Author: Sofie Zhao
In Back to Methuselah, Bernard Shaw criticized Darwin's theory of the origin of species as "a ghastly and damnable reduction of beauty and intelligence, of honor and aspiration, to such casually picturesque changes as an avalanche may make in a mountain landscape." It is interesting that he mentions honor, and indeed the idea that in the phrase "survival of the fittest" represents the law of nature is the root cause of many unjust in society. This is the ideology that causes many men and women with ambitions to believe that the "end justifies the means," and that if they don't first become the predator, then they will become the prey. In the minds of these ruling predators, honor may not play a role in their decision making processes.
The notion that Darwinism is scientifically proven is itself questionable. Usually the scientific method refers to techniques for investigating phenomena based on the gathering of measurable data. However over the years there have been many cases in which scientific results do not support neo-Darwinism claims. For instance, neo-Darwinists may claim that modern discoveries of molecular biology supported their theory and that if you analyze the DNA of plants and animals one would find how closely they are related. However Darwinism has not explained why there are more than 3000 species of frogs, all of which look superficially the same. But there is a greater variation of DNA between than there is between the bat and the blue whale (Milton). In addition, if neo-Darwinist's idea of gradual genetic change were true, then one would expect to find that simple organisms have simpler DNA than complex organisms. However while human DNA is contained in 23 pairs of chromosomes, the goldfish DNA is contained is 47 pairs, more than twice as many (Pauli). In reality, scientific data does not support neo-Darwinist theory.
If Darwinism is not a proven scientific fact, why is it being endorsed in schools and in society as the predominated theory of human origin? Not only so, but any debates of Darwinism through mainstream media have been reported to be forbidden, except for some religious outlets where Darwinism is pitched against creationism, another pseudo science. To understand why Darwinism has been so successful even though it is not a scientifically proven concept, one must understand that Darwinism is of major importance to the ruling class of the society. The idea of "survival of the fittest" has been applied to the so called social Darwinism, in which strong leaders has justification to "enslave" other weaker human beings. Social Darwinism is also the foundation of the eugenics movement, in which "survival of the fittest" justifies the manipulation of genetic composition of a population, or in the extreme case the extermination of an unwanted gene pool. A real life example of such a eugenics program was the holocaust. It is also interesting to note that Darwin himself was a proponent of eugenics, which is why he married his own cousin, Emma Wedgwood, for the purpose of bloodline breeding.
By convincing the general population that human civilization is just a chance occurrence through evolution or natural selection, the ruling class has in a way suppressed the population's spiritual development. By giving the population amnesia of the history of the species, and suppressing any debates of the true story of human origin, the population's minds have been numbed. Having forgotten about our spirituality, the population is more docile. The weak will quietly accept the ruling of the strong when they believe that it is the natural order of life.