I.

Rudolf Steiner's views on evolution were complex (not to say self-contradictory). Sometimes Steiner indicated that man evolved from animals: 

“As man has evolved out of the animal, so will the 'superman’ evolve out of man.” [1] 

But more often, Steiner said something quite different. Animals evolved downward from us; they are cast-off evolutionary relicts, beings who stalled at low evolutionary levels that we passed beyond.

At the Waldorf school I attended, a fundamental evolutionary narrative underlay many of our lessons. The narrative was rarely made explicit by our teachers, but its general outlines were continually suggested to us. Evolution moves in two opposite directions: True souls are evolving upwards through a progressive set of reincarnations. Failed souls, by contrast, degenerate, descending along a self-created trajectory of error and diminishment. 

The core concepts in this narrative are destiny, reincarnation, and evolution. To present the Anthroposophical view more openly than my teachers did, let's turn briefly to Anthroposophist and longtime Waldorf teacher Roy Wilkinson (1917-2007). In his pamphlets and books dealing with Waldorf education, Wilkinson supports "Steinerian evolution" and indicates that such evolution should be taught in Waldorf schools. As Anthroposophists often do, Wilkinson tried to make Steiner's teachings seem consistent with the Bible. Thus, he begins his pamphlet MAN AND ANIMAL with these words: 

"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] 

Actually, of course, the Bible speaks of one God, not a multiplicity of gods. And the concept of evolution is notably absent from its pages.

Wilkinson proceeds to explain that the gods created the animals by separating them, one at a time, from the main, upward stream of world evolution. The lion, for example, represents a certain spiritual stage that humans passed through. Protohuman spirits who could not evolve further stayed behind at that stage, the lion stage, while other spirits — ourselves — kept evolving upward. Thus, animals reflect various pre-human capacities that humanity itself has largely transcended: 

"[A]nimals [are] the by-products of human development ... [T]he animal forms represent physically incarnated soul forces which the human being had to dispense with in order to mature sufficiently to receive the [human] ego ... 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]

Animals are, in a sense, failed humans. They have trapped themselves at levels of development that wholesome, correct-thinking souls left behind. Here is one of Steiner's comments explaining that animals descended from humans, not vice versa:

“[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]

Steiner places humanity at the center of evolution: animal life, plant life, and even the mineral world depend on human beings for their development. Steiner does not deny that some animals (particularly lower animals) came into existence before we ourselves became, in any comprehensible sense, human. We "were one" with the lower animals when we and they evolved to lowly levels of existence. But the lower animals stalled at various lowly levels (the lowest animals first, then the slightly less low animals, then the not-terribly-low animals). One by one, the lower animals fell away, while the higher animals remained with us as we ascended. But then the higher animals, too, began falling away; we shed them as we pushed on without them. They thus descended from, or “precipitated” out of, ourselves. Only we ourselves rose all the way to human status.

This, in brief, is the Waldorf/Anthroposophical narrative of evolution. It is a mystical narrative, unsupported by scientific evidence. Consider Steiner's contention that “earthly development would have long ago reached its final stage were the Earth not continuously fed with the forces of human corpses.” This is hard — if not impossible — to square with the findings of science. There were no human corpses available throughout most of the long, long history of life on Earth — human beings did not appear until quite recently, long after most other lifeforms appeared. We are recent products of Earthly evolution, not the fountainhead of evolution. (Protohuman corpses were available, and plentiful, during the millennia when our forebears were subhuman. But these were not "human corpses" in any sensible sense; they were animal corpses. If Steiner was merely saying that new life depends on the decaying corpses of old life, then we might agree. But this is not what he said.) What Steiner said, or evidently meant, is that we humans have been central to evolution from the very beginning. We, in the form of our protohuman predecessors, were the first residents of the created cosmos, under the gods; and we remain the central residents today, under the gods.

In Western nations today, there are chiefly two accepted narratives of life on Earth. According to the scientific account, the actual pageant of evolution is far grander than Steiner indicated, and quite different. Here are some numbers telling the real story:  

◊ Life arose on the earth about 3.5 billion years ago.

◊ The first mammals appeared between 286 and 248 million years ago.

◊ The first dinosaurs appeared about 230 million years ago.

◊ Dinosaurs ruled the earth for about 160 million years, dying out about 65 millions years ago.

◊ Birds evolved from dinosaurs about 100 million years ago; modern birds appeared about 65 million years ago. 

◊ Human beings (homo sapiens) first appeared about a half million years ago. [5]

These numbers reflect the scientific consensus early in the 21st century.

