[charles brough]

Yes, but wrongly!

There are two very different ways of applying evolution to societies. Before Darwin's work was published, Herbert Spencer wrote in Progress: Its Law and Cause (1857) that the individual (rather than the collectivity) is the unit of analysis that evolves, that evolution takes place through natural selection, and that it affects social as well as biological phenomena (see Wikipedia). In other words, natural selection between human individuals shapes societies, not the other way around. Darwin did developed the concept of genetic or biological evolution but in Descent of Man, he wrote "..at some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilized races of man will almost certainly exterminate, and replace, the savage races throughout the world.” In other words, he equated “society” with race.

Is it any wonder their words were all taken up as the standard bearers of the European world Empire, that the rule of the West was considered “the White Mans Burden” instead of simply a more efficient means of gaining economic growth from using other people and their lands? As Wikipedia describes it, the key argument of the Social Darwinists was “that nature works through survival of the fittest and so does human society. That is, that those who have survived or flourished did so by natural processes; those who died, are dying, or have failed economically likewise did so by natural processes; it is therefore unnatural and inefficient to try and change that through philanthropy or other non-market mechanisms (charity, government, etc.). Success or failure is usually dependent on natural traits, such as physical strength or guile.” This was developed into a whole belief system by Adolph Hitler. The subsequent defeat of Nazism ended Social Darwinism's eugenic theory of social evolution as a viable theory.

Later, it resurfaced as “Sociobiology” but in such a convoluted way that it was hard for anyone to recognize the Social Darwinism in it. Its author, E. O. Wilson brought in a whole new glossary of terms which were mostly only definable with each other. That made the work was so difficult to understand that the connection to Darwinism could almost be overlooked. Also, all reference to “race” was eliminated and most examples of genetic change were and are still promoted as altruism. In this way, the theory became so benign as to be accepted as another viable viewpoint. Because there has been no real explanation of what social evolution is and how it functions, anything at all was accepted was being better then nothing at all.

Indeed, in desperation, scholars have even been emphasizing subtle genetic changes occurring in the human race---as if they somehow helped to explain the growth of human numbers and that of the total human cultural heritage. They imply that genetic changes explain scientific/cultural “progress” even while denying the existence of “progress!'' Finally, in order to avoid the label of Social Darwinists, the term social evolution gave way to cultural evolution.

All that has effectively prevented social evolution from being regarded simply as the natural selection that occurs between religion bonded societies. Evidently, the thought of religions serving an evolutionary function is too offensive to the faithful to even be proposed. In that way, social theorists turned social science from a science into just another one of our society's many secular doctrines.

[Pyrotex]

Well, you done read up on Social Darwinism. Very good. Wish more folks around here would do some research.

Social Darwinism isn't really "evolution", though. Evolution requires that an entity (as we shall generalize) be manifested through some kind of property of inheritance. Where the offspring of two entities share the genetic information from both parents.

In SD, there are no "entities" that correspond to animals, no genetic code that determines the expressing of social behavior, and no shaping of future social behavior according to inheritance in the strict sense.

On the other side of the coin, we have social behavior that differs from culture to culture. But rarely does social behavior come about because of the "merger" of two parent cultures with anything resembling inheritance. Social behavior changes because of war, poverty, invasion, massive catastrophes, sudden wealth, military expansion, changes of climate, technological inventions, and the like.

SD went the way of the Dodo largely because it just wasn't possible to build a plausible model of SD based on "evolution". Sure, culture "changes" but not in the well-defined, constrained, genetic way that life changes. That, and because SD was used to justify some seriously badass cultures in the not-too-distant past.

There is an element of "natural selection" in SD, however, and I suppose that's what keeps SD from reappearing every so often. But then we see cultures that appear to have negative social (and individual) value actually thriving and amassing huge throngs of believers. Go figger.

My vote is that Social Darwinism doesn't rate as a "science". Not yet. Maybe not ever.

[Eclogite]

First as to your opening question regarding the role of evolution in the rise and fall of civilisations. It is an intriguing question, but your answer to it confused me. Could you clarify - did you mean (A) Yes evolution is involved, but not in the way that is generally claimed. (B) It is said to be involved, but this is a mistake. (C) Some other meaning.

If (A), who makes such a claim?
If (B) who says it is involved?

For me the answer is a very clear no. I am not aware of any evidence linking biological evolution of humans to the downfall of any civilisation.

I think Pyrotex's point is an important one. Cultural evolution is a reality, but it is quite different in detail, mechanism and timescale from that of biological evolution. While it is possible that comparison of the two may produce useful insights, it seems more likely (in part because of the unfortunate use of the same word to describe disparate things) that it will generate confusion.

You conclude with these observations:

Originally Posted by charles brough

All that has effectively prevented social evolution from being regarded simply as the natural selection that occurs between religion bonded societies. Evidently, the thought of religions serving an evolutionary function is too offensive to the faithful to even be proposed. In that way, social theorists turned social science from a science into just another one of our society's many secular doctrines.

This just didn't seem to follow at all from what you had said before, yet I sense it is your main thesis. If that is the case you certainly would need to develop your argument further in order to carry any conviction.