EVOLUTION AND OTHER FAIRY TALES

Although the number of books on evolution stretches to infinity, there is none which takes a panoramic view that places evolution in the contexts of geology, biology, cultural anthropology, philosophy, and paleontology.  Inevitably, an author describes this topic of evolution in a rather restricted way, thereby losing the forest because of the tree.  How many biologists, for example, realize that the former Soviet Union – against which billions of American dollars were spent annually – insisted that Communism would one day reign over the world, and this because, unlike democracy, Communism is scientific, it being evolution which renders it so?  Also in the political domain, how many evolutionists have entertained the notion that Darwinism created the climate of opinion which resulted in the infamous Nazi atrocities committed during the reign of Adolf Hitler?  Those Darwinian supporters who scoff at such a view are those who, infected with tunnel-vision, have really read only those paragraphs of Darwin which harmonize with their own preconceived notions.

An additional reason for considering philosophy is illustrated in the context of human liberty.  Every biologist who insists on freedom seems to be oblivious to the views of one such as Sigmund Freud.  Moreover, the mention of merely the title of the magnum opus of that most well-known American psychologist of the past one-half century (Beyond Freedom and Dignity, by B. F. Skinner) is completely undiscoverable in evolutionary tracts.

Because evolutionary theories often conflict with the laws of physics, evolutionists will cut off the heads to get rid of the headache: “The conceptual framework of biology is entirely different from that of the physical sciences and cannot be reduced to it.” (Ernst Mayr: Toward a New Philosophy of Biology, p. 18.  Also see pp. 20 and 21) Inasmuch as biology requires some philosophical foundation, and biology obeys laws which we are told do not maintain in physics, one would surmise that evolutionists would consult with a philosophy more sympathetic to biology than to physics.  This is what one would expect – if evolutionists were consistent.  The two principal philosophers who could be consulted are Aristotle, the Father of Biology, or René Descartes, noted for his active defense of physics.  Whom do evolutionists choose?  Descartes!  This latter philosopher strongly maintained that the laws of physics were characterized by mathematical necessity: Nothing in nature was exempt from these strictly deterministic properties.  (Chance, for example, so important to the variations posited by numerous evolutionists, is completely ruled out.) Much more importantly, the omnipresent reductionism we find among evolutionists is traceable to Descartes – not to Aristotle.  Aristotle, often called “the greatest biologist that ever lived,” is completely ignored.

Within the context of evolution itself, how many readers – both scientific and nonscientific – are even vaguely aware that Darwin, having denied the existence of nonvariational species, wrote a huge book purportedly to describe their origin?  Or even that the notions of “natural selection,” “the struggle for existence,” and “the survival of the fittest” were classified by Darwin himself as being figurative?  Does not this outlook incline one to wonder how figurative language can be dubbed “scientific”?  And from this perspective, can we not at least sympathize with the conclusion of L.H. Matthews, a staunch evolutionist himself: “Belief in the theory of evolution is thus exactly parallel to belief in special creation”?  Moreover, should those of us who do not wish to enter upon this sacred terrain of creation at least consult with that respected philosopher of science, Karl Popper, who categorically insisted that “Darwinism is not a scientific theory, but metaphysical”?

The present volume endeavors not only to present the diverse interpretations of numerous scientists, but also to indicate the impact of evolutionary theory on that all important area of human behavior.  If, for example, we accept the conclusion of Albert Szent-Gyorgyi, a two-time winner of the Nobel prize, that “There is no real difference between cabbages and kings,” would it be permissible to slice a king up into a coleslaw salad, as we would cabbage?  Furthermore, if we condemn the Nazi killings of millions of human beings, should we not also clamor for the closing of abattoirs where millions of innocent animals are routinely slaughtered?  The close correlation between these issues and theories of evolution may come as a surprise to many readers.  These and other questions are discussed herein, with the hope that the reader will be in a better position to appreciate the diverse interpretations of evolutionary theory.