THE DARWIN PAPERS
VOLUME 1 NUMBER XIV
DARWIN AT NUREMBERG
THE STRUGGLE FOR SURVIVAL
W.W.D.D. ~ IN HIS TRACKS
WHAT WOULD DARWIN DO?
From The Nebulous Hypothesis:
A Study of the Philosophical and
Historical Implications of Darwinian Theory
© 1996 by James M. Foard
Editor and Publisher James M. Foard.
Darwin was actually enthralled with the concept of extinction of species, dealing with the subject over seventy times in his Origin of Species and Descent of Man. In fact, he saw extinction as being essentially linked with his theory of natural selection as one of the main instruments for the evolutionary process to move along: "The extinction of species and of whole groups of species, which has played so conspicuous a part inthe history of the organic world, almost inevitably follows from the principle of natural selection; for old forms are supplanted by new and improved forms."(Origin,Recapitulation and Conclusion: How far the theory of natural selection may be extended)
"As natural selection acts solely by the preservation of profitable modifications, each new form will tend in a fully-stocked country to take the place of, and finally to exterminate, its own less improved parent-form and other less-favoured forms with which it comes into competition. Thus extinction and natural selection go hand in hand." (Origin, Chapter Six, Difficulties of the theory: On the absence or rarity of transitional varieties.)
Darwin goes on to write: "Hence, if we look at each species as descended from some unknown form, both the parent and all the transitional varieties will generally have been exterminated by the very process of the formation and perfection of the new form."
As can be seen from
Darwin's own writing, the presence of transitional forms providing proof for his
theory are extremely rare, practically non-existant, because the law of natural
selection would tend to exterminate them:
" I endeavoured, also, to show that intermediate varieties, from existing in lesser numbers than the forms which they connect, will generally be beaten out and exterminated during the course of further modification and improvement." (Origin, Chapter Ten: On the Imperfection of the Geologic Record: On the absence of intermediate varieties at the present day)
There is however a problem with this, for Darwin plainly stated that all species, including the races of man, in some respect are transitional forms: "As Sir J. Lubbock has remarked, 'Every species is a link between other allied forms.'"(Origin of Species, Chapter Ten: On the absence of intermediate varieties in any one formation.)
This is why, on the very first page of his Descent of Man, Darwin advocated a race war among human beings, believing that this would produce "beneficial" results with one of the races of man being exterminated, since all species of life in Darwin's struggle for existence are prey to being "beaten out and exterminated during the course of further modification and improvement."
Did Darwin at least think that all races of man came from the same set of parents, perhaps making us all one family of man? To look at Darwin's classification of man himself and thus to find out more of what he thought of the equality of the various races, we must read his General Summary and Conclusionto the Descent of Man. Here Darwin wrote: "Through the means just specified, aided perhaps by others as yet undiscovered, man has been raised to his present state. But since he has attained to the rank of manhood, he has diverged into distinct races, or as they may be more fitly called, sub-species. Some of these, such as the Negro and European, are so distinct that, if specimens had been brought to a naturalist, without any further information, they would undoubtedly have been considered by him as good and true (separate) species . . .It must not be supposed that the divergence of each race from the other races, and of all from a common stock, can be traced back to any one pair of progenitors." (Descent, pp.591, Benton Pub., 1952)
In Darwin's view all men are not "created equal" as the Declaration of Independence and the Bible state, but have evolved along with the rest of the animal kingdom.
Repeating the connection between natural selection and extinction, Darwin wrote:
"On the theory of natural selection, the extinction of old forms and the production of new and improved forms are intimately connected together." (Origin, Chapter Eleven: On the geological succession of organic beings: Extinction)
Again: "For we have reason to believe that only a few species of a genus ever undergo change; the other species becoming utterly extinct and leaving no modified progeny. . .so that the intermediate varieties would, in the long run, be supplanted and exterminated." (Origin, Chapter Fifteen, Recapitulation and conclusion: Recapitulation of the general and special circumstances in its favour)
Probably a much better title for his first work, instead of "The Origin of Species or the preservation of favored races in the struggle for existence", should have been "The Extinction of Species or the elimination of unfavored races in the struggle for existence". After all, by his own admission he failed to document one single instance of the origin of any species throughout his entire book. The whole thing, along with his second work pseudo-documenting man's "evolution", is nothing but a plea for warfare, violence and extinction as necessary components for the improvement of our existence.
