“When I understood Darwin that I saw how totally wrong that point of view was,( his religious beliefs) that rather suddenly scales fell from my eyes and I then became rather strongly anti-religious at that point”: stated Richard Dawkins, contemporary world’s leading supporter of Darwin’s evolution theory, and a proclaimed anti-religious crusader, in his interview with BBC.

Without any doubt, Darwin’s survival of the fittest theory is the first and foremost (negative) Dogma that is currently guiding most of our public as well as individual conduct. It is thought  to be NATURAL LAW even in  the present times,as it was in the past. No moral or ethical theory could win human mind over and above the belief in this sacred theory. It is like a lever that always rises up the moment you touch it. The hidden knowledge of the theory works like a programmed toy in real life situations: it compels you to take a defensive position in your encounters with your fellow men.

Or, a better way to understand this pattern is to compare it with a computer OPERATING SYSTEM. The minds of the ones who internalized Darwin’s theory have installed it as an OPERATING SYSTEM for their mind: their every other thought and behaviour would run compatible with the base theory ! No interim alteration is possible, as it would be possible only if the base OPERATING SYSTEM is changed. 

Whenever one encounters an ‘other’ in a real-life situation, he is cautious about the other’s intentions It compels you too to be cautious, like a chain reaction.This is a natural fear of the other, thanks to the existing socio-political ideologies in the world that basically believes in, as well as what men teach their young, the life-defining value of the theory of the ‘survival of the fittest’ and ‘natural selection’ ! This day to day behaviour and natural tendency of modern man is adequate enough to defeat all the arguments against the influence of Darwinism in the mental makeup of modern man. Man is not able to discard his fear of the other despite millions of years of our celebrated human civilization !

No one has ever attempted to treat the ‘other’ from the standpoint of an enlightened being, and wait for his reaction, hence such a paradigm has never come up for discussion in the mainstream.It is true that Darwin had never intended his theories getting defined in the social context of human life that we have seen above. But unfortunately, its negative influence is very real !

Darwin lived in an age when Europeans were at the center of colonization of the world. They were winning every where, despite initial set-downs at random encounters. The time witnessed a frantic search for natural laws to support every act  in every field. When the Church was alive and ruling over every sphere of human activity, such questions never occurred, as human mind was not free.  But when Church was defeated and ousted from the mainstream of Europe, man stood naked under the sky, with the power of all his previous laws of conduct now lost their relevance, seeking ‘natural’ laws to guide his day to day conduct.

Thinkers had sought answers using their own reasoning faculty. ( Previously it was Church’s reasoning that guided their conduct )  Reason always helps one at his conclusions  based on the immediate, or the row of evidences he has in front of him. Hence, Darwin, with his European mind, had no other contradictory evidences before him to suggest that, it might be natures own law that makes his superior country men to win the race for survival, against their fight against the alien colony dwellers ! The well evident results in front of his eyes might have compelled him to conclude that nature always select the fittest.to survive ! This has been stated by me with all high respect that due to the great man,for his pains-taking research of several years, and his sense of inquiry and curiosity to unravel nature’s secrets !

But we have no evidence to prove that the mind of Darwin was NOT clouded with the above pre-judgement   while he was wandering through the alien terrains of  the Galapagos islands in search of evidences to support his hypothesis, except the few supportive words from eminent men:

Charles Sanders Peirce (US thinker-philosopher of 20th century)wrote in his paper ‘ evolutionary love):”The extraordinarily favourable reception it ( Darwin’s doctrines) met with was plainly owing,in large measure, to its ideas being those toward which the age was favourably disposed,especially,because of the encouragement it gave to the greed-philosophy” ( of capitalism)

Though the purpose of this reflection is not to dwell deep into the final truth or falsehood of Darwin’s theory, it is certain that the way ordinary man and his collective institutions has understood his theory is playing havoc with the way he lives his life. This understanding also compels the socio-political institutions of the modern world to teach the wards the  inherent values of the theory ! Darwinism, no doubt, acts like a silent (software) programme that runs the psyche of the modern world.

