Darwin's Gift To Mankind (3)

We’ve already talked about how Darwin’s theory removed the annoying and very restrictive need for a creator/controller when doing science or lots of other things. We’ve also talked about how the Christian Church lost its credibility by getting into a fight it didn’t need to.
Now it’s time to talk about how pervasive Darwin’s theory has become in our daily lives. Eventually we’ll get to the impact “Social Darwinism” has had on American economic life—and your IRA. But first we’ll deal with science and politics.
Within ten years of publishing “On The Origin of Species”, Darwin had acquired four extremely influential followers. First, and obviously, there was the famous British scientist, Thomas Henry Huxley (grandfather of Aldous Huxley who wrote “Brave New World”).
Huxley was an Englishman covered with international honors as a scientist. He was hugely influential in bringing science into the curriculum of schools in the English speaking world. He had taken trips and studied fossils just as Darwin had, and when Darwin finally published, he became his champion.
Those who opposed Darwin called for a debate at Oxford University on June 30, 1860—seven months after “Origin” was published. Facing Huxley and two other scientists would be the finest speaker in all England, Sam Wilberforce, the Bishop of Oxford. His best line in the debate would come when he sneered at Huxley whether he was descended from on ape on his mother’s or his father’s side.
Huxley merely murmured that he would rather be descended from an ape than from someone who worked so hard to suppress truth. Supporting the bishop (called “unctuous” by those who knew him) would be two men of considerable scientific renown. The first was Robert Fitz Roy, who had captained the Beagle on Darwin’s voyage.
(He had asked for a gentleman companion on the voyage and young Darwin had been selected. Fitz Roy was scientist from a family prone to suicide, and he had a violent temper. After the voyage he came to believe Darwin had betrayed him in some particulars and opposed him vigorously. Five years after the debate, Fitz Roy followed family tradition and killed himself by slashing his own throat.)
The second was a much more talented scientist, Richard Owen—a famed biologist and paleontologist who unfortunately earned quite a reputation as a liar. Eventually the Royal Society’s Zoological Council expelled him for plagiarism.
Huxley won the debate. Overwhelmingly. It was a landslide. From that day the Church has had almost no scientific credibility in challenging any part of Darwinism or any other science. It had picked the wrong fight. Even in moral areas where the church had a right and duty to challenge Darwin’s theory, public opinion has allowed it no standing to do so.
Huxley’s written comment (1900) that, “Of moral purpose, I see not a trace in nature” stands intact, very much because the Church chose to oppose Darwin on grounds where it had no need to—and where all the evidence was against it.
It reminds one of a Biblical story. A Jewish king, Josiah (600BC) went out to fight an Egyptian king who was marching along the coast, far from Jerusalem, to go north and fight the Babylonians. Josiah mustered his tiny army. Pharaoh Neco pleaded with Josiah just to let him pass in peace. Josiah attacked. Tradition says they counted 300 arrow wounds in his corpse alone.
The Church might also have done better to reserve its moral ammunition against two other champions of Darwin—one) Karl Marx, whose theories led to the horrors of Soviet Communism (where just one of Stalin’s henchmen may well have killed more men than Heinrich Himmler.
Two) Fredrich Nietzsche, a German philosopher, who already two years after the Oxford Debate published a book proclaiming that the core beliefs of Christianity were discredited. He went on to publish more books against Christian theology and philosophy, especially its morality—suited only for the weak. He wrote at length on the “Will To Power” and became very influential in Adolf Hitler’s belief system.
Twentieth Century Science and Politics were overwhelming affected by Darwin. In neither, after the debate at Oxford, was there any need to consider any form of morality. Scientists and their governments claimed the right to be free to experiment at will.
Can you build a bomb that will incinerate the populace of an entire city at a single flash? Build it. There is no moral imperative to stop you. Can you clone a human being? The question of morality has no basis here. Can you conceive and destroy human infants to use their cells for scientific research? There is no morality to give you pause.
The purported champions of morality who might raise such issues—and get scientists to consider them with at least some respect—lost their credibility at a debate on ill-chosen grounds long ago. No matter how heinous the scientific experiment might be, its perpetrators can cover themselves with the mantle of Galileo and Darwin. Christians handed them that right, foolishly.
It is almost hypocritical of a society that renounced Christian morality and embraced Darwinism to condemn men like Mengale and Hitler who carry scientific experimentation and theory (Eugenics) to their logical extreme. The moral handcuffs were removed before Hitler was born.
Next time let’s look at how Social Darwinism affects our everyday lives.