We have seen earlier that Darwin expressly applied this horrendous idea to human populations as well in his Descent of Man, even advocating a race war for the extermination of what he considered to be less evolved races of man. Darwin not only wrote that in the course of evolution the "barbarians" would be exterminated, he went on to write that if savage races were not exterminated by violent means when coming into contact with more "civilized" nations, then they would simply become sterile when forced to adopt civilized life, even comparing them with apes:
"It has often been said, as Mr. MacNamara remarks, that man can resist with impunity the greatest diversities of climate and other changes; but this is true only of the civilized races. Man in his wild condition seems to be in this respect almost as susceptible as his nearest allies, the anthropoid apes, which have never survived long, when removed from their native country . . . Seeing how general is this law of the susceptibility of the reproductive system to changed conditions of life, and that it holds good with our nearest allies, the Quadrumana (apes), I can hardly doubt that it applies to man in his primeval state. Hence if savages of any race are induced suddenly to change their habits of life, they become more or less sterile . . . It is an interesting circumstance that the chief check to wild animals becoming domesticated, which implies the power of their breeding freely when first captured, and one chief check to wild men, when brought into contact with civilization, surviving to form a civilized race, is the same, namely, sterility from changed conditions of life." (Descent, pp.334-355)
Darwin wrote of the diminishing race of Tasmanians after the English colonization: "With respect to the cause of the extraordinary state of things, Dr. Story remarks that death followed the attempts to civilize the natives." (Descent, pp.35`)
Darwin was certainly no proponent of the idea of the equality of the sexes either. He might be said to have been a classical male chauvinist. He wrote in his Descent:
"The chief distinction in the intellectual powers of the two sexes is shewn by man's attaining to a higher eminence, in whatever he takes up, than can woman-whether requiring deep thought, reason, or imagination, or merely the use of the senses and hands. If two lists were made of the most eminent men and women in poetry, painting, sculpture, music (inclusive both of composition and performance), history, science, and philosophy, with half-a-dozen names under each subject, the two lists would not bear comparison . . .as well illustrated by Mr. Galton, in his work on Hereditary Genius . . .the average mental power in man must be above that of woman. (Descent, Secondary Sexual Characteristics of Man, Difference in the Mental powers of the two Sexes, pp.566)
This type of blatant racism and male chauvinism should cause those to hesitate who hold Darwin up as some great intellectual pioneer in the study of humankind, and should give pause to those liberal intellectuals who fairly froth at the mouth at the mere mention of creationism but have installed Darwin upon some pedestal of honor in place of Moses and the prophets.
What was it that inspired Darwin with these horrendous ideas that he propounded: What was the underlying philosophical basis for his ideology? Who was it that inspired him with the ideas that led to such genocidal results? It is historically of the first importance that we get to the truth of this matter. Darwin's writings are still held up as some great standard of truth in many intellectual circles: he is still highly honored by the intelligentsia of the print and broadcast media, he has become an icon of supposed scholarly achievement in the liberal educational establishment, and as ideas have consequences, ideas based on erroneous data and faulty conclusions may have catastrophic consequences for the lives of millions of helpless victims of social engineering programs designed by people convinced that for the "overall good" of humanity evolution ought to be given a little "push" via population planning institutions.In tracing the philosophical lineage of Hitler, Marx and Darwin, we find that they converge in a common group of Enlightenment thinkers in the 16th and 17th centuries. Priestley, the Unitarian minister who rejected the miracles of the Bible and belief in the Trinity and who was an intimate of both of Darwin's grandfathers, was strongly influenced by ideas from the Enlightenment that swept across Europe. Many of the ideas of the Enlightenment were spawned by men who rejected the divine revelation of Scripture as the ultimate guide for man's conduct and purpose in life, and attempted to substitute variously concocted notions for human reason, apart from God's Word, as the arbiter to pilot humanity by. This eventually led to the horrors of the French Revolution, which did much to dispel the popularity of the ideas of the Enlightenment philosophers.
Man's reason needs to be aided by the Holy Spirit and the Holy Scripture, for "There are many devices in a man's heart, but the counsel of the Lord, that shall stand," and "Trust in the Lord with all your heart, and lean not on your own understanding," and further, "The Lord knows the imaginations of man's heart, that they are vain." We are admonished by Holy Scripture that "Except the Lord build the house, they labor in vain to build it." This is as true in the affairs of human society today as it was when uttered by the prophet centuries ago.
There was an undue reliance on Greek philosophy of man and society's innate perfectibility through reason apart from divine guidance. Jesus is the door, and apart from Him there will never be a truly equitable and just government upon this earth, for "The kings of the earth set themselves, and the rulers take counsel together, against the Lord and against His Anointed, saying, 'Let us break their bonds in pieces, and cast their cords away from us."
