| | Objectivism's chief limitation appears to be the unwillingness of its adherents and formulators to consider that anything might exist ''outside'' of perceptual reality, that might nevertheless influence that reality. This either led to, or followed from, the [[atheism]] that is one of this school's most prominent attributes. Branden reports one interesting interaction, however: Rand was not willing to accept the theory of [[evolution]] as more than an hypothesis. She couldn't accept [[Creationism|creation]], but evolution discomfited her nevertheless--perhaps because it blurred the distinction between man and animal.<ref name=BrandenBenHaz/> <ref name=Parille>[[Neil Parille|Parille, Neil]], [http://rebirthofreason.com/Articles/Parille/Ayn_Rand_and_Evolution.shtml Ayn Rand and Evolution], at RebirthofReason.com</ref> | | Objectivism's chief limitation appears to be the unwillingness of its adherents and formulators to consider that anything might exist ''outside'' of perceptual reality, that might nevertheless influence that reality. This either led to, or followed from, the [[atheism]] that is one of this school's most prominent attributes. Branden reports one interesting interaction, however: Rand was not willing to accept the theory of [[evolution]] as more than an hypothesis. She couldn't accept [[Creationism|creation]], but evolution discomfited her nevertheless--perhaps because it blurred the distinction between man and animal.<ref name=BrandenBenHaz/> <ref name=Parille>[[Neil Parille|Parille, Neil]], [http://rebirthofreason.com/Articles/Parille/Ayn_Rand_and_Evolution.shtml Ayn Rand and Evolution], at RebirthofReason.com</ref> |
| − | In regard to this last: Diana Mertz Hsieh accuses Branden of distorting Rand on this point, and says that Rand refused to endorse evolution merely because she believed she did not have the required scientific knowledge to make an informed judgement.<ref name=poisonwell>Hsieh, Diana Mertz, [http://www.dianahsieh.com/blog/2005/07/poisoning-well.html Poisoning the Well], 24 March 2007</ref> In actual fact, Branden details that conversation:<blockquote>I remember being astonished to hear her say one day, "After all, the [[theory of evolution]] is only a hypothesis." I asked her, "Ayn, you mean you seriously doubt that more complex life forms, including humans, evolved from less complex life forms?" She shrugged and responded, "I'm really not prepared to say," or words to that effect. I do not mean to imply that she wanted to substitute for the theory of evolution the religious belief that we are all [[God]]'s [[creation]]; but there was definitely something about the concept of evolution that made her uncomfortable.<ref name=BrandenBenHaz/></blockquote>What that something was, Branden never said. [[Neil Parille]] offers this explanation: that evolution cannot explain the development of consciousness, and that some of evolution's proponents, among them [[Ernst Haeckel]], put Rand off by their explicit rejection of the human will.<ref name=Parille/> | + | In regard to this last: Diana Mertz Hsieh accuses Branden of distorting Rand on this point, and says that Rand refused to endorse evolution merely because she believed she did not have the required scientific knowledge to make an informed judgment.<ref name=poisonwell>Hsieh, Diana Mertz, [http://www.dianahsieh.com/blog/2005/07/poisoning-well.html Poisoning the Well], 24 March 2007</ref> In actual fact, Branden details that conversation:<blockquote>I remember being astonished to hear her say one day, "After all, the [[theory of evolution]] is only a hypothesis." I asked her, "Ayn, you mean you seriously doubt that more complex life forms, including humans, evolved from less complex life forms?" She shrugged and responded, "I'm really not prepared to say," or words to that effect. I do not mean to imply that she wanted to substitute for the theory of evolution the religious belief that we are all [[God]]'s [[creation]]; but there was definitely something about the concept of evolution that made her uncomfortable.<ref name=BrandenBenHaz/></blockquote>What that something was, Branden never said. [[Neil Parille]] offers this explanation: that evolution cannot explain the development of consciousness, and that some of evolution's proponents, among them [[Ernst Haeckel]], put Rand off by their explicit rejection of the human will.<ref name=Parille/> |