Scientific Anthroposophy?

"Childhood and Human Evolution" is a book by Friedrich A. Kipp, a German scientist sympathetic to Anthroposophy. I've read the Swedish translation of this book, published by Levande Kunskap, an Anthroposophical press. While the book's conclusions are compatible with those of Rudolf Steiner, the author doesn't mention Steiner's more esoteric message about spiritual-cosmic evolution, planetary chains, Atlantis, etc. "Childhood and Human Evolution" is clearly an attempt to prove some of Steiner's more rational ideas by an appeal to established science.

Steiner believed that evolution was teleological, with the line leading to humans as the main line, a kind of "trunk" from which animals and plants had diverged as subsidiary branches at different points in evolutionary history. (I could be wrong, but I think this is a Kabbalist ideas adapted to modern evolutionary theory.) Kipp concurs with Steiner, arguing that there are really two separate forces at work in evolution: adaptation and anti-adaptation. The latter is the driving force, but at regular intervals, creatures leave the main line of anti-adaptation, preferring the safer haven of being perfectly adapted to their immediate surroundings. This could even be seen as a kind of regression or degeneration. The mystery Kipp believes this theory solves is the curious fact that humans are non-specialized and biologically poorly adapted to any environment. Rather, humans are free and can change their surroundings in ways no animal would be able to do. (To use terminology from elsewhere: humans are "exotics everywhere".) To Kipp, this simply can't be explained by the standard Darwinist paradigm.

If Kipp's hypothesis is true, the last common ancestor of humans and apes must have been more human-like than ape-like. Kipp speculates that this ancestor might have walked upright and had hands similar to those of modern humans (ape hands are adapted to climbing). He admits that no fossils of such a creature exists, but explains this by the paucity of the fossil record. He also speculates that the human ancestor might have had a very gracile skeleton, making it difficult to fossilize. The australopithecines and earliest Homo lived concurrently, according to Kipp, making it unlikely that the latter descended from the former. He believes that the australopithecines were specialized off-shots from the human trunk, and the same is true of the great apes and (earlier still) the gibbons. Although Kipp never says so, one could almost charge him with turning the evolutionary tree upside down: rather than humans being descended from apes (or ape-like ancestors), apes are descended from humans (or human-like ancestors)!

In the absence of clear fossil evidence, Kipp spends most of his book discussing morphology and behaviour among humans and apes. I admit that these parts were hard to follow, but the general idea is clear. Kipp attempts to prove that apes are highly specialized, and that their specializations can be derived from the more non-specialized anatomy of humans, but not the other way around. He points out that apes are remarkably similar to humans during their childhood, both anatomically and in terms of inquisitive behaviour. However, these human-like traits are lost as the apes grow up and become more specialized. To the author, this is decisive proof that apes are descended from a human-like creature (ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny).

Kipp spends a considerable time discussing human childhood development (hence the title of his book), which he considers decisive for human evolution. Other placental mammals are born almost ready to go from the start, or develop very quickly into their well-adapted adult forms. In humans, childhood development takes considerable time. Kipp's interpretation is that the human child is shielded from the struggle for existence and hence natural selection. In this way, humans develop their independence from nature. It's not clear how Kipp believes that this prolonged childhood has evolved. Has it always existed on "our" evolutionary line? Or were humans originally nurtured by angels...? As already indicated, Kipp doesn't discuss the more awkward aspects of Anthroposophy.

I can't say that "Childhood and Human Evolution" is a thrilling read. Indeed, it could be considered boring. I don't envy the Waldorf students who have to study this! Still, it does raise interesting question about human evolution, our relation with the apes, and our prehistory. For that reason, I give it three stars.