Ungodly men and governments can only see in the statutes and commandments of the Lord bonds and cords preventing them from pursuing their own nefarious schemes and inflicting their intrigues upon their fellow man for selfish gain.
The truly original scientific thinkers who sparked the Enlightenment, Pascal, Harvey, Newton, Galileo, and others, were for the most part quite pious and religious men who saw that nature revealed the handiwork of God, and reasoned that since an Intelligence had put certain laws in the Universe, we could through our God given reason learn about these laws and thus learn more about the eternal Lawgiver who fashioned them.
Unfortunately this spawned a second generation of less enlightened men who took only part of that premise, which was that we have a universe consisting of laws, but they denied the participation of the Lawgiver, God. These men were skeptics of revealed religion, and denied many of the miracles of Holy Writ. Many of them were atheists, as atheism became intellectually fashionable in the 18th century. There was a rejection of the sacred in human affairs, first through the Protestant Reformation, which abolished many of the Church holidays and ecclesiastical functions that townships traditionally held, although at first this was an attempt to correct some of the abuses of the Catholic Church at the time. Let it be noted that I am discussing this as a Protestant Christian myself. Eventually this led to excesses of it's own, spawning two centuries of bloody conflict between the Catholics and Protestants in Europe and Britain, with some of the very leaders of the Reformation itself taking part in the slaughter. Calvin is known to have executed fifty-eight people over the course of a few years in his model Christian community of Geneva, where he held virtual dictatorial powers. He was known to have imprisoned a man for not giving his son a Christian name from the Bible, and he imprisoned a woman because her hair was tied too high behind her head.
Luther wrote mordacious tracts attacking the peasants for their revolt against the aristocracy in Germany, a revolt that had been in large part brought on by Luther's earlier writings themselves challenging Papal and civil authority. He called for the most heinous punishments to be meted to the peasants, which was done in an efficient and brutal manner. He also wrote scathing diatribes against the Jews, portending many of the future tides of prejudice that swept across Europe over the next few centuries.
Chief among the Enlightenment skeptics was David Hume. Hume was a backslidden former Calvinist who eventually rejected the divine inspiration of Scripture, believed that monotheism was merely an outgrowth of primitive polytheism (I have dealt with this error in a note in the first chapter of this work), without presenting any credible historical evidence for many of his claims. Nevertheless his writings became the mainstay for two centuries of radical thinkers, including Erasmus Darwin and his grandson Charles.
Among various enlightenment thinkers affected by Hume's writings, there was one who was conspicuous for his influence on Charles Darwin, Karl Marx, and, through Nietzsche, Adolph Hitler.In unraveling the twisted thread further between Darwin's theory of evolution, Marx's Communist Manifesto, and Hitler's racism, we must go back a few centuries to a gentleman by the name of Thomas Malthus. Malthus was an Anglican clergyman and the first British professor of political economy. Malthus' father was profoundly influenced by Hume's writings, and brought up his son in a liberal education that reflected the skepticism of that time.
Although he did not coin the term, Malthus (1766-1834) has been called the founding father of eugenics, or scientific racism. (1)
The idea of a master race is tied in with "eugenics," a term coined by Darwin's cousin, Francis Galton. This is the notion that certain so called inferior races of man should be discouraged from breeding, thus reducing the surplus population, and thereby purifying the human race, just one typical result of Darwin's bloody legacy. Galton and Darwin were both inspired by Malthus, and they make reference to him in their writings.
Born in comfortable circumstances to a wealthy family, Malthus certainly did not take to heart the Biblical injunction that man does not live by bread alone. Nor did he invoke the Biblical injunction that caring for the poor was caring for the Lord. For him the primary component of human existence was reduced to the lowest common denominator, food, and he did not believe that there was ever enough of it to go around. Hence he proposed that there must be various checks to the growth of population so that all might be fed, although he did not mean the population of the well to do classes, but checks to the poor classes of society, to which he often referred to as though they, by their very poverty, represented a form of evil (2)
According to the International Society of Malthus, there are four core principles of Malthus' philosophy, namely-
Malthus is best
known for his Essay on the Principle of Population, which, aside from Darwin's
Origin and Descent, is unparalleled in the history of English literature for
it's abominably cruel and inhumane suggestions for the social betterment of the
human race. He stated his barbaric beliefs quite succinctly in the 1826 6th
edition of his work:
"We are bound in justice and honour formally to disclaim the right of the poor to support.
