|
|
|
|
Is Darwin Holy?
 “The
great sociologist of religion Emile
Durkheim called the contrast between the sacred and the profane the widest
and deepest of all contrasts the human mind is capable of making,”
wrote the late Robert Nisbet. “Everything
above  the
level of the
instinctual, Durkheim concluded, began in human veneration, awe, reverence
of the sacred — be it a god, spirit, grove of trees, or lake or stream.
Religion in the sense of gods, churches, liturgies, and bibles emerged in due
time from the primitive sacred essence. So did the rest of human culture,
its signs, symbols, words, drawings, and acts.”
A fascinating observation. I
happened to run across it while I was marveling at the curious evangelical
zeal of those who want Darwinism taught in the public schools but want to
ban the teaching of intelligent design. Why do they care so much? Apparently
nothing is holy, but Darwin is Holy Writ.
I used to believe in evolution
myself, but I took no joy in it. Who could? If atheism is true, then nothing
really matters — not even atheism. Even as a kid I could see that. In my
atheistic days I thought nothing quite as silly as the militant atheist. I loved
the story of Jesus and the Catholic Church, I regretted losing my faith, and I
couldn’t understand people who could be enthusiastic about living in a
cold, godless universe. I tried to make art — especially Shakespeare
and Beethoven — my consolation prizes for the religion I’d lost.
At least they made me feel as if I had a soul, even if the cheerless dogma of
Darwin said otherwise.
Then, as a young adult, I met two
astounding people who might as well have come straight from heaven on
wings of angels. They were my first two children. I could believe that the rest
of the human race, myself included, were accidents of mere matter, but it
was soon obvious to me that these two had immortal souls, and that I was
responsible for them. Life undeniably had a purpose after all — not
survival, but love.
It wasn’t just that I loved
these kids; far more important, God loved them and expected me to teach
them about his love. Not to do so would have been the worst form of neglect.
And in teaching them that God loved them, I realized that he loved me the
same way, and always had, even when I hadn’t thought about him and
denied his existence.
Now why would anyone want to
teach kids that they are ultimately worthless? I can see reluctantly believing
that, maybe. But teaching it eagerly?
![[Breaker quote for Is Darwin Holy?: What evolutionism can’t explain]](2005breakers/051229.gif) Modern
atheism, waving the banner of
Science, has the emotional character of a perverted religion, taking a morbid
pleasure in preaching and converting and, in its intolerance, demanding a
privileged place in education. This isn’t just “separation of
church and state” — two things that are separate by nature
anyway. The glee with which Darwinists attack and insult Christianity tells
you what they really want, and why the idea of evolution appeals to them.
Like its nineteenth-century twin,
Marxism, Darwinism demonstrates the profound truth of the adage that
misery loves company. Spoiled souls always want to spoil other souls, as the
drive for “sex education” also shows. If I can’t be
innocent, neither can you! “Ye shall be as gods.” The Lord and
the serpent both promise that the truth shall make us free, but one of them
is lying.
Survival isn’t the purpose
of life, just the necessary condition of finding its real purpose. The universal
sense of the sacred that Durkheim noted is separate from the urge to
survive, and often at war with it. Biology can’t explain the idea of the
holy, which we all share and, in varying degrees, understand, though nobody
fully comprehends it.
For Darwinism, the sense of the
sacred is just awkward excess baggage, possibly even a threat to survival.
After all, atheism’s only commandment is “Thou shalt
survive,” and from its perspective what could be more absurd than
sacrifice and martyrdom, losing your life in order to save it?
But denying a mystery is no way
to solve it, and we are stuck with the mystery of the human soul, which loves
all sorts of useless things, as long as they are true, or good, or beautiful.
Any philosophy that ignores our deepest loves is too crass to be interesting.
Joseph Sobran |
||
| Copyright © 2005 by the
Griffin Internet Syndicate, a division of Griffin Communications This column may not be reprinted in print or Internet publications without express permission of Griffin Internet Syndicate 
|
||
|
||
|
Archive Table of Contents
Current Column Return to the SOBRAN’S home page. |
||
|
|
| FGF E-Package columns by Joe Sobran, Sam Francis, Paul Gottfried, and others are available in a special e-mail subscription provided by the Fitzgerald Griffin Foundation. Click here for more information. |