EVOLUTION, ANYONE?

One of Steiner’s Central Doctrines

by Roger Rawlings

Afterword by Peter Staudenmaier

Steiner's views on evolution were complex (not to say self-contradictory). Sometimes he indicated that man evolved from animals: “As man has evolved out of the animal, so will the 'superman’ evolve out of man.” [1] At other times, he said something quite different. 

As I've reported elsewhere, at the Waldorf school I attended, evolution was taken as moving in two opposite directions: true humans were evolving upwards in a linear, progressive set of reincarnations, while failed humans were degenerating: bad karma, leading to linear  regression. In partial support of my school's take on the issue, let's turn to Anthroposophist Roy Wilkinson. “Waldorf teachers are supposed to teach Steinerian evolution. In this view, species were specially created, rather than evolving from one another, and 'spiritual beings were the creators.' 'Let us start from the point that the gods, or the divine spiritual beings, decided to create the world and man. For this we have a good authority in the first chapter of the first book of the Bible.'” [2] 

Wilkinson also wrote: “The Waldorf version of evolution is especially concerned with the relationship of humans to animals, but this relationship is quite different from that of mainline evolutionists. 'It becomes apparent that man is a compendium of the animal kingdom; alternatively expressed, that the animal kingdom is the human being spread out.' The human 'essence' passed through a number of 'spiritual states' on the way to becoming human, which was a relatively recent event. 'Dr. Steiner considers animals to be the by-products [sic] of human development. Man has been involved from the beginning but not in a physical form. Man existed spiritually and the animal forms represent physically incarnated soul forces which the human being had to dispense with in order to mature sufficiently to receive the ego ...  As in life ... we are trying to overcome the lower passions to evolve to something higher, so throughout evolution, the passions were separated out from man and these were incorporated as animals.

"‘We see then that man is not the result of animal evolution but that he is at the beginning of it and is central to it. Indeed he is the cause of it. The animal world represents soul qualities which the human being has discarded although he still retains remnants of them.’” [3]

To take this a step further, here is one of Steiner's comments setting forth the notion that animals descended from humans, not vice versa. (Note how here, as so often, Steiner explicitly rejects the findings of science. He knew better than some of his current adherents that science was/is his enemy: Science will never confirm Steiner's bizarre “theories,” not because of any bias against Anthroposophy, but simply because Anthroposophy has no basis in factual information.)

“[T]he scientist would, in principle, always say that minerals, plants and animals would develop without the existence of people. 

“This is incorrect. If the evolution of the Earth did not include human beings, then most animals would not exist. A major portion of the animals, particularly the higher animals, rose within earthly evolution only because human beings needed to use their elbows (of course, I speak here only pictorially). At a particular stage in their earthly development, human beings, to develop further, needed to rid their nature, which then was much different than it is now, of the higher animals ... [H]uman beings in an earlier stage of development were one with the  animal world, and then the animal world precipitated out. In earthly development, animals would not have become what they are today had humanity not needed to become what it is now. Thus, without the inclusion of humanity in earthly development, animals and the Earth itself would look much different than they do today. 

“Let us now go on to the mineral and plant world. We must be quite clear that not only the lower animal forms, but also the plant and mineral world would have petrified long ago and ceased development were there no human beings on earth ... [E]arthly development would have long ago reached its final stage were the Earth not continuously fed with the forces of human corpses, the forces released by the human spirit-soul at death.” [4]

A few additional comments on this passage may be worth considering. Steiner places humanity at the center of evolution: animal life, plant life, and even the mineral world depend on human beings for their continued development. He does not deny that some animals (particularly lower animals) may have come into existence before humanity arose. Inferentially, these would have been the animals with whom humans “were one.” Later, humans gave rise to the rest of the animal kingdom. The higher animals were, originally, part of the human spirit-soul. Thus, they represent portions of humanity that sank to subhuman status: They descended from, or “precipitated” out of, humans. 

Steiner's contention that “[E]arthly development would have long ago reached its final stage were the Earth not continuously fed with the forces of human corpses” is hard — if not impossible — to square with the findings of science. Indeed, life existed and evolved for billions (billions with a “B”) of years before humanity showed up. Here are some numbers:   

All of this (and much more, of course) occurred without the aid of human corpses. The precise date of the emergence of Homo sapiens remains in dispute, but it was probably less than a million years ago, perhaps as recently as 300,000 years ago. [6] Earthly development, in other words, got on just fine without us.

