기독교 다윈주의의 다양성

성영곤(Sung, Young-Gon) 한신대학교 종교와문화연구소(구 한신인문학연구소) 2011 종교문화연구 Vol.- No.17

The appellation “Christian Darwinism” has been used as early as 1867, and its representatives on both sides of Atlantic Ocean were among the most orthodox of the post-Darwinian controversialists. This paper aims to understand the efforts of these Christian Darwinists who have tried to reconcile religious doctrines with scientific theories, by analysing their activities and arguments in the context of the tradition of natural theology and the spread of Darwinian Revolution. But “Christian Darwinism” is not the only category of my concern, for the appellation is not definitely designated largely because Darwinism is not a monolithic theory. Almost everyone who reads Darwin’s The Origin of Species(1859) has responded only to those parts of the book that either support or conflict with one’s own preconceived ideas. So Morse Peckham, editor of a variorum text of The Origin of Species, distinguished “Darwinism” from “Darwinisticism.” By observing Peckham’s distinction and following James Moore’s consultation in his The Post-Darwinian Controversies, I have also analysed the second category “Christian Darwinisticism”, which embodied non-Darwinian theories. The third category, “Christian anti-Darwinism” shall be analysed in this paper together, because the usage of the term “Darwinism” have been mixed with all kinds of evolutionary theory including Lamarckism and Spencerism. There have been many scientists until 1930s, who accepted organic evolution, in spite of objecting Darwin’s theory of natural selection. For example, Richard Owen who have comprehensively established homology, has formulated a theory of theistic evolution remaining a staunch opponent of Darwin. So all the three appellations, “Christian Darwinism”, “Christian Darwinisticism” and “Christian anti-Darwinism” shall be discussed comparatively within a broader category, “theistic evolutionism.” In the result, the subject of this paper has the common accommodationist position with Michael Ruse’s Can a Darwinian Be a Christian?

다윈의 창조론

전대경 ( Dae Kyung Jun ) 한국복음주의조직신학회 2020 조직신학연구 Vol.34 No.-

찰스 다윈(Charles Darwin, 1809~1882)의 창조론이라는 주제는 우리에게 매우 생소하다. 다윈하면 떠오르는 단어는 바로 진화론이다. 그래서 우리는 다윈의 진화론에 더욱 익숙하다. 아니 오히려 다윈의 진화론에만 익숙하고 다윈의 창조론은 전혀 들어본 적도 없고 상상해본 적도 없다고 해야 더 정확할 것이다. 다윈의 진화론은 무신론자들에게 있어서 가장 핵심적인 무기이다. 총을 들고 전쟁을 나가는 군인에게 있어서의 총알과도 같은 것이 바로 무신론자들에게 있어서의 진화론이다. 창조론을 주장하는 무신론자는 있을 수 없다. 창조를 인정하는 것은 창조자를 인정하는 것이기 때문에 창조론을 주장하게 되면 그(녀) 스스로 더이상 무신론자일 수가 없게 된다. 무신론자들은 다윈의 진화론을 무기로 창조론과 창조자를 공격하고자 한다. 하지만 정작 다윈은 『종의 기원』을 왜 발표했을까? 무신론자들의 가장 큰 무기를 만들어주려고 했을까? 그렇다면 다윈도 무신론자였을까? 아니면 무신론자들의 통념(myth)이나 희망과는 반대로 다윈은 무신론자가 아니었으며 단순한 ‘자연과학자’가 아니라 오히려 하나님의 창조 과정을 연구한 ‘자연신학자’는 아니었을까? 본 소고는 이러한 질문들에 나름 답을 해보고자 한다. 본 논문은 찰스 다윈의 작품에 나타난 창조자로서의 하나님 이해(신론, 신관, 신학 혹은 신앙이라고 해도 좋을 것이다)를 다룬다. 규명하려는 것은 다윈은 결코 무신론자가 아니었으며, 그는 유신론자이자 창조론자였을 뿐 아니라 자연신학자였으며, 그렇기 때문에 그의 이론을 무신론자들이 사용하는 것은 다윈의 본래 의도와는 상충되기 때문에 불합리하다는 것이다. 먼저, 다윈의 교육사적 생애를 통해 그가 무신론자가 아닌 유신론자였음을 밝힌다. 다음으로, 다윈의 『종의 기원』에 나타난 창조관에 대해서 다룬다. 마지막으로, 다윈의 작품으로부터 자연계시를 통한 신인식 가능성으로서의 자연신학을 살펴본다. Charles Darwin(1809-1882)’s creationism must be somewhat odd to us. The word that clings to Darwin is evolutionism. Thus, we are more familiar with Darwin’s theory of evolution. It would rather be more correct to say that we are only familiar with Darwin’s evolutionism and have never heard of or imagined Darwin’s creationism. Darwin’s creationism is the main weapon for atheists. For atheists, it is like bullets and guns for soldiers going to the battle field. There can be no atheist who asserts creationism. Since conceding creation is admitting the creator, insisting on creationism can no longer be an atheist him/herself. Atheists eager to attack creationism and creators with Darwin’s theory of evolution. However, why did Darwin publish The Origin of Species ? Was it for him to try to build the greatest weapon for atheists? Was Darwin atheist, then? Or, contrary to the myth or hope of atheists, was not Darwin the atheist, and not just a “natural scientist” but a “natural theologian,” who studied the process of God’s creation? These are the research questions underlying this paper. In this article, Darwin’s understanding of God as the creator is dealt. It is argued that Charles Darwin has never been an atheist. So, the purpose of this article is that it is absurd that atheistic use of Darwin’s evolutionism as their main weapon since it is against Darwin’s original intention. Darwin was a theist who was trying to prove the procedure of the mystery of God’s Creation. So, through his work, Origin of Species , he has striven to interpret and describe God’s design for His creations.

