Thinking about 2 ways of thinking about evolution reminds me of the distinction between periods of ‘normal science’ and the paradigm shifts that disrupt and overtake them in Thomas Kuhn’s The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. ‘Normal Evolution’ takes for granted certain fundamental concepts: survival, competition, fitness, and reproductive success.
When Jesus challenges these core assumptions, it is a radically disruptive paradigm shift. Rejection by the ‘normies’ is both understandable and somewhat inevitable. But the question I’m still uncertain about is if those core terms – survival, competition, fitness, reproductive success – are 1) completely abandoned and replaced, 2) maintained but redefined or reprioritized, or 3) unchanged but strategically reconsidered.
Not to get too far ahead of myself but consider ‘competition’ as an example. Vastly oversimplifying, but one way to operationalize “love your enemies” is to radically transform our framework for human interaction from competition to cooperation.
Evolution as ‘normal science’ might interpret this as option 3) – competition is still the driving factor, but in-group cooperation is such a strategic advantage for out-group competition (and in-group competition such a strategic disadvantage for out-group competition) that cooperation must be religiously encouraged within any successful society. Read the whole thing, but here’s David Sloane Wilson, who argues that “Selfishness beats altruism within groups. Altruistic groups beat selfish groups. All else is commentary.”
A more radical re-interpretation might take option 2) – competition still drives human evolution, but not competition against or amongst humans, but competition against non-human forces. Nature, time, gods, (evil) spirits, ‘original sin’ or ‘sinful (human) nature’ and the devil (evil one) are probably the historically most-represented contenders. Moderns might through in some “-isms” like authoritarianism, totalitarianism, fascism, maybe even communism or capitalism. Paul says it like this: “our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the powers of this dark world and against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly realms.”
The most radical paradigm shift would be 1) –competition is a fundamentally mistaken category for explaining and understanding human existence. Competition is an illusion. There is only unity. Christian mystics often express this kind of view, though it is probably more commonly associated with Zen Buddhism or classical Stoicism.
I’m uncertain about these 3 options (also uncertain whether there may be more I’m missing) in part because I’m not sure how to adjudicate between them. My basic framework for doing so leans heavily on meta-ethical categories of ‘consequentialism’ and ‘deontology’ (or ‘non-consequentialism’ to maintain the linguistic parity?).
More to say about that next time.
Dim Reflections 
Leave a comment