To this end, I should propose a regulation to be made, declaring that no child born from any marriage, taking place after the expiration of a year from the date of the law, and no illegitimate child born two years from the same date, should ever be entitled to parish assistance.
The infant is, comparatively speaking, of little value to society, as others will immediately supply its place."
In investigating what Malthus believed and wrote, one has the uncanny sense that if wickedness were to embody itself in a personality, this man might be a good candidate. Of one thing we can be sure: Malthus was certainly no friend of the downtrodden. Dickens' Scrooge could have been inspired by him.
According to Allan Chase, Malthus was not only opposed to aid for helpless infants and the poor, but "every measure that in any way improved the health or the minds of the population [particularly the poor] was, in his view, an even greater crime." (4)
Malthus further stated in the 5th Chapter of Book IV of his Essay that "All children born, beyond what would be required to keep up the population to this [desired] level, must necessarily perish, unless room be made for them by the deaths of grown persons."
Malthus sums up his railing on the poor by stating, in genocidal fashion:
" . . .we should facilitate, instead of foolishly and vainly endeavoring to impede, the operations of nature in producing this mortality; and if we dread the too frequent visitation of the horrid form of famine, we should sedulously encourage the other forms of destruction, which we compel nature to use. Instead of recommending cleanliness to the poor, we should encourage contrary habits. In our towns we should make the streets narrower, crowd more people into the houses, and court the return of the plague. In the country, we should build our villages near stagnant pools, and particularly encourage settlements in all marshy and unwholesome situations. But above all, we should reprobate specific remedies for ravaging diseases; and those benevolent, but much mistaken men, who have thought they were doing a service to mankind by projecting schemes for the total extirpation of particular disorders." (5)
This odious proposal, so contemptible, so low, so degrading in its vision for the "improvement" of society, eventually made its way into Darwin's Origin of Species and his Descent of Man. One can only imagine Malthus, were he living today, sitting comfortably in an armchair, while watching a telecast of skeletal, starving children in some third world country, and nodding in approval as he sipped his brandy.
Malthus held that there were certain Principles of Conflict that dictated the conditions of human society and were central to human existence. Malthus' ideas on human conflict were also largely responsible for Marx's ideology of a class struggle and Darwin's idea of a struggle for existence. Both Marx and Darwin studied Malthus before writing out their theories of human struggle.
The International Society of Malthus has stated the Malthusian principles of politics and conflict:
Reading Malthus' theories is like reading the doctrine of a demented, evil mind. His belief that there was a connection between environmental scarcity and political conflict led him to endorse what he called the "positive checks" of war, disease and poverty which would limit the unconstrained growth of population.
Malthus has since been proved wrong, and in fact was proved wrong even in his own lifetime. Chase made note of the fact that even in Malthus' own time the tenets of his philosophy were invalidated by the Agricultural Revolution. Beginning around the turn of the 18th century, the average yield of grain increased by 43% over the next hundred years in England, and with the advent of new technologies from the Industrial Revolution it increased even more in the 19th century. The myth that birth rates would forever outstrip mankind's ability to supply enough food for the population grew less true throughout Malthus' entire life, chiefly because of the success of the Agricultural Revolution in the 18th century and the aid given to agriculture by the Industrial Revolution in the 19th. Three years before Malthus died Cyrus McCormick developed his horse-drawn reaper. From this and other developments in mechanization, in the ten year period from 1838 to 1848 the shipment of wheat from Chicago went from seventy -eight bushels a year to two million bushels a year. In the 20th century the increase of crop production has been even greater. Scientific advancement in agriculture has proven Malthus to be wrong in everything that he predicted. (7)
wrote that poverty was the "necessary stimulus to industry," for it provided
cheap help and child labor for the nouveau rich among the English from the
Chase stated that Malthus was against passage of any legislation that would diminish poverty, including 'bad' laws that provided welfare and medical help for the poor, the aged, and the sick; free public schools, sanitary housing, and community services helping to enable the poor to at least be able to move up the ladder of social prosperity through improved living conditions.
What could be more lacking in compassion, more cold-blooded, more inhumane than Malthus' disposition towards those whom Christ called Blessed is beyond imagination. One wonders what Malthus' attitude, as a clergyman, might have been towards the Child born in a poor manger two thousand years ago who brought salvation to mankind.
