Darwinism Is Such a Buzzkill
By Michael A. Starvaggi
I was on my way up the escalator at the local mall not long ago (back in those magical pre-virus days) and saw a man with his daughter coming down the other way. She was a tiny toddler in a puffy pink coat her face barely visible under her knitted hat. The girl said something to her dad but her voice was no match for the din of the busy thoroughfare. The father bent down to listen closer placing his hand gently on her shoulder. He responded to her question with a reassuring smile and took hold of her hand. The scene brought tears to my eyes because I knew exactly how he felt. I could see the love he had for this innocent child who depended on him and trusted herself to him so unquestioningly. It was really a beautiful scene -- an exhibition of the most virtuous of human traits the kind of thing that makes a person feel good about humanity.
But sometime later a sobering thought struck me. What I wondered would a pure Darwinist have to say about the subtle exchange I had witnessed? I bet he would say that the whole thing can be explained in terms of natural selection that the protective love the father felt is just natures way of ensuring that the species will go on and the dependence of the child is a self-preservation instinct of an offspring that is not yet equipped to defend herself in the world.
What a bummer that thought was! Ive gotten so used to hearing reflexive explanations of this kind that they come into my mind involuntarily now. In fact hardcore Darwinists offer this kind of doctrinal explanation for almost everything that people have traditionally thought of as virtuous. A mother selflessly taking off her coat in the bitter cold to help warm her daughter? Species survival instinct. The exchange of heartfelt poetic wedding vows? Reproduction instinct. And these explanations they claim are all the more compelling because after all they are based in science. Talk about having no soul!
But can that be right? Is the scientific explanation really better than the metaphysical one? Youll never get me to believe it. Not that I dont believe in evolution or natural selection in any form. I just dont believe in them as answers to everything.
In The Abolition of Man C. S. Lewis talked about the doctrine of objective value the belief that certain attitudes are really true and others really false to the kind of thing the universe is and the kind of things we are." I happen to agree wholeheartedly. We are the kind of things that are rooted in purpose in a model of good that transcends all of history. Lewis said that our sentiments toward qualities like the love of a parent for their child are not strictly evolutionary in nature but are either reflective or non-reflective of the Tao the universal order that exists outside of time and to which our hearts are innately pointed.
That elegant explanation seems every bit as plausible to me as the Darwinists theory. The things we traditionally call virtuous are so to the extent that they reflect the Tao. We see acts of true human goodness all the time selflessness love loyalty. No one has to point out to us that those are actions of a noble nature that exists beyond and before our collective understanding and to which we all know we are supposed to strive. We know this instinctively and unequivocally. Nor can anyone really argue that each time we experience that recognition of nobility it is nothing more than an evolutionary trick. A group of healthy brothers putting themselves in harms way to protect their disabled sibling does nothing to fortify the gene pool but it is an act of good and we know that deep within ourselves. The Tao it turns out is just as real as evolution itself. More so if you ask me. So for my part I will side with Mr. Lewis.
God bless the man from the escalator and his precious little girl.
I am an attorney and author with a background in philosophy. For more of my articles please go to https://www.afterthefallnovel.com/blog.
Darwinism Is Such a Buzzkill
By Michael A. Starvaggi
I was on my way up the escalator at the local mall not long ago (back in those magical pre-virus days) and saw a man with his daughter coming down the other way. She was a tiny toddler in a puffy pink coat her face barely visible under her knitted hat. The girl said something to her dad but her voice was no match for the din of the busy thoroughfare. The father bent down to listen closer placing his hand gently on her shoulder. He responded to her question with a reassuring smile and took hold of her hand. The scene brought tears to my eyes because I knew exactly how he felt. I could see the love he had for this innocent child who depended on him and trusted herself to him so unquestioningly. It was really a beautiful scene -- an exhibition of the most virtuous of human traits the kind of thing that makes a person feel good about humanity.
But sometime later a sobering thought struck me. What I wondered would a pure Darwinist have to say about the subtle exchange I had witnessed? I bet he would say that the whole thing can be explained in terms of natural selection that the protective love the father felt is just natures way of ensuring that the species will go on and the dependence of the child is a self-preservation instinct of an offspring that is not yet equipped to defend herself in the world.
What a bummer that thought was! Ive gotten so used to hearing reflexive explanations of this kind that they come into my mind involuntarily now. In fact hardcore Darwinists offer this kind of doctrinal explanation for almost everything that people have traditionally thought of as virtuous. A mother selflessly taking off her coat in the bitter cold to help warm her daughter? Species survival instinct. The exchange of heartfelt poetic wedding vows? Reproduction instinct. And these explanations they claim are all the more compelling because after all they are based in science. Talk about having no soul!
But can that be right? Is the scientific explanation really better than the metaphysical one? Youll never get me to believe it. Not that I dont believe in evolution or natural selection in any form. I just dont believe in them as answers to everything.
In The Abolition of Man C. S. Lewis talked about the doctrine of objective value the belief that certain attitudes are really true and others really false to the kind of thing the universe is and the kind of things we are." I happen to agree wholeheartedly. We are the kind of things that are rooted in purpose in a model of good that transcends all of history. Lewis said that our sentiments toward qualities like the love of a parent for their child are not strictly evolutionary in nature but are either reflective or non-reflective of the Tao the universal order that exists outside of time and to which our hearts are innately pointed.
That elegant explanation seems every bit as plausible to me as the Darwinists theory. The things we traditionally call virtuous are so to the extent that they reflect the Tao. We see acts of true human goodness all the time selflessness love loyalty. No one has to point out to us that those are actions of a noble nature that exists beyond and before our collective understanding and to which we all know we are supposed to strive. We know this instinctively and unequivocally. Nor can anyone really argue that each time we experience that recognition of nobility it is nothing more than an evolutionary trick. A group of healthy brothers putting themselves in harms way to protect their disabled sibling does nothing to fortify the gene pool but it is an act of good and we know that deep within ourselves. The Tao it turns out is just as real as evolution itself. More so if you ask me. So for my part I will side with Mr. Lewis.
God bless the man from the escalator and his precious little girl.
I am an attorney and author with a background in philosophy. For more of my articles please go to https://www.afterthefallnovel.com/blog.