What we must accept if we accept evolution

Faith: It’s been awhile since I’ve been tempted to post on the board. I just wanted to say that I thought your post was really quite good with reference to how science in general and evolutionary biology in particular view humanity’s place in the universe. Well, the hyperbole about human food cropping aside, that is. I would like to comment on a couple of areas, however: As I read this, I’m struck by an apparent contradiction. It appears (and I may simply be misunderstanding your meaning), that you are conflating two vastly distinct concepts. You seem to be advocating that there can be assigned an intrinsic, inherent “objective significance” to an object - or at least to humans. However, you then equate this “objective”, intrinsic concept with the wholly extrinsic, subjective concept of “value”.I find this apparent contradiction somewhat confusing. Think of it this way: what is the “value” of a rock lying on a forested hillside? And yes, I’m aware that you are probably restricting the “significance” argument to humans alone, but bear with me. It may be possible to determine that that rock in that location has “value”. However, the specific definition of value in the case of our chunk of granite is entirely dependent on subjective assignment of significance based on wholly external perspectives. For instance, from one perspective, the rock may be providing shelter to numerous organisms from beetles to grubs to soil nematodes who would be completely unable to survive if the rock weren’t there at that precise location. It may also (and simultaneously) be providing a substrate for various lichens and mosses, which again would be unable to survive in that place in the rock’s absence. From the perspective of living systems, therefore, the rock has “value” as either shelter or substrate. From a completely abiotic standpoint, the rock may be said to have “value” for its interactions with the rest of the environment (for instance, because of its location it may be implicated in soil retention, retardation of rainwater runoff, slope stabilization, etc.) From a human perspective, the rock may have “significance” because of the uses to which we can put it. For example, it may be the exact right shape to be useful in grinding grain, cracking a coconut, or bashing in the head of an opponent.In short, an object only has that significance which is imputed to it by external actors or systems. Although the significance of humans - and the “values” imputed to an individual or the species as a whole - is orders of magnitude more complex than that of a rock, it is a matter of degree rather than kind. The significance of a human is dependent solely on the individual’s myriad interactions with others - and hence the “value” of a human is dependent on the rest of the system, and the significance others impute to him/her. It is, in my opinion, rather difficult to determine any “objectivity” in this type of valuation. Please elaborate on your meaning if I have misunderstood. As to the remainder of your post, with one minor quibble (see below) and a couple of unimportant details, I think you have basically hit the nail on the head in terms of how evolutionary biology views humanity’s “place” in the cosmos. We are, in essence, merely one of a myriad of exquisitely adapted species on this planet. We are not inherently special by any reasonable definition of the term. I think you have struck to the heart of the difficulty many have in accepting the observations and conclusions of evolutionary science. Your post might serve as an excellent framework for exploring the “why” of this difficulty (although we don’t have much room remaining in this thread, unfortunately). To wit: why don’t so many biologists and others see the lack of “special-ness” in humans (or at least the concept that we have the same level of “special-ness” as any other of the wondrous and intricately evolved organisms on this amazing planet) as a negative? Why is that many people - and in some cases the majority of people in a given place or country - are very uncomfortable with the lack of “special-ness”, to the point that they reject one of the fundamental principles linking all of life? Does this sound like a reasonable framework for discussion?As to my qubble: If this is merely rhetoric, then I have no argument. In fact, I think it’s kind of a neat way of phrasing it. However, I just wanted to be sure you understood - really understood - that evolution doesn’t “assign” a place to any organism. There is no progress inherent in evolution, merely survival and reproduction. What makes evolutionary theory so absolutely absorbing to me is the unbelievable complexity of both the interactions between organisms and between organisms and their environment - in short, how evolution actually plays out in time and space.Just my thoughts.