The Spirit in Human Evolution - Waldorf Research Institute

Changing Views of Change
How did this shift of consciousness come about? The twin questions of
development and origins exercised many minds from the end of the eighteenth century
onwards. The ideas of development and evolution were themes that ran through the
heart of nineteenth century scientific, artistic and philosophical thinking, beginning well
before Darwin. In the broadest terms, cultural history in Europe and the United States
oscillated between rationalism and romanticism, between a worldview which favored
the intellect and one which placed greater faith in the intuitions of the will, though many
individuals were motivated by both streams. Both these tendencies were radical in that
they wished to break away from the traditional and static pictures of humanity’s place
in the world that had reigned since ancient times.
The cyclical view of a world strictly ordered into hierarchies, in which change
was minimal and bound within a law of eternal stability which had existed from time
immemorial right up till the Renaissance, was replaced by a more dynamic view of
historical change and progression. Change was either slow and uniform or, depending
on your politics and temperament, rapid, dramatic, revolutionary and cataclysmic. Either
way it was change. Scientists of the organic world observed change in the progression
from simple original forms to higher more complex ones. Professor Steven Jay Gould
comprehensively described the changing view of change, especially within the life sciences
in the history of science literature, in his book Ontogeny and Phylogeny (1977).
Initially the questions concerning the nature of change or evolution were
intertwined with concerns of meaning and the nature of God. Rationalist philosophy
began to displace the idea of a purposeful creation through the acts of a Divine Creator
but did not doubt, on the whole, that nature expressed some kind of order, plan or higher
design. What was not clear was whether this order was in some way predetermined, as
in the pre-formationist view of embryology which held that all the major structures are
present in miniature form in the germ and simply need to be unfolded. The alternative
was the epigenetic view that order and new structures arose in the course of development.
The word evolution actually changed its meaning from the literal unfolding of what was
there to its opposite which was eventually defined by Herbert Spencer, the English social
thinker as “change from an indefinite, incoherent homogeneity to a definite, coherent
heterogeneity,” in his book First Principles (1862). In either case, nature was the expression
of an immanent purpose that gave evolution a goal. It was otherwise incomprehensible.
Everywhere one looked in nature one could see complexity apparently arising out of
simplicity so that some kind of intelligent design purpose had to be assumed. That is,
until Darwin.
Since Darwin
Darwin’s theory of descent by natural selection, despite his efforts to limit its
application, very soon became universal in its implications. His theory provided a
mechanism that could explain the complexity of living organisms without the need
for design or purpose, divine or otherwise. If this was the case, it was not, therefore,
necessary to have a God or divine creator at all. Life could have arisen without any
spiritual activity at all. The ultimate origin was left open for a divine spark, but once the
whole process had been set in motion, life could unfold without spirit. Darwin was clear
about that. When his colleague and independent co-discoverer of the idea of evolution
by natural selection, Alfred Russel Wallace, argued for strict selectionism for all natural
phenomena except the human mind or spirit, Darwin had to politely, and probably
33