species. Whether in war or peace, in trade or battle, between friend, family, or foe, we learn from one another. This sharing of knowledge further serves to transform both the body of knowledge itself and we Homo sapiens accordingly. This process is neatly summarized in the famous Hegelian Dialectic: Thesis + Antithesis = Synthesis.

Such cumulative shared knowledge creates the opportunity to do something different, to change, create, and progress. We can even imagine what might be, envision alternative options, and consider and shape the future. We are able to exchange, share, and pass on transformative knowledge to others through language and other nongenetic means over the course of time. The lion or panda bear cannot really “progress” in this sense. For us, however, it is truly a viable option. We can move toward goals such as justice, morality, or sustainability, even as our knowledge of how to do so is perpetually being transformed.

And we are making real progress. Slavery was once an accepted norm, violence a day-to-day occurrence, death a frequent visitor—even the most minor sniffle was a potential death sentence—and women everywhere the mere possessions of men. Despite the obvious problem of overpopulation, people all around the world are seeing improvements in health care, life expectancy, and access to food, clean water, electricity, and (most importantly for the long term) education. By a wide variety of metrics, we are making progress, however halting or inconsistent. We certainly have a lot more work to do to make human civilization genuinely just, nonviolent, and sustainable, in both the social and environmental senses. Yet as works by Michael Shermer, Steven Pinker, myself, and others have served to attest, human progress is very much a real thing.

Our ability to progress and transform through the accumulation, sharing, and application of knowledge is of central importance. First and foremost, this means that, upon learning about this aspect of our true nature, we can change our origin stories so that they fit the facts. Rather than rely upon outmoded, instinct-riddled, millennia-old self-conceptions, we can base our self-understanding upon the facts, as well as upon those principles by which we most wish to live in the now, as well as going forward long term.

Getting It Right: The End of Dominance

Our problems are increasingly mutual, our borders increasingly irrelevant, our fates increasingly shared. Examples of this mutualism begin with the recognition of our exponentially swelling numbers as problem numero uno. Yet moving down the list, we see several other problems that have a similarly shared, mutualistic character: climate change, global warming, and environmental destruction; resource availability and management, such as oil and water; migration, immigration, and xenophobia; epidemics and pandemics; the military-industrial economy; antiscience and anti-education forces; overconsumption, poverty, and economic injustice; misogyny and gender inequity; and, of course, violent, armed conflicts of any and all kinds.

All these globe-spanning problems are happening concurrently with our globe-spanning technology in communications, transportation, and more. This serves to drive home the reality that our old tool kit is in desperate need of repair or replacement by one both more accurate and more in keeping with our current needs.

Scriptural admonitions to dominate the other, convert the other to our way, or even kill the other if he or she does not accept our view are fast showing waning returns within this global context. We are burdened with an in-group versus out-group mind, yet no longer live in an in-group versus out-group world.

The domination mindset inherent to ancient texts such as the Bible and the Qur’an tend to set us at one another’s throats, to perpetuate age-old adversarial relationships. A self-conception that rejects dominance thinking and instead defines us as intricately interdependent, both within our complex natural environs as well as with our fellow species members, is both descriptively more accurate and prescriptively more advisable. Utilizing what evolution has gifted us—our uniquely learning-capable brains—lets us reshape our self-conceptions in accord with the truth and, simultaneously, with who and what we wish to become.

An accurate, post-Darwinian self-conception, freed from pseudoscience and human exceptionalism, will enable us to recognize our true place and live with greater humility. It will remind us that we are all brothers and sisters, all in this together, quite literally members of one and the same family.

Both we and our shared global environment will only stand to benefit from embracing a new, more accurate origin story: one firmly rooted in the scientific reality that we are an entirely interdependent organism, intertwined and interconnected quite literally with the billions of microorganisms in and on our bodies; the food we eat; the air we breathe; the land we live upon and make our clothes, medicines, homes, and cities from; the people we make love with, give birth to, or raise up or teach; the people we trade with and dine with; and the water we drink, bathe in, and share with one another.