The other leading account, in Western nations today, derives from Judeo-Christian tradition: There is a single God, and He — in His omnipotence — created the universe and everything in it. He created everything precisely as He chose, meaning that all life forms existing today are His intended creations. Moreover, God may have done all the work of creation quite quickly; The Beginning may have occurred as recently as 6,000 years ago. (Some believers insist on the literal truth of the Bible and the chronology it lays out; others say that the Bible is, in part, metaphoric, so they are prepared to accept, more or less, science's timeline. Moreover, while some people of faith reject the concept of evolution, others are open to it, conceiving it to be a mechanism instituted by God.)

Steiner's account of evolution differs from both the scientific and the Biblical accounts. This doesn't mean Steiner's account is wrong, necessarily, but it means there is little or no support for Steiner. The evidence of science is against him, and the Biblical account (especially if taken literally) is against him. Steiner essentially asks us to accept his account on the basis of his unsupported word. His followers are inclined to do so. They believe Steiner was a great clairvoyant, and they accept the "findings" of his clairvoyance. [6]

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 [sic: 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 ... What I am referring to are the dinosaurs from the beginning of the Tertiary Period.” [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. And contrary to Steiner's teachings, Lemuria never existed, nor did Atlantis. Humans did evolve in the present Quaternary Period, but they were not around when fire-breathing dragons ruled the earth, since there were no fire-breathing animals (presumably dragons) on the Earth at any time. 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 500,000 years ago).

Steiner’s statement to Waldorf 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.

The important point to note is that Waldorf teachers accepted Steiner's account, and they even contributed to it: "[T]here were still the fire breathers.” Yes, Steiner replied. No, we should reply. 

II.

Learning that Steiner's teachings lead to belief in such creatures as fire-breathing dragons, we might suspect that there is something deeply wrong with the Steineriean approach. There are many other reasons for skepticism, as well. According to Steiner, our evolution on the Earth is only one stage in our overall cosmic evolution. Prior to living here on Earth, we lived on (or during) other “planets” such as the Old Sun and the Old Moon. [See "Old Sun" and "Old Moon, Etc.".] In moving from “planet” to “planet,” we are evolving in the same way other, higher beings evolved before us. They passed through their own “human” stages and then they moved on to more elevated stages. We will move on too — we are “human” only temporarily. [9]

Our evolution, Steiner taught, is tied not only to the development of beings below us but also to the development of beings above us. For instance, certain spiritual beings once lived “on” the Sun during the period called “Old Sun” — they were "spirits of fire" who were, in a spiritual sense, human at that time. Other beings, lower than spirits of fire but still higher than us, became human during a later period called Old Moon. We ourselves evolved to human status only during a still later stage, called Present Earth. Here is how Steiner outlines the developmental pageant during these three stages: 

“At that time [i.e., Old Sun] 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 [i.e., later, during 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 [i.e., during Present 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 what it means to be human.

Steiner labeled the mega-stages of our evolution Old Saturn, Old Sun, Old Moon, Present Earth (where/when we are now), Future Jupiter (our next stage), Future Venus, and Future Vulcan. These stages are not, despite their names, physical orbs such as the planets that we see in the sky today. Rather, they are periods of time, periods of evolution. They bear the names of physical orbs — "Saturn," "Sun," "Moon," etc. — because the spiritual/astrological influences of various planetary gods — the gods of Saturn, etc. — pervade them. (Keeping the planets, the gods, and the evolutionary stages straight can be difficult, especially since Steiner sometimes dropped the adjectives — "Old," "Present," "Future" — when discussing the stages, and he sometimes said "on" when he meant "during." He was a mystic, so he wrote and spoke mystically. Still, if we work at it, we can usually understand what he was driving at. [For more on all this, see "Matters of Form" and "Planets".])

