I’m not about to enter into the creation debate. Personally, I believe it takes considerably more “faith” to posit a random, chaotic origin than it does to believe in a personal God who spoke everything into being. We could debate the issue but unless you are prepared to argue for the verifiability of inferential empiricism (the epistemological foundation of all current science) as something more than a probability that approaches zero (an inherent difficulty with verification), then we would be wasting our time. My disagreement with Darwin’s proposal is not rooted in the so-called inferential evidence. My objections are about the logic of such a proposal. But if you’re dying to argue the case, you can spend thirty years studying the philosophy of science (like I have) and then we’ll talk.

No, I don’t want to debate the creation issue. But I do want to point out some rather interesting problems with evolution as a social theory for I also believe that the carte blanche acceptance of evolution as an explanation of progress has deeply affected our thinking and, subsequently, driven us into an alley that clearly has (as Sartre would say) “no exit”.

To begin our inquiry we must ask the question, “What are the basic assumptions of evolutionary theory concerning progress?” The answer is straightforward. Systems (whether they are simple organisms or complex communities) that adapt survive. Those that do not adapt do not survive. Therefore, what exists presently on the planet must be occurrence of systems that were capable of adaptation or else, ipso facto, they would not exist. This simple assumption has the following corollaries. Surviving systems are of a higher order than failing systems. Those systems that exist in the world today are of superior quality and mechanism than the systems of the past since the systems of the past are now extinct. From this we may draw the conclusion that whatever exists presently is in some respect better than what has come before. This must be so since evolutionary theory requires that only the superior system remains in existence. Therefore, what is now is the best it could be.

Of course, today is not the end of the chain. Tomorrow’s systems will by a matter of logic be of a higher order than today’s systems simply because they will be in existence tomorrow. Evolutionary theory posits that as time progress what is inferior is bred out of the world. Since the world has not yet ended, we can therefore look forward to a better tomorrow. Voila. Utopia is just ahead (on a cosmic scale, of course).

When this logic is applied to microbes and amoebas, we might actually have some reason to imagine it to be true. After all, microbes do adapt to antibiotics. New strains survive. Old strains die. But a quantum leap occurs when such thinking is applied to the more complex systems of the world. This quantum leap has shocking implications, yet it seems to have become the acceptable raison d’etre of contemporary culture. With little appreciation for the dilemma it creates, the post modern world has adopted a social evolutionary theory that has propelled the entire world into a Sartrean alley.

What happens when the simple logic of evolution is applied to society and culture? First, of course, we must revise the expectation of progress. Evolution tells me that what now exists is superior to what used to exist. This is simply an inescapable result of the logic of evolutionary progress. What exists today, i.e. the shape and mores and values of the culture, must be the product of higher functioning because it is. Of course, today’s cultural systems will be replaced by tomorrow’s, but right now, this is as good as it gets.

What implications result from this new utopian logic?

First, we must note that the past, its history, people and societies are relegated to useless status. After all, they didn’t survive. What can we possible learn, much less apply, from people and societies that were the product of inferior adaptation? At best, all they can show us is how far we have progressed. At worst, they can be completely dismissed or, more likely, rewritten according to our enlightened understanding. Why should we want to learn anything from mistakes?

The consequences are obvious.

Ancient wisdom is nothing more than unenlightened mythology. Past history has nothing to tell us of contemporary worth. The previous generations are less capable, less informed, less insightful and less equipped than our generation. Previous social systems based on old morality have little if any relevance. Parents know less and are less competent than their children. Grandparents are further down the ladder of inadequacy and irrelevance. The moral values of the past generations are outdated and unenlightened. The understanding of the human beings in the world, their purpose, place and relationships must be based on the latest thinking, not on defective past constructions. The only hope of human kind is to be found in the future.

If you didn’t see the signs of this evolutionary theory in action, then you weren’t paying attention when Disney produced movies that systematically portrayed children as smarter and more capable than their parents, when the judiciary rewrote the law to fit the current cultural morals, when technology replaced relationships, when marriage between opposite sexes became a symbol of an antiquated morality, when sex as recreation was detached from ethical responsibility, when the church became a business instead of a change agent, when the Hollywood agenda became the politics of the land, when educational texts rewrote history to reflect political correctness. This list goes on and on. General Electric has no idea how relevant their motto was when they used to say, “Progress is our most important product.”

Buried in the implication of evolution as social theory is the shipwreck of society. Why? Because evolutionary utopian logic disconnects the culture from any and all of its past moorings. The culture is in a mad rush to seek meaning in the future, and, since the future is as yet unknown and unknowable, all stability due to historical precedent is demolished. Culture becomes a ship without rudder or anchor, adrift on the sea of change for the sake of change, going wherever the tides and winds take it. And since the sailors on this ship have thrown away the compass, they have no idea where they are going either.