Let’s turn to another passage from Steiner. Here he is discussing mankind’s evolution with teachers at the first Waldorf School:

Dr. Steiner: “In the Quaternary Period you will find the first and second mammals ... You can create a parallel between the Quaternary Period and Atlantis [yes: the legendary lost continent], and easily bring the Tertiary period into parallel ... as the Lemurian Period [Lemuria was a land that was lost long before Atlantis] ... The human being was at that time only jelly-like in external form. Humans had an amphibian-like form.”

A teacher: “But there were still the fire breathers.”

Dr. Steiner: “Yes, those beasts, they did breathe fire....” [7]

According to geologists, the Tertiary and Quaternary periods are subdivisions of the Cenozoic Era, which began about 65 million years ago. The Tertiary lasted until about two million years ago, when the Quaternary began. We are still in the Quaternary Period. [8] Few of Steiner’s assertions are consistent with any of this. The first mammals, for example, appeared between 286 and 248 million years ago, not as recently as 65 million years ago. There was no Lemuria, no Atlantis. Humans did evolve in the present Quaternary Period, but they were not around when dragons ruled the earth, since there were no dragons. Nor were humans around when dinosaurs ruled the earth (the reign of the dinosaurs began about 230 million years ago, ending about 65 million years ago; homo sapiens arose about 300,000 years ago).

Steiner’s statement to his teachers, above, is not even internally consistent. Were we jelly-like or amphibian-like? We couldn’t have been both. An amphibian made of jelly couldn’t pull itself ashore, and if it washed up on shore, it would likely lie wherever the water deposited it, like a stranded jellyfish, gradually cooking in the sun. What we actually seem to be seeing here is Steiner changing his story even as he tells it. But let it go.

◊◊◊◊

A SLIGHT COMPLICATION:

THE BIG PICTURE

According to Steiner, our evolution on the Earth is only one stage in our overall evolution. Prior to living here on Earth, we lived on (or during) other “planets” such as the Sun and the Moon. In moving from “planet” to “planet,” we are evolving in the same way that other beings evolved before us. They passed through their own “human” stages and then they moved on to higher stages. We will move on too — we are “human” only temporarily. [9]

Our evolution, thus, is part of a larger pageant. For instance, beings once lived “on” the Sun “during” a period called “Old Sun” — they were fire beings who were, in a spiritual sense, human: “At that time the so-called spirits of fire had the same status as human beings on the Earth today. The spirits of fire on Old Sun, however, did not look like present-day human beings. These sublime individuals went through their ‘human stage’ in completely different circumstances than we are at today’s stage of development. On Old Moon there was also a multitude of beings going through their human stage of development. They then came to Earth as exalted beings — lunar Pitris  (or spirits of the Moon) who have now attained a stage higher than ours. In Christian esoteric terms they are called ‘angels.’ It is only on Earth that we have become ‘human beings.’ The lunar Pitris are the next level above us, and above them are the spirits of fire....” [10] This may revise your conception of angels as well as your image of humans. A practical consideration (if such a concept can ever apply to Steiner) is that in tracking the migrations of “humans” from planet to planet and/or from one evolutionary stage to another, we must consider more varieties of beings than just the spirits who happen to be human now on this planet — that is, you and me.

Steiner labeled the mega-stages of evolution Old Saturn, Old Sun, Old Moon, Earth (where/when we are now), Jupiter (our next stage), Venus, and Vulcan. Sometimes he clearly associated these stages with the planets that bear the corresponding names, and sometimes he denied any connection between stages and planets. His use of language was always slippery. Calling the Sun and the Moon planets was distracting enough. Using names that he said didn’t fit the subject he was discussing added a completely unnecessary level of confusion. The “planet” Sun is certainly not a planet; but Steiner sometimes said that the planet Saturn is not a “planet” either. (And sometimes he said something different.) Why did he use the word “Saturn” if, according to himself, it is the wrong word? Well might you ask. 

