Evolution and Ethics
April 28th, 2008
(By John MacArthur)
Indeed, the rise of naturalism has meant moral catastrophe for modern society. The most damaging ideologies of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries were all rooted in Darwinism.
One of Darwin’s earliest champions, Thomas Huxley, gave a lecture in 1893 in which he argued that evolution and ethics are incompatible. He wrote that “the practice of that which is ethically best—what we call goodness or virtue—involves a course of conduct which, in all respects, is opposed to that which leads to success in the cosmic struggle for existence.” [Evolution and Ethics, The Romanes Lecture, 1893.]
Huxley nonetheless went on to try to justify ethics as a positive result of humanity’s higher rational functions, and he called upon his audience neither to imitate “the cosmic process” nor to run away from it, but rather to combat it—ostensibly by maintaining some semblance of morality and ethics. But what he could not do—what he and other philosophers of his era did not even bother attempting to do—was offer any justification for assuming the validity of morality and ethics per se on purely naturalistic principles. Huxley and his fellow naturalists could offer no moral compass other than their own personal preferences, and predictably, their philosophies all opened the door wide for complete moral subjectivity and ultimately amorality.
Philosophers who incorporated Darwin’s ideas were quick to see Huxley’s point, conceiving new philosophies that set the stage for the amorality and genocide that characterized so much of the twentieth century.
Karl Marx, for example, self-consciously followed Darwin in the devising of his economic and social theories. He inscribed a copy of his book Das Kapital to Darwin, “from a devoted admirer.” He referred to Darwin’s The Origin of Species as “the book which contains the basis in natural history for our view.” [Stephen Jay Gould, Ever Since Darwin (New York: Norton, 1977), 26.]
Herbert Spencer’s philosophy of “Social Darwinism” applied the doctrines of evolution and the survival of the fittest to human societies. Spencer argued that if nature itself has determined that the strong survive and the weak perish, this rule should govern society as well. Racial and class distinctions simply reflect nature’s way. There is therefore no transcendent moral reason to be sympathetic to the struggle of the disadvantaged classes. It is, after all, part of the natural evolutionary process—and society would actually be improved by recognizing the superiority of the dominant classes and encouraging their ascendancy. The racialism of writers such as Ernst Haeckel (who believed that the African races were incapable of culture or higher mental development) was also rooted in Darwinism.
Friedrich Nietzsche’s whole philosophy was based on the doctrine of evolution. Nietzsche was bitterly hostile to religion, and particularly Christianity. Christian morality embodied the essence of everything Nietzsche hated; he believed Christ’s teaching glorified human weakness and was detrimental to the development of the human race. He scoffed at Christian moral values such as humility, mercy, modesty, meekness, compassion for the powerless, and service to one another. He believed such ideals had bred weakness in society. Nietzsche saw two types of people—the master-class, an enlightened, dominant minority; and the “herd,” sheeplike followers who were easily led. And he concluded that the only hope for humanity would be when the master-class evolved into a race of übermenschen (supermen), unencumbered by religious or social mores, who would take power and bring humanity to the next stage of its evolution.
It’s not surprising that Nietzsche’s philosophy laid the foundation for the Nazi movement in Germany. What is surprising is that at the dawn of the twenty-first century, Nietzsche’s reputation has been rehabilitated by philosophical spin-doctors and his writings are once again trendy in the academic world. Indeed, his philosophy—or something very nearly like it—is what naturalism must inevitably return to.
All of these philosophies are based on notions that are diametrically opposed to a biblical view of the nature of man, because they all start by embracing a Darwinian view of the origin of humanity. They are rooted in anti-Christian theories about human origins and the origin of the cosmos, and therefore it is no wonder that they stand in opposition to biblical principles at every level.
The simple fact of the matter is that all the philosophical fruits of Darwinism have been negative, ignoble, and destructive to the very fabric of society. Not one of the major twentieth-century revolutions led by post-Darwinian philosophies ever improved or ennobled any society. Instead, the chief social and political legacy of Darwinian thought is a full spectrum of evil tyranny with Marx-inspired communism at one extreme and Nietzsche-inspired fascism at the other. And the moral catastrophe that has disfigured modern Western society is also directly traceable to Darwinism and the rejection of the early chapters of Genesis.
