Darwiniana

History, Evolution, and The Darwin Debate

Darwiniana header image 2

J.G. Bennett on mind evolution

September 11th, 2009 · 1 Comment

Human evolution and the problem with mind

The philosopher J. G. Bennett was one of the original New Age Darwin critics (after nearly a century of such starting with Blavatsky) and, while I have tended to shy away from his approach, since I simply don’t agree with it, it is nonetheless of interest to go over some of his views of human evolution, since it proposes a design argument that is completely different from what we see current (from the Discovery group, et al.), and is thus an ironic reminder of the ambiguity of design arguments. It is also of interest because it adopts a different view of the bondaries of naturalism, being based on a version of Indian naturalistic Samkhya.
But, whatever the case, Bennett makes a strong case (at first confusing, due to his weird model and terminology) that mind is a different category of nature and is not the result of standard evolution (of the organism).
Agree on not, this challenge to conventional evolutionism is stark, for it raises the stakes on the whole question, in a way that the ID movement does not.

Tags: Evolution · New Age

1 response so far ↓

  • 1 The Gurdjieff Con » More on Bennett’s anti-darwinism // Sep 11, 2009 at 12:31 pm

    […] J. G. Bennett on mind evolution links back to this blog. The philosopher J. G. Bennett was one of the original New Age Darwin critics (after nearly a century of such starting with Blavatsky) and, while I have tended to shy away from his approach, since I simply don’t agree with it, it is nonetheless of interest to go over some of his views of human evolution, since it proposes a design argument that is completely different from what we see current (from the Discovery group, et al.), and is thus an ironic reminder of the ambiguity of design arguments. It is also of interest because it adopts a different view of the bondaries of naturalism, being based on a version of Indian naturalistic Samkhya. But, whatever the case, Bennett makes a strong case (at first confusing, due to his weird model and terminology) that mind is a different category of nature and is not the result of standard evolution (of the organism). Agree on not, this challenge to conventional evolutionism is stark, for it raises the stakes on the whole question, in a way that the ID movement does not. […]

Leave a Comment