Let’s look at another example: “In the course of a given epoch not all beings attain the goal of their evolution. Some fall short of it. During Saturn evolution, for example, not all the Spirits of Personality [i.e., Principalities] attained the ‘human’ stage appointed for them. Nor did all the human physical bodies that developed upon Saturn reach the degree of maturity which would enable them to become the bearers on Sun [i.e., on or during Old Sun] of an independent life body.” [11] The main points to mull over, here, are that ◊all manner of spiritual beings are undergoing spiritual evolution; ◊“human” is just one stage in the process; and ◊the process is not random: It follows a divine plan. (Minor point: The “life body” is one of three nonphysical bodies Steiner said we human possess; he also called it the etheric body. Plants and animals also have such bodies. A higher nonphysical body is the “astral” body, which humans and animals possess. Still higher is the “I,” which — among Earth beings — only humans possess. Spirits that have passed beyond human status move toward far less limited conditions.)

Consider the angels again: “Angels or Angeloi.  These reached their human stage of development during the Old Moon period and are as present only as far evolved as humanity will be during the Jupiter phase of evolution. Hence, Angels are one stage above humans. What is the task of these Beings? ... Every individual is endowed with a Being who, because it stands one stage above humanity, guides that individual from one incarnation to another.” [12] Again, we see that Steiner’s version of evolution has nothing at all to do with scientific accounts. It is a wishful view involving guardian angels who shepherd us on a predetermined upward path. This is very nice, if you can believe it. Christians, however, must reckon with the demand Steiner places on the powers of orthodox belief. The angels he describes at not at all like those presented in the Bible — they are creatures just a bit superior to us, evolving as we evolve. Specifically, they help us during the process of reincarnation that is central to Steiner’s views but totally absent from the Bible.

If you want to examine the overall shape of mega-evolution, as Steiner described it, please see "Everything" and the essays that follow it. 

Meanwhile, here are some concluding words from Peter Staudenmaier. He traces Steiner’s evolutionary views back to Theosophy, the religion Steiner espoused before branching off to establish Anthroposophy. Madame Helena Blavatsky was one of the founders of Theosophy and one of Steiner’s teachers. The Lemurian period was the fanciful stage of Earthly evolution when, according to Blavatsky and Steiner, humans lived on Lemuria, a continent much like Atlantis.

— Roger Rawlings

AFTERWORD

by Peter Staudenmaier

Steiner proposed a combination of both progressive and regressive evolution, sometimes called evolution and involution; this was the basic scheme for Theosophy as a whole, and much of Steiner's version is quite similar to Blavatsky's, for example. [13] There's a very good discussion of this subject in Wouter Hanegraaff's book NEW AGE RELIGION AND WESTERN CULTURE: Esotericism in the Mirror of Secular Thought (Leiden: Brill, 1996), pp. 470-82.  Steiner's line on the preeminence of human evolution goes more or less like this (and again largely follows Theosophical premises): The human spiritual entity predates the earth cycle and earthly life forms, but it took eons for humanity to emerge in physical form on the earth; this did not happen until the Lemurian period. Throughout this process, the evolving human impulse cast off its “lower forms” as varieties of plant and animal life. (The same thing will happen in the future with the separation of the good race and the evil race.) Thus humans weren't the first “life forms” on earth, if we take this in a biological sense, but they nevertheless preceded and gave rise to the other life forms on earth.   As for the possibility of individual degeneration, this is crucial to the system as a whole, but operates across multiple incarnations rather than during one lifetime. It also characterizes entire peoples and races, in Steiner's view. Involution and evolution go hand-in-hand in Anthroposophy, as in other esoteric systems.

The basic idea behind the involution component of Steiner’s theory is that across long eons of development, the cosmos becomes increasingly dense, and spirit descends more and more into matter. This is in turn necessary for the upward movement of humanity becoming increasingly spiritual and less tied to matter. The process is racially structured; those souls that get stuck in obsolete racial and ethnic forms, for example Chinese or Jews, have become too attached to matter and thus can't progress spiritually. (This is also one chief reason why many Anthroposophists regard their own doctrines as antiracist, because the eventual goal of the process is to leave racial and ethnic particularity behind as vestiges of mere materiality and physicality.) It is basically up to each reincarnating soul to make the choice in favor of racial-spiritual advance or decline.

— Peter Staudenmaier

Paintings by Waldorf students.