Malthus not only
wished to deprive the poor the right of procreation and the benefits of a decent
working wage in this life, he also strongly suggested that the poor would also
be denied the benefits of a heavenly existence in the hereafter, for he believed
that the soul of man, which he identifies with the mind, is formed in an
evolutionary fashion from the material components of the body, hence those
children of the poor who had lesser nourishment, or were defective physically,
would probably be returned to the clay that they were made of, instead of
rejoicing in heaven:
"We know from experience that soul and body are most intimately united, and every appearance seems to indicate that they grow from infancy together. It would be a supposition attended with very little probability to believe that a complete and full formed spirit existed in every infant, but that it was clogged and impeded in its operations during the first twenty years of life by the weakness, or hebetude, of the organs in which it was enclosed. As we shall all be disposed to agree that God is the creator of mind as well as of body, and as they both seem to be forming and unfolding themselves at the same time, it cannot appear inconsistent either with reason or revelation, if it appear to be consistent with phenomena of nature, to suppose that God is constantly occupied in forming mind out of matter and that the various impressions that man receives through life is the process for that purpose. . . Nothing can appear more consonant to our reason than that those beings which come out of the creative process of the world in lovely and beautiful forms should be crowned with immortality, while those which come out misshapen, those whose minds are not suited to a purer and happier state of existence, should perish and be condemned to mix again with their original clay. Eternal condemnation of this kind may be considered as a species of eternal punishment, and it is not wonderful that it should be represented, sometimes, under images of suffering."(Malthus, Essay on the Principle of Population, Chapters 18-19)
Malthus had a decided effect on Darwin, who wrote that it was Malthus who inspired him with his theory of a struggle for survival. Darwin wrote: "In October 1838, that is, fifteen months after I had begun my systematic inquiry, I happened to read for amusement Malthus on Population, and being well prepared to appreciate the struggle for existence which everywhere goes on from long-continued observation of the habits of animals and plants, it at once struck me that under these circumstances favourable variations would tend to be preserved, and unfavourable ones to be destroyed. The results of this would be the formation of a new species. Here, then I had at last got a theory by which to work". (Charles Darwin, from his Autobiography, 1876)
In the introduction to his Origin of Species, Darwin again gave accolades to Malthus as having been the inspiration for his entire theory of evolution through natural selection:
"In the next chapter the struggle for existence among all organic beings throughout the world, which inevitably follows from the high geometrical ratio of their increase, will be considered. This is the doctrine of Malthus, applied to the whole animal and vegetable kingdoms. As many more individuals of each species are born than can possibly survive; and as, consequently, there is a frequently recurring struggle for existence, it follows that any being, if it vary however slightly in any manner profitable to itself, under the complex and sometimes varying conditions of life, will have a better chance of surviving, and thus be NATURALLY SELECTED."
In the Descent of Man, Darwin gave high marks to Malthus: " See the ever memorable 'Essay on the Principle of Population,' by the Rev. T. Malthus." (Descent of Man, Chapter Two, On the Manner of Development of Man From Some Lower Form, note)
Although Charles Darwin attempted to imply in his later writings, and this has been parroted by his followers ever since, that he had been brought up in traditional Christian beliefs, and only after slowly examining the scientific facts he was brought around to the belief in evolution, a little historical inquiry will show that this premise would seem to be extremely doubtful.
To see more of what shaped Darwin's underlying belief system was from the start, we must go back two generations in Darwin's family tree, to investigate the belief system of both of his grandfathers, Erasmus and Josiah.
We find that Joseph Priestley (1733-1804), the founder of the first Unitarian Church in America, was first a Unitarian Minister in Britain who arrived in Birminham in 1780. Priestley did not exactly hold orthodox Christian view. He denied the virgin birth of Jesus, the Trinity, and many of the miracles of the Bible. He promptly became an initiate of both of Darwin's grandfathers, Erasmus Darwin and Josiah Wedgwood. He joined Erasmus Darwin's Lunar Society in 1780, and had a strong influence on both men. Desmond and Moore report: "Priestley's theology was probably even more influential, for it shaped the outlook of three generations of Darwin's and Wedgwoods . . For Priestley immortal souls do not exist any more than immaterial 'spirits' in chemistry. Nor were miracles and mysteries like the Trinity and the Incarnation part of his Christianity." (Desmond and Moore, pp. 8-9)
Desmond and Moore further report that Darwin's maternal grandfather Josiah " . . .had dropped so much supernatural paraphernalia that he had lost sight of the Christian heights. Fall any further and he would fall with an atheistic bump. Josiah's was Christianity striped naked, the Trinity had been discarded, along with Jesus' divinity." (Desmond and Moore, pp. 95)
Thus we find that Darwin's rejection of traditional Christian beliefs was not the result of some grand scientific breakthrough occurring as a result of his voyage on the Beagle, he was already philosophically predisposed towards this outlook as a result of three generations of atheistic views.