We can say it again and again without any doubt that, it is Darwin’s theory of the ‘survival of the fittest’ and ‘natural selection’ that guide and determine man’s behaviour in the contemporary world.It only determines the acts and policy matters of mankind’s collective institutions too.

Though the scope of this reflection is not to present an array of counter arguments against Darwinism, a few hints here and there seems essential to prove the power of the Dogma of Darwinism in the contemporary world.

We have a blog that highlight ‘love’ as a more fundamental emotion in existence that ensures survival of the species than the ‘ struggle for existence’, at link: http://lovepredominatessurvivalinstincts.blogspot.in/. Upon close scrutiny, the instinct within the offspring to compete with others and the environment for survival, as well as the instinct of the parents (LOVE) to protect and take care of the same offspring are both nature’s own technique to ensure survival of life.

The freewill of the individual members of the species has no role in this natural phenomenon, because such individual member, whether an animal, or a plant, is a helpless ‘object’ of various energies and strategies of nature. The ‘member’ can not ever wish, or will to ‘mutate’, so that a more developed offspring could come out of him/her. Hence, the entire responsibility to produce a better adapted offspring rests with the same NATURE ! The species are absolutely BLIND about the possibility of evolution. 

The hero, or the villain here is, the same ‘nature’ ! This is serious philosophical dilemma that the evolutionists must address. After all, who is the beneficiary of evolution ? If we believe modern science, the natural immunity of man,animals and plants against diseases is constantly on the down fall ! How would this empirical evidence substantiate evolution if its chief goal was more evolved, and more adapted species ? The question ‘ into what ultimate state evolution leads to ?’ becomes very relevant here.

If rational thoughts are continued in the above line further, one more equally serious philosophical question will surface begging  for answer. Man,animals and plants are aggregates of live cells .It is the cell that mutate to bring forth evolutionary changes. Now the question is, 

what triggers the mutation? Is it a pre-designed, pre-determined periodical routine of nature, or is it the changes in the habitat of the living unit that trigger the need for mutation, for better adaptation? 

If it is a plain execution of the pre-design of nature, irrespective of any adaptation need of the habitat of the concerned units of life, the entire story of evolution alters its basic colour and perspective: the ‘survival of the fittest’ and the ‘natural selection’ grounds lose its relevance.  Aspects like survival, adaptation and natural selection do not at all come to picture here, as variation was a periodical, or randomly chosen natural phenomena.

If it is triggered by adaptation needs pertaining to changed habitat(climatic,food availability status etc)  of the living units, serious questions are: 

Such perceptions of habitat related needs are, without doubt, experienced by the the ‘aggregate’ of the constituent cells, ie. the living units of life. Then naturally, the evolution pangs(pangs for changed habitats) are transmitted to the cells for triggering a suitable mutation. Then the rest job of how to mutate etc. are entirely handled at the cell level metabolism only, as the living units are never known to have played any role in the internal metabolistic needs of the constituent cells. Living units are merely like ‘drivers’ of cars; a driver doesn’t have to learn automobile engineering for his job !

Here once again the role of the hero or the anti-hero in evolution goes back to mother Nature; the unit of life has no role here, as conscious beings. They can have consciousness only about the phenomena, their extremely subjective consciousness about their immediate habitat ! The hidden directions of nature are not known to their consciousness. 

Man with a consciousness about his entity as a living and thinking being is never aware when,and in what degree his body hair is growing, and when do they fall. By this logic, plants may not have any conscious awareness as to where its roots are moving in search of water and manure. Can we believe the plant is using its will to move its roots towards water and its branches towards sun-rays ? Or an animal uses its will for growing its horns into more adaptable shape and size, in order to survive efficiently ? All these functions are preordained by the same nature, wherein the species are mute and blind witnesses of the power of the instincts. Individual member of no species, including man, is conscious of the directions into which these instincts carry him.

