A reader sent a note asking if I was a Darwinist, perhaps because of a recent piece I wrote on evolutionary psychology. This is a good time to explain where I stand.

To put it in crudely simple terms: No, I do not believe in Darwinism or the theory of evolution, which state that life evolved from matter and that successive life forms were created by random mutations. This theory has not been proved by science.

I do believe in natural selection and its influence on human nature over time. But natural selection cannot explain all  human psychology because we were not created by these adaptations to environment. We were created by God at some unknown moment during the historical progression from simple to more complex life forms and endowed at that moment with permanent and unchangeable spiritual attributes. Human consciousness is radically distinct and could not have emerged through successive changes from lower life forms by purely material processes. Morality did not evolve.

I would like to recommend two pieces from Lawrence Auster’s View from the Right on the subject, one a summary of what is right and what is wrong with “evolution,” and the other, a brief look at the difference between the terms natural selection and evolution. In the first piece, Mr. Auster writes:

• Evolution is a fact. By evolution I do not mean Darwinian evolution, which is a particular theory of how evolution occurred, but rather the succession of life forms over geological eons, including the appearance of higher and more complex forms replacing lower and more rudimentary forms, as we clearly see in hominid evolution, though, of course, not all evolution moves in a linear direction toward the “higher.”

• The Darwinian or neo-Darwinian explanation of how new life forms came into existence, random mutations naturally selected, is highly implausible for myriad reasons that have been stated myriad times. In addition to the more-than-astronomical odds against life originating by chance and of new organs and new species originating by chance mutations, no evidence has ever been presented of one species evolving into another by random mutation and natural selection. It is all hopeful supposition and extrapolation, just as it was in Darwin’s Origin of Species.

• Natural selection, as distinct from evolution, is an observable factor in the modification of existing species. We can see this, for example, in the compact body shape of Northeastern Asians, adapted to a cold climate, compared to the slender long-limbed body type and dark skin of Africans, adapted to extreme heat and sunlight. But the modification of existing species is NOT evolution, even though evolutionists apply the word “evolution” to such modification, which they do in order to piggy-back the unproved Darwinian theory onto the established and observable reality of modification of existing species. Evolution does not mean modifications in an existing life form; it means the successive appearance of new life forms. (See Tim W.’s excellent explanation of the difference between natural selection and evolution.)

• The truly scientific position (i.e. the honest recognition of the difference between what we know and what we don’t know) is that we DO NOT KNOW how new life forms came into existence. We know that various forms preceded or succeeded others, but we do not know how new forms came into being. It is a mystery.

• Many Darwinians (not all) believe in Darwinian theory, not because they have any real interest in or knowledge of it, but because it abolishes God and validates a view of man as wholly material and a form of society based on nothing but supplying the material needs of man. .

•Their belief is correct. It is indeed the case that Darwinism precludes God from playing any role in the evolution of life (as well as any role in the conduct of human affairs). Despite the many people who want to believe in both Darwinism and in a divine ordering of life and the universe, they are mutually exclusive principles, as I have demonstrated repeatedly. See this discussion about whether God and Darwin are compatible. And here is a more concise statement by me on the question of whether God’s direction of evolution can be reconciled with Darwinian randomness:

                                   — Comments —

Lydia Sherman writes:

Over the years, progressives have accused me of being too sold on Victorian culture.  They say I am living in the past, because of my display of beautiful Victorian women in paintings on my blog, but the proponents of the teachings of Darwin, Freud and Dewey, are really living in the past, and pushing it on the rest of us through the school system and legislation. Marxism, and other isms of the type, (some based on evolution) have failed the world over but these people insist on resurrecting it from the Victorian era. The Marxist, the Communist, the socialist, the progressive, the evolutionist, etc.–they are all living in the failed part of the past.

 They should know that even that culture had its share of charlatans, and Darwin was one of them. The list of bad Victorians include Dewey, Marx, Sanger (born in the Victorian era), Hegel and others. All of them tried to create an earthly utopia (for themselves, at least) by trying to rid the world of the belief in God in the scheme of life. They literally rule from the grave, with their false doctrines.

 At least the lovers of Victoriana embrace the part that speaks of success: strong character training, a knowledge of the Bible, a respect for the founders of this land, the architecture, the manners, the beautiful paintings, poetry, literature, strong marriages, less divorce, beautiful clothing, good education, (without the public school system, most people could read and write, and that is one reason there are so many parents opting for homeschooling today): these are the part of Victorian culture we need to preserve. They still work, today. They build people up. The Darwins, the Marxist destroy.

Please follow and like us: