Is someone at the New York Times reading my blog?
It is true that political interpretations of Darwinism have turned out to be quite pliable. Victorian-era social Darwinists like Herbert Spencer adopted evolutionary theory to justify colonialism and imperialism, opposition to labor unions and the withdrawal of aid to the sick and needy. Francis Galton based his “science” of eugenics on it. Arguing that cooperation was actually what enabled the species to survive, Pyotr Kropotkin used it to justify anarchism.
Karl Marx wrote that “Darwin’s book is very important and serves me as a basis in natural science for the class struggle in history.” Woodrow Wilson declared, “Living political constitutions must be Darwinian in structure and in practice.”
[“A Split Emerges as Conservatives Discuss Darwin,” Patricia Cohen, 5 May 2007]
In other words, Darwinism actually has no real-world consequences, being merely a fictitious narrative that is cynically used as a crutch to support atheism.
I am not one of those who attribute “moral decay” to the teaching of evolution, since I believe that the following are true:
- Humans have been immoral for a long time, a really long time.
- Most people who have confessed their sins of theism and accepted Darwin as lord do not actually understand evolutionary theory.
- Even people who understand evolutionary theory very well believe that modern humans are a “special case” who, having evolved sufficiently, are no longer constrained to follow the principles of biological natural selection, but instead should follow their “moral sense.”