In Stalin’s Russia, we had at school a special class called “Darwinism,” since Charles Darwin has explained “the origin of species scientifically,” in contrast to "Christian and other religious fairy tales," according to Soviet propaganda.
The universe, as we can see it through telescopes, is a vast machine of many machines, and our solar system is one of them. And on our Earth, which is a tiny speck in the solar system, there are even tinier bits of life, some of which grow from the Earth, while others move about, and both produce life, similar to their own, unless they die too soon.
According to Darwin, those fit for survival stay alive longer and produce progeny, and those who are not fit for survival die out without progeny. In short, the survival of the fittest is at the basis of evolution.
But our Earth exists without its struggle for survival, while a microbe on its surface is to struggle for survival and perhaps perish without progeny.
The more complex an organism becomes in evolution, the less (not more!) survivable it often becomes, since it is more complicated. While microbes multiply, monkeys may be dying out, since they have all the vulnerabilities of complex organisms, and no survivability of microbes.
Here we run into an implausible tenet of Darwin’s theory: his assertion that “being fittest” is the driving force in the struggle for survival.
Many animals and plants become more complex as they become fit for survival. Certainly this organic complexity can make them perishable. Fingernails or bones are more perishable than stones or other inorganic substances.
However, organisms do not consist of fingernails and bones only, and further evolution of an animal or plant may lead to its extinction.
It is not impossible that the world human power will transcend again to the most ruthless chieftains of slave states, who will annihilate all enemies of their global power.
When Darwin published his “On the Origin of Species” 150 years ago, he failed to predict the appearance in the next century of Stalin’s Russia, Hitler’s Germany, or Mao’s China. But no one today can deny their appearance.
Considering the history of the past millennia, we have to conclude that unlike the evolution of animals or plants, the human progress follows not from the survival of the fittest, but from humanized culture, which may have run counter to the evolution due to the survival of the fittest.
Indeed, the epochs which advanced human beings were the epochs remembered for their men and women of genius. It is impossible to identify those epochs with the evolution of animals or of the murderous savages of slave states, that is, humanoid animals.
About 150 years ago, accepted for the science studying human beings was the science that took a human being for an animal, with its evolution due to the survival of the fittest. But people of genius did appear, contrary to the survival of the fittest, as long as there was social freedom for them, and the murderous humanoid savages were kept at bay.
Darwin lived in England at a time when few foresaw Hitler in Germany, a country distinguished by its music, literature, and philosophy.
Human beings, domestic animals, and flowers in gardens and fields seemed to belong to the same realm of the evolution, with its survival of the fittest.
I wonder what would be Darwin’s reaction in the 21st century if the globe had been reduced to a disorderly graveyard, except for its best buildings preserved for the “superior race” — the Chinese.
But even if Darwin applied his survival of the fittest theory to all organisms except humans, it is impossible to believe that the primates, such as monkeys, would become so advanced, compared with their extinct ancestors, just because so many monkeys died in the struggle for survival.
Nor would Darwin’s selection of the fittest be more convincing for the students of Darwin if they knew that the progress of human beings, which Darwin observed (in England), would be followed in the 20th century by a horrible regress of humankind in Stalin’s Russia, Hitler’s Germany, and Mao’s China, and this regress may yet become global.
Darwin’s book essentially refers to the England of his time. But what about the universe as far as it can be hypothesized from what is known in our cubicle of its vastness (infinity?)?
On our Earth, the physical, mineral, inorganic processes preceded the origin of the organic processes. Is this a ubiquitous universal law?
If it is not, there may be different origins of organic processes of life. It should always be remembered that our universe may be infinitely small, compared with certain infinite spaces unknown to us and hence replete with a kind of life that we cannot imagine.
In our universe everything is finite, and infinity is an abstraction, which cannot be experienced, since no one can travel from A to B for an infinitely long time exceeding the duration of his or her life.
However, it is also useful to take a human view of the “history of life” — with its spiritual and material progress and then its nightmarish regions of state slavery in some countries in the 20th century.
Let us recall the genius in the spiritual life in the centuries preceding the 20th century while today’s sinister possibility threatens that all humankind will be seized by the slave state — in China!
Darwin ignored the influence of human history on evolution. Actually, human history changes the evolution of human beings themselves.
The final evolution may be the end of human life or a universal slave state.
Certainly the evolution that Darwin described is subordinate to these global changes. He lived in the 19th century, good old times for England, when his evolution could be directed by him clearly and prominently. But human history is not always so good for his kind of science, and far greater and infinitely more sinister changes may be in stock for the evolution than those that Darwin studied and made known.
You can e-mail me at firstname.lastname@example.org.
© 2013 Newsmax. All rights reserved.