What really happens when the culture adopts evolution as a social theory is the devolution of society. Amazingly, this is not our first encounter with such madness. Even in Biblical times, the prevailing culture flirted with letting go of the past. In those days, “every man did what was right in his own eyes”. If we weren’t so myopically fixated on the utopian future, we would know that the time of the judges in Israel was followed by social collapse, tyranny and captivity. But who reads history these days?

James Black, in his book When Nations Die, demonstrates that the collapse of great civilizations in human history have followed a fairly consistent pattern, from ancient Rome to post-modern Europe. In every case, traditions were abandoned for progress. Darwin did not invent the evolutionary model. It has been alive and well in the world’s greatest empires and in the world’s greatest failures. When economic systems, political systems, educational systems, social systems and religious systems become disconnected from an historical perspective and a traditional mooring, the society waivers, gasps and falls.

What is so interesting about this pattern is its fundamentally spiritual root. The shift to the utopian logic of evolution as a social theory cannot occur until men are released, by will or circumstance, from a higher authority that governs the world. This higher authority cannot rest in Law as conceived by the Greeks. That authority is nothing more than a refined summary of the will of the citizens. It is the expression of the polis, modified perhaps by enlightened cooperation, but ultimately dependent on the contemporary mores and values. As such, it must change as the will of the people (however one decides to define this term) changes. Today’s Western world judicial morass is a perfect example of the logical conclusion of such thinking. Without a philosopher king, the mob eventually rules.

The Hebrews, through no effort on their own, avoided this logical inevitability, at least until they too succumbed to the world’s system of government. They operated under a theocracy. God was the Law. That is to say, God did not simply reveal the Law. He was the figurative expression of the Law itself. In such a system, there is no court of appeals, no popular referendum, no impeachment, no recall. God’s word establishes the absolute boundaries of social and ethical behavior without exception. God’s word revealed to men becomes the final and absolute foundation of human expectation and social interaction. Quite simply, it does not progress. It is, as it is, perfect.

It is instructive to note that the Jewish orthodox culture has remained more or less intact through thousands of years while most other Indo-European cultures have gone through amazing metamorphosis and, in some cases, ceased to exist. I wonder if historians might not draw the conclusion that this resilience and constancy over time finds its explanation in the Hebrew’s spiritual commitment.

The God of the Bible claims an authority over the world that is antithetical to any evolutionary utopian logic. In Biblical terms, the world began perfect. Its present state of decay is the ironic conclusion of Man’s decision to usurp the order put in place by a perfect God. From this perspective, the world is not evolving. It is devolving. It is departing more and more from its intended and original form, destroying itself in its “progress” toward oblivion. Anyone with the slightest awareness of the history of human ethical behavior must agree that Man’s compassion for his fellow creatures and for the planet as a whole is rapidly moving toward entopic death.

In opposition to evolutionary logic, the Biblical view posits the need for a complete reconstruction of a presently doomed universe. Progress is not only our least important product, it is the very thing from whom the bell tolls.

We have touched on the judicial dilemma. The same can be said for economic enterprise. The current version of capitalism is fundamentally based on the presupposition of the right of gain. In its evolutionary model, the delivery of gain outweighs any consideration of cost unless and until the exploitation of the sources of supply prevent such exploitation. In other words, evolutionary theory says, “What survives is better than what does not survive. Therefore, if I consume the environment in order to survive, I have only exercised my right to prove that I am of a higher order.” This will continue until my use of the sources of gain cause me to not survive (a state that we are approaching). Aided by technology, the evolutionary progress of consumption expands wherever gain can be achieved. But as an example of the other side of the equation, we must take note of the diminishing of raw resources and of human capital. At some point, the quest for gain outstrips the resources and the system collapses.

The Biblical assumption under girding capitalism is fundamentally different. In the Biblical paradigm, gain is a function of stewardship and compassion. In other words, gain must reflect the character of the authority that I serve. I am not the owner, the possessor of resources. I am the caretaker acting on behalf of another. The authority specifically instructs me to “work” and “carefully watch over” the owner’s property. It is interesting that the two Hebrew words associated with this primal task of Man are words associated with worship and protection, concepts that are meaningless to a survival logic.

The analysis could go on. Education, family structure, social responsibility, ethical values, cultic behavior, political organization – all of these and more are affected by the shift from personal and divine higher authority to progressive and utopian success. We might usefully explore them, but the case for analysis has been made. The world faces two fundamentally opposed logical tracks. One proposes advancement as the sweeping solution to Man’s grief. The other points toward the past, asking us to come to grips with our own inhumanity. One tells us that the final meaning lies in the yet unknown. The other says that once we knew the truth and we lost it along the way. One posits belief in progression. The other claims authority in a Person.

There is a krisis before us. The Greek makes it clear. A turning point. A moment of decision. Will you opted for survival or submission? You can’t have both.