Alec Farboud

Scott Kneece
Writing 2
5 June 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 this 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 and useful one than that of a philosopher, as research
regarding evolution as a biologist involves the use of tangible, concrete evidence and information
as grounds for such an argument, while philosophy arguments are almost always purely
theoretical in nature and content, lessening their persuasion effectiveness.
One source has been chosen to represent each individual discipline. One is the Handbook
of Evolutionary Thinking in the Sciences, which illustrates the dynamism 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

Farboud 2
forms of artificial adaptation and evolution. It questions the moral implications of what being
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 artificial evolutionary power.
Both sources representing each discipline cite historical examples and evidence to
support their arguments. 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 (112).
Meanwhile, the Handbook of Evolutionary Thinking in the Sciences uses examples of past
studies and experiments from various aspects of biological research, including ecology,
microbiology, and developmental biological findings and discoveries to bolster its argument.
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. Scientists within the discipline of biology utilize
the scientific method to create testable hypotheses based on observations seen in nature, leading
to the collection of relevant data using repeatable methods resulting in the formation of a useful
conclusion. The source example for the biological discipline emphasizes objectivity and
accuracy above all else, and therefore structures its argument according to these crucial criteria.
For example, the Handbook of Evolutionary Thinking in the Sciences cites one study conducted
in 1926 by Ivan Schmalhausen, who endeavored to determine the effects of environmental
plasticity on different population samples by carrying out a plethora of related experiments in
order to better grasp this complex topic. Schmalhausens research was, by his own measure,

Farboud 3
extremely unsuccessful due to certain uncontrollable environmental impediments within his
experiments at the time. However, his contributions to the research field are nonetheless
extremely important, serving as a crucial benchmark for scientists who continue his work by
improving and expanding upon what he discovered on his own (Heams 295). It is extremely
important for individuals invested in the discipline of biological sciences to be able to recognize
when mistakes or imperfections in the collection of data has occurred. After all, herein lies one
forte of the discipline in the form of objectivity in research. One scientist admitting flaws in his
work allows others to understand problems from his experiences, and apply this newfound
knowledge to devise a potential solution. This is a characteristically practical and tangible
approach to the biological discipline as a whole: a far cry from most strategies presented by
argumentation of a philosophical context.
The discipline of philosophy generally relies on using hypothetical situations, usually
backed by evidence garnered from certain psychological experiments, to make inferences about
what may happen in a given theoretical circumstance. For example, in Beyond Human, scholar
Erik Seedhouse theorizes a scenario in which humans develop a cloning market for the mass
production of artificial organs and body parts. Overlooking the fact that his claims regarding
ethics and morality are built on an interpretation of a hypothetical scenario, Seedhouse explores
the potential changes to all of humanity given such a situation. Given such a broad topic, there
are often more questions raised throughout the reading of such a book pertaining to philosophy
than there are questions satisfactorily answered. It is mostly for this reason that Beyond Human
fails to be as persuasive as Evolutionary Thinking in the Sciences, as Beyond Human relies on an
appeal to the readers emotions and societal insecurities for persuasion, while, conversely, the
Handbook of Evolutionary Thinking argues through its focus on appealing to the readers logical

Farboud 4
reasoning using substantial evidence as a basis for its argument. The deductively obtained,
concrete evidence presented by the biological disciplinary argument appeals to the reasonable
and rational side of a reader by effectively convincing him with heavily substantiated claims and
tangible evidence, a method of argumentation not prevalent within a philosophical argument.
The philosophy discipline employs different, but also valuable argumentative methods of
its own to further its argument. For instance, the practice of raising thought-provoking and
insightful questions to stimulate discussion of a topic is beneficial in generating thoughtful
discourse on the given topic. This discourse, when substantiated with psychological experimental
evidence (especially within the realm of discussion of human behavior), may provide extremely
useful insight into the potential consequences of societal actions on human behavior. Information
accrued and interpreted in such a fashion allows for disagreement between scholars on nuances
of presented arguments, thereby demanding the construction of arguments to be of incredible
precision and detail. Logic is heavily used by the philosophical discipline as well. It is mostly
employed by philosophers in order to avoid the addition of contradictory statements or
redundancies within a given argument. Being an academic discipline, logic is also naturally used
in the structure of the argument, giving a reasonable progression and ordering of subject matter
and topic introduction. The logic utilized by the discipline of philosophy is sound in the context
of the arguments it makes, although perhaps not so much when one considers the kind of
evidence the discipline uses the back its philosophically derived claims.
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

Farboud 5
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
genetic transformations to change the human population at will (2). 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 downside of humans 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 reader is often more likely to agree with what the writer is trying to convince
him of. It is an argumentative method that can often be quite subjective in its approach, and very
much plays to the readers pathos. This is one argumentative method the biological discipline
does not employ to any degree, with its persuasive emphasis being purely empirical in nature and
structure.
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 actively 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

Farboud 6
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 discipline also effectively
utilizes counterarguments to further bolster its credibility and logical soundness.
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 countering 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 (252). This statement both refutes the possibility
for any consolidation between religion and the sciences, and labels the religious argument with
regard to evolution as obsolete. Following this quotation, the authors go on to discuss the
biological argument for evolution in order to better explain, in an empirical manner, that which

Farboud 7
the religious argument could not. This sort of sound, logical and structured reasoning and
presentation of evidence 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 example 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 more critical,
thorough and procedural nature in methodology and approach in constructing arguments and
producing useful and immediately employable conclusions, the biological discipline presents a
superior argument with regard to the topic of evolution than does the philosophy discipline.

Farboud 8
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.