What do you think?
Rate this book
The Biology of Ultimate Concern
1. Humanism and Humanity; 2. On Gods of the Gaps; 3. Evolution and Transcendence; 4. Self-Awareness and Death-Awareness; 5. Search for Meaning; 6. The Teilhardian Synthesis.
152 pages, Hardcover
Published January 1, 1969
4 people are currently reading
51 people want to read
About the author
Theodosius Dobzhansky
68 books32 followersTheodosius Grygorovych Dobzhansky (Ukrainian: Теодо́сій Григо́рович Добжа́нський; Russian: Феодо́сий Григо́рьевич Добржа́нский) , Ph.D. (University of Leningrad, 1927; B.S., Biology, University of Kiev, 1921), was a prominent geneticist and evolutionary biologist, one of the central figures in modern evolutionary synthesis; his major work concerning the latter is "Genetics and the Origin of Species", published in 1937. He emigrated to the USA in 1927 on a scholarship from the Rockefeller Foundation.
Dobzhansky was the recipient of the National Medal of Science in 1964 and the Franklin Medal in 1973.
Dobzhansky was the recipient of the National Medal of Science in 1964 and the Franklin Medal in 1973.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 3 of 3 reviews
March 2, 2024
In this short book from the 1960s, the evolutionary biologist Theodosius Dobzhansky considers the nature and origin of human consciousness. I especially enjoyed the chapter on self-awareness. Dobzhansky tells us that, as far as we know, no other animal can contemplate its own existence, or anticipate its own death. He views such self-awareness as part of human biology and seeks to explain how it evolved. His observations on the role of self-awareness in cultural formation are thought-provoking. Overall, I found this book quite profound. (The argument he makes for a synthesis of evolutionary science and Christian philosophy will not convince everyone.)
October 23, 2024
THE FAMED EVOLUTIONARY GENETICIST REVEALS HIS "RELIGIOUS" SIDE
Theodosius Dobzhansky (1900-1975) was a famous geneticist and evolutionary biologist, who was a key developer of the Neo-Darwinian or "synthetic" theory of evolution. He wrote other books such as 'Genetics and the Origin of Species,' 'Genetics of the Evolutionary Process,' etc.
He wrote in the Preface to this 1967 book, "[The worldview of this book] arose when the author was in his teens, and became naively enraptured with evolutionary biology. The intellectual stimulation derived from the works of Darwin and other evolutionists was pitted against that arising from reading Dostoyevsky, to a lesser extent Tolstoy, and philosophers such as Soloviev and Bergson. Some sort of reconciliation or harmonization seemed necessary. The urgency of finding a meaning of life grew in the bloody tumult of the Russian Revolution, when life became most insecure and its sense least intelligible... Whatever expertness I may possess is in ... evolutionary genetics. This is no warrant for embarking on speculations in the realms of philosophy and religion... This is not an attempt to derive a philosophy from biology, but rather to include biology in a Weltanschauung."
He states, "To describe man as a conglomeration of transformed groceries is valid and realistic, up to a certain point. The limit of the validity of this description is set by its reductionist character. What is needed in addition is a compositionist counterpart. Man certainly consists of molecules and atoms, but he does not arise by an accidental concourse of these molecules and atoms." (Pg. 24)
He critiques Julian Huxley's definition of evolution [i.e., `Evolution is... directional in time and therefore irreversible, which in its course generates ever fresh novelty..."], saying, "Instances of evolutionary stagnation show that evolution is not self-maintaining; evolution is primarily a grouping and only secondarily a directional process; evolution is not infrequently regressive rather than progressive... (increasing variety) is as frequent as ... (change within a single evolutionary unit); consciousness or self-awareness have arisen, as far as we know, in only a single line, that leading to man." (Pg. 36)
He asserts, "Christianity is, among the great religions, most explicitly history-conscious, and in this sense evolutionistic. It affirms that the history of mankind and of the world is not merely an illusion or an irremediable evil. History is the vehicle of creation. The world had a beginning, and will have an end. At a certain point in history an event of pivotal significance took place---God assumed human form and lived among men. Man stands in the center of history's meaning." (Pg. 37) [Dobzhansky was Russian Orthodox, by the way.]
