A Book Startles the World

The book: The Origin of Species. “Next to the Bible,” said anthropologist Ashley Montagu, “no work has been quite as influential.”

The author: Charles Darwin, who at the time was called by some “the most dangerous man in England.”

The subject: The theory of evolution. Words and phrases such as “natural selection,” “survival of the fittest,” and “evolution” are now well established. But has the theory affected more than your language?

WITH its release in 1859, The Origin of Species, by Charles Darwin, ignited a furious debate in scientific and religious circles.a The debate spilled over into economic and social spheres and even continues today, some 136 years later.

In A Story Outline of Evolution, C. W. Grimes wrote regarding Darwin’s Origin of Species: “No other book ever printed has aroused so much controversy among thinking people. No other subject within living memory has so challenged traditional beliefs, revolutionized the world of Nature, and moulded, congealed, and crystallized human thought as has that of Evolution.”

True, Darwin did not originate the theory of evolution; the concept can be traced back to ancient Greece. There were also several 18th-​century forerunners of Darwin who paved the way for wide acceptance of The Origin of Species.

It was Darwin’s book, however, that became the basis of modern evolutionary thought. It startled, indeed shocked, the world, for his evolution theory sparked more than a revolution in biology. It struck like a storm at the very foundations of society​—religion, science, politics, economics, social life, history, and view of the future.

How has the theory affected the world for more than a century now? How has it affected your life? Just what is its legacy? The following articles will examine these questions.

[Footnotes]

Effects of the Evolution Theory

IN THE early 19th century, religion and science enjoyed a fairly amicable relationship. Just two years before The Origin of Species was published, biologist and Harvard professor Louis Agassiz wrote that the living world shows “premeditation, wisdom, greatness” and that a major purpose of natural history was to analyze “the thoughts of the Creator of the Universe.”

Agassiz’ viewpoint was not uncommon. Many people viewed science and religion as compatible. Discoveries of science were often perceived as evidence of a Grand Creator. But a subtle rift was developing between religion and science.

Skepticism Takes Root

Charles Lyell’s Principles of Geology, the first volume of which appeared in 1830, cast doubt on the Bible’s creation account. Lyell claimed that the creation could not possibly have occurred in six literal days. Physicist Fred Hoyle wrote: “Lyell’s books were largely responsible for convincing the world at large that the Bible could be wrong, at any rate in some respects, a hitherto unthinkable thought.”a

A foundation was thus laid for skepticism. In the minds of many, science and the Bible could no longer be harmonized. Faced with a choice, many opted for science. “Lyell’s work had thrown the early chapters of the Old Testament into doubt,” Fred Hoyle wrote, “and Darwin’s book was there to replace it.”

The Origin of Species came at an opportune time for those who did not want to accept the Bible as the Word of God. A romance had already blossomed between man and science. An infatuated public was wooed by the promises and accomplishments of science. Like a gallant suitor, science showered man with innovative gifts​—the telescope, the microscope, and the steam engine and later, electricity, the telephone, and the automobile. Technology had already fostered an industrial revolution that was providing the common man with unprecedented material advantages.

In contrast, religion was perceived as a roadblock to progress. Some felt that it held people in a stupor, unable to keep up with the rapid advances of science. Atheists began to proclaim their views loudly and boldly. Indeed, as Richard Dawkins wrote, “Darwin made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist.” Science was becoming mankind’s new hope for salvation.

At first, religious leaders opposed the theory of evolution. But as the decades passed, the clergy in general yielded to popular opinion, accepting a blend of evolution and creation. A 1938 New York Times headline announced: “Church of England Report Upholds Evolutionary Idea of the Creation.” The report, by a commission under the Archbishop of York, stated: “No objection to a theory of evolution can be drawn from the two creation narratives in Genesis I and II, since it is generally agreed among educated Christians that these are mythological in origin and that their value for us is symbolic rather than historical.” The archbishop’s commission concluded: “You can think what you like and still be Christian.”

