Sinister Darwin?

This excellent article was written by Emma Lowe. Emma is an 18-year-old English student living in Belgium, currently on her gap year - an excellent time to think!

If there’s one thing I will remember 2009 for, it is the inspiring amount of energy which has been devoted to promoting Darwin’s theory of evolution. Stumbling across articles about both his life and work has been a relatively easy feat this year, with most pieces either going to great lengths to explain the actual mechanism of evolution, or just being content to praise the ingenuity of the much-loved naturalist and geologist. I was therefore struck by the following article’s report on the ‘sinister link’ which has been made between the now-famous theory and tragic school massacres (the article can be found here).

I tend to agree with the author’s point about the “unspoken agreement to accentuate the positive”: the majority of literature and media dedicated to ‘doing their bit’ for Darwin this year was characterised by a reverence for both man and theory, while the resulting minority preferred to concentrate on the standard ‘evolution vs. creationism vs. Intelligent Design’ debate. This rare article therefore opened my eyes to the darker side of the story, my initial reaction being one of horror at such an abuse of evolutionary theory. I am sure many others felt the same when reading it. Such feelings of shock, however, should be followed by a deeper examination of the issue of social Darwinism in order to prevent many from abandoning Darwinian theory on the basis that it promotes such massacres (be they in the playground or Nazi Germany). The “sinister link” implied in the report is misleading, and could result in another misconception surrounding the theory of evolution by natural selection.

The claim that the phenomenon of natural selection has been halted by man’s increasing control over his environment seems to be the ‘justification’ which is often quoted by these teenage murderers. The development of vaccinations and social security programmes in the western world, along with the results of humanitarian work, serves as the ‘evidence’ for their argument that man’s omnipotent hand has caused evolution to change gear: no longer is the unconscious force of Mother Nature allowed to weed out the weakest progeny, leaving the fittest survivors to establish themselves in our world, but the humane response of man to the plights of others has effectively halted such a process. Our emotions and values have encouraged us to come to the aid of others, such charity being one hallmark of a ‘civilised society’.

It is this precise evolution of our emotional responses which serves to undermine the cause of the teenage killers. The gradual development of the human lineage has not only resulted in the present-day physiological characteristics of man, but has also culminated, I believe, in an increased sense of humanity and emotional attachment to fellow beings. The evolution of compassion and respect constitutes a significant step in the development of our species, and it is this which has been ignored by the teenagers. Their non-conformism with the values of humanity which have evolved in us has therefore led to their being termed inhumane “homicidal maniacs”.

C. S. Lewis presents a related line of thought in his ‘The Abolition of Man’. He approaches the phenomenon of man’s increasing control over nature from a rather more spiritual point of view, claiming that the gradual explanation of everything in terms of natural and scientific processes will eventually lead to ‘the abolition of man’. If the human being in all its parts is reduced to a mere natural object itself, then the disappearance of humanity in the emotional and moral sense will surely follow. The ignorance of these teenagers has led them to forget that the real humane values prescribing respect and tolerance towards their fellow beings are products of natural selection themselves – an abandonment of such values, which has resulted in the killing of others, seems therefore to constitute an ‘insult’ to natural selection, whose cause they wanted to take up in the first place.

The murderous acts of these youths are also at odds with the true logical ‘spirit’ of natural selection. The process of evolution is characterised by the absence of an overriding force directing and controlling the destiny of the Earth’s organisms (hence the ongoing bone of contention between many theists and Darwinists). Natural selection occurs in the absence of any intelligent ‘mind’. The ‘survival of the fittest’ is therefore the result of an unconscious ‘sorting’ process whereby the outcome is determined by natural circumstances. The direct involvement of these teenagers represents a complete rupture with such a philosophy: their intentional weeding out of their ‘weaker’ classmates is completely opposed to the unconscious force of natural selection on the most basic level.

Furthermore, their fear that the action of natural selection was being halted and even reversed constitutes an equally implausible claim to make. If it be granted that our sophisticated emotional set-up is an actual product of evolution, then the apparent ‘reversal’ of natural selection, as a result of our humane action towards the preservation of the ‘less well-adapted’ societies, is a product of natural selection itself. An emotional and caring outlook on our part is beneficial to ‘the preservation of the species’. Man’s control over the ‘survival of the fittest’ is the result of the ‘survival of the fittest’.

Despite the fact that natural selection now appears to be being thwarted by man’s domination, the underlying process is still very much present, however. It is always unwise to underestimate the power of nature, and the increasing threat of natural disasters as a result of man-induced climate change could just be the proof that natural selection is an omnipresent and automatic state of affairs which is therefore impossible to keep at bay.

To conclude, the idea that Darwinian thought legitimately justifies such atrocious acts is implausible on both a logical and ‘common sense’ level. The ‘teenage nihilists’ who committed these massacres, as well as doing a disservice to their beloved Darwinian ideology, abandoned the evolved values of humanity and morality in the process. And yes, there may be those who advocate a totally liberal morality on account of the ‘illusory’ nature of such evolved values. Indeed, George Williams sums up the view that all apparent altruism has its origins in the overriding ‘selfish gene’ in the following quote (Cited in Darwin’s Dangerous Idea, Daniel C. Dennett, Penguin Science, 1996 edition, p.251):

“As a general rule today a biologist seeing one animal doing something to benefit another assumes either that it is manipulated by the other individual or that it is being subtly selfish.”

But surely obedience and consideration of such altruistic and humane values (illusory or not) is a mark of our respect for natural selection’s work (illusionist or not)? I’m sure Darwin would agree.

The views expressed in this article are those of the author and don't necessarily reflect the views of Young Freethought or its editors.