Social Darwinism, a school of thought which grew out of Spencer’s writings on the wider implications of evolution by natural selection, emphasizes competitiveness and aggressive relations between people in a society or between societies as well.

However, the phrase is misleading, because it suggests that an original species, from which others evolved, may not itself continue to occupy the ecological niche to which it has successfully adapted. In addition, recent biological discoveries relating to altruism and kin selection - discoveries that are fully compatible with Darwin’s theory but incompatible with social Darwinism - have led to serious rethinking of just how; in fact, the principles of evolutionary theory can be interpreted ethically.

There is nothing in the theory of evolution that supports aggressivity, cut-throat competition and “man’s inhumanity to man”. On the contrary, evolution teaches egbe bere ugo bere (let the hawk perch and let the eagle perch too); that is why all sorts of organisms, irrespective of when they evolved and their physical strength, are still around today.

Only those that do not understand the subtlety, complexity and amazing varieties of adaptive and survival mechanisms in living things, justify their inhuman actions by appealing to the pseudo-scientific cliché, “survival of the fittest.”

Our analysis of the competing claims of creationism and evolutionary theory has demonstrated that whereas the scientific credentials of evolutionary theory, especially in terms of testability or verifiability are solid, creationism is scientifically vacuous.

Some key questions that should be raised at this point are: Despite the scientific emptiness of the central dogmas of creationism, why do people, even eminent scientists and philosophers accept a theory that lacks empirical support whatsoever? Why is humankind addicted to creationism?

The first point to note, in response to these questions, is that for tens of thousands of years, religion has been a dominant factor in the architectonic of the human mind. Therefore, it should not be surprising that religious explanations of the natural world, including the world of living organisms, would continue to feature prominently in our attempt to understand and explain reality in all its ramifications.

The main problem with religious explanations, apart from their inherent vagueness and obscurantism, is that they are accepted dogmatically irrespective of available evidence. This implies that even if scientists provide proof that living organisms, including human beings, actually evolved from lower organisms, people would still cling emotionally to creationism, because the basis of belief in divine creation is precisely the same as that for the acceptance of religion dogma. Religious consciousness is fundamentally a faith-based consciousness, and operates inspite of objective or factual evidence.

In addition, it is easier and more convenient to believe that living organisms are created by an unknowable divine being than to accept that they arose spontaneously from natural causes here on earth, or on any other planet where favourable conditions for the spontaneous emergence of life from natural processes existed.

Fruitful doctrine

Creationism is not a fruitful doctrine, scientifically speaking, due to the fact that it explains living systems as products of special and miraculous creative activity of a deity. It does not encourage scientific research except in the derivative sense of encouraging the believer to investigate entities created by God.

For evolutionary theory, things are profoundly different. The theory, apart from being a philosophically interesting theory, is an idea laden with suggestions or, more precisely, problems for detailed scientific investigation.

The theory gives convincing explanations of both geological and paleontological phenomena, just as it provides a suitable theoretical framework for understanding the most amazing discoveries of molecular biology and genetics. 

Religion has encouraged man’s conceit in thinking that the species called homo sapiens is the zenith of creation, a being created in the image and likeness of God.

This conceit is without foundation, since all living things have a stake in this planet, the earth. Sometimes people reject the theory of evolution because it implies a close affinity between humans and the so-called lower animals and plants. But whether we like or not, irrespective of what religious scripture might say, there is incontrovertible scientific evidence that homo sapiens are closely related to other primates.

And with the discovery of the ubiquity of deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) in both plants and animals, the idea that human beings are the epicenter of creation, that all other creatures were created for their own benefit, seems too anthropomorphic and myopic.

It is far better for human beings to regard themselves and other living things as co-travellers marooned in the fragile ship called the earth. Life on earth cannot continue indefinitely. All life on earth ultimately depends on the sun, and any appreciable alteration in solar output would make the planet uninhabitable.

Hence, it would be foolish for humans to continue deceiving themselves, goaded by religious dogma, into thinking that they would receive preferential treatment from nature when the sun will become a red giant, probably between five billion to ten billion years from now.

Of course, no one knows what kinds of creatures would be on earth by that time or whether humans could have by then developed the technological wherewithal to migrate to other planets or even galaxies!

It is patiently false to believe, as many do, that acceptance of evolutionary theory would negate the sanctity and sacredness of life, that it would degrade the ontological status accorded to human beings throughout the ages. Creationism creates the impression that life is the arbitrary creation of a tyrannical supreme being whose intention for doing so would remain opaque to human epistemic consciousness.

In evolution, there is real grandeur and awe in contemplating the natural forces that led to the emergence of life here on earth. As a matter of fact, evolution teaches that life is a rare event to be treasured and nourished, since there is no guarantee that the processes which generated it can be replicated elsewhere in the universe. As far as I am concerned, the sacredness and sanctity of life did not originate from its alleged divine origin. Rather it stems from the fact that life itself is a mystery and each organism is unique as a partaker in the activity of living.

Belief in divine origin of life and in the ontological superiority of humans over all other life forms encourages wanton destruction of the natural environment to serve human selfish interests and greed. In our contemporary world, with all science has discovered about nature, with all we know about the sources, translations and changing historical interpretations of religious scriptures, with all we know about the function of religious myths in different cultures of the world, it is definitely ludicrous to insist that the creation myths described in the “holy” books are historically and scientifically accurate accounts of real physical occurrences.

Laurie Godfrey was right when she said that scientific creationism is not science because (a) the “creation model” in the Bible reflects the creation myth of ancient Jews and no other; (b) it employs biblical expressions, such as “kind”, which are meaningless in science; and (c) creationists invoke miracles to “explain” all phenomena while making no pretense of understanding God’s power or methods.

Let us be candid and face facts squarely. The belief in a God fashioned in man’s image as the creator of all life gives emotional comfort, especially in a world redolent with all kinds of evil and fear – fear of death, fear of the unknown, fear of economic ruin etc.

But the theory of evolution does not offer such infantile comfort. Instead, it challenges human beings to jettison the petty jealousies and misunderstandings which divide them and see life in a new and truer perspective.

According to Patrick Moore and Francis Jackson, in Life in the Universe, “there is so much to be discovered, so much to know, and tremendous excitement and pleasure in the process of discovery”. The theory of evolution is a very fruitful tool in the process of scientific discovery, whereas creationism leads to a dead end.

Concluded

Write Comment
Please keep the topic of messages relevant to the subject of the article. Personal verbal attacks will be deleted. Please don't use comments to plug your web site. Such material will be removed. Just ensure to *Refresh* your browser for a new security code to be displayed prior to clicking on the 'Send' button. Keep in mind that the above process only applies if you simply entered the wrong security code.
Name:
E-mail
Title:
Comment:
Code:*
	I wish to be contacted by email regarding additional comments

Comments (3)