Let’s look at another example, Steiner discoursing further about evolution: 

“In the course of a given epoch not all beings attain the goal of their evolution. Some fall short of it. During Saturn evolution [i.e., during Old Saturn], for example, not all the Spirits of Personality [i.e., gods higher than Spirits of Fire] attained the ‘human’ stage appointed for them. Nor did all the human physical bodies that developed upon Saturn [i.e., our physical bodies in their earliest, germinal stage, during Old Saturn] reach the degree of maturity which would enable them to become the bearers on Sun [i.e., during Old Sun] of an independent life body [i.e., an etheric body].” [11] 

Yes, I know. Confusing. But we can parse it out. Evolution is a central Anthroposophical belief, and it involves all of the universe, not just ourselves and the animals below us. So, we first came into existence during Old Saturn. At that time, other, higher beings — who had begun their existence during previous evolutionary periods — stood above us as gods. The lowest gods were at their "human" stage of development during Old Saturn while other gods stood higher. We ourselves were still far below the human stage. After Old Saturn, the entire solar system and its gods evolved to a new stage, called Old Sun. The various ranks of gods generally all moved up one step (evolving to higher levels), and we ourselves moved up one step. However, not every soul makes the proper progress as the process of evolution proceeds. Some beings fail to evolve, so they get left behind. Thus, for instance, "not all the Spirits of Personality attained the ‘human’ stage appointed for them" during Old Saturn. These gods failed to get promoted and thus they stayed behind as abnormal spirits. [See "Abnormal".] For the beings who make normal, proper progress, each evolutionary stage produces new capabilities and parts. So, we developed the first, germinal version of our physical bodies during Old Saturn, and we developed the first version of our etheric bodies (nonphysical bodies one level higher than physical bodies) during Old Sun. But some physical bodies did not evolve enough to receive their etheric bodies during Old Sun, so these would eventually be left behind — they failed to evolve properly.

Yes. I know. Hang in there. 

There are nine ranks of gods above us, according to Anthroposophical belief. The gods move upward just as we move upward from evolutionary stage to evolutionary stage. The gods one step higher than us (Lunar Pitris and their ilk) are often called angels; those two steps above us (Spirits of Fire) are often called archangels; those three steps above us (Spirits of Personality) are often called Archai; and so forth. [See "Polytheism".] Gods who are many steps above us no longer evolve much, at least as we can conceive the process: They are at or near their ultimate spiritual/evolutionary fulfillment. But gods just a few steps above us move along with us, in effect leading us upward. 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 [i.e., during Future Jupiter]. Hence, Angels are one stage above humans. What is the task of these Beings? ... Every individual [i.e., each of us] is endowed with a Being [an Angel] 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 are 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, a process totally absent from Biblical teachings. Non-Christians face an even larger demand on their will to believe. If you don't accept the existence of angels, archangels, reincarnation, etheric bodies, and the rest, you may find Steiner's teachings wholly implausible.

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

III.

Are Waldorf students taught Steiner's antiscientific version of evolution? Is Roy Wilkinson's hope fulfilled? Here is a brief report from my own education as a student in a Waldorf school. [See, e.g., "I Went to Waldorf".]

One Friday afternoon, at a joint assembly of all the high school students at our Waldorf school, the headmaster — John Fentress Gardner — explained to us that Charles Darwin was wrong. Humans did not descend from apes or any other animals; instead, animals descended from us.

Although I was generally a faithful Waldorfer, swallowing without complaint most of what our teachers dished out, I held up my hand and argued against Mr. Gardner’s thesis. My parents subscribed to a great many periodicals, most of which I read, and we had a multi-volume encyclopedia in our home — so I was not completely dependent on Waldorf teachings. (We even had a TV, which we hid in the basement lest any Waldorf teachers came calling.) Hence, I had at least a vague idea of the wider world beyond Waldorf’s walls, and a vague idea of the teachings of modern science as accepted in that wider world.

Anyway, Mr. Gardner and I discussed evolution a bit during the assembly and again later, in a private meeting to which I was summoned in Mr. Gardner’s office. Most of the details of our discussion have faded from my memory, but in retrospect I am struck by this: In endorsing a central Anthroposophical doctrine during a high school assembly, Mr. Gardner came close — perhaps closer than ever in my own experience — to openly, explicitly attempting to impose the Anthroposophical worldview on us students. Usually he and our other teachers were more circumspect, but in this instance pretense was set aside and the school’s devotion to strange, antiscientific concepts became plain.

A non-Darwinian, non-scientific conception of evolution is absolutely central to Anthroposophy. Steiner described a long process of human development, beginning "on" Saturn long ago and (as designed by the gods for us) reaching glorious heights "on" Vulcan in the distant future. In a nutshell, this is the Anthroposophical creed. [See “Here’s the Answer” and “Everything”.] Mr. Gardner did not go into detail; I don’t believe he referred to planetary stages; he may not have even — in this assembly — mentioned Rudolf Steiner. But he opened a door and beckoned for us to enter, into the occult fantasies that he and his colleagues embraced as reality.

IV.

