I have never been able to believe in Darwin. He tried to deny the
essential difference between man and beast, a difference I can only
regard as irreducible, and I have known plenty of both.
To put it simply, animals have brains, but man also has a mind, a
very distinct kind of soul. Man can calculate, imagine, moralize, form
abstract concepts, and perform many other mental operations of which
no animal is capable. Animals have sensation and memory — the
power of association — and not much else. They may be very beautiful,
but they lack the sense of beauty.
The difference is so vast and profound that Western man used to take
it for granted. Of course man was immeasurably superior to any animal!
Each had its own excellence, but man had no rival for intelligence
in any “beast that wants discourse of reason,” as Shakespeare
puts it: he was indeed “the paragon of animals.” If our
furry and scaly friends were still evolving, none of them appeared
to be gaining on us.
It was only in fairly recent times, in an age of revolt against the
divine, that a materialist philosophy arose to argue that the human
and the subhuman are the same in principle, that life emerged from
raw matter by sheer chance, and that over eons the simple amoeba developed
(or “evolved”) into “higher” life forms. Charles
Darwin found a receptive audience for this dubious idea among educated
humans who were weary of the Christian faith.
Darwin’s theory of evolution, of man’s descent from more
or less simian ancestors, now has a stranglehold on Western intellectual
life despite its obvious falsity. The notion of a continuity betwixt
man and beast has a powerful appeal to people who seek the false but
clear explanation for countless phenomena.
Like its contemporary fallacy, Marxism, Darwinism had a mighty impact
on history, except that Marxism has all but expired and its Darwinist
twin is still going strong. The Marxists made the fatal error of predicting
events in the (historically) short term; whereas most of Darwin’s
avatars wisely confine themselves to making prophecies over such long
periods as to be virtually unfalsifiable.
So it is that Christopher Hitchens, a verbally brilliant man, has
managed to prosper in two separate careers: first as a highly plausible
Marxist, and then, when the Marxist creed bit the dust in our time,
as an equally facile apostle of Darwinism. I respect his rare genius
and have no doubt that he could flourish just as well in any other
environment — Muslim or Mormon, let us say.
In his classic Everlasting Man, G.K. Chesterton gave atheism and Darwinism
the refutation they really deserve: hilarity. St. Anselm had a point:
man is the only animal that worships! What does that tell us? That
all the other animals have more sense than we do? For that matter,
man is also the only animal that believes in evolution; what are the
implications of that fact? What’s more, man seems to be the only
animal that has a sense of irony, though Hitchens insists that atheists
have a keener sense of it than believers do. I’ll have to think
that one over.
To put it another way, why is there an absolute and impassable gulf
between creatures who get a collective kick out of Red Skelton and
Benny Hill, and those who just don’t? I know of no signs that
clams have even the most rudimentary sense of humor. Correct me if
I’m wrong. Maybe I’ve missed something. It wouldn’t
be the first time.
And by the way, do the females of other species, some of which are
monogamous, point out their mates’ annoying errors, foibles,
and bad habits, or is this too a human trait? And do they take hours
getting ready for a big night, such as an anniversary? Do any of them
have the equivalent of a beauty shop or a manicure salon? I didn’t
think so. Other animals’ females, frankly, are not very feminine.
Ours are. Only ours are, if you ask me. We are, after all, the only
species that bellows, “Vive la difference!”
Iguanas and snails may know, and in their way enjoy, la
difference, but not the way we do. Even chimps, supposedly our evolutionary next
of kin, don’t seem to cultivate the gallantry that for us (excepting
feminists, of course) is normative.
I could go on and on, but let’s just say that Darwin was, well,
out of his tree.
Back to The Reactionary
The Reactionary Utopian columns are copyright © 2008
by the Fitzgerald Griffin Foundation, www.fgfbooks.com.
All rights reserved.
To sponsor the FGF E-Package:
please send a tax-deductible donation to the
Fitzgerald Griffin Foundation
P.O. Box 1383
or sponsor online.