He suggests, "the phenomena of the inorganic, organic, and human levels are subject to different laws peculiar to those levels. It is unnecessary to assume any intrinsic irreversibility of these laws, but unprofitable to describe the phenomena of an overlaying level in terms of those of the underlying ones." (Pg. 43) He continues, "Cosmic evolution transcended itself when it produced life. Though the physical and chemical processes which occur in living bodies are not fundamentally different from those found in organic nature, the patterns of these processes are different in the organic and inorganic nature. Inorganic evolution went beyond the bounds of the previous physical and chemical patternings which gave rise to life. In the same sense, biological evolution transcended itself when it gave rise to man." (Pg. 45)
He observes, "those who believe in some form of immortality of the soul, or in resurrection of the dead at some time in the future, are no less preoccupied with the problem of man's transience then are those who hold death to be complete and final annihilation... A believer in immortality can therefore regard his personal salvation as his ultimate concern, and the purpose of his life. If there is no immortality, the problem becomes vastly more complex and difficult. A meaning of life can only be found in something greater than, but including, the personality." (Pg. 80-81)
He summarizes, "Modern man must raise his sights above the simple biological joys of survival and procreation. He needs nothing less than a religious synthesis. This synthesis cannot be simply a revival of any one of the existing religions, and it need not be a new religion... My upbringing and education make me biased in favor of Christianity as the framework of the synthesis. I can, however, understand people who would prefer a different framework. What is important is that the outcome must be truly a SYNTHESIS. It must include science, but it cannot be science alone... Science discovers what exists; man has a longing to discover what ought to exist. The synthesis must be esthetically satisfying, but it must also be rationally persuasive." (Pg. 109)
He adds, "The central postulate of the synthesis must be that the universe and everything in it are evolving products of evolution. The synthesis must be an evolutionary synthesis." (Pg. 110)
This is a fascinating glimpse into the inner thoughts of a famed evolutionary thinker (one often erroneously thought of as an "evolutionary materialist"), that will be of great interest not only to students of his thought, but also to those with progressive religious/spiritual ideas.
Theodosius Dobzhansky (1900-1975) was a famous geneticist and evolutionary biologist, who was a key developer of the Neo-Darwinian or "synthetic" theory of evolution. He wrote other books such as 'Genetics and the Origin of Species,' 'Genetics of the Evolutionary Process,' etc.
He wrote in the Preface to this 1967 book, "[The worldview of this book] arose when the author was in his teens, and became naively enraptured with evolutionary biology. The intellectual stimulation derived from the works of Darwin and other evolutionists was pitted against that arising from reading Dostoyevsky, to a lesser extent Tolstoy, and philosophers such as Soloviev and Bergson. Some sort of reconciliation or harmonization seemed necessary. The urgency of finding a meaning of life grew in the bloody tumult of the Russian Revolution, when life became most insecure and its sense least intelligible... Whatever expertness I may possess is in ... evolutionary genetics. This is no warrant for embarking on speculations in the realms of philosophy and religion... This is not an attempt to derive a philosophy from biology, but rather to include biology in a Weltanschauung."
He states, "To describe man as a conglomeration of transformed groceries is valid and realistic, up to a certain point. The limit of the validity of this description is set by its reductionist character. What is needed in addition is a compositionist counterpart. Man certainly consists of molecules and atoms, but he does not arise by an accidental concourse of these molecules and atoms." (Pg. 24)
He critiques Julian Huxley's definition of evolution [i.e., `Evolution is... directional in time and therefore irreversible, which in its course generates ever fresh novelty..."], saying, "Instances of evolutionary stagnation show that evolution is not self-maintaining; evolution is primarily a grouping and only secondarily a directional process; evolution is not infrequently regressive rather than progressive... (increasing variety) is as frequent as ... (change within a single evolutionary unit); consciousness or self-awareness have arisen, as far as we know, in only a single line, that leading to man." (Pg. 36)
He asserts, "Christianity is, among the great religions, most explicitly history-conscious, and in this sense evolutionistic. It affirms that the history of mankind and of the world is not merely an illusion or an irremediable evil. History is the vehicle of creation. The world had a beginning, and will have an end. At a certain point in history an event of pivotal significance took place---God assumed human form and lived among men. Man stands in the center of history's meaning." (Pg. 37) [Dobzhansky was Russian Orthodox, by the way.]
He suggests, "the phenomena of the inorganic, organic, and human levels are subject to different laws peculiar to those levels. It is unnecessary to assume any intrinsic irreversibility of these laws, but unprofitable to describe the phenomena of an overlaying level in terms of those of the underlying ones." (Pg. 43) He continues, "Cosmic evolution transcended itself when it produced life. Though the physical and chemical processes which occur in living bodies are not fundamentally different from those found in organic nature, the patterns of these processes are different in the organic and inorganic nature. Inorganic evolution went beyond the bounds of the previous physical and chemical patternings which gave rise to life. In the same sense, biological evolution transcended itself when it gave rise to man." (Pg. 45)
He observes, "those who believe in some form of immortality of the soul, or in resurrection of the dead at some time in the future, are no less preoccupied with the problem of man's transience then are those who hold death to be complete and final annihilation... A believer in immortality can therefore regard his personal salvation as his ultimate concern, and the purpose of his life. If there is no immortality, the problem becomes vastly more complex and difficult. A meaning of life can only be found in something greater than, but including, the personality." (Pg. 80-81)
He summarizes, "Modern man must raise his sights above the simple biological joys of survival and procreation. He needs nothing less than a religious synthesis. This synthesis cannot be simply a revival of any one of the existing religions, and it need not be a new religion... My upbringing and education make me biased in favor of Christianity as the framework of the synthesis. I can, however, understand people who would prefer a different framework. What is important is that the outcome must be truly a SYNTHESIS. It must include science, but it cannot be science alone... Science discovers what exists; man has a longing to discover what ought to exist. The synthesis must be esthetically satisfying, but it must also be rationally persuasive." (Pg. 109)
He adds, "The central postulate of the synthesis must be that the universe and everything in it are evolving products of evolution. The synthesis must be an evolutionary synthesis." (Pg. 110)
This is a fascinating glimpse into the inner thoughts of a famed evolutionary thinker (one often erroneously thought of as an "evolutionary materialist"), that will be of great interest not only to students of his thought, but also to those with progressive religious/spiritual ideas.
