Posted on 09/16/2007 6:30:08 AM PDT by Politically Correct
September 16, 2007
Julian Huxley And The Idolatry Of Evolution
By Gary Wolf
Charles Darwin's theory of evolution has come under increasing attack in recent decades within the scientific community, primarily as the result of a dramatic expansion of knowledge in the field of biology. I do not wish to enter that debate. What I would like to discuss, however, is the idolatry of evolution, or the transformation of a scientific theory into a quasi-religious cult. This phenomenon has contributed to the erosion of intellectual life in the West during the 20th century.
In the thinking of many Darwinists, evolution has a quasi-mystical quality. We have all seen the evolutionary charts showing the development of creepy-crawly things into mammals; knuckle-dragging apes into modern humans. Man stands at the apex of the evolutionary pyramid. Must it not have some transcendental aspect? This groping for spirituality and meaning is manifest in the following passage, written in 1993, from a prominent Darwinist writer,
Roger Lewin: The Copernican and Darwinian revolutions dislodged humans from a position of centrality in the universe of things. Nevertheless, even if humans are accepted as the product of an evolutionary process in common with other species, it is still possible to view Homo sapiens as a special product of that process and indeed as its ultimate goal.[i]
Its ultimate goal? The goal of whom, of what?
At the root of the problem is the interpretation of Darwin's ideas as a law, and not as a theory or trend.
As Karl Popper points out, ...laws and trends are radically different things. There is little doubt that the habit of confusing trends with laws, together with the intuitive observation of trends (such as technical progress), inspired the central doctrines of evolutionism and historicism-the doctrines of the inexorable laws of biological evolution and of the irreversible laws of motion of society."[ii]
When a theory is taken for a law, we are well on the way to idolatry. And this idolatry of evolution has had a profound impact on modern Western thought, helping to institute a permanent anti-libertarian and anti-individual trend. Typical is the British zoologist C. H. Waddington. In the thick of the Second World War, he argued that evolution and society are virtually one and the same:
[We have] reached the position of seeing a social system as something the existence of which essentially involves motion along an evolutionary path...We must accept the direction of evolution as good simply because it is good according to any realist definition of that concept...In the world as a whole, the real good cannot be other than that which has been effective, namely that which is exemplified in the course of evolution."[iii]
Perhaps no one represents the idolatry of evolution better than Sir Julian Huxley. Grandson of Darwin's colleague Thomas Huxley, raised and educated in English upper-class society in the late Victorian era, biologist at Oxford, midwife of the "modern synthesis" of classical Darwinism and modern genetics, first director-general of UNESCO-he was well situated to draw together all the required elements of the new ideology.
When one reads Huxley, one has the distinct impression of being in the presence of an extraordinary intellect. His analyses are incisive, his language clear and concise. And it is evident that he truly believes in his cause, and is striving for the betterment of humanity. Nevertheless, his central idea of "transhumanism" is the result of blinders fashioned from the cloth of Hegel, not readjusted one millimeter following the totalitarian extravaganzas of the twentieth century that Huxley himself witnessed.
He denies the existence of God, explaining the history of religion as man's attempt, born of ignorance, to explain the mysteries of our existence. (It should be remarked that he credits Christianity with releasing "vast human forces" that have shaped the West.[iv]) But then he goes much further, replacing God with evolution. After describing the Copernican watershed,
he says that:
I believe that an equally drastic reorganization of our pattern of religious thought is now becoming necessary, from a god-centered to an evolutionary-centered pattern...The central religious hypothesis [of the future] will certainly be evolution, which by now has been checked against objective fact and has become firmly established as principle...The central long-term concern of religion must be to promote further evolutionary improvement."[v]
Here, it may be observed, Huxley falls head-first into the trap described by Popper, confusing evolution as theory (or trend) with evolution as scientific law.
In a move reminiscent of Hegel's historical world-spirit, Huxley transforms evolution into nothing less than a god. He starts by investing it with purpose. Although he admits that purpose in evolution is only apparent, the "inevitable" effects of natural selection "simulate purpose by imposing an essentially directional character on biological evolution. The evolutionary process is thus not teleological, directed by some consciously purposeful logic, but teleonomic, automatically moving in the direction of adaptation and improvement."[vi]
This purpose is inherent in the universe, through the vehicle of evolution: "As a result of a thousand million years of evolution, the universe is becoming conscious of itself, able to understand something of its past history and its possible future."[vii] Man, in turn, will carry forward the idea: "Man is the product of nearly three billion years of evolution, in whose person the evolutionary process has at last become conscious of itself and its possibilities."[viii]
With evolution as a conscious being ruling the universe, the stage is set for the process of planning that we must undertake to consummate the current phase, which Huxley calls psychosocial (as opposed to the earlier biological) evolution. This phase is quite rapid; "all the processes of psychosocial evolution not only operate at a faster tempo than those of biological evolution, but exhibit acceleration, very markedly so in recent centuries."[ix] Science itself may be obsolete for this great revolution; the "scientific idea-system" may very well "soon be succeeded by a humanist system."[x]
Man has been appointed "managing director" of the "business of evolution." He is stuck with it; "he can't refuse the job...it is his inescapable destiny."[xi] We must begin work to "bring about the latent capabilities of the ordinary man and woman."[xii] This will be accomplished, among other means, by psychedelic drugs and "eugenic improvement, which will become an increasingly important goal of evolving man."[xiii]
The road will be bumpy. The remaining obstacles include "undue concentration on military technology and expenditure, over-exploitation of renewable resources, the atomic threat...and above all, the excessive increase of human population."[xiv] Huxley admits that the transformation of man "will begin by being unpleasant." This unpleasantness may be due to his plan for "destroying the ideas and institutions that stand in the way of our realizing our possibilities (or even deny that the possibilities are there to be realized)."[xv]
Once the entire pre-transhuman structure is swept away, the path will be clear for the creation of a "single world cultural and sociogenetic system."[xvi] Thus we arrive as the final resting place of history, when man has recognized himself as an animal species, embracing the collective and rejecting the individual. It would seem, at this point, that Huxley's ideas provided raw material for the novel Brave New World, written by his brother, Aldous.
