Alec Farboud

Scott Kneece
Writing 2
5 May 2016
Biological and Philosophical Evolution
Evolution. It is a topic that is complex, dynamic, and enormous in scope and breadth.
This broad subject of study is widely discussed and debated in a plethora of different contexts,
with each new situation sparking unique controversy and commentary. Two academic disciplines
which delve into the topic at length are biology and philosophy. These disciplines both discuss
the topic of evolution extensively, albeit in very different contexts. That is, both disciplines ask
very different questions and ultimately receive unique answers related to their respective
research regarding evolution as a topic of interest. This discrepancy aside, a biological approach
to this topic is altogether a more valuable one than that of a philosopher, as research regarding
evolution as a biologist involves the use of tangible evidence as grounds for his argument, while
philosophy arguments are almost always purely theoretical in nature and content.
I have chosen one source to represent each individual discipline. One is the Handbook of
Evolutionary Thinking in the Sciences, which illustrates the dynamicism and versatility of the
subject of evolution as it pertains to the gradual process of genetic change and adaptation over
millions of years of life on Earth. Its authors provide new insights regarding recent discoveries
made in the field, and address questions surrounding the reconciliation of evolution and religion.
The other source is Beyond Human: Engineering Our Future Evolution, which asks questions of
the human race in particular with regard to the prospect of genetic engineering, cloning and other
forms of artificial adaptation and evolution. It questions the moral implications of what being

Farboud 2
able to genetically modify the population would do to human civilization, citing historical
examples of attempts to control variation in human populations while also questioning
humanitys ability cope with such awesome theoretical power.
Both sources representing each discipline use similar methods to bolster their respective
arguments and further their own goals of convincing their audiences to agree with them. For
example, both cite historical examples and evidence to support their arguments throughout each
source. In Beyond Human, the author uses the historical example of eugenics used in the United
States in the early 20th century as a measure of what humans can and will do when given the
power of being able to pick and choose favorable genetic traits over others. Meanwhile, the
Handbook of Evolutionary Thinking in the Sciences uses pertinent examples of past studies and
experiments from all kinds of related research findings and discoveries. This, however, is where
the similarities in methods for argumentation between the two disciplines end.
Most methods utilized by each source in convincing its audience of its particular
viewpoint are quite different from one another. The source example for the biological discipline
emphasizes objectivity and accuracy above all else, and therefore structures its argument
accordingly. It utilizes the scientific method to create a testable hypothesis based on observations
seen in nature, leading to the collection of relevant data using repeatable methods resulting in the
formation of a useful conclusion. Meanwhile, the source example for the philosophy discipline
relies on the usage of hypothetical situations, sometimes backed by evidence garnered from
certain psychological experiments, using this information to make inferences about what may
happen in a given theoretical circumstance. Often, it seems more questions are raised throughout
the reading of a book pertaining to philosophy than there are questions that are satisfactorily
answered. Beyond Human relies on an appeal to the readers emotions and societal insecurities

Farboud 3
for persuasion, while the Handbook of Evolutionary Thinking works through its focus on
appealing to the readers logical reasoning.
An important aspect of how the biological discipline example structures its argument lies
in its ability to maintain a purely objective view of its own results gathered from various data
sets or instances. For instance, throughout the Handbook of Evolutionary Thinking in the
Sciences, readers are actually encouraged to point out flaws or imperfections in any aspect of the
research conducted to produce information contained within the book. In addition, the authors
remind the readers to not put Darwin, the forger of the theory of evolution, on a pedestal (that
is, to say he is infallible). These are both qualities of this specific discipline that exist for its own
benefit as an academic field of study. As the ultimate goal of the discipline of biological science
is to produce and distribute information that is as accurate as possible, it would only be
detrimental to the practice to ignore relevant, practical evidence surrounding a topic within the
field, even if that evidence was contradictory to information and data gathered previously. This
strictly objective and ideally unbiased approach to the discipline is effective in argumentative
and persuasive writing in that it appeals to both a readers logos in providing substantial amounts
of evidence to support conclusions, as well as his ethos in acknowledging the possibility that
scientists conducting the research may not be entirely correct.
The problem with the majority of the argument presented by the philosophy discipline is
that it relies too heavily on theoretical or fictional evidence to support its overall claim that
humans should probably not take advantage of any opportunity to genetically modify or enhance
the genetic quality of the general human population. For instance, the Beyond Human source
actually uses the fictitious and dystopian film Blade Runner as evidence for why human society
would not be able to reasonably cope with the process of harnessing the power of artificial

Farboud 4
genetic transformations to change the human population at will. While this introduction of an
example that many people are familiar with may be effective to a reader in painting a picture of a
dystopian future brought about by the apparently inescapable downsides of humans who are
playing God, to the purely logical mind this evidence counts for little more than pessimistic
speculation. This tactic of utilizing popularized fiction to describe what could happen (often
given only the worst of scenarios or settings) is usually extremely effective in giving a reader
some kind of tangible context in which he may place himself to better understand the context
through which the writer is conveying his message. By being better able to interpret the authors
ideas given a familiar setting, the writer is often more likely to agree with what the writer is
trying to convince him of. It is an argumentative method that is quite subjective in its approach,
and very much plays to the readers pathos, whilst largely overlooking any sort of logos.
The methods by which the Handbook of Evolutionary Thinking in the Sciences addresses
most counterarguments is superior to that of the philosophical discipline, in that, the biological
discipline actually discusses counterarguments, whereas Beyond Human does not. To this end,
the Handbook of Evolutionary Thinking in the Sciences delves into an argument for the
reconciliation of religion and evolution, claiming that Gods relationship to the world
necessarily brings with it a certain relationship between the scholar and his ideas with regard to
the topics of epistemological or metaphysical evolution. The book then continues, If God
immediately created all natural forms, then science cannot ignore the [idea of metaphysical
evolution] in its explanations, since [epistemological evolution] is, or was, a cause that had
contact with the physical world. The authors then reason that, If (...) God mediated his powers
of creation via laws, which alone acted to organize nature, then references to divinity are no
longer necessary in the field of physical causes. This sort of sound, logical and structured

Farboud 5
reasoning is characteristic of the biological discipline. It is also in this description of a
counterargument that the discipline of biology provides more valuable insight into the topic of
evolution than philosophy does. The presence of a counter argument is a staple of an effective
persuasive piece, and the lack of any counterclaim in the philosophy discipline example is
evidence for a lacking argument.
Both disciplines ask fascinating questions regarding the subject of evolution. The
philosophical discipline presents unique and fascinating interpretations of humanitys destined
course to genetic self-determinism, while the biological discipline examples builds off over a
hundred years of painstaking research to generate claims and conclusions about genetic and
biological processes that have only until recently remained undiscovered. Given their differences
in methodology and approach in constructing arguments and producing worthy conclusions, I am
altogether more inclined to favor the addressing of the topic of evolution from a biological
medium than from a philosophical standpoint.

Works Cited
Heams, Thomas, Philippe Huneman, Guillaume Lecointre, and Marc Silberstein. Handbook of
Evolutionary Thinking in the Sciences. Web. 30 Apr. 2016.
Seedhouse, Erik. Beyond Human: Engineering Our Future Evolution. Web. 30 Apr. 2016.