According to Darwin, if after this age there were to be a future life (and by inference the resurrection of the dead), then evolution would be obsolete. In his viewpoint, man is merely a physical creature with no eternal soul, and he clearly stated here that he placed his only hope in this life through evolutionary development. Of course, St. Paul stated exactly the same thing ("If in this life we only have hope, we are of all people the most miserable"), although from a completely opposite viewpoint.
Darwin also lent generous support to a virulent anti-Christian organization in the United States, the Free Religious Association, headed up by Francis Abbot. Abbot gavehis fifty propositions for "'the extinction of faith in the Christian Confession'" in his pamphlet Truths For the Time, where he argued for the development of a humanistic 'Free Religion'.
historian James Moore, "These were evolutionary 'truths'" to which "Darwin
responded warmly, writing, 'I admire them from my inmost heart & agree to
almost every word.'"(James Moore, The Darwin Legend, Baker Books, Grand
Rapids Michigan, 1994, pp. 44.)
Darwin also claimed that he had once believed that all species were specially created but had changed his mind, presumably after carefully examining the issue, however even this admission is open to question, as we have seen when examining his own and his family's history. Instead we find out that all along he had a bias against the concept of Special Creation by God; Darwin's claim to have stumbled upon the idea of natural selection entirely on his own and purely from empirical observations has been generally discredited, and his memory of the intellectual chain of thought that led to his "discovery" is at best dubious, fabricated from whole cloth, as even his staunchest admirers have admitted.
Darwin's viewpoint of the origin of species was also borrowed from his grandfathers ideas, which we have seen from an earlier chapter. We also have seen that his evolutionary views led him to believe that the various races of man could actually be divided up into subspecies, and we saw that this view led him to propose a race war among the races of man for the advancement of human evolution.
Let us look at Darwin's basic idea of human origins and the equality or lack thereof of the races of man. We find where Darwin wrote in his Descent: "I may be permitted to say, as some excuse, that I had two distinct objects in view; firstly, to shew that species had not been separately created, and secondly, that natural selection had been the chief agent of change, though largely aided by the inherited effects of habit, and slightly by the direct action of the surrounding conditions."(Darwin, Descent, Chapter 2: On the manner of Development of Man From Some Lower Form: Defenceless Condition of Man .
He also discusses the mutual sterility among animals of differing species, and relates this subject to mankind: "Now let us apply these generally-admitted principles to the races of man, viewing him in the same spirit as a naturalist would any other animal."
So Darwin's basic thesis was that man along with other species had not been created by a supernatural act of God, but had descended through an evolutionary process.
He further wrote: "Although, as we have now seen, man has no just right to form a separate Order for his own reception, he may perhaps claim a distinct suborder or family. Prof. Huxley, in his last work, divides the primates into three suborders; namely, the Anthropoidea with man alone, the Simiadae including monkeys of all kinds, and the Lemuridae with the diversified genera of lemurs. (Descent, pp.334, Benton Pub., 1952)
Darwin believed that men were descended from apes, and thus his brutal laws of survival of the fittest that he claimed ruled nature also ruled in human societies as well, as we have seen from chapter Twelve.
"Thus we can understand how it has come to pass that man and all other vertebrate animals have been constructed on the same general model, why they pass through the same early stages of development, and why they retain certain rudiments in common. Consequently we ought frankly to admit their community of descent . . .But the time will before long come, when it will be thought wonderful (equivalent in nineteenth century English of unbelievable) that naturalists, who were well acquainted with the comparative structure and development of man, and other mammals, should have believed that each was the work of a separate act of creation." (Descent, Chapter One: The Evidence of the descent of Man From Some Lower Form: Rudimentary structures.)
"We thus learn that man is descended from a hairy, tailed quadruped, probably arboreal in its habits, and an inhabitant of the Old World." (Descent, chapter Twenty One: General Summary and Conclusion: Main Conclusion: pp.591, Benton Pub., 1952)
"If the anthropomorphous apes be admitted to form a natural sub-group, then as man agrees with them, not only in all those characteristics which he possesses in common with the whole catarhine group, but in other peculiar characters, such as the absence of a tail and of callosities, and in general appearance, we may infer that some ancient member of the anthropomorphous sub-group gave birth to man." (Descent, Chapter Six: Rank of man in the natural system, pp.335 Benton Ed.)
