evolutionary mechanism known as natural selection.nThe mathematical analysis carried out by R. A. Fisher innthe late 1920’s made natural selection appear in a lessnunfavorable light. Of course, no mathematics could providenin the first place the reality of cobreeding individuals whosentotality is the species. The reality of species has not ceasednto remain a pointer to a fundamental question in philosophy,nnamely, the ability of the mind to see the universal innthe individual and particular. It was with an eye on such anquestion that a philosopher of science, with obvious sympathynfor Darwinism but with a rank miscomprehension ofnmetaphysics, proposed in the early 1970’s the working outnof a biological metaphysics!nThe proposal was typical of the thinking of those Darwinistsnwho try to stake out a “humanist” position that affirmsnmaterialism with profuse accolades to human values. It isnthat “humanist” form of Darwinist materialism that alonenshould be of concern to Christians who take their stand onnthe eternal alidity of alues, among them the alue ofnbrotherly loe. In that “humanist” form brotherly love isne”oked through despiritualized labels such as “kinselection”nand “altruism,” lest the unwar)- be alerted to thenfact that beneath the Darwinian guise of humanness therenlurks a “scientific materialism as the best myth humankindnmay eer hae.”nThat “humanism” ought to be unmasked at regularninterals, a task which is essentialh’ philosophical. Onlynwith some philosophical acumen and a great deal ofncommon sense can one show that the reasoning of Darwinistsnis either contradictory, or simply a tacit assumption ofnbasic realities the’ tr- to disproe and discredit. Amongnthese basic realities are mind, purpose, and ethical principles.nThat the’ cannot be accounted for within Darwinistnperspectives has time and again been admitted by leadingnDarwinists.nTo be sure, only a few of them did come across asncandidly as did T.H. Huxley a hundred years ago when henwarned against seeing a “moral flavour” in the survival ofnthe fittest. Only a few of them admitted as candidly as didnHuxley’s grandson. Sir Andrew Huxley, that no scientificnclue has >’et emerged for the origin of consciousness. Henalso stated in the same breath that the origin of life is still annunsoKed problem.nMost Darwinists have done their best to create thenillusion that there is no major fault with Darwinism. Yet thenfact is that the empirical evidence for the transformation ofnspecies under environmental pressure is still circumstantial.nThe measure of effectiveness that can be attributed to thensame mechanism diminishes in the measure in which onenconsiders the transition