『버닝 데이라이트』에 나타난 자연주의와 생태적 인본주의

민경택 ( Min Kyung-taek ) 충남대학교 인문과학연구소 2021 인문학연구 Vol.60 No.4

잭 런던(Jack London)은 그의 또 다른 걸작으로 알려진 『버닝 데이라이트』(Burning Daylight, 1910)에서 허버트 스펜서(Herbert Spencer)의 ‘사회적 다윈주의’(Social Darwinism)와 칼 마르크스(Karl Marx)의 자본론의 개념을 바탕으로 자연과 문명에 대한 대조와 병치를 통해서 인간의 삶과 사회에 대한 날카로운 분석과 풍자를 잘 보여주고 있다. 일반적으로 런던은 인간의 삶에 큰 영향을 미치는 자연과 문명에 의해 강요되고 조건화되는 다양한 환경의 중요성을 강조한다. 특히 『버닝 데이라이트』의 주인공인 버닝 데이라이트는 강인한 체력과 정신력으로 삶을 하나의 게임으로 간주하면서 치열한 경쟁의 자본주의 사회에서 물질적인 성공을 계속 추구하여 막대한 부를 획득한다. 그러나 디디(Dede)의 영향으로 문명 속에서 쟁취한 모든 부와 성공을 버리고 전원의 자연 속에서 정신적인 안정과 평화를 얻는다. 다른 자연주의 작가들과는 달리 런던의 자연주의 사상에는 항상 따뜻한 인본주의 사상이 흐르고 있듯이 『버닝 데이라이트』에도 자연과 문명의 환경 속에서 냉혹한 자연주의 사상과 더불어 생태적인 인본주의 사상이 잘 드러나 있음을 알 수 있다. This paper is to analyze the relationship between naturalism and ecological humanism in Jack London’s Burning Daylight. In this novel, London reveals his naturalism on the basis of Herbert Spencer’s Social Darwinism and Karl Marx’s theory of capitalism. London shows his scathing criticism and acute diagnosis of human life and society by contrasting and juxtaposing nature and civilization. He emphasizes the significance of environment which has a great influence on human life and society. In Burning Daylight, the protagonist thinks that human life is a kind of game or gambling, and finally he hits the jackpot in a heartless capitalist society. But even though he became a financial magnate, Daylight feels lonely and unhappy in his luxurious and abundant life. He begins to be more and more skeptical of his life in a big city which is ruled by cold naturalism and capitalism. London suggests that the civilized big city can be more destructive and anti-ecological place to human beings than wilderness. After awakening, Daylight also realizes that human beings’ happiness depends on the peace of mind and soul through a simple and plain life in nature rather than material abundance and success in a big city. After he renounces all his money and property which he earned in urban areas, Daylight marries Dede and returns to nature. In conclusion, London reveals that although we are ruled by the cold naturalism and environment in our society, we should perceive the importance of ecological humanism to recover our true happiness.