These recent articles have been great. Is there a book that goes into more detail about this subject of naturalism and Christianity?
Thanks,
Kelvin
Even if this article’s claims were accurate, they would still be irrelevent. The human misuses of a scientific theory have no bearing on its validity. Does the fact that Einstein’s theory of relativity allowed the creation of the atomic bomb mean the theory is false and should be abandoned?
As it so happens, though, this article is entirely misconceived. The crucial point that is misunderstood is the nature of Darwin’s discovery of the principle of natural selection. For once, the creationists are giving Darwin more credit than he deserves. The fact that the physical characteristics of living things can be affected by selective breeding has been known since prehistoric times. It is the entire basis of agriculture and animal husbandry. The great insight that Darwin achieved was the realization that the natural environment can cause the same type of change without human intervention. It is interesting to note that Hitler’s Mein Kampf contains over fifty references to “God” “Almighty” and “Creator”, but not a single reference to Darwin. Hitler’s evil and perverted philosophy owed nothing to Darwin’s idea of natural selection, and was instead an application of artificial selection, of which, as I mentioned, mankind was already aware for millenia.
It’s interesting that at the moment the most prominent proponent of this line of argument is Ben Stein, the Republican advocate of conservative supply side economics. Is he not aware that capitalists have historically been among the most vociferous advocates of “social darwinism” (which has nothing to do with Darwin). If Stein is going to blame Darwin for the Holocaust, will he also give Darwin credit for the economic views he espouses?
I find it particularly striking that this article blames the decline of morality to the abandonment of belief in Genesis. Mankind had Genesis for 3000 years before “Origin of Species.” Was humanity any more moral back then? Was there no such thing as genocide back then? (Hint: look up the Canaanites and Amalekites in your Old Testament.) When we had Genesis, we also had slavery, witch trials, Inquisitions, and burnings for “crimes” like homosexuality or believing the earth revolved around the sun. Whether or not Genesis was responsible for these things, clearly it was not sufficient to prevent them.
Whether or not Genesis was responsible for these things, clearly it was not sufficient to prevent them.
That’s exactly what the Bible teaches, and precisely why we need Christ:
For if a law had been given which was able to impart life, then righteousness would indeed have been based on law. But the Scripture has shut up everyone under sin, so that the promise by faith in Jesus Christ might be given to those who believe. But before faith came, we were kept in custody under the law, being shut up to the faith which was later to be revealed. Therefore the Law has become our tutor to lead us to Christ, so that we may be justified by faith. — Gal 3:21-24
Not even the perfect law of God could save us because of the deadness and sinfulness of our flesh. But rebirth and new life is proclaimed in Jesus Christ. Turn from your self-sufficiency, renounce your foundationless claim to righteousness, and run in faith to Jesus Christ for justification!
lutesuite.
Everyone knows that mutations (changes within a species) do indeed occur. However, evolution (changes from one species to another) do not occur. If all Darwin was teaching was mutations, then there would be no problem, but that was not what he was teaching.
Daniel,
That’s a common misunderstanding. As it so happens, speciation events have been directly observed and documented in the scientific literature, as shown here:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html
One of the most interesting examples of speciation is the population of cichlid fish found in three large lakes in Malawi, that have proven to be the equivalent of a natural “laboratory” of evolutionary processes:
http://nationalzoo.si.edu/Publications/ZooGoer/1998/3/depthscichlidfishes.cfm
Now, your response might be that this is still just shows “changes within kind” and does not prove the larger scale changes that evolution describes. However, evolution does not postulate that creatures give birth to creatures of a different species from themselves, at any point. The more pronounced changes that have occurred at the the level above species require a timescale too large to be directly observed during a human lifetime. However, the evidence from the fossil record, patterns of anatomical resemblances between species, and especially molecular genetics unequivocally show that these changes have occurred, and that all creatures that have ever lived share common ancestry. It would take too much space to cover that evidence here, but if you’re at all scientifically minded this article, though long and rather complicated, covers the evidence quite thoroughly:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/
Now, of course, if you’re one of those people who believe the earth is only 6000 years old, then you have even more serious problems in your scientific understanding that need to be addressed….
lutesuite,
You are correct, the article simply is a good example of change within a species.
You said, “However, evolution does not postulate that creatures give birth to creatures of a different species from themselves, at any point.”
