The essence of evolutionary
thinking is that the creative power of nature does not end. It did not spend
itself in one burst eons ago. Nature continues to create, albeit very slowly,
because that is what nature is. The work of creation is not over. God or nature
did not create the world once upon a time and then creation was basically
finished. The world is still being created every day.
This is the idea that the early
evolutionists pushed for, before Charles Darwin came along. They were excited
by it and they communicated their excitement to the public and occasionally to
a young scientist. It was thrilling to realize that creation does not end. The
divine power can never be inactive, said Constantine Rafinesque. Robert
Chambers compared evolution to a pregnant woman. They made evolution an
attractive idea to the general public. That is why it had already caught on
before Charles Darwin entered the picture. And it made much more sense that
nature’s creativity was an ongoing process than the idea that nature’s creative
force happened only once at the beginning of time and then stopped. The early
evolutionists convinced the public of the sense of this.
Charles Darwin contributed little
to nothing to the idea of general evolution. He inherited this idea and did
little to expound on it. He was more interested in finding the cause of
continuing organic change. The preceding evolutionists, including his own
grandfather, Erasmus Darwin, were not as interested in looking for a causal
mechanism. The fact that organic evolution was occurring was thrilling enough
for them. They were more interested in the meaning
of evolution and its spiritual and moral implications.
For all of them—Erasmus Darwin,
Constantine Rafinesque, Robert Chambers, and probably Jean-Baptiste Lamarck
(though I know less about him)—the constant change we see in nature should
teach us tolerance and love for our fellow creatures. We are united with them
in familial, genetic relations. Chambers argued this should teach us to respect
the rights and the feelings of animals. Yes, he actually said that. Charles
Darwin never came close to saying anything like that. He made it clear that
animals serve human beings; we should not be cruel towards them, but animal
rights is not something that ever occurred to him.
To Darwin, evolution was
primarily a map for how imperialism should proceed. European human beings
should spread out and conquer other peoples, even exterminating them, to give
us the best chance of survival in the centuries ahead. The earlier, holistic
evolutionists were not interested in conquering. They wanted to celebrate the
connectedness of all life on earth. Darwin in theory recognized these
connections, but celebrating it was the last thing on his mind. He would do
nothing that could potentially interfere with the mindset of imperialists.
There are winners and losers in his conception of evolution. For his
grandfather and the others, there are no losers. Nature blesses all of her
creations. Extinction is an unfortunate side effect and not something human
beings should imitate.
Many people today are leaning
towards the kinder interpretation of evolution. That’s a good thing. But
academics are promoting the lie that this comes from Charles Darwin. It
certainly does not. It comes from those other thinkers whom we have erased from
history. We have erased them and their accomplishments. And that’s not a good
thing. If we tell lies about history, our lies will come back to bite us in the
ass. What is a lie but severing a connection. Remember: We are all connected
and if we destroy any of these connections by using our historical erasers, the
result of that cannot be anything good.
© 2019 Leon Zitzer