In Anthroposophical doctrine, the dreadful fate of failed humans (those who do not evolve properly) is shown not only in the sad condition of animals (inadequate souls, tossed aside), but even more horribly in the self-inflicted self-destruction of people who, in their successive incarnations, fall to lower and lower levels of depravity. These misshapen souls do not evolve but "involve" — that is, they fall.

Steiner's evolutionary doctrines are tied up with his racial doctrines. Steiner taught that some races are higher than others, reflecting higher spiritual evolution among their members. Good humans evolve upward into higher and higher races. 

“A race or nation stands so much the higher, the more perfectly its members express the pure, ideal human type ... The evolution of man through the incarnations in ever higher national and racial forms is thus a process of liberation [leading to] an ideal future.” [13]

Lower races contain souls at lower levels of development. Wicked souls descend through the ranks of the races. An entire race may be heading downward. Individual souls within that race may break free and ascend, but the race in general will decline, and wicked souls from higher races will fall down to take their places within the descending race. It is these wicked, descending souls who keep the descending race fully populated.

"A soul may be incarnated in a race that is declining; but if that soul does not make itself evil, it will not be reincarnated in a race that is falling back, but in one that is on the up-grade [i.e., a good soul can rise out of a bad race]. Enough souls are pouring in from other quarters for incarnation in races that are on the down-grade (i.e., bad souls)." [14]

Bad souls fall to incarnate in the lower races. And truly wicked souls may fall so low that they descend below the level of the lowliest race. In that case, they cease to be human and become immoral "nature spirits" — beings even lower than goblins that dwell in physical nature and have no true spiritual identity. 

"Such souls lose the possibility of incarnation and find no other opportunity ... [T]here are no more bodies bad enough [to house them] ... Beings that stay behind at such stages appear in a later epoch as subordinate nature spirits." [15]

In discussing such things, we are staring directly at the foul underbelly of Anthroposophy — Rudolf Steiner at his worst. If you have the necessary fortitude, you can explore these matters further at "Steiner's Racism", "Races", and "White Guys".

— 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. [16] 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.

 ◊

Footnotes for the Above

(Scroll down for additional sections.)

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

Steiner taught that we are still evolving. In the future, we will evolve beyond human status — we will become supermen; we will become gods. Moreover, the universe is home to many supermen and gods existing now. [See "Supermen" and "Polytheism".] Such beings are more highly evolved than ourselves, but we will eventually become the most highly evolved of all, Steiner taught. [See, e.g., "Tenth Hierarchy".]

[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.

Note how here, as so often, Steiner clearly rejects the findings of science. He knew better than some of his adherents that science was his enemy: Despite wistful claims he sometimes made, he seems to have known that science will never confirm his bizarre “theories,” not because of any bias against Anthroposophy, but simply because Anthroposophy has no basis in factual information.

[5] For this data, I chose perhaps the most unobjectionable source available, one that millions of Americans of all belief systems rely upon: The World Book. (Or, specifically, The World Book Multimedia Encyclopedia, Mac OS X Edition, Version 6.0.2.) This is scientific knowledge as generally recognized in the USA and most other countries throughout the world today. There are, of course, more authoritative sources, but most of these are more controversial than the good, ol', plain-vanilla World Book. 

Steiner’s view 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." ENCYCLOPÆDIA BRITANNICA, Online, 15 Feb. 2009. Darwinian evolution is fact.

[6] To the extent that Steiner's followers try to verify Steiner's statements, they do so by using their own "clairvoyance." But, in reality, there is essentially zero chance that Steiner was clairvoyant or that any of his followers is clairvoyant. Clairvoyance is essentially a delusion, an imagined faculty. People who think they are clairvoyant are fooling themselves. [See "Clairvoyance."]

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

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

[9] A further complication: According to Steiner, 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 at Waldorf Watch. [See, e.g., "Steiner's Bile".]

[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] Rudolf Steiner, KNOWLEDGE OF THE HIGHER WORLDS AND ITS ATTAINMENT (Anthroposophic Press, 1944), p. 149.

Perhaps I should apologize for repeating this quotation as often as I have done. But it is a crucially important statement if we are to recognize Steiner's racial biases. And because I always attempt to write in a way that enables even newcomers to follow the discussion, I feel the need to present this statement afresh for the benefit of readers who may not have seen it before.

[14] Rudolf Steiner, INVESTIGATIONS INTO OCCULTISM SHOWING ITS PRACTICAL VALUE IN DAILY LIFE (Kessinger, facsimile of 1920 edition), p. 138.

