I’m not particularly interested in the question of whether Darwin’s evolution is right or wrong, but a recent lecture I heard has brought to the forefront the consequences of his thought. Evolutionary biology, according to Darwin and his dependency upon capitalism and imperialism, contends that nature is marked by a universal, internal war via natural selection which results in an inevitable progress of life. Humanity is not exempt from this struggle, but it is the zenith of this process as the victor. Consequently, progress is to be found through this universal struggle for existence. We must struggle to attain what is to be revealed (en-veiled) in the future as the just reward for our exertion. As Darwin wrote:
“Man, like every other animal, has no doubt advanced to his present high condition through a struggle for existence consequent on his rapid multiplication; and if he is to advance still higher, it is to be feared that he must remain subject to a severe struggle. Otherwise he would sink into indolence, and the more gifted men would not be more successful in the battle of life than the less gifted. … There should be open competition for all men; and the most able should not be prevented by laws or customs from succeeding best and rearing the largest number of offspring.”
One the one hand, theology has in Darwin biological ‘proof” of a low anthropology. As David Brooks has said: “Humanity did not come before status contests. Status contests came before humanity, and are embedded deep in human relations… Rousseau was wrong—Thomas Hobbes right.” At its core, evolution in a round about way concludes that our tendency toward oppression and the exploitation of power is rooted in our very DNA. We are all savages hard-wired to only look out for ourselves.
But on the other hand, evolution [according to Darwin] asserts that it is this very savage DNA that has enabled humanity to advance as the top of the food chain. And as Darwin indirectly contends, if we am to get anywhere through this world we must fight to earn it. Our ambition and our insatiable desire for self-assertion are the very means by which we will separate ourselves from the pack. The denial of these impulses means our extinction and the misfortune of a mediocre life.
It is here that theology must part ways with Darwin. It is the assertion of the self that theology calls “sin” and contrary to Darwin believes that it does not lead to progress and life, but death and regression (Romans 6:23). Because of its low anthropology, theology is able to see through the illusion of human progress to see its unspoken cost. As Bob Dylan sang, “My sense of humanity has gone down the drain. Behind every beautiful thing there’s been some kind of pain.”
[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RZgBhyU4IvQ&ob=av2e&w=600]
COMMENTS
6 responses to “Biology and Theology: Charles Darwin”
Leave a Reply
Hey Todd. Interesting post.
Just as an FYI… serious evolutionary scientists of the last 50 years (physical anthropologists, biologists, paleontologists, etc.) don't believe any of the things you mention under "Evolution asserts…"
They don't think that evolution is a record of life forms "advancing" to "higher" levels, they don't consider humanity at the top of anything, they don't think of natural selection as a savage struggle, and they don't think that if we are to get anywhere through this world we must fight to earn it.
C.S. Lewis may have been trying to do the same thing you are doing in his essay "Funeral of a Great Myth." He goes out of his way, however, to distinguish the mythic aspects of evolution from evolution as real scientists study it. (Lewis thought evolution very likely to be true as science.)
Hey Stampdawg, I recognize that Darwin has had many recent dissenters. Some of these will be addressed in part two. As far as natural selection as struggle, Brooks and Darwin were my guides, the former writing in 2007. As far idea of progress and advancement are concerned, if may be that biologists have shied away from this vocabulary (my wife has reminded me this a few times) but is it alive and well in popular science. Even so, I'm not claiming to speak for all of biology, just what Darwin himself said and its implications.
Hmmmm…
http://www.salvomag.com/new/articles/salvo11/11zeiger.php
Is death caused by our low anthropology, or is our low anthropology caused by death?
Glad to hear that you aren't writing about what biologists think.
Biologists like Steven Jay Gould constantly bemoan the mistaken views about their field and argue that what is needed is better science education.
Intriguingly, C.S. Lewis argues that the mythic ideas of Evolution (which you rightly critique and which scientists disbelieve) began substantially BEFORE Darwin (e.g. with Keats Hyperion).
See if you can grab his "Funeral" at some point. It's well worth reading.
My general impression, which is very thinly informed :), is that in the first 40-50 years after Darwin's thought became widely available, the idea of progress through struggle was enthusiastically adopted by biologists and social theorists alike. This gave birth to Social Darwinism, and was seen as giving scientific support for eugenics, European colonialism, totally unrestrained capitalism and what not. After two world wars, the struggle against colonialism, the Nazis, the Fascists, etc. etc., everyone, including biologists, social scientists, psychologists and politicians want to stay as far away from drawing those same inferences from evolutionary theory as possible. But they are still left with evolution as a fact, so what do you do with it, in terms of drawing inferences? To fill this gap, in steps various versions of "cooperation" theory in which biological and social history is seen as a cooperative venture, and evolutionary development (don't dare call it "progress") occurs as a result of symbiotic biological and social relationships. Many well funded studies have remarkably shown this to be true. This of course has much more currently acceptable moral implications than the "survival of the fittest" model. But whether these conclusions are actually based on the scientific method or on what is "needed" for the culture at this point in time, or whether they are more or less valid from a scientific standpoint than Nazi conclusions were… I'll leave that for others to judge. But good luck getting grant money if you have published anything supportive of the old model 🙂
As I said, I am pretty weak in this area, and should probably keep my mouth shut, but running on and on about something you know nothing about — that's the whole point of blogging, right?
you're right on, actually… in some senses, Darwin has been eclipsed by what you said, though heis still very much alive and well.