March 6, 2023
Dobzhansky criticizes medieval christianity, the dogmatic authoritative collective, being composed by the voices of the mediocre masses. The patristic poets were authentic individuals, but where authenticity shines forth soon the prideful will always want to take hold of the beauty of competence and grace, undeservedly, and to keep this prestige running through force. The catholic church (and Jean Calvin) of course shunned Copernicus, Galileio. To defend the inquisition by pointing out mitigating circumstances is furthetmore to take the perspective of the mob which is the spirit of anti-christ. The historical backlash from this mistake then forced the religious authorities to accept Newtons truth.
Dobzhansky explains something of enormous insight; the pattern of 'the individual and the collective' is echoed all through the movement of creation; from astronomy (the vastness of the universe and the particularity of life on earth), biology (the enormous masses of life that do not propagate in evolution but rather end their lineage without leaving offspring, and the enormous sperm count out of which only one normally reach the ovum), and lastly human culture, the collective and the hero, the scapegoat.
This is what the patristic fathers meant, as well as what St John the evangelist meant, when he states that the LOGOS is discernable in creation, in front of our very eyes - therefore we are without any excuse to forsake the logos that is expelled, through whom everything is created.
That everything is created through the logos means furthetmore that the Teilhardian megasynthesis at the end of historical time is a matter of evolution, that is, man working in the sweat of his brow to attain the city of God, the heavenly Jerusalem. The fundamentalist promise of a momentarily creation is a prideful superstition echoing the devils temptation to Jesus that he would make bread out of Stones.
Asking god for blessings in prayer is also prideful, which is exactly what modern swedish religion teaches young people, because it indicates a wanting that aims to circumvent the effort and competence that necessarily precedes any prosperity or prestigeous attainment. Pride is the metaphysics of the mediocre crowd, and not a suitable thing to worship on sundays.
Lastly, the opposition to evolutionary theory is related to the spirit of pride, of mediocrity, the anti-christ, that wants to HIDE the logos from sight - it wants to crucify the prophet, to cover up the truth of the universe being the LOGOS that is expelled by the crowd, and in doing this, through love, goes through resurrection and eternal life. Unless a kernel of wheat falls to the ground and dies, it remains only a seed; but if it dies, it bears much fruit!!!
What fundamentalism does, in essence, is worshipping pride and using rethoric to explain the metaphysics of pride week after week after week
Dobzhansky explains something of enormous insight; the pattern of 'the individual and the collective' is echoed all through the movement of creation; from astronomy (the vastness of the universe and the particularity of life on earth), biology (the enormous masses of life that do not propagate in evolution but rather end their lineage without leaving offspring, and the enormous sperm count out of which only one normally reach the ovum), and lastly human culture, the collective and the hero, the scapegoat.
This is what the patristic fathers meant, as well as what St John the evangelist meant, when he states that the LOGOS is discernable in creation, in front of our very eyes - therefore we are without any excuse to forsake the logos that is expelled, through whom everything is created.
That everything is created through the logos means furthetmore that the Teilhardian megasynthesis at the end of historical time is a matter of evolution, that is, man working in the sweat of his brow to attain the city of God, the heavenly Jerusalem. The fundamentalist promise of a momentarily creation is a prideful superstition echoing the devils temptation to Jesus that he would make bread out of Stones.
Asking god for blessings in prayer is also prideful, which is exactly what modern swedish religion teaches young people, because it indicates a wanting that aims to circumvent the effort and competence that necessarily precedes any prosperity or prestigeous attainment. Pride is the metaphysics of the mediocre crowd, and not a suitable thing to worship on sundays.
Lastly, the opposition to evolutionary theory is related to the spirit of pride, of mediocrity, the anti-christ, that wants to HIDE the logos from sight - it wants to crucify the prophet, to cover up the truth of the universe being the LOGOS that is expelled by the crowd, and in doing this, through love, goes through resurrection and eternal life. Unless a kernel of wheat falls to the ground and dies, it remains only a seed; but if it dies, it bears much fruit!!!
What fundamentalism does, in essence, is worshipping pride and using rethoric to explain the metaphysics of pride week after week after week
Displaying 1 - 3 of 3 reviews