The final phrase “(i.e., bad souls)” was added by the Anthroposophical editor. The same passage, without the last phrase, can be found in Rudolf Steiner, AT THE GATES OF SPIRITUAL SCIENCE (Rudolf Steiner Publishing Company, 1986.)

[15] Rudolf Steiner, NATURE SPIRITS (Rudolf Steiner Press, 1995), p. 70.

For more on nature spirits, see "Neutered Nature".

[16] 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).

THE BIG PICTURE

[R.R., 2009, based on b&w sketch in

Rudolf Steiner, THE APOCALYPSE OF ST. JOHN

(Anthroposophic Press, 1993), p. 179.]

TEACHING WALDORF TEACHERS

[Floris Books, 2008.]

Like all Waldorf teachers' guides, this book rewards study. Written by a Waldorf teacher for other Waldorf teachers, it explicitly rejects science while affirming (less explicitly) Anthroposophical dogma. In particular, this Anthroposophical book warns against the use of non-Anthroposophical books, especially textbooks that describe evolution as Darwin did.

"Many of the books written for children are but watered down [sic] forms of [scientific evolution, Darwinism] ... But if, directly or indirectly, this picture of the animal world [i.e., that humans evolved from lower animals] were impressed upon the child, we would...implant into the child the seeds of brutal and ruthless egotism." — Waldorf teacher Charles Kovacs, THE HUMAN BEING AND THE ANIMAL WORLD (Floris Books, 2008), p. 11.

This guide includes a hymn to be sung by Waldorf students [p. 134]. The hymn underscores the religious nature of Waldorf schooling. (Students in secular schools rarely if ever sing hymns; students in Waldorf schools sing many.) The central lesson of this hymn is that man is the center and pinnacle of the created universe:

The hymn certainly flatters humanity, and most of us probably like the view it expresses. But whether it accurately conveys the capacities of lower animals and the differences between animals and humans is open to debate. (Some animals hold their heads as high, or higher, than humans do. Think of giraffes, for instance. Many animals have their own languages, in which they speak. Think of dolphins, for instance. Some animals have manipulating organs very similar to human hands. Think of raccoons, for instance.) Anthroposophy insists that man is the center of creation [see "The Center"], and here we find this tenet of the Anthroposophical faith framed in an overtly religious song taught to Waldorf students. The religion involved, of course, is Anthroposophy. [See "Is Anthroposophy a Religion?"] If Waldorf schools are not religious institutions (and Waldorf spokespeople almost always insist that they are not), why do Waldorf teachers lead Waldorf students in the singing of hymns? [2]

[1] The title of the hymn leaves no doubt as to the nature of this composition: It is a "Hymn".

[2] Waldorf teachers also lead Waldorf students in the recitation of prayers. [See "Prayers".]

FALLING, FALLING

According to Steiner, not only did humans 

not evolve from animals, but the "higher" races 

did not evolve from the "lower" races.

Like animals, the "savage" races evolved downward 

from good, upwardly evolving humans:

“So you see, gentlemen, we are not justified in thinking that [civilized] human beings were originally like the savages of today. The savages have developed into what they now are — with their superstitions, their magical practices and their unclean appearance — from states originally more perfect. The only superiority we have over them is that, while starting from the same conditions, we did not degenerate as they did. I might therefore say: The evolution of man has taken two paths. It is not true that the savages of today represent the original condition of mankind. Mankind, though to begin with it looked more animal-like, was highly civilized.

“Now perhaps you will ask: But were those original animal-like men the descendants of apes or of other animals? That is a natural question. You look at the apes as they are today and say: We are descended from those apes. Ah! but when human beings had their animal form, there were no such animals as our present apes! Men have not descended, therefore, from the apes. On the contrary! Just as the present savages have fallen from the level of the human beings of primeval times, so the apes are beings who have fallen still lower.” — Rudolf Steiner, THE EVOLUTION OF THE EARTH AND MAN AND THE INFLUENCE OF THE STARS (Rudolf Steiner Press, 1987), lecture 8, GA 354.

THE DECADENTS FALL AWAY

Here is an item from the Waldorf Watch News.

It repeats much that we have already reviewed,

but it also adds points we haven't yet considered:

Image:from Rudolf Steiner's book 

MENSCHHEITSENTWICKELUNG UND CHRISTUS-ERKENNTNIS - 

THEOSOPHIE UND ROSENKREUZERTUM - 

DAS JOHANNES-EVANGELIUM 

{EVOLUTION OF MANKIND AND KNOWLEDGE OF CHRIST - 

THEOSOPHY AND ROSICRUCIANISM - 

THE GOSPEL OF JOHN} 

(Rudolf Steiner Verlag, 1981), page 245.

