Survival of the holy, not of the ‘fittest’

One thing that stands out in my mind from my college biology class are the five principles that outline Charles Darwin’s notion of evolution. They include the prodigality of nature; struggle for existence; individual variation; survival of the fittest; and the origin of a new species.

My fellow students and I did not pay much attention to their philosophical or religious implications. We knew that we would be asked to repeat these principles on the next test. Therefore, we set our memory to work and put our critical capacities on the back burner. As the years passed, however, I began to ruminate over the quintet, coming to the conclusion that they are both unscientific and grossly misleading.

It was inevitable that Hebert Spencer, Thomas Huxley, and others would envision evolution as a violent war of the parts. The shark’s teeth, the rabbit’s ears, the tiger’s claws, the elephant’s trunk, and the eagle’s eyesight were “survival values” in the struggle for existence. The winners in this all-out confrontation would survive. This questionable evolution was applied to human culture as “social Darwinism.” Thus, the strong would prevail, while the weak would perish. This philosophy of “might makes right” was seen as a way of improving a society, evolving it into something better.

Various social Darwinists had a rather narrow understanding of man. They viewed him as Darwin did, as having a survival value over competitors in the struggle to achieve one thing, such as power, wealth, or social status. The question I put to myself was this: is it man’s destiny merely to survive, or should he aspire to something higher? 

Evolution, according to Darwinists, is the struggle that reaches its apogee in the “survival of the fittest.” But this dubious notion, sometimes referred to as the “rat race” or the “gladiatorial theory of existence,” does not apply to the human being. In fact, it misapplies, reducing the human being to something less than he is. 

Richard Hofstadter, in his classic study Social Darwinism in American Thought, documents how some theorists “adopted the idea of the struggle for existence as justification for the evils as well as the benefits of laissez-faire modern industrial society.” What is progressive for sharks and tigers is not progressive for human beings. 

Many susceptible people have been carried away by Darwinian thinking and strove for that one thing that would earn them the title of being “the fittest.” The Catholic Church, however, is not interested in advising her faithful to get to become the “king of the hill, top of the heap” (to cite lyrics from “New York, New York”). She is more interest in her flock following the path of holiness. 

The Church is, in fact, a paragon of balance. There is sin, but there is forgiveness. Punishment is tempered by mercy. Nature is elevated by grace. Sex is conjoined with responsibility. Rights are counterbalanced by duties, while work is refreshed by prayer. Will is tethered to reason. Darkness yields to light. Where there are difficulties, there is hope. Where there is doubt, there is faith. Where there is animosity, there is love. Problems are resolved. Order is restored. Integrity is preserved. 

Darwin’s five principles have failed to account for a single new species. On the other hand, the Church has produced a multitude of saints. The point of evolution is not to become the “fittest,” but to become holy. We should not look to the animal world to understand who we are and where we are going, but to Christ, a member of the Holy Trinity, which in itself expresses the perfect image of balance.