Who Cares? The Philosophical Implications of Evolution

    Our government and our public education system today operate on the twin premises that the theory of evolution has been proven, and that God, if he exists, is both irrelevant and illegal in the public square.  Evolution itself is built upon the following premises: Matter is supreme, for it is eternal; random mistakes (mutations) are good, for they manufacture change; random change is beneficial, for it inevitably fosters improvement through the mechanism of survival of the fittest over time; and time is essential – because evolution requires eons of time to bring about the conditions we observe today.  People who promote this paradigm demand, however, that I make enormous leaps of faith.  They expect me to believe that at least one explosion, The Big Bang, was creative, not destructive; that life has accidentally sprung from non-life; that intelligence has accidentally evolved from non-intelligence; that random chance has mutated into purposefulness and design; and that inert matter has magically produced conscience and a sense of right and wrong.  I’m sorry, but I don’t have that much faith, and faith sounds too much like religion to me, which is supposed to be off-limits.

    So let’s cut out the faith stuff and consider the logical implications of evolution.  Friedrich Nietzsche, nineteenth century German philosopher, spoke eloquently when he said that if evolution is true, the noblest human emotion is hate, in keeping with survival of the fittest.  I agree with Nietzsche.  If evolution is true, then the most important thing I can do is survive.  So I am justified in eliminating any obstacles to my survival, whether they be plants, animals, or other humans.  If survival of the fittest is the engine of progress, then why build hospitals or educate doctors?  Who cares?  Let the unfit sick with their poorly developed immune systems die!  They are merely a drag on upward mobility.

    And don’t preach to me about recycling, about preserving our earth, keeping it suitable for us humans.  That sounds too much like narcissistic morality.  Who do we think we are to prevent inexorable progress?  Let the next specie, superior to our own, evolve!  I’m sure some life form will evolve which thrives on eating unrecycled aluminum cans and plastic bags, and is impervious to lead paint and carbon monoxide.

    And don’t preach to me about tolerance, either.  How do you get tolerance out of carbon, hydrogen, oxygen, and nitrogen?  There is no right or wrong, only survival, so the ultimate good is power.  I want to maximize my power so I survive and my enemies don’t.