15 The Religion of Nature

15 The Religion of Nature

ESSAYS ON ORIGINS: The Religion of Nature: Social Darwinism by Dr. David N. Menton, Ph.D. This version copyright (c) 1994 by: Missouri Association for Creation

[No. 15 in a series] September 1994, Vol. 4, No. 9

It has been said that no book, other than the Bible, has had a greater affect on society than Darwin’s _On the Origin of Species_. Evolutionist Steven Jay Gould, wrote that following the publication of _On the Origin of Species_ in 1859, “subsequent arguments for slavery, colonialism, racial differences, class structures, and sex roles would go forth primarily under the banner of science” (_The Mismeasure of Man_, W.W. Norton and Company, New York, 1981, p. 72). Darwin himself seemed to approve of the application of his evolutionary ideas to moral and social issues. In a letter to H. Thiel in 1869, Darwin said:

“You will really believe how much interested I am in observing that you apply to moral and social questions analogous views to those which I have used in regard to the modification of species. It did not occur to me formerly that my views could be extended to such widely different and most important subjects.” (_The Life and Letters of Charles Darwin_, Francis Darwin editor, D. Appleton and Co., 1896, Vol. 2, p . 294).

The feature of Darwinism most often cited by those who attempt to justify their moral and social views with “science” (evolution), is the concept of the “survival of the fittest.” This application of Darwinian dogma to human society and behavior is known as _Social Darwinism_.

One of the most insidious features of Darwin’s evolutionary speculation was that it sought to erase the fundamental differences between man and animals. This not only invited a comparison between man and the apes, but also between the “highest” and “lowest” humans. Blacks and American Indians were among the first to be singled out as being “lower” than Caucasians. In his book _The Mismeasure of Man_ (Chap. 3), Steven Jay Gould pointed out that some anthropologists were not above falsifying their data to prove the “superiority” of the white race. For example, assuming brain size had something to do with intelligence (it doesn’t), many anthropologists intentionally exaggerated the size of Caucasian skulls and underestimated the size of skulls from Blacks and Indians. Social Darwinism thus came to serve as a “scientific” justification for racism.

It might be argued that Darwin would never have condoned this use of his “theory,” but his own writings reveal profoundly racist implications. In the sixth chapter of his book _The Descent of Man_, Darwin predicted that eventually evolution would increase the gap between humans and the lower apes through the extinction of such “evolutionary intermediates” as gorillas and Negroes! Darwin declared that “the break will then be rendered wider, for it will intervene between man in a more civilized state, as we may hope, than the Caucasian, and some ape as low as a baboon, instead of as at present between the Negro or Australian and the Gorilla” (_The Descent of Man_, Charles Darwin, 1871, p. 201).

In an effort to promote the evolution of “higher forms” of humans, Darwin’s cousin, Sir Francis Galton, founded the _Eugenics Movement_. Eugenics is the “science” which seeks to improve the biological makeup of the human species by selective breeding. Galton advocated the regulation of marriage and family size according to the genetic quality of the parents. He believed that if controlled breeding was applied to humans, as it was to farm animals, a perfect human breed could be developed. This concept of the “master race” was put into practice by Adolph Hitler in Germany in an effort to create a “pure Aryan race,” while exterminating “inferior” Jews.

German politicians and scholars first used Social Darwinism around the turn of the century to justify Germany’s increasingly aggressive militarism. The German militarist, Friederich von Bernhardi, praised the virtues of war in strong evolutionary terms in his influential book _Germany and the Next War_. Bernhardi declared that war, like Darwinian survival of the fittest, was a “_biological necessity_” and that it “_gives a biologically just decision, since its decisions rest on the very nature of things_.” Bernhardi dismissed the whole idea of peaceful arbitration as a “_presumptuous encroachment on the natural laws of development_.” According to Bernhardi, a study of plant and animal life clearly showed that “_war is a universal law of nature_.” (As quoted by Ashley Montagu in _Man in Process_, World Pub. Co., 1961, pp. 76-77). Bernhardi’s book, published in 1911, had Germany’s highest official sanction and approval — three years later, Germany plunged the world into World War I.

