By Christopher Ziegler
 |
| Find Christopher Ziegler @CZWriting on Twitter |
Abraham Lincoln celebrated his final birthday 150 years ago this Thursday.
For certain Americans, however, February 12 is not remembered as Lincoln’s birthday, but as the birthday of Charles Darwin. In fact, earlier this month, 12 U.S. House Democrats led by Rep. Jim Hines (D-Conn.) sponsored a bill to nationally recognize February 12 as “Darwin Day.” It was the fourth such attempt since 2011.
These congressmen may argue there is no reason Americans cannot honor two men on the same day. And I would agree with them, were it not for this fact: the belief Darwin is remembered for, and the belief Lincoln died for, are antithetical to each other.
These congressmen may argue there is no reason Americans cannot honor two men on the same day. And I would agree with them, were it not for this fact: the belief Darwin is remembered for, and the belief Lincoln died for, are antithetical to each other.
Lincoln repeatedly said his beliefs were grounded in the Declaration of Independence: “We hold these truths to
be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their
Creator with certain inalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and
the pursuit of Happiness—That to secure these rights, Governments are
instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the
governed—That whenever any form of government becomes destructive to these
ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or abolish it.”
In contrast, Darwin’s theory denies
the very premise that men were created at all. To create something is to
undertake conscious, purposeful activity. When a novelist creates a novel, he
performs a conscious, purposeful action. But according to Darwin’s theory, man
is the result of a blind, undirected process.
That
these words were dear to Lincoln is evident from his speeches and actions: not
least of all his most famous speech, the Gettysburg Address, and his most
famous action, the Emancipation Proclamation. One declared that all men are
created equal and the other freed 3 million
slaves.
 |
| Feb. 12: Darwin vs Lincoln Both have the same birthday |
Other theories of evolution allow
for degrees of purpose and direction, but these are not Darwin’s theory.
If you believe that man evolved according to the process described by Darwin,
then this is tantamount to saying that man is not the result of conscious,
purposeful activity.
The United States is not like most
other countries, which are founded on a genetic and cultural inheritance
stretching back to time out of mind, such as Japan or Sweden. Instead, the
United States is founded on an idea, and that idea is expressed in the words of
the Declaration of Independence.
But if Darwin’s theory is true this
means men were not created. It follows that they have no Creator and the words
of the Declaration are false. Hence, you can be a Darwinian, or you can be a
patriotic American, but you cannot be both. No patriot would claim that his
country is founded on a mistake.
The claim that all men are created
equal does not mean that all people have equal talents and abilities. This is
self-evidently not the case. It also does not say all men are equal. It
says they are created equal. That is, they are equal in that they
are created.
All people have equal dignity and
worth, and they share this dignity and worth by virtue of the fact that they
have a Creator. Just as all the works of Picasso, though different in quality,
share a certain worth just because the artist made them, so do all
people share a certain worth just because the Creator made them. As
Lincoln put the matter: “Nothing stamped with
the Divine image and likeness was sent into the world to be trodden on, and
degraded, and imbruted by its fellows.”
But if Darwin’s theory is true, then
men do not have a Creator and do not bear a divine image and likeness.
Therefore, their dignity and worth -- if they have any -- must be based on
something else. The most obvious rationale would be their usefulness. A
person’s value is based on the fact that he is valuable to another person
because he can be useful or helpful in some way. But if my worth is based on my
usefulness, then I am no longer an end in myself—I am a means to an end. If I
am a means to an end, then I do not have inherent worth as an individual.
If men do not have inherent worth as
individuals, and their worth is predicated on their usefulness, then people who
have no use have no worth. This group would include, among
others: the homeless, the insane, the deranged, the severely handicapped, the
severely mentally impaired, unwanted children, the very sick and the very old.
Even though these people meet every objective standard for being human, we
would have no reason to regard them as equal in dignity and worth. If we have
no reason to regard them as equal, we cannot, without contradicting ourselves,
afford them equal status under the law.
The word “inalienable,” as used in
the Declaration, shows a deep understanding of rights. It does not mean that a
man’s rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness cannot be taken away
from him. Obviously they can. Rather, it indicates that to take any of these
away from him is to commit an act of violence against his essential
nature. These rights may be taken away, but if they are, then he cannot become
what he was meant to become.
But if men are the result of an
undirected process, that process, being undirected, could have had a different
result. Therefore, all of man’s qualities and properties are accidental,
and none are essential.
This means there was nothing he was meant
to be and he has no rights that can be described as “inalienable.” Therefore,
rights, such as they are, are nothing but legal fictions conferred by the
powers that be. If rights do not precede government, but originate in
government, then it follows that government is more important than individuals,
for without the government people would have no rights as individuals.
If governments are more important
than individuals, then we cannot say that they “derive their just powers from
the consent of the governed,” for their power cannot be contingent on the
consent of a being that has no natural rights. But if governments do not derive
their just powers from the consent of the governed, they cannot be altered or
abolished by the removal of that consent. Hence, no one has the right to
protest, to petition the government for redress of grievances, or to abolish
their government—no matter how oppressive it may be.
If Darwin’s theory is true, then men
are the result of blind forces that operate without purpose. Free things act
with purpose. Things that act without purpose, such as wind or erosion, cannot
be described as free. But how can human freedom be the result of something,
which is not free? If Darwin’s theory is true, then, at the very least, the
reality of free will is thrown into doubt. But if my free will is an illusion,
it follows that my political freedoms are an even bigger illusion.
