I think The Low Anthem has it right. Whether you are someone who believes in Evolution, Creation, or a collision of the two, Darwinism is tough to handle. How we were created or came to be ‘human’ isn’t the issue in my eyes. I can live with God creating us slowly, and I can live with the instant creation of Adam and Eve. In fact it doesn’t influence my faith at all.
The part of Darwin’s thesis that I struggle with is the idea of survival of the fittest. Perhaps, by a world standard, the fittest have more food, extend the race, and have a lasting role in the genetic code of a species. That too I can live with and accept, I think. From the heart view, however, I believe this creates a false view of life. This devalues the human heart. It creates a system of superiority, and by the standards of the Kingdom, is completely backwards. It is survival of the weakest, because those who are weak are set free. And while life might seem better when you are strong and self sufficient, there is no freedom.
When you have to be in control and responsible for everything in this world, you will fail, you will not experience freedom, you will miss out on what it means to love and surrender, and just like everyone else, you will die. I desperately want to take care of people. And if it is survival of the fittest, then I am not doing myself any favors by being there for the people who need it most, the people who can’t take care of themselves. More than anything I realize that if life is about survival of the fittest, then I am already on the outside.
“Who could heed the words of Charlie Darwin? Fighting for a system built to fail. Spooning water from the broken vessels, as far as I can see there is no land. Who could heed the words of Charlie Darwin? Lords of war just profit from decay. And trade the children's promise for the jingle, the way we trade our hard earned time for pay.”
3 comments:
Social Darwinism seems to apply the "survival of the fittest" idea to the individual. But Darwin's theory was actually more about a group / species than about in individual. If we apply "survival of the fittest" to the whole human race then we must all work together and care for each other so that all humans survive. Sadly at the rate we are destroying this planet, we all might not survive very long.
Great point James. That makes a ton of sense, that we Darwinism as a species whole asks us to work together. It must, however, work on an individual lever for humans to become better, taller, stronger, smarter etc. Hitler even suggested that we only let certain people who meet certain criteria reproduce. Certain insects developed poison because the ones who could "deter" getting eaten, are the ones who made it. Through their reproduction the species changed. This all only applies if you believe in evolution. Radiolab did a show on this, but I haven't gotten around to it yet.
I'm hoping to die before we destroy the world :) Maybe I won't have kids as a result. My offsprings, offsprings, offsprings might be doomed.
Genetic diversity does seem to be a very good thing in a species. So promoting that diversity can in fact help a general species to evolve better over a long period of time. What if we wiped out all of the dumb people only to find out that in 200 years all the offspring of the smart people ended up dying of brain cancer at the age of 12. That would be no good for the human species. True Darwinism must let the genetic tree branch as must as possible. We don't really have the foresight necessary to decide how the tree should be pruned.
What I can't figure out is that it seems as if Jesus's teachings about The Kingdom are somewhat anti-evolutionary. As the recent Radiolab show on Bats points out, there is certainly a link between altruism and evolution. But the teachings of Jesus kinda go beyond standard altruism. Or maybe not. Maybe The Kingdom is ultimately all about the best way to carry on the evolution of the human species. Someone has to have written about this topic. I need to read up.
Post a Comment