‘행동의 유전’에 관한 다윈의 진화론과 19세기 신경과학 의 만남: 다윈이 라마르크의 진화론을 극복하는 데 신경과학이 미친 영향

한선희 대한의사학회 2019 의사학(醫史學) Vol.28 No.1

The nineteenth century neuroscience studied the instinct of animal to understand the human mind. In particular, it has been found that the inheritance of unconscious behavior like instinct is mediated through ganglion chains, such as the spinal cord or sympathetic nervous system, which control unconscious reflexes. At the same time, the theory of Inheritance of Acquired Characteristics (hereafter ‘IAC’) widely known as Lamarck’s evolutionary theory provided the theoretical frame on the origin of instinct and the heredity of action that the parental generation’s habits were converted into the nature of the offspring generation. Contrary to conventional knowledge, this theory was not originally invented by Lamarck, and Darwin also did not discard this theory even after discovering the theory of natural selection in 1838 and maintained it throughout his intellectual life. Above all, in the field of epigenetics, the theory of ‘IAC’ has gained attention as a reliable scientific theory today. Darwin discovered crucial errors in the late 1830s that the Lamarck version’s theory of ‘IAC’ did not adequately account for the principle of the inheritance of unconscious behavior like instinct. Lamarck’s theory regarded habits as conscious and willful acts and saw that those habits are transmitted through the brain to control conscious actions. Lamarck’s theory could not account for the complex and elaborate instincts of invertebrate animals, such as brainless ants. Contrary to Lamarck’s view, Darwin established the new theory of ‘IAC’ that could be combined with contemporary neurological theory, which explains the heredity of unconscious behavior. Based on the knowledge of neurology, Darwin was able to translate the ‘principle of habit’ into a neurological term called ‘principle of reflex’. This article focuses on how Darwin join the theory of ‘IAC’ with nineteenth century neuroscience and how the neurological knowledge from the nineteenth century contributed to Darwin’s overcoming of Lamarck’s ‘IAC’. The significance of this study is to elucidate Darwin’s notion of ‘IAC’ theory rather than natural selection theory as a principle of heredity of behavior. The theory of ‘IAC’ was able to account for the rapid variation of instincts in a relatively short period of time, unlike natural selection, which operates slowly in geological time spans of tens of millions of years. The nineteenth century neurological theory also provided neurological principles for ‘plasticity of instinct,’ empirically supporting the fact that all nervous systems responsible for reflexes respond sensitively to very fine stimuli. However, researchers of neo-Darwinian tendencies, such as Richard Dawkins and evolutionary psychologists advocating the ‘selfish gene’ hypothesis, which today claim to be Darwin’s descendants, are characterized by human nature embedded in biological information, such as the brain and genes, so that it cannot change at all. This study aims to contribute to reconstructing the evolutionary discourse by illuminating Darwin’s insights into the “plasticity of nature” that instincts can change relatively easily even at the level of invertebrates such as earthworms. .

다윈학설 vs 설계추론

정선호(Seunho Jung) 한국창조과학회 2024 Origin Research Journal Vol.4 No.1

진화론은 1859년 11월 다윈이 생물의 형태, 질서, 다양성이 자연선택이라는 목적 없는 무작위 과정의 우연한 산물이라는 이론을 담은 책인 ‘종의 기원’을 출판하면서 확립되었다. 이후 다윈의 진화론은 목적론적 세계관의 종말을 가져왔고, 유물론적 세계관을 통한 다윈주의 자연관은 모든 과학계의 주류가 되었다. 그러나 1953년 4월에 발표된 900단어 네이처 논문인 ‘DNA의 분자 구조’에 대한 연구 결과1), DNA는 생명체의 유전정보의 저장소이며 화학적 염기서열을 통해 디지털 정보로 변환된다는 사실이 보고되었다. 1980년대 이후 분자생물학 연구를 통해 세포는 DNA를 유전정보로 담고 있을 뿐만 아니라, 세포 내에는 복잡하고 정교한 유전정보 처리시스템을 갖고 있다는 사실이 밝혀졌다. 다윈의 진화론과 설계 추론에 대한 역사과학적 고찰을 통해 생명정보의 기원은 물질우선(matter-first) 철학의 유물론적 세계관이 아닌 설계지성에 기초한 정신우선(mind-first) 철학적 세계관을 지지하는 것으로 나타났다. The theory of evolution was established in November 1859 when Darwin published ‘The Origin of Species’, a book containing the theory that the form, order, and diversity of living things are the accidental products of a purposeless random process called natural selection. Afterwards, Darwin’s theory of evolution brought about the end of the teleological worldview, and Darwin’s view of nature through a materialistic worldview became the mainstream of all scientific circles. However, as a result of research on ‘Molecular Structure of DNA’, a 900-word Nature paper published in April 1953, it was reported that DNA is a repository of genetic information of living things and is converted into digital information through chemical base sequences. Since the 1980s, molecular biology research has revealed that cells not only contain DNA as genetic information, but also have a complex and sophisticated genetic information processing system within the cell. Through historical and scientific examination of Darwin’s theory of evolution and design reasoning, the origin of life information was found to support a mind-first philosophical worldview based on design intelligence rather than a materialistic worldview of material-first philosophy.