For many, such attempts to reconcile the Bible with evolution only diluted the Bible’s credibility. It resulted in widespread skepticism of the Bible, and this still exists today, even among some religious leaders. Typical are the comments of an Episcopal bishop in Canada who asserted that the Bible was written in a prescientific age and therefore reflected prejudice and ignorance. He said that the Bible contained “historic errors” and “blatant exaggerations” regarding Jesus’ birth and resurrection.

Thus, many, including members of the clergy, have been quick to discredit the Bible. But where has such skepticism led? What alternative hope has been offered? With weakened faith in the Bible, some have looked to philosophy and politics.

Effects on Philosophy and Politics

The Origin of Species offered a fresh outlook on human behavior. Why does one nation succeed in conquering another nation? Why does one race prevail over another race? The Origin of Species, with its emphasis on natural selection and survival of the fittest, gave explanations that stirred the leading philosophers of the 19th century.

Friedrich Nietzsche (1844-1900) and Karl Marx (1818-1883) were philosophers who had a profound effect on politics. Both were fascinated by evolution. “Darwin’s book is important,” said Marx, “and serves me as a natural scientific basis for the class struggle in history.” Historian Will Durant called Nietzsche a “child of Darwin.” The book Philosophy​—An Outline-​History summarized one of Nietzsche’s beliefs: “The strong, brave, domineering, proud, fit best the society that is to be.”

Darwin believed​—and wrote in a letter to a friend—​that in the future “an endless number of the lower races will have been eliminated by the higher civilized races throughout the world.” He used as a precedent the European conquest of others and chalked this up to “the struggle for existence.”

The powerful were quick to latch on to such statements. H. G. Wells wrote in The Outline of History: “Prevalent peoples at the close of the nineteenth century believed that they prevailed by virtue of the Struggle for Existence, in which the strong and cunning get the better of the weak and confiding. And they believed further that they had to be strong, energetic, ruthless, ‘practical,’ egotistical.”

Thus, “survival of the fittest” took on philosophical, social, and political overtones, often to an absurd extent. “To some war became ‘a biological necessity,’” said the book Milestones of History. And this book noted that during the next century, “Darwinian ideas formed an integral part of Hitler’s doctrine of racial superiority.”

Of course, neither Darwin, Marx, nor Nietzsche lived to see how their ideas would be applied​—or misapplied. Indeed, they expected that the struggle for existence would improve man’s lot in life. Darwin wrote in The Origin of Species that “all corporeal and mental endowments will tend to progress towards perfection.” Twentieth-​century priest and biologist Pierre Teilhard de Chardin agreed with this, theorizing that eventually there would occur an ‘evolution of the minds of the entire human race; everyone would harmoniously work toward one goal.’

Degradation, Not Improvement

Do you see such improvement occurring? The book Clinging to a Myth commented on De Chardin’s optimism: “De Chardin must have been quite oblivious of the history of human bloodshed and of racist systems such as apartheid in South Africa. He sounds like a man who is not living in this world.” Rather than progress toward unity, humanity in this century has experienced racial and national division on an unprecedented scale.

The hope held out in The Origin of Species, that man would progress toward perfection, or at least improvement, is very much unfulfilled. And that hope keeps receding with time, for since the general acceptance of evolution, the human family all too often has descended into barbarism. Consider: More than 100 million people have been killed in the wars of this century, some 50 million in World War II alone. Also consider the recent ethnic slaughter in such places as Rwanda and the former Yugoslavia.

Is this to say that there were no wars and brutalities in past centuries? No, there certainly were. But the acceptance of the theory of evolution, this brutal struggle-​for-​existence mind-​set, this survival-​of-​the-​fittest idea, has not served to improve man’s lot. So while evolution cannot be blamed for all of man’s ills, it has helped push the human family into ever greater hatred, crime, violence, immorality, and degradation. Since it is widely accepted that humans descended from beasts, it is not surprising that more and more people act like beasts.