No one loses when our progress is rooted in the scientific knowledge that we are hardwired by evolution to get positive brain juices from things such as cooperation, teamwork, helping others, living peacefully, making justice happen right now in our world, and from love and affection shared between ourselves and other living beings as well—both human and nonhuman. The truth is we are animals who enjoy natural feel-good brain chemicals in all of these team-human scenarios, as well as when we are able to experience the rejuvenating, soul-affirming interconnectivity with nature in all its myriad nurturing forms.

To get there, we will need to first recognize and reject the pseudoscientific, outdated, fallacious answers that have for too long clogged the arteries of human thought, serving to befuddle and befog our deepest inquests, reinforcing antiquated exceptionalist ideals, promoting dominance mindsets, and setting us at one another’s throats.

Human intelligence, as we have seen, is cumulative and shared, building and transforming one step upon the last. Every giant stands on the shoulders of all those other giants, as well as those not-so-giant, who went before, so that we perpetually see farther. It is only when false answers are placed into the gaps in our knowledge that we cannot build upon them, we cannot progress, we cannot see further.

When we thought that demons, sin, or lack of faith caused people to become sick, we were unable to build upon that knowledge, to get better at finding cures, medicine, and healing. But when we rejected those old ideas and in their stead placed new, evidence-based ideas—such as with the germ theory of disease—we filled in the gaps in our knowledge with falsifiable, testable data. Only then were we able to create a perpetually improving body of knowledge. Impediments removed, our uniquely accretive, mutualistic form of intelligence can build the kind of knowledge that leads to progress, creation, growth, and transformation.

Knowledge is power. It enables us to step away from the fallacious and problematic answers of the past. Knowledge enables us to freely choose alternative, more accurate responses, to counter and challenge problematic beliefs and thinking, to encourage and reinforce constructive, sustainable approaches to problem-solving in our world.

Knowledge is power, and nature is not destiny. We have all the good and all the bad within us. Noting that any given instinct is natural does not end the conversation. Several highly contradictory impulses and instincts reside within the mind of Homo sapiens. But nature is not destiny. For the most part, we are free to choose which of our many beliefs, instincts, predilections, and abilities to reinforce and encourage.

Rather than dominance and exceptionalism, we can choose long-term viability based upon recognition of the scientific reality of our true nature, as animals within a complex environmental interconnectivity and interdependence. This would help us to not merely avoid extinction but also to cultivate a genuinely sustainable, just, and beautiful human civilization. This would enable us to thrive.

If we simply allow gut instincts and cognitive biases to control our minds, we will continue to be ruled by the dominance mindset and human exceptionalism. We will continue to try and dominate the environment and other humans, rather than live sustainably and cooperatively within the bigger whole. This new and improved mindset is both descriptively more accurate and prescriptively preferable. Let us reshape our self-conception in accord with the truth and, simultaneously, with who and what we wish to become.

We have zero evidence of a divine plan and do not appear to be destined for cosmic greatness, despite our de facto deification through the monotheistic traditions. In fact, at this rate, we may all too soon find ourselves sharing the very same fate as 99.99 percent of all the other species that have evolved into existence: extinction.

But should we choose from a place of knowledge—emphasizing reason, facts, data and evidence of the truth as to our own nature, the scientific truth of how nature really works—we can override those problematic instincts of old, reject them, and find ourselves largely freed from their influence. Knowledge is power, the power to change ourselves, which is what we need to do right now. And it can work, because nature is not destiny, and the more we know about the strengths and weaknesses with which evolution has endowed us, the more empowered we will be to choose our best actions going forward, to build a better world by making ourselves better.

We want to use our big brains, but not to build rocket ships to Mars like the Mad Hatter escaping his soiled table setting, racing off frantically to soil the next. We want to utilize our big brains to figure out how to live sustainably with the other beings that have evolved into existence, right here, right now, on this absolutely perfect, gorgeous blue, white, and green orb, all together on this tiny sanctuary of life, gratefully and responsibly appreciating what a perfect, irreplaceable oasis our Earth is, keeping us alive in the otherwise cold, dark, and dreary bleak vastness, the lethal vacuum of space.

We want to be here, we want to be here long term, and we want it to be beautiful. Beginning with an honest appraisal of precisely who and what we are, we can make that happen.