The Art of Darwinsim

December 9, 2007 by Dr. Mc.

OK, if you go to this website, the painting is grotesque, but don’t let that distract you from the point here: In the last paragraph of this critique of a book on ugliness, the article’s author makes the following criticism of the book’s author: "If he had included the writings of evolutionary biologists, he might have told us why [universal disgust of certain sensations] could be so. That he shows no awareness of post-Darwinian science can mean only that he isn’t serious about locating the sources of aesthetic feelings." The author of the article is saying that he cannot respect a researcher who makes no reference to evolution, even if the subject matter is art. The article’s author is probably eluding to writings by biologists such as Edward O. Wilson and his theory that our sense of what is aesthetic comes from evolution toward what provides us food, shelter, and security.

My question is, why should evolution be invoked if aesthetic expression (and therefore aesthetic feeling) has never been observed to evolve? And it has not. Sure, technology has advanced, such as available media and geometry of perspective, but not expression of the heart nor talent of the artist. No one who really knows art can look at the cave paintings of Chauvet and say they are "primitive" in terms of aesthetic expression or talent. As a matter of fact, when they were first discovered in about 1835, they were assumed to be the work ofCelts, only a thousand or so years earlier. That being the case, I would suggest that the article’s author may need to look outside his box for what aesthetics really are.

To require reference to a particular theory in order to be taken as "serious" is to require a mind that is closed to ideas outside the theory. He is saying that the theory is fundamental to understanding anything and everything, and no theory can hold that ground. That requirement belongs within a given world view. That requirement is a religious requirement, not a universal one, and certainly not a scientific one.

Posted in Culture & society, History, Science and faith | No Comments »