Yet you also said, “However, the evidence from the fossil record, patterns of anatomical resemblances between species, and especially molecular genetics unequivocally show that these changes have occurred, and that all creatures that have ever lived share common ancestry.”
If your first statement is true, and creatures do not give birth to creatures of a different species, then your second statement is false. If all creatures share a common ancestry, then at some point a creature of one species would have to either give birth to or become a different species. This is scientifically and logically impossible. The common ancestry you believe in would require that the plethora of species present today came from a single species present in the past, yet you already stated that creatures do not give birth to creatures of a different species.
I believe that the earth is a little over 6,000 years old. I believe this because not only does the Bible say it, but all the evidence points to a young earth. The only way that the fossil record would prove change from one species to another would be if a transitional form was found. However, it is widely known that either no such form exists, or it has just not been found. Until it is found, there is no evidence to support the belief in speciation (meaning change from one species to another).
“If all creatures share a common ancestry, then at some point a creature of one species would have to either give birth to or become a different species. This is scientifically and logically impossible. The common ancestry you believe in would require that the plethora of species present today came from a single species present in the past, yet you already stated that creatures do not give birth to creatures of a different species.”
This is simply untrue, but it’s an easy mistake to make. One way to illustrate how the process occurs is to describe what are caled “ring species.” The best known example is the Larus gull. Wikipedia has a good explanation here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ring_species
but I’ll give a brief summary. First of all, it’s important to understand what is meant by “species.” The term refers to a group of organisms who can breed with each other and produce fertile offspring, but cannot breed with any other organisms. Lets suppose there is a group of animals A. A subgroup moves to a different area with different environmental condition, say a cooler climate. Lets call this second group B. Group B develops different genetic traits such that they are readily distinguishable from Group A, but are not yet a separate species; they can still interbreed with Group A. Now, lets say another group splinters off from Group B to form Group C, which is still interfertile with Groups A and B, though still identifiable as a different group. We continue the process til we get up to Group E. By now, however, the differences have accumulated to the point that Group E is a separate species from Group A. Animals from Group E cannot breed with those from A. However, throughout this process, no animal has given birth to an animal of a different species. Group B is the same species as A, C as B, D as C and E as D. However, E and A are different species. There is nothing hypothetical about this example. Instances have been clearly documented. Hopefully this shows how what I said is not illogical.
The other idea you misunderstand is “transitional species”. As you should be able to see, Groups B, C, and D could all be seen as “transitional” between A and E. The canard of “no transitional species” is repeated so often by creationists, and is so patently untrue I suspect people must have an idea that a “transitional” will look like something with a fish head and and a bird tail. In a sense, all fossils (all organsims, really) are transitional: they are intermediate in appearance between their ancestors and their descendents. However, here is a (only partial) list of prominent transitional fossils:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_transitional_fossils
You statement that “all the evidence points to a young earth” is simply wrong, that’s all I can say for the moment. It always saddens me to see how many people feel that, in order to maintain their faith, they must live in an enforced ignorance about basic facts regarding the world they inhabit. I think it would do them well to heed the words of St. Augustine of Hippo from the 5th century:
“It not infrequently happens that something about the earth, about the sky, about other elements of this world, about the motion and rotation or even the magnitude and distances of the stars, about definite eclipses of the sun and moon, about the passage of years and seasons, about the nature of animals, of fruits, of stones, and of other such things, may be known with the greatest certainty by reasoning or by experience, even by one who is not a Christian. It is too disgraceful and ruinous, though, and greatly to be avoided, that he [the non-Christian] should hear a Christian speaking so idiotically on these matters, and as if in accord with Christian writings, that he might say that he could scarcely keep from laughing when he saw how totally in error they are.”
If you truly believe the earth is God’s creation, then I don’t see why you would foreswear examining it as avidly, and with the same sense of humility and discovery, as you examine what you believe are His holy scriptures. Is the world a lesser creation of God than the Bible?
“Is the world a lesser creation of God than the Bible? ”
It depends on what you mean by lesser. If you mean “any less a creation of God” then obviously, no.
If you mean a less reliable source of information than the Bible, then certainly the answer is, yes. In the same way that observing a child for an hour provides less insight into their life than asking the parent to talk to you for 6 hours about the child would be.
There are things we can know about God and creation from the world around us, but we need the biblical explanations to really get it.