[See "Steiner's Racism".]

This schematic shows human evolution proceeding from Atlantis to modern Europe, as described by Rudolf Steiner. Two decadent branches leave the upward movement, failing to evolve properly. One branch descends to animalism (Steiner taught that animals descend from humans) [1], the other falls to human racial decadence.

Quoting a report from late in 2010, a correspondent at the waldorf-critics discussion group has posted this:

"The 'Bundesprüfstelle für jugendgefährdende Medien' (BPjM) ('Federal Department for Media Harmful to Young Persons' [Germany]) examined 2 books by Rudolf Steiner for 'racist content' and decided that the content of the books is racist. [2]

"...The content of the book [by Rudolf Steiner] is, in the opinion of the board of 12 representatives, considered in part as an incitement to racial hatred, respectively as discriminating on grounds of race."  [10-12-2011  http://groups.yahoo.com/group/waldorf-critics/message/21769]

[1] Steiner's description of evolution is far removed from Darwin's. According to Steiner, we did not evolve from animals, but in a sense animals evolved from us. Steiner said we have passed through various proto-human stages. At one stage, we were more or less ape-like. Most of us kept evolving and passed to a higher stage, but those who could not progress stayed at the ape-like stage and became, literally, apes. This is what the lower branch depicts in the illustration above.

Steiner also taught that once we became modern humans, we evolved upward from low human races to higher races. He taught that human evolution occurs through the process of reincarnation. All of us began at a low racial level, he said, and most of us later evolved to higher levels — but those who could not progress stayed at a low level. The second branch in the illustration gives an example of people trapped at a "decadent" racial level. 

According to Steiner's teachings, the process of evolution from race to race continues today: People normally spend one life at a particular racial level and then return in a future life at a different racial level. Good people evolve upwards to higher races while wicked people evolve downwards to lower, decadent races — i.e., races that are, as a whole, withering. [See "Steiner's Racism".] Individuals in decadent races may free themselves by improving morally and moving upward even as the decadent races die out. But people who descend to lower and lower levels may meet a terrible fate. If the lowest, decadent races disappear, there will be no races low enough to accommodate the descending souls. These souls will therefore drop out of humanity altogether and become subhuman beings: nature spirits. [See "White Guys".]

[2] The books are SPIRITUAL-SCIENTIFIC KNOWLEDGE OF THE HUMAN BEING and THE MISSION OF INDIVIDUAL FOLK-SOULS IN CONNECTION WITH GERMANIC-NORDIC MYTHOLOGY. [See "Steiner's Racism".]

For the benefit of English-speakers,

here is the same diagram with English terms substituted:

Steiner sometimes pointed to American Indians 

as epitomizing racial decline: 

He considered American Indians to be essentially 

— and, in his view, rightfully — extinct.

[R.R. copy, 2014.]

DAWKINS FOR DARWIN

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 Anglican 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 

"....[T]here 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... [N]eoDarwinism seems inadequate to explain... [I]t is not easy to comprehend how... It is impossible... [H]ow could... 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 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, they say. 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, neither 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]  “Arguments such as this are in principle more respectable than the argument based on sheer, naked incredulity. Measuring the statistical improbability of a suggestion is the right way to go about assessing its believability. Indeed, it is a method that we shall use in this book several times. But you have to do it right! There are two things wrong with the argument put by Raven. First, there is the familiar, and I have to say rather irritating, confusion of natural selection with 'randomness'. Mutation is random; natural selection is the very opposite of random. Second, it just isn't true that 'each by itself is useless'. It isn't true that the whole perfect work must have been achieved simultaneously. It isn't true that each part is essential for the success of the whole. A simple, rudimentary, half-cocked eye/ear/echolocation system/cuckoo parasitism system, etc., is better than none at all. Without an eye you are totally blind. With half an eye you may at least be able to detect the general direction of a predator's movement, even if you can't focus a clear image. And this may make all the difference between life and death.” — Dawkins, pp. 55 - 59.

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 concessions 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, or in other words, it must be based on genuine knowledge. Buddhists and Catholics, to give just two examples, tend to accept scientific truths (more or less, generally, in some cases anyway). 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.

— Roger Rawlings

An approximation of Waldorf-style art —

an occult vision as believers may conceive it: 

evolution from left to right, from low to high,

from dark to light.

[R.R.]