ADDENDUM

Steiner's followers generally deny the truth of modern evolutionary theory.

Some are creationists; most accept Steiner's upside-down version of evolution.

The following may serve as a slight corrective.

On July 28, 2009, I posted the following message at 

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/waldorf-critics/message/11427

I have edited it slightly for inclusion here.

At the moment I happen to be reading THE BLIND WATCHMAKER by Richard Dawkins. He makes a crucial point that applies to the sorts of arguments Anthroposophists often offer in disputing scientific accounts of evolution.

Dawkins speaks of the "Argument from Personal Incredulity," which boils down to rejecting theories that you, personally, find impossible to believe. But how well informed are you? How much information do you possess in order to reach meaningful conclusions on the subject? How hard have you thought about the subject? How rational are your arguments? And does you personal capacity for belief or disbelief even matter?

Dawkins cites the case of Hugh Montefiore, the Bishop of Binghamton, who wrote THE PROBABILITY OF GOD. The Bishop relies heavily on the "Argument from Personal Incredulity" to "prove" that evolutionary science is wrong. His book is full of such phrases as "....there seems to be no explanation on Darwinian grounds.... It is no easier to explain... It is not easy to understand.... It is equally difficult to explain.... I do not find it easy to comprehend..... I do not find it easy to see.... I find it hard to understand.... It does not seem feasible to explain.... I cannot see how.... neoDarwinism seems inadequate to explain many of the complexities of animal behaviour.... it is not easy to comprehend how such behaviour could have evolved solely through natural selection.... It is impossible.... how could an organ so complex evolve?.... It is not easy to see.... It is difficult to see" [Dawkins, pp. 54-55.]

In response, Dawkins writes:

“The Argument from Personal Incredulity is an extremely weak argument, as Darwin himself noted. In some cases it is based upon simple ignorance. For instance, one of the facts that the Bishop finds it difficult to understand is the white colour of polar bears. [Dawkins quotes the Bishop again:] ‘As for camouflage, this is not always easily explicable on neo-Darwinian premises. If polar bears are dominant in the Arctic, then there would seem to have been no need for them to evolve a white-coloured form of camouflage.’

Dawkins continues: “This should be translated: ‘I personally, off the top of my head sitting in my study, never having visited the Arctic, never having seen a polar bear in the wild, and having been educated in classical literature and theology, have not so far managed to think of a reason why polar bears might benefit from being white.’ 

Dawkins continues continuing: “In this particular case, the assumption being made is that only animals that are preyed upon need camouflage. What is overlooked is that predators also benefit from being concealed from their prey. Polar bears stalk seals resting on the ice. If the seal sees the bear coming from far-enough away, it can escape. I suspect that, if he imagines a dark grizzly bear trying to stalk seals over the snow, the Bishop will immediately see the answer to his problem. "  [Dawkins, pp. 55-56.]

Dawkins’ larger point is that critics of standard, scientific evolutionary theory misunderstand a basic reality. They think that Darwin taught that all evolutionary change is completely random, which they find impossible to believe. How could, for example, the human eye evolve completely randomly? The random evolution of such a fine organ is not credible. But this is not what Darwin taught, nor is it what modern biologists think. Small changes occur randomly, but the overall process of evolution is not at all random: It is controlled by the imperative necessity to survive and pass on ones’ genes. Evolution is, in this larger sense, not at all random nor difficult to comprehend.

More quotes from THE BLIND WATCHMAKER:

"Living things are too improbable and too beautifully 'designed' to have come into existence by chance. How then, did they come into existence ?  The answer, Darwin's answer, is by gradual, step-by-step transformation from simple beginnings, from primordial entities sufficiently simple to have come about by chance. Each successive change in the gradual evolutionary process was simple enough, relative to its predecessor, to have arisen by chance. But the whole sequence of cumulative steps constitutes anything but a change process, when you consider the complexity of the final end-product relative to the original starting point. The cumulative process is directed by non-random survival."