Therefore there is nothing wrong with depriving someone, anyone, of their
political freedom—because it is an illusion.
Some people will say that they
believe in Darwin’s theory but that it should not be applied to ethics. Whence
this “should?” Darwin’s theory has always been controversial precisely because
it purports to give an account of human origins. What I believe about my
origins must affect my opinion of what I am. This will in turn affect my
opinion of other people. My understanding of myself and other people will
inevitably influence my ethical decisions.
As an account of human origins,
Darwin’s theory is either true or false. If true, then on what basis can
someone tell me that I should not take it seriously and embrace all its
implications? If I really believe the theory is true, I would be hypocritical
if I did not factor it into my decisions. If someone seriously advocates that
people should believe in Darwin’s theory, but that they should not act on that
belief, then he is advocating intellectual schizophrenia. He would have no
argument against someone who advocated the exact opposite: that people should
not believe it, but that they should nevertheless act upon it. Both are unfair
requests. Intellectual schizophrenia may come easily to one man, but that does
not mean it will come easily to another. A house divided against itself cannot
stand.
People will swear that their belief
in Darwin’s theory does not affect their ethical thinking. But if you keep
questioning them you’ll find that it does—they just don’t realize it.
For example, very often you’ll find that these same people support abortion and
euthanasia.
Both these views are justified
according to a worldview that says people do not have inherent worth just for
being human, but that their worth is predicated on whether they are wanted. If
they are not viewed as valuable, then they have no value despite their
humanity. No one ever tells himself that, “I believe in X because it is
wrong.” But how you view the world will inevitably determine your sense of
right and wrong. It has to.
 |
| Richard Dawkins |
Richard
Dawkins is one of the best-known defenders of Darwin’s theory today. Yet he
once publicly admitted that he would not want to live in a country governed by
Darwin’s ideas because “a Darwinian state would be a fascist state.” From the
1860s to the 1930s, Germany’s elite was saturated with Darwinian theory. The
Germans who supported the Nazis did not say to themselves, “Wouldn’t it be
great to be really evil?” Rather, they had certain principles, which -- like
good Germans -- they followed.
Everything
that happened in the Holocaust was justified in the name of “race health.” In
other words, it was honestly seen as being for the greater good. The Nazis
loved their children just like everyone else. They were not horrible men
without principle. They were principled men with horrible beliefs.
Very
recently, someone asked Dawkins an ethical question on Twitter: If they found
out they were pregnant with a baby with Down’s syndrome, what should they do?
Dawkins’ answer: “Abort it and try again.” There is no difference in principle
between this thinking and Nazi thinking. The Final Solution (to exterminate the
Jews) was the same advice carried out on a national level. That Mr. Dawkins and
his admirers do not see this—is scary.
People will swear that belief in
Darwin’s theory does not make people less moral because their own behavior is
manifestly decent and acceptable. But if this is the case, then their behavior
cannot be the result of their moral reflection and intellectual commitments
(unless they’re schizophrenics). It must be the result of something else.
Most likely it is the result of
their successful assimilation into an environment where a high standard of
behavior is expected. Their behavior then, is not really virtue but conformity.
This may work for them so long as their environment never changes for the
worse. But should they be suddenly plunged into a frightening new
situation, such as the German people faced after World War I, their
superficial virtue would be put to the test. Eulogizing the dead at Gettysburg,
Lincoln said that we should “take increased devotion to that cause for which
they gave the last full measure of devotion.” But you cannot devote yourself to
something you believe is untrue.
The views of these two men born on
the same day—Lincoln and Darwin—are irreconcilable. Insofar as we think
Darwinian evolution true, we must think the Declaration of Independence false.
Insofar as we think the Declaration true, we must think Darwinian evolution
false. Lincoln would not have cared if we forgot about his birthday altogether.
But he would have cared very much if we forgot about the Declaration of
Independence. I know of no better way to illustrate this than by taking a quote
from the man himself. It comes from a speech he gave at Lewistown, Illinois on
August 17, 1858, a year before the publication of On the Origin of Species:
“My countrymen…if you
have been taught doctrines conflicting with the great landmarks of the
Declaration of Independence; if you have listened to suggestions which would
take away from its grandeur, and mutilate the fair symmetry of its proportions;
if you have been inclined to believe that all men are not created equal in those inalienable rights enumerated by our
chart of liberty, let me entreat you to come back. Return to the fountain whose
waters spring close by the blood of the Revolution. Think nothing of me—take no
thought for the political fate of any man whatsoever—but come back to the
truths that are in the Declaration of Independence. You may do anything with me
you choose, if you will but heed these sacred principles. You may not only
defeat me for the Senate, but you may take me and put me to death. While
pretending no indifference to earthly honors, I do claim to be actuated in this contest by something higher than
an anxiety for office. I charge you to drop every paltry and insignificant
thought for any man’s success. It is nothing. I am nothing; Judge Douglas is
nothing. But do not destroy that
immortal emblem of Humanity—the Declaration of American Independence.”
 |
| Into the Woods: Christopher Ziegler |
Did you enjoy this piece? You might like to read: Philosophy's Gift to Catholic Moral Theology
Would you like to read more by Christopher Ziegler? To Be Human or Not to Be: That is the Question About Abortion
Would you like to read more by Christopher Ziegler? To Be Human or Not to Be: That is the Question About Abortion