Though Darwin claims that ( in his essay ‘ Recapitulation and conclusions’ ) 

‘ These laws, taken in the largest sense, being Growth and Reproduction;Inheritance which is almost implied by reproduction;Variability from the indirect and direct action of the conditions of life, and from use and disuse: a Ratio of increase so high as to lead to a Struggle for life,and as a consequence to Natural Selection, entailing Divergence of Character and the Extinction of less-improved forms’,

what an open minded seeker of truth must question is the extra-ordinary MOTIVE behind the great author’s inquiry into these secrets of life ! Would these pains-taking inquiries of man seeking reality and truth, that include his gigantic scientific research and similar behaviour be classified under ‘Growth and Reproduction’ instincts ? 

Man’s quest for knowledge, art-forms, religion, poetry, philosophical inquiries, his die-hard obsession for Justice and Liberty – – -how can Darwinian theory explain these exceptional human behaviour forms ? These questions demand serious review of this old Dogma.

 The concept of Darwin’s theory gives out an impression that it is the deliberate and strong will of each member of the species that ensures its survival ! If the theory is to be believed, each members’s individual ability, adaptation expertise, stamina and strength are what ensures natural selection.

If we once again move back into the logical validity of Darwin’s theory, let us consider a group of newly hatched sea turtles moving towards the sea. How can our sense of reason conclude that it is the  most ‘adaptive’, or the fittest among them escape the predatory birds and other predators, and reach the sea ? Or, Darwin’s theory is applicable only when the offspring reaches a certain age in life, say adulthood? 

Till the attainment of that stage, the offspring is totally depended upon its mother for its survival. Hence, is it not parental Love and care predominant here for survival, or its own adaptive skills that comes to play only if it survive the most crucial initial years of  its life ? These are serious questions that the survival theorists must consider.

The parental care and love, if closely analyzed, plays a greater role in the survival of the species than each member’s individual ability for one’s survival. Hence, the latter aspect is more fundamental a natural energy that ensures one’s survival than Darwin’s theory.

It is now observed in the animal world also that the member who got ousted from the group for some or other reason does not survive alone for long. In protecting himself from enemies and predators, and also in the much central act of seeing food, the isolated member usually does not succeed. These evidences should pose serious questions on the validity of Darwin’s theory of the survival of the fittest as natural law !

At the root of his theory, what an open minded man should take notice is the overwhelmingly well evident element of‘creative choice’ in nature than the demands of survival based adaptability. For an isolated example, take the case of the shape of papaya leaf; the Darwinian theory may find it difficult to attribute any ‘survival related cause’ for this extra ordinary design ! A thousand and one examples of such unbelievable variety and design could be observed, which is beyond the plain sense of reason to attribute to the demands of mere ‘survival’ and ‘natural selection’ !

 As explained in our blog: http://thewhyquestionofexistenceanswered.blogspot.in/, the evolution theory may find it difficult to explain the universal hexagonal shape of the individual slot of a beehive all over the globe ! The bee hive slot could have been spherical or  rectangular for all the bees ! Man’s universal sense of reason would at least puzzle for a moment to decide between the two philosophical models presented above, ie. the Darwinian model, and the ‘ unbelievable degree of  ‘creative choice’ evident in plant and animal life. 

The argument based on unrelated parts forming ‘wholes’, and such cluster of ‘wholes’ again forming still larger wholes: 

Keen minds are able to observe that a general pattern followed by nature is, formation of different kind of ‘wholes’ constituted by unrelated parts. Parts often does not know whose part or constituent they are. While live cells are made of atoms, cells are unaware of their structural constitution. Then various kinds of specialized cells constitute to form different organs in the body of animals, ( like heart, liver, nails etc.) and different parts of plants and tress, such as leaves, bark, flowers and seeds. Then at the final stage, various internal and external organs together constitute the living entity; say man, animal or a plant.

Each whole has its own different, independent special function. If liver fails to function properly, human body suffers !

By this line of argument, won’t it be logical to believe that we, along with animal and plant wholes, might be constituting an ultimate whole, who will suffer when one of the parts/organs has structural or emotional problems ? I appeal to the best minds in the world to ponder over this line of argument further, so that we get new lines of thought progress !