By the time of the Second World War, we find the full “flower” of Social Darwinism in fascism. Hitler based his fascism on evolutionary theory, as is evident from both his speeches and his book _Mein Kampf_. Benito Mussolini, who brought fascism to Italy, was also greatly influenced by Darwinism, which he thought supported his belief that violence is essential for beneficial social transformation. Mussolini repeatedly used Darwinian catchwords in his speeches and ridiculed efforts at peace because they interfered with natural evolutionary process.

No discussion of the devastating impact of Social Darwinism on society would be complete without considering its strong influence on the development of Marxism and communism. Frederich Engels and Karl Marx (co-founders of Marxist communism) were exceedingly enthusiastic over Darwin’s book _On the Origin of Species_. Karl Marx wrote a letter to Engels in December of 1860 declaring that _On the Origin of Species_ was “the book which contains the basis in natural history for our views.” In another letter to Engels in January of 1861, Marx declared:

“Darwin’s book is very important and serves me as a basis of struggle in history…not only is a death blow dealt here for the first time to ‘Teleology’ in the natural sciences, but their rational meaning is emphatically explained.” (As quoted by Conway Zirkle in: _Evolution, Marxian Biology, and the Social Scene_, University of Pennsylvania Press, 1959, p. 86).

The three things for which Marx was most indebted to Darwinism were: 1) an atheistic explanation for the origin of the Cosmos (Marxism doesn’t recognize anything as being higher than the state so it demands atheism); 2) the struggle for existence; and 3) the progressive development and improvement of man (Marxism insists that man’s well-being is inevitably and progressively improved through a blind process of class struggle and revolution). Indeed, Karl Marx was so deeply indebted to Darwin that he wanted to dedicate his book _Das Capital_ to him, but Darwin declined the “honor.”

The close affinity between Marxism and Darwinism continues to be evident in the currently popular evolutionary speculation called “punctuated equilibrium.” (This declares that evolution occurs by sudden lucky-leaps forward, separated by long periods of essentially no change.) Stephen Jay Gould and Niles Eldredge, who first popularized this notion, recently pointed out that:

“Hegel’s dialectical laws, translated into a materialist context, have become the official ‘state philosophy’ of many socialist nations. These laws of change are explicitly punctuational, as befits a theory of revolutionary transformation in human society. In the light of this official philosophy, it is not at all surprising that a punctuational view of speciation, much like our own, but devoid of references to synthetic evolutionary theory, has long been favored by many Russian paleontologists. It may also not be irrelevant to our personal preferences that one of us learned his Marxism, literally, at his daddy’s knee” (Eldredge, Niles and Stephen Jay Gould, _Paleobiology_ Vol. 3, Spring 1977, pp. 145-146.).

When man ceases to give credit to God as Creator, he generally gives the credit to nature (evolution). Not only is nature then perceived as “creator”, but also man’s guide for morality and behavior. The “nature god” declares that anything which is “natural” may be considered “moral.” (Thus, elective abortions are moral because spontaneous abortions occur in nature.) As we have seen, the fruit of this religion of nature (in the form of Social Darwinism) has been untold suffering and death. The Bible tells us that this sad state of affairs results from the fact that many have “exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshipped the creature (nature) rather than the Creator” (Rom. 1:25).

Dr. Menton received his Ph.D. in Biology from Brown University. He has been involved in biomedical research and education for over 30 years.

Dr. Menton is President of the Missouri Association for Creation, Inc. Originally published in: St. Louis MetroVoice PO Box 220010 St. Louis, MO 63122

Corrections and revisions have been made by the author from the original published essay. This text file prepared and distributed by the Genesis Network (GenNet). Origins Talk — (314) 821-1078, Walt Stumper, Sysop. FidoNet, 1:100/435; FamilyNet, 8:3006/28; GenNet, 33:6250/1 c1749h@umslvma.umsl.edu walt.stumper@f9.n8012.z86.toadnet.org Voice: (314) 821-1234 Genesis Network I — (407) 582-1972, Jim Johnston, Sysop. FidoNet, 1:3609/11; FamilyNet, 8:3111/0; GenNet, 33:6150/0 CompuServe: 73642,2576 Voice: (407) 582-1880 Contact either of the above systems for information about file distribution and echos. — *** —