"The underlying basis for the intuitive incredulity that we all are tempted to feel about what Darwin called 'organs of extreme perfection and complication' [such as the human eye] is, I think, twofold. First we have no intuitive grasp of the immensities of time available for evolutionary change. Most sceptics about natural selection are prepared to accept that it can bring about minor changes like the dark coloration that has evolved in various species of moth since the industrial revolution. But having accepted this, they then point out how small a change this is. I agree that this is a small change, no match for the evolution of the eye, or of echolocation (in bats). But equally, the moths only took a hundred years, to make their change. One hundred years seems to be a long time to us, because it is longer than our lifetime. But to a geologist, it is about a thousand times shorter than he can ordinarily measure! 

<snip> “The second basis for our natural incredulity about the evolution of very complex organs like human eyes and bat ears is an intuitive application of probability theory. Bishop Montefiore quotes C. E. Raven on cuckoos. These lay their eggs in the nests of other birds, which then act as unwitting foster parents. Like so many biological adaptations, that of the cuckoo is not single but multiple. Several different facts about cuckoos fit them to their parasitic way of life. For instance, the mother has the habit of laying in other birds' nests, and the baby has the habit of throwing the host's own chicks out of the nest. Both habits help the cuckoo succeed in its parasitic way of life. Raven goes on: ‘It will be seen that each one of this sequence of conditions is essential for the success of the whole. Yet each by itself is useless. The whole opus perfectum must have been achieved simultaneously. The odds against the random occurrence of such a series of coincidences are, as we have already stated, astronomical.’

[Dawkins replies] 

In sum, a random change may lead to the evolution of rudimentary sensitivity to light. But then the non-random dictates of evolution take over. Being able to see, even very very dimly, is far better than being totally blind. Creatures who can see very very dimly gain an advantage over totally blind creatures; they survive while their blind competitors die out. Then, over millennia — vast, vast, slow, slow periods of time — primordial eyes evolve, becoming better and better. Ultimately, we wind up with the “perfect” human eye.

But in fact our eyes are far from perfect. They have blind spots, can’t see at all well at night, etc. Only a blind watchmaker would create such eyes; an omnipotent God could do much, much better. Even Steiner’s “gods” could do much better. Even ordinary, competent human engineers could do better.

Also, as Andrew Parker argues in IN THE BLINK OF AN EYE, an evolutionary change so radical and beneficial as sensitivity to light may trigger rapid evolutionary change. Modern evolutionary theory accepts this. The point, however, is that the “purpose” of evolution (survival and reproduction) does not have to be imposed by a designer. It is a perfectly natural, indeed inevitable, inherent characteristic of evolution.

So, evolution involves small, random changes, but the overall pattern of evolution is not random at all. Yet the products of evolution are far from being as well-designed as divine designers might have made them. What we have is a comprehensible, natural process that, even when unrolling “rapidly,” takes a very long time, and it does not require outside guidance as from a God or gods.

Does this prove the nonexistence of God or the “gods”? Of course not. Anthroposophists and others fear that making even minor concession to science and reason would undermine their entire belief system, but this is not true. At least, any belief system worth considering must be compatible with true information, knowledge. Buddhists and Catholics, to give just two examples, accept scientific truths. Anthroposophists could do so, too, if they were willing. They would have to make some adjustments in their thinking, but after all this is what Steiner presumably recommended when calling Anthroposophy a science.

White polar bear stalking white seals in the snow.

[R.R., 2009.]

Photo of Charles Darwin: International Museum of Photography.

Cartoon: Harper's Weekly, 1871 (Bettmann/Corbs).

[The Defrauded Gorilla: "That Man wants to claim my Pedigree.

He says he is one of my Descendants."

Mr. Bergh: "Now, Mr. Darwin, how could you insult him so?"]

Both: ENCYCLOPEDIA BRITANNICA.

ENDNOTES

[1] Rudolf Steiner, THE STORY OF MY LIFE, Chapter 18:  http://southerncrossreview.org/54/steiner-life18.htm .

[2] Roy Wilkinson, MAN AND ANIMAL, The Robinswood Press, Stourbridge, England, 1990, pp. 2-3, quoted in  “Waldorf Schools Teach Odd Science, Odd Evolution,” by Eugenie C. Scott, National Center for Science Education (see http://www.waldorfcritics.org/active/articles/Eugenie_Scott_94.html ).

[3] Ibid.

[4] Rudolf Steiner, THE FOUNDATIONS OF HUMAN EXPERIENCE, (Anthroposophic Press, 1996), pp. 69-71.