"But a naturalist would undoubtedly have ranked as an ape or a monkey an ancient form which possessed many characters common to the catarhine and platyrhine monkeys . . . and as man from a geneological point of view belongs to the catarhine or Old World stock, we must conclude, however much the conclusion revolts our pride, that our early ancestors would have been properly thus designated." (Descent, Chapter Six: On the Birthplace and Antiquity of Man,pp.336)
Even though we see
here that Darwin repeatedly stated his belief that man was not the object of
special creation, but had descended from some ape-like ancestor, in his
Descent he frankly admitted that he never had any evidence for such
a claim: " . . .With respect to the absence of fossil remains
serving to connect man with his ape-like progenitors. . .those regions which
are the most likely to afford remains connecting man with some extinct ape-like
creature, have not as yet been searched by geologists," etc. (Descent, ibid);
"The great break in the organic chain between man and his nearest
allies, which cannot be bridged over by any extinct or living
species, has often been advanced as a grave objection to the belief that man
is descended from some lower form . . ." (Descent, Chapter Six, On the
birthplace and antiquity of man, pp.336, Benton Pub., 1952);
"But we must not fall into the error of supposing that the early progenitors of the whole simian stock, including man, was identical with, or even closely resembled, any existing ape or monkey." (Descent, Chapter Six, pp.336, Benton Edition, 1952);
"In attempting to trace the genealogy of the Mammalia, and therefore of man, lower down in the series, we become involved in greater and greater obscurity [in other words, totally lost] . . . no true bird or reptile intervenes in the direct line of descent," (ibid).
So although Darwin had no actual proof to support his theory, he nevertheless continued to state his belief as fact! Now in the evolutionary concept of natural selection, which is expressed in the phrase "the survival of the fittest," which concept I might remind the reader Darwin actually wrote into the title of his major work, i.e. The Origin of Species or the Preservation of Favored Races in the Struggle for Existence, he clearly applied this idea to the survival of animal species.
We have seen from chapter 12 of The Darwin Papers that Darwin applied the theory of the survival of favored races and the extinction of less advantaged ones to man as well, in other words, he indeed did say that some races of man were less fit to breed than others, and thus we found out that this was not just a later interpolation woven into his work by other less enlightened men who followed in his footsteps but misunderstood his message. The bloodthirsty idea of a struggle for survival between different races of man was in his work from the beginning.
John Pfeiffer reports on the terrible results of projecting an erroneous, evolutionary bias in interpreting a culture's value and significance in the modern world, and then applying that bias on a racial level: "The past treatment of hunter-gatherers and others living in primitive societies whose behavior patterns resemble those that prevailed for more than 99 percent of man's time on earth marks a low point in colonial history. A common notion was that they belonged to subhuman breeds, occupying 'at best a middling position among the species,' somewhere between apes and men but rather closer to apes as far as mentality and morals are concerned. In the name of this belief (evolution), they were widely dispossessed, enslaved, hunted, slaughtered, fed poisoned food and otherwise exploited. A later and somewhat more enlightened attitude, but one based on the same belief, was that they should be preserved together with other forms of wildlife as 'living fossils' or lower species that never attained the evolutionary status of modern man." (Pfeiffer, pp.312)
We have seen that this "common notion" was nothing less than what Darwin articulated in his Descent of Man, where he espoused quite similar ideas, as well as espousing quite horrendous solutions to the problems of racial co-existence.
This is part of the bloody legacy left behind by the man who wrote The Origin of Species. Having seen from the past two chapters how the erroneous doctrine of evolution has spawned genocidal results when applied to human society, let us now look at the true story of mankind, and find out what might result from a new concept of human origin and destiny, in the final chapter in our journey through mankind's history, as we seek to find a new vision for humanity in the final issue of The Darwin Papers.
1. Allan Chase, The Legacy of Malthus: The
Social Costs of the New Scientific Racism, Alfred A. Knopf, 1976, pp. 6
2. In researching this section on Malthus, I would be remiss if I did not mention the great debt that I owe to the late Allan Chase, whose work on eugenics, The Legacy of Malthus, is a modern classic, and was instrumental in exposing the inhumane history of the eugenics movement.