근대 영국소설에 나타난 진화론적 자연관 : 조지 엘리엇과 토마스 하아디 문학의 비교

양영수(Young-Soo Yang) 신영어영문학회 2007 신영어영문학 Vol.37 No.-

Charles Darwin's theory of evolution is based on the acception of natural selection as a principle of successive development occurring in the long history of various forms of life. It devastated the Christian view of man as a blessed existence divinely differentiated from animals. George Eliot obtained positivistic view of the human history from the theory of evolution, but her belief in cultural improvement preferred Lamarckian assumption of the inheritance of acquired characteristics rather than Darwinism. Thomas Hardy's literary thought is based on the Darwinian belief that human existence is no more than a variation of endless lief-forms going through upward development. But Hardy's view of human beings seems to be much more sentimental and self-derisive than Darwin's, which seems to keep composed and aloof from amoral or inhuman forces of nature.

지적 설계와 유신 진화론의 기독교 자연신학으로서의 효용과 한계 : 개혁신학의 관점에서의 평가

김병훈(Byunghoon Kim) 한국창조과학회 2021 Origin Research Journal Vol.1 No.1

찰스 다윈이 현대 사상에 미친 영향은 과학의 자연주의적 방법론을 학문 세계의 지배적인 세계관으로 변형시켰다고 한다. 존 폴킹혼에 따르면, 1859년에 출간된 다윈의 『종의 기원』이후 자연주의라는 형이상학적 상황에서도 오늘날 자연신학은 여전히 살아있고 건재하다. 예를 들어, 우주의 미세 조정을 논의 근거로 삼는 지적설계 또는 유신 진화론은 현대판 자연시학으로 간주된다. 개혁파 자연신학에 비추어 볼 때, 지적설계는 잘못된 자연신학을 열어준다. 지적 설계는 자연을 넘어서 있는 다양한 종류의 지적 설계자의 가능성을 인정하면서 그 설계자(들)가 성경에 있는 삼위일체 하나님이신지, 이슬람의 알라인지, 힌두교의 브라만인지, 또는 심지어 ET (이것이 무엇이든지 간에) 인지 조차에 대해 어떤 결정도 하지 않는다. 유신 진화론은 잘못된 자연신학이다. 유신 진화론은 성경과 과학 가운데 성경의 특별계시보다도 과학에 우선순위를 둔다. 유신 진화론의 방법론적 방향은 개혁파 자연신학의 방향과 정반대이다. 개혁파 자연신학의 우선순위는 성경에 있다. Charles Darwin’s influence on modern thought is said to have transformed a naturalistic methodology of science into a prevailing academic worldview. According to John Polkinghorne, natural theology today is still alive and well even in the metaphysical context of naturalism after Darwin’s The Origin of Species by means of natural selection in 1859. For instance, ID or TE appealing to the Fine-Tuning of the universe is taken as a modern version of natural theology. ID is close to a natural theology of the Enlightenment, while TE presuposes the belief of God the creator in the Bible. In the view of natural theology, ID opens a false natural theology, which acknowledges the possibility of various kinds of Intelligent Designers beyond nature and does not determine whether the Designer(s) might be the Trinitarian God in the bible, or the Islam Allah, or the Brahman of Hinduism, or even ET(the Extra-Terrestrial, whatever it might be), and so forth. TE is a false natural theology, which always puts first priority on science, not on the special revelation of the Bible. The methodoligical direction of TE is in contradiction to the Reformed view of natural theology of which the priority should be on the Bible.

