I know that I'm delinquent when it comes to explaining my scientific and philosophical problems with Darwinism (although you can get a flavor for my concerns in Chapter 9 of The Mustard Seed). But for now, I'd like to share with you a thought I had about Darwinism, and its relationship to 2 other scientific theories of the past: Karl Marx's economic theory and Sigmund Freud's theory about human personality and development.
Darwin, Marx, and Freud were 3 of the intellectual titans of the 19th and early 20th centuries. Their ideas about humanity and society and how to improve humanity and society utterly dominated Western civilization in their own lifetime, and continued to influence many generations thereafter.
Unfortunately for Marx and Freud, time has not been kind to their theories. Although Freud is widely credited as the "father of psycoanalysis," it didn't take long for scientists who followed in Freud's footsteps (such as Jung and Adler) to realize that Freud's theories about Oedipus complexes, superegos, and oral personalities (which Freud insisted were facts) were totally false. Today, almost no serious psychologist takes Freud's ideas seriously - even though they were highly influential on Western culture, even up until recently.
As for Marx, time has been equally cruel. The intellectual father of socialism, his ideas were practiced in Russia, China, and numerous other countries in the 20st century, but the economic failures of those countries (especially when contrasted with the prosperity of the free market democracies of the West) revealed the futility of Marx's brainchild. Today, Marx is treated as a crackpot - even by those who are still sympathetic to socialist ideas.
While we can make fun of Marx and Freud today, we need to remember that these 2 men were treated as geniuses and prophets in their own time. Why? I'll offer two explanations. First, Marx and Freud dressed up their ideologies as "science," and back then - just like today - when you call something "science" it automatically is seen as credible, rational, and progressive.
Second, and perhaps more importantly, Marx and Freud offered what you might call "feel-good ideologies." When Freud said that people should freely express their urges - especially their sexual urges - because "repression" causes "neurosis," that was precisely what a lot of people wanted to hear. After all, for most people, the concept of "free sex" doesn't require a lot of persuasion. Same deal with Marx. When Marx said that prosperity would come from workers seizing the commanding heights of the economy through theft and violence - instead of actually earning their wages in a traditional free market - that was EXACTLY what a lot of people wanted to hear; it catered to their fantasies and feelings of self-importance; they ate it up.
There's one caveat, however: even if Marx and Freud cloaked their ideologies as "science," and a "feel-good science" to boot, it doesn't explain one important problem: any objective person - whether they're a scientist or a layman - who bothered to actually READ the ideas of Marx and Freud, would eventually realize that it was total B.S - at least from a scientific perspective. Any objective person would realize this was never a science; it was ALWAYS an ideology. And perhaps that's the point!
Which brings us to Mr. Darwin.
Unlike Marx and Freud, Mr. Darwin is still respected and adored today - perhaps now more than ever. Just like his 2 pals, Darwin's ideas are not only viewed as scientific "truth," but the implications of that "truth" is permeating the culture at large - as we see in the greater acceptance of "Social Darwinism" as a valid form of ethics, etc.
But as I've said before, anyone who chooses to look at Darwinism head-on realizes that "The Theory of Evolution" is full of holes. And we're not just talking small holes; we're talking huge, huge holes. I'm not going to explain those holes today (I'll do that another time). Rather, I'm going to explain why Darwinism is so successful and dominant in our society today.
First, Darwinism is the best scientific theory for the development of life if you start off - a priori - with the presumption that God does NOT exist. In other words, if you're an atheist, and you want to promote atheism, the Darwinist idea of "random chance" is the most acceptable theory. But this begs the question: why do we have to assume - right at the start - that God doesn't exist? After all, if we choose to follow the facts OBJECTIVELY - with no consideration of whether God exists or does NOT exist - then, like I said above, Darwinism is a flawed theory. And knowing that, why does the scientific establishment react with such horror, scorn, and vengeance towards anyone who offers Intelligent Design as a potential alternative?
To answer that, I have to go back to my earlier point about Marx and Freud: their theories weren't just "science;" it was also "feel-good science." And for the scientific establishment, Darwinism "feels good" because it is atheist; it validates their atheist perspective. They don't want there to be a God. They are extremely uncomfortable with the concept of God. They want to banish God - whether He deserves that banishment or not.
Will Darwin eventually join Marx and Freud on the ash-heap of intellectual history? Well, not exactly. For starters, there is some practical use to the "theory of natural selection" as it pertains to "micro-evolution," so Darwin has that going for him. Plus, like Freud, Darwin will always be credited for founding a major branch of science (even if that science eventually discredits the work of its founder). But yes, eventually truth will catch up to the Darwininists. You can't kill the truth; you can bury it. You can muzzle it. You can choke it. You can even crucifity it. But you can never destroy it. It is the only thing that truly lasts.
-Todd
No comments:
Post a Comment