The human intellect, as we know it, is not condemned-it simply loses its purpose. The great dreamer of "vast human forces" has produced a plan that would guarantee the final atrophy
Gary Wolf is the author of futuristic novels that portray worlds in which multiculturalism and political correctness have run amok. He blogs at awolcivilization.com.
Good article. I think it is more important to grasp where a fusion of ideas and human nature leads, rather than to weigh discrete ideas on the face of their presenting merits alone.
Nonsense. There’s something wrong with people so uncomfortable with their own religion that they have to mischaracterize the ideologies of others as religious cults.
“the transformation of a scientific theory...”
It’s not a theory, it’s a classification schema!
(So sorry, I could not resist an inside joke)
I don’t know what your experiences are, but every time I have tried to discuss theories that are alternates to evolutionary theory with people, they go a little nuts; it is as if I am telling them that 2 plus 2 does not equal 4.
I believe you are misunderstanding the author’s point. He is not stating that ALL who believe in evolution are believers in a religious cult, or even that evolution itself is a cult. He is saying that SOME believers in evolution have elevated that belief to religious cult status.
I believe this conclusion is quite inarguable.
“I believe this conclusion is quite inarguable.”
And nowhere more evident than on these threads on FR.
I don’t know what your experiences are, but every time I have tried to discuss theories that are alternates to evolutionary theory with people, they go a little nuts; it is as if I am telling them that 2 plus 2 does not equal 4. You just joined the LEAST exclusive club in the world -- it happens everytime to everybody who doesn't buy the evolutionist's diehard it's-the-only-way-it-is-and-we-will-hear-no-differently.
Clearly then, lets pack up the tent and just move along.
Nothing is more aggravating than those who prove themselves absolute and try to pull the ladder up behind them.
Corkomnan, that Darwin’s theory of evolution has been taken as a basis for a new sort of religion by the some influential men such as Julian Huxley and de Chardin does seem pretty obvious, as one can easily see from de Chardin’s writings on “the Omega Point” and Julian Huxley’s praise of same. Do you have any substantive disagreement with the author’s point regarding Julian Huxley?
You description appears to apply more to the theological types who are constrained by a book that cannot be challenged.
Those who are disciplined in the scientific process know that all hypotheses are supposed to be subject to scrutiny, attack, and revision based on observable outcomes.
Bookmarking
Evolution and belief in God are not in any way incompatible.
This has little to do with the change in allelles leading to a new phenotypic expression.
Dude, Darwin wrote about Origin of the SPECIES and thats got to do with incremental changes in a genome due to natural selection such that the changes lead to an inability to procreate (successfully) with a colony of the non-naturally selected critters.
Thats all evolution is. A change in alleles. Julian Huxley can jump on a pogo stick all day and could not affect this principle.
Further, unless God intended to run along with his hand holding the bicycle seat while life learned to ride, a system by which creatures could adapt to His universe could very much look like DNA.
I dont think God intended to run all the way around the block waiting for us to wobble and then grab the seat to stabilize us.
I think He is brilliant and he did it all in one Big Bang. Genesis my friends, He did it all in one shot. Minnesota Fats breaking at the pool table. He didn't need to do anything else. Yes, God is Jackie Gleason.
“There’s something wrong with people so uncomfortable with their own religion that they have to mischaracterize the ideologies of others as religious cults.”
Hmmm...what is the reason for pushing evolutionary theory at the exclusion of all other points of discussion? It is because evolution has become a religion. It is a religion that has less “give” in it than Islam. It is a religion that says, “There is no God...we do not need a Creator...we are because we are...we are god’s.
That fits the description of a religious cult.
I wonder what people of this ilk think life would be like without the benefits of the scientific method. The internet wasn’t handed down by an invisble man in the sky, nor was magnetic resonance imaging.
It’s funny how science is just dandy until it bumps up against tenets of some household deity, at which point the application of the scientific method is seen as deadly rot.
American culture has its head in the stars while its feet remain rooted in superstition. We should know better by now.
Brilliant and naive dilettantist.
Why not read the rest of the article? In any case. read Teilhard de Chardin, the Jesuit priest whose once very populat books dress up Huxley’s scheme in Catholic clothing. No, Huxley has not created a religion, but he has laid down the agenda of a humanism that abolishes humanity. We have seen where the utopian schemes have lead. Whatever the promises of the new heavens and a new earth promised by the Enlightenment have been tried, they have led to hellish results.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.