문학의 눈으로 본 다윈의 『종의 기원』 분과학문의 장벽을 넘어서는 통합적인 학문을 위한 실마리

김명환 ( Myung Hwan Kim ) 영미문학연구회 2013 안과 밖 Vol.0 No.35

This paper is an attempt to look the nature of Darwin`s post-Platonist world in On the Origin of Species. It will help pave the way for a unified science or learning that will address the increasing degree of specialization and compartmentalization of knowledge with the advent of modernity and overcome the chasm between “the two cultures” that has continued to deepen since C. P. Snow coined the term half a century ago. Quoting Darwin`s shocking proposition in his The Descent of Man “that man is descended from a hairy, tailed quadruped, furnished with a tail and pointed ears, probably arboreal in its habits.” Arnold mentions that Darwin`s proposition inevitably arouses “an invincible desire to relate this proposition to the sense in us for conduct, and to the sense in us for beauty.” It is important to understand the nature of this ”invincible desire” to pursue the true, the good, and the beautiful at the same time, which leads to endeavors for a unified science that we have yet to create. Darwin`s repeated words that his hey concepts, “struggle for existence” and “natural selection” are metaphors remind us that we must be careful not to take our metaphors (or concepts) for the real. In the same vein, Darwin asserts that the “search for the undiscovered and undiscoverable of the term species” is vain, precisely because it is impossible to draw the clear line between species and sub-species, or between sub-species and well-marked varieties. In a word, Darwin`s outlook on the world is indispensable to surmounting the tenacious Platonist legacy.

잭 런던의 『야성의 부름』에 나타난 문명과 자연

민경택 ( Kyung Taek Min ) 충남대학교 인문과학연구소 2015 인문학연구 Vol.54 No.4

잭 런던은 미국 자연주의 문학을 대표하는 소설가로서 인간의 비극적인 운명의 원인을 냉혹한 자연환경과 무관심한 우주적 질서 또는 사회의 구조적인 모순과 부조리에서 찾으려고 하였다. 런던은 찰스 다윈의 생물학적 진화론이나 칼 마르크스의 『자본론』과 같은 당시의 혁신적인 자연과학 이론뿐만 아니라 정치와 사회사상에 공감하면서 그러한 관점으로 인간의 삶을 분석하려고 시도하였다. 그는 19세기 말엽과 20세기 초엽의 세계와 미국의 정치, 경제, 사회의 흐름에 민감하였고 특히 실제로 사회당의 일원으로 정치에 참여하기도 하였다. 런던은 그의 대표작인 『야성의 부름』에서 문명과 자연의 대비적인 시각을 통하여 인간 삶에 대한 날카로운 분석과 진단을 보여주고 있다. 또한 그는 동물 주인공인 개 벅을 등장시켜서 인간의 본성과 문명 그리고 자연에 대한 자신의 견해를 드러내고 있다. 그는 인간의 물욕에 대한 비판과 문명의 비합리적인 요소를 벅이 문명에서 자연으로 이동해 가는 과정을 통하여 명쾌하게 보여주고 있다. Jack London, a representative novelist of American naturalism, tried to seek the causes of human beings`` tragic destiny through callous natural environments, indifferent universal order, and social structural inconsistency. London attempted to analyze human beings’ life with the perspectives of Charles Darwin’s biological evolution theory and Karl Marks`` capitalist ideology that were the progressive ideas at the time, and he sympathized with their points of view. Sensitive at the stream of politics, economics, and society in the world and the United States between the late 19th century and the early 20th century, he specially participated in politics as a member of the socialist party. In his masterpiece The Call of the Wild, London showed his astute analysis and diagnosis of human beings life through contrasting views on civilization and nature. He also revealed his opinion of the nature of man, civilization, and nature by putting a dumb animal hero Buck into his novel. He evinced clearly his critique of materialistic worldly-minded people and the irrational aspects of civilization through the process of Buck``s movement from civilization to nature regardless of his will. London continued to probe into the truth of human life and revealed his critical perspective on American society through the literary techniques of naturalism in his other works. Although he asserted that human destiny was mainly influenced by environment, heredity, and chance, he never gave up easily his belief and hope in human beings under any circumstances. He paradoxically emphasized that a warm human love was needed to overcome such absurd and unfavorable conditions rather than violence and hatred in our society.