The vital point that this writer wishes to highlight here is the above argument’s apparent contradiction with evolution theory: can any one imagine that every cell in our body is in competition, or survival fight with each other ? Cells die and new cells constantly born after following laws of nature and biology. Similarly, no organ, internal or external, can believed to be in any kind of survival related war each other ! The case is similar that between leaves or flowers of plant and trees.

Similarly, if every living being constitute parts of an unknown whole in existence, angle of any competition, or survival war between them is an absurd proposition ! Keen minds again observe in the world that, food and mate availability for each unit of life is ensured by nature by some mystery law other than plain free-will based competitive effort. The way larger organs in the body receives more nutrition than smaller ones, those units of life in need of more food and other life resources get it naturally, by laws other than natural selection, and survival related fights. A lot more dedicated research and studies needed in this important field.

Back to the value aspect of Darwinism  

 But, irrespective of Darwin’s theory’s philosophical and logical validity, individuals in the contemporary world has internalized its inherent value of self-protection and self-promotion to make their selves. If he doesn’t look after and protect his interests, its a kind of sin against nature’s laws, and whatever outcome that comes out for breaking the law must be borne by him in future, by way of destitution, submission of his freedom to others and finally, a state of ousted-ness from life. To abide by this basic life mantra, every one learns the difficult art of being a bit hostile to others in society, to ward off threats from aggressors. This hostility towards the other has become a national trait in many nations, especially in India’s northern region. Parents teach wards at home the value of outsmarting others in every context of life !

Close relation of this life mantra with that of Capitalism, though not well known, but is sufficiently evident. Prof. Gavin Kennedy, Edinburgh, writes : ( his blog ‘ The lost legacy of Adam Smith)
‘The theory of evolution is remarkably compatible with free enterprise economics, especially regarding the ‘invisible hand’.” .  Capitalism also stands for the ideology that when every one looks after his own life well, concentrating on ‘self-interest’, society as a whole will attain affluence and welfare, and it is nature’s own way of living together !

Life is looked at as an exclusive affair of one’e hard-work, determination and will power. To let the other person, or country gaining strength and progress over you is the only threat that you have to stop happening from.  A persistent holding on to the above life principles would only see one’s surviving in  existence ! A fear of the other is, thus,an integral part of life with the above life principle.

Every young boy and girl gets lessons of this survival techniques first from the parents themselves at homes.The vital necessity of outsmarting the other in every aspect of life ! Schools reiterate these values in a different way. They hold imagery of high success in life before the students, and ask them to strive for it at all cost. Every student is asked to develop leadership qualities.

 Moral and ethical lessons being taught by religions and educationalists at schools do not find fruit, as both are contradictory at root and application. With these life principles at the root of our contemporary human society, life and values of men on the street is obviously not much different from our old jungle days, at least in its base elements.

It appears that modern man aspires to be more animal like for better survival chances, than adopting civilization and its inherent ‘weakness’ ! Animal is more uncompromisingly ‘ends-oriented ‘ in all respect. Nothing to deter it from achieving its biological instincts ! The instinctual system of animals are more stronger than that of man for survival !

The unfortunate aspect is that, man’s contemporary knowledge system does not recognize and accept his distinct and clear higher instincts that compel him for civilization, reverence for life, and carrying life into higher pedestals ! The recognition is only about a life that aims at plain survival, thanks to the economic system of capitalism, and the old Dogma of the ‘survival of the fittest’.

Every talk of civilization, especially being good and considerate to others, hence, is stark pretension in the modern world. Modern world looks upon men who talk about knowledge and civilization with contempt. Those who are engaged in such pursuits are considered as useless and unworthy. 

No one in the contemporary world could believe that man indeed has rational and natural aspirations for engaging in activities free of any personal gain !

Any talk of mutually contributing social life, hence, often met with ridicule from the mainstream society. It still believe that despite the heights the celebrated human civilization has traveled, at base we are all still self-competing brutes ! 

Hence, our more enlightened future generations will not have any hesitation in branding our age another extension of the ‘dark ages’ ! Our age shows a real tendency to go back to man’s animal roots.