[5] The World Book Multimedia Encyclopedia, Mac OS X Edition, Version 6.0.2.

Steiner’s theory stands in opposition to Darwin’s. Many people dislike the idea of evolution in any form, but Darwinian evolution (unlike Steinerian evolution, creationism, and other opposing ideas) has been substantiated by vast accumulations of reliable information. No theory is absolute; all theories are subject to revision and, if they are finally proven wrong, replacement. But Darwin’s theory has, so far, not only survived but gained increased stature. To the extent that a biological theory can be proven, Darwin’s theory of evolution has been proven. “Darwin’s theory of evolution has become the bedrock of modern biology. But for most of the theory’s existence since 1859, even biologists have ignored or vigorously opposed it, in whole or in part. It is a testament to Darwin’s extraordinary insight that it took almost a century for biologists to understand the essential correctness of his views.” [Nicholas Wade, “A Mind Still Prescient After All These Years” (THE NEW YORK TIMES, Feb. 10, 2009), p. D1.]

The essential correctness of Darwin’s views eludes Anthroposophists. “I once spent two days in intense study of the fossils in the Natural History Museum in Vienna ... Darwin’s view of gradual evolution of lower into higher forms had no example that I could find to support it.” [Clopper Almon, A STUDY COMPANION TO AN OUTLINE OF ESOTERIC SCIENCE (Anthroposophic Press, 1998), p. 73.] Spending two days in such an “intense study” is admirable, but is it sufficient to overthrow the evolutionary record patiently collected by evolutionary biologists over the last century and more? Almon proceeds to cite a dubious source, Michael Denton’s EVOLUTION: A Theory in Crisis (Adler & Adler, 1986). This is a thin reed on which to lean. From a review in the LIBRARY JOURNAL: “Denton pursues his avowed purpose, to critique the Darwinian model of evolution, in a manner alternately fascinating and tiresome. He details legitimate questions, some as old as Darwin's theory, some as new as molecular biology, but he also distorts or misrepresents other ‘problems.’ For example, he falls into the classic typological trap: organisms with the same name are all the same. He has Euparkeria as the closest possible ancestor of Archaeopteryx, thus displaying either ignorance or disregard for discoveries over the past two decades. He misunderstands or willfully misrepresents the nature of a cladogram as opposed to a phylogeny. Much of the book reads like creationist prattle....” [Walter P. Coombs, Jr., Biology Department, Western New England College.] Of course, Darwin’s theory remains controversial — but primarily among uninformed laymen, not among biologists. Polemicists like Almon and Denton may strive to deny the scientific consensus, but they achieve little. Among scientists, the debate is essentially over. “Evolutionists no longer are concerned with obtaining evidence to support the fact of evolution but rather are concerned with what sorts of knowledge can be obtained from different sources of evidence.” ["evolution." ENCYCLOPEDIA BRITANNICA. 2009. Encyclopedia Britannica Online. 15 Feb. 2009.] Darwinian evolution is fact.

[6] Ibid.

[7] Rudolf Steiner, FACULTY MEETINGS WITH RUDOLF STEINER (Anthroposophic Press, 1998), p. 26. Ibid.

[8] The World Book Multimedia Encyclopedia.

[9] A further complication: Some of us are not really human. E.g., some “children are born with a human form, but are not really human beings....” [Rudolf Steiner, FACULTY MEETINGS WITH RUDOLF STEINER (Anthroposophic Press, 1998), p. 649.] I discuss Steiner’s views on subhumans elsewhere.

[10] Rudolf Steiner, THE CHRISTIAN MYSTERY (Anthroposophic Press, 1998), p. 49.

[11] Rudolf Steiner, OCCULT SCIENCE (Rudolf Steiner Press, 2005), p. 133.   [12] Rudolf Steiner, THE ARCHANGEL MICHAEL (Anthroposophic Press, 1994), p. 35. 

[13] Helena Blavatsky was one of the founders of Theosophy, the religion from which Steiner’s Anthroposophy stems. See Rudolf Steiner, SPIRITUALISM, MADAME BLAVATSKY, AND THEOSOPHY: An Eyewitness View of Occult History (Anthroposophic Press, 2001), and Helena Blavatsky, THE SECRET DOCTRINE (Theosophical University Press, reprint edition, 1999).