[Footnotes]

[Blurb on page 6]

‘Darwin’s book serves me as a scientific basis for the class struggle in history.’​—Karl Marx

[Blurb on page 6]

‘Lower races will have been eliminated by higher civilized races.’​—Charles Darwin

[Picture Credit Line on page 6]

U.S. National Archives photo

[Picture Credit Line on page 6]

Copyright British Museum

Evolution and You

DURING the 19th century, The Origin of Species convinced masses of people that man had survived without divine intervention and would continue to do so. Enthralled by scientific advancements, many felt that God was no longer necessary and that science could save the human race. The book Age of Progress noted that the 19th century “was animated by a conviction that rationally applied human effort could transform the world.”

Toward the end of that century, however, even Charles Darwin wavered in his optimism. According to one historian, Darwin feared that the theory of evolution “had killed God and that the consequences for the future of mankind were incalculable.” Alfred Russel Wallace, a younger contemporary of Darwin, recalled: “During my last conversation with Darwin [shortly before Darwin’s death] he expressed a very gloomy view on the future of mankind.”

What Has Human Effort Produced?

The history of the 20th century has since revealed that much gloom was indeed ahead. The technological achievements since Darwin’s time merely camouflaged what has proved to be by far the darkest, most violent age in all human history. We live amid what historian H. G. Wells described as “a real demoralization.”

Since Wells made that statement (some 75 years ago), the world has continued to experience more demoralization. Nothing that scientists, economists, social agencies, human governments, or this world’s religions have tried has remedied the situation or even stemmed the tide. Conditions continue to deteriorate.

In reality, therefore, it must be asked: What has human effort produced? Have science and technology brought about a better world? “When we open the daily paper and look at what’s going on,” said biologist Ruth Hubbard, “the problems are not scientific. They are problems of social organization, of things having gotten too big, of people going after profit and ignoring human needs.” Hubbard added: “I don’t really think that in a rational allotment of resources, science is likely to solve any or many of the problems that most trouble people in the world.”

Really, of what benefit is it when man can travel to the moon but cannot solve the basic problems of the human family? Did the invention of increasingly destructive weapons, such as the atom bomb, bring an end to wars and ethnic violence? Have the accomplishments of science significantly diminished crime, family breakup, sexually transmitted diseases, immorality, illegitimate births, corruption in high places, poverty, hunger, homelessness, drug abuse, pollution? No, science has, if anything, made some of these things worse. Abandoning God and substituting evolution and science, the human family has not helped its situation but has hurt it.

Not surprisingly, many are having second thoughts about the theory that man evolved from apelike creatures, as opposed to there being a God who created the first humans. A Gallup poll in the United States revealed that only 9 percent of Americans hold to the belief that man evolved with no divine intervention; 47 percent accept the idea that God created man in his present form.

What the Bible Predicted

While The Origin of Species predicted that man would progress toward perfection, the Bible foretold that the world would be rocked by a moral crisis. (Matthew 24:3-12; 2 Timothy 3:1-5) The Bible also foretold that this crisis would reach a climax, after which faithful mankind’s lot would be a paradise, free from all of today’s problems.​—Psalm 37:10, 11, 29; Isaiah 11:6-9; 35:1-7; Revelation 21:4, 5.

This hope has caused many to examine the Bible with keen interest. Could it really be that the purpose of life is more than a struggle for existence? Could the Bible hold the key not only to man’s past but also to his future, including your future? It would be very much worth your while to investigate what the Bible really teaches about God and his purpose for this earth and its people. If you would like more information, Jehovah’s Witnesses would be happy to assist you.

[Box on page 9]

Millions have been helped to take another look at the evidence for a God of creation, using the book Life​—How Did It Get Here? By Evolution or by Creation?a To date, some 30 million copies have been printed in 27 languages. Also, Awake! magazine continues to publish information regarding what the facts of true science show as to the validity of the theory of evolution.

[Footnotes]

[Picture on page 8, 9]

Contrary to the theory of evolution, the Bible predicted today’s moral crisis and its solution​—a trouble-​free paradise

[Picture Credit Line on page 8]

U.S. Coast Guard photo

[Picture Credit Line on page 8]

Starving child: WHO photo by P. Almasy

[Picture Credit Line on page 8]

Right: U.S. National Archives photo