3. www.igc.org/desip/malthus/principles.html, 7/28/2000
6. www.igc.org/desip/malthus/conflict.htm. 7/28/2000
7. Chase, 72-75
8. We have seen from Chapter 3 that natural selection does not increase genetic information; truth be known it actually reduces the amount of genetic information potential, even given the so-called benefit of mutational change, and can only lead to variation within a species, or kind, or family of organisms (what has been called speciation is in fact variation within a Biblical kind). Also, in Darwin's idea of a struggle for survival that supposedly would produce new species, we have to ask ourselves what was the genetic superiority of the humble rutabaga plant over whatever other species of plant or organism it was that it supposedly wiped out to appear on the landscape of this planet? Granted rutabagas survive quite well, but how did they arrive on the scene in the first place in this mysterious struggle for survival, and what organisms are they struggling against today to supplant in order to survive? The entire theory of a struggle for survival originating new species is ludicrous; it is false science that evolutionists continue to parade in their stories as fact that has led to monstrous consequences both in the environmental realm and in the lives and cultures of human beings.
Yes, there are animals that eat other animals, and there are animals that eat plants, and plants that eat animals, and plants that eat plants, and spores and fungus that feed on us all, but they all depend on their hosts or prey for their nourishment. We need to coexist with the other species of life here on earth. When one species is wiped out it might cause the extinction of an entirely different species that depends on it for food, which in turn could cause a third species to suffer.
Let us take a glance at one typical story used by evolutionists to illustrate the struggle for survival:
A pride of lions is hunting on the African savannah. They come upon a herd of antelope grazing near a river. The lions take positions in the tall grass and slowly crawl through the underbrush to draw near to their prey. The antelopes are nervous and glance around, their hind quarters twitching as they sense that all might not be well. Suddenly at some unseen signal, the lions burst from their places of concealment and race toward the herd, singling out their victim while the rest of the herd stampedes in panic. Their lone victim races from one lion only to be confronted by another one coming from the other direction. Confused he reverses course, but by then the one coming from behind leaps onto his hind quarters and drags him down. The other lions rush in. There is a brief struggle before the end, and then the lions feast on their prey.
So far so good. But what did we learn from this? Only that lions eat antelope, that the fastest lions eat antelope more often, and that the fastest antelope get away. Are lions evolving through this process into anything else than lions? Are the antelope that got away evolving into anything other than more antelope? What would happen of the lions continued the hunt after their first victim until they had wiped out the entire herd of antelope? Would that help their chances for survival a few days or weeks down the road? Is extinction really something that produces new species in the natural world?
In the Darwinian version though, some of the fur on some of the antelope would gradually be turning into feathers, while the front legs would be turning into wings. At the same time their bones would be turning hollow and they would be developing pin feathers and tail feathers. Over the course of time those antelope that learned to fly would be able to escape the lions and would survive better and become a new species. They would also eventually lose their teeth and evolve beaks. Eventually some of the lions would also evolve feathers and hollow bones and wings and then they would be able to fly after the winged antelope.
After all, this is how we are assured that dinosaurs evolved wings and turned into birds, and we all know that the Darwinian version is actually much more scientific than the creationist version and that creationists are all out to lunch.
(Evolutionist response: "Don't be ridiculous! Everybody knows that dinosaurs evolved their wings from scales while running around trying to catch insects and jumping out of trees!")
But of course. It was scales that turned into feathers, not hair. Now that makes perfectly good sense!
We have the same scenario played out in the animated and digital stories of dinosaurs, where they are in this constant state of savage warfare; all the dinosaurs always fighting each other in gigantic wrestling matches to the death. Would any of that really have produced new dinosaur species? Granted the stronger and faster ones from some species would have survived better, but this would only have been a preserving principle, not an originating principle; it would act to conserve certain traits that already existed. There is also the question of how many dinosaurs were really battling it out with each other. What percentage of dinosaurs were of the carnivorous kind? What percentage were omnivorous and what percentage were herbivorous. How many of the dinosaur species were even struggling with each other at all?
Even the carnivorous types of dinosaur, like the lions in the example above, would have depended on their prey for their very existence, and would not have wanted to wipe out the entire species. This is incidentally a pretty good argument for the preflood enriched atmosphere in the Noahdic world with the greater amount of vegetation and the universally mild climate. In today's world the vast majority of land surface is covered by desert, ice and rugged mountains. Where would there be an adequate source of vegetation for the dinosaurs to survive if their world were like ours? The average raw tonnage of an elephant's diet is 330 lbs. of food a day. Given that many of the herbivorous dinosaurs were much larger than elephants, how would they have survived unless they had an enoumous amount of herbs and grains for their food supply?
There is only one valid explanation for the marvelously diverse types of life that exist here on this specially created planet that houses them in this marvelously intricate and interdependent biosphere: God in His infinite wisdom, with loving care created all of the species of life on this earth by miraculous fiat through His Word.