맹자의 성선(性善)과 순자의 위선(僞善)에 대한 다윈주의적 통합

김백녕,이경무 한국동서철학회 2022 동서철학연구 Vol.- No.106

The superficial contrast between the xìngshànshuō(性善說) and the xìngèshuō(性惡說) is likely to mislead the understanding of the ethical theories of Mencius(孟子) and Xúnzǐ(荀子) as incompatible. In addition, it is easy to think that the hàoránzhīqì(浩然之氣) and qiúfàngxīn(求放心) and guǎyù(寡欲) are mysterious, and that xìngè(性惡) and wěishàn(僞善) are contradictory. In the continuous and dependent context of evolution, it is understood that wěishàn(僞善) can be achieved in xìngè(性惡) and xìngshàn(性善) can be achieved in this wěishàn(僞善). Of course, it is not necessary to view this line of evolution as a linear flow. This is because wěishàn(僞善) and xìngshàn(性善) are not limited to the process of individual moral development, and they are not comprehensively considering various aspects of experience. It can be explained in the order of acquisition of morality through parenting, inheritance of morality according to evolution, and parenting of morality inherent in moral nature. This line of evolution is accomplished by learning and discipline. Acquired efforts to control instinctive desires make you put yourself in the changes and flow of nature. The person who learns and practices unknowingly falls into this line of change. Humans can create and sustain this flow through learning and discipline. As a result, the xìngshànshuō(性善說) and the xìngèshuō(性惡說), wěishàn(僞善) and xìngshàn(性善) also form a continuous and dependent relationship. This is also an integrated understanding of the Darwinian approach. From the entire line of evolution, it can be understood that wěishàn(僞善) is achieved in xìngè(性惡), and this wěishàn(僞善) is internalized into xìngshàn(性善). Of course, it is not necessary to view this series as a single-line flow. This is because wěishàn(僞善) and xìngshàn(性善) are not limited to the process of individual moral development, and they are not comprehensively considering various aspects of experience. However, when the two are sequenced and integrated, they can be understood in the order of acquisition of morality through parenting, inheritance of morality according to evolution, and parenting of morality inherent in moral nature. The moral development of wěishàn(僞善) and xìngshàn(性善) forms a line of evolution by learning and discipline. In other words, when humans become moral beings through efforts to control their instinctive desires, all humans naturally fall into this line of moral change and continue to develop morality through learning and discipline. As a result, the xìngshànshuō(性善說) and the xìngèshuō(性惡說) are compatible in a continuous and dependent relationship. This is an integrated understanding of the Darwinian approach. 성선설과 성악설에 대한 피상적 대비는 맹자와 순자의 윤리 이론을 양립 불가능한 것으로 이해하도록 오도하기 십상이다. 또 호연지기(浩然之氣)와 구방심(求放心)과 과욕(寡欲)은 비논리적이고, 성악(性惡)과 위선(僞善)은 상반적이라고 생각하기 쉽다. 이러한 피상적 대비와 오해는 다윈주의적 접근과 독해로 적절히 해결될 수 있다. 성선과 위선에 대한 다윈주의적 독해의 공통분모는 도덕성의 진화이다. 둘의 차이는 인간의 본성과 도덕성의 관계에 대한 설명에서 갈린다. 맹자는 도덕성이 본성에서 나온다고 주장하는 반면, 순자는 본성을 변화시키려는 후천적 노력에서 이루어진다고 주장한다. 둘은 얼핏 보면, 서로 상반되는 듯하다. 그러나 다윈주의적 독해에 따르면, 거대한 변화의 흐름 속에서 모순 없이 양립 가능하다. 진화의 계열 속에 놓고 보면, 위선과 성선의 연속성과 의존성이 잘 드러난다. 진화의 전체 계열에서 보면, 성악에서 위선이 이루어지고 이 위선이 성선으로 내재화된 것으로 이해할 수 있다. 물론 이런 계열을 단선적인 흐름으로 볼 필요는 없다. 위선과 성선은 개인의 도덕성 발달 과정에 국한된 것이 아니며, 경험의 다양한 국면을 종합적으로 고려한 것도 아니기 때문이다. 둘을 계열화하여 통합해 보면, 양육을 통한 도덕성의 획득, 진화에 따른 도덕성의 유전, 도덕 본성에 내재된 도덕성의 양육 순으로 이해된다. 위선과 성선의 도덕성 발달은 학문과 수양에 의한 진화의 계열을 이룬다는 것이다. 즉 인간이 본능적 욕구를 다스리는 노력을 통해 도덕적 존재가 되면, 모든 인간은 자연스럽게 이 도덕적 변화의 계열 속에 처하게 되어, 다시 학문과 수양을 통해 지속적으로 도덕성을 계발해 간다는 것이다. 이로써 성선설과 성악설, 성선과 위선은 연속적이고 의존적인 관계 속에서 양립 가능하게 된다. 이것이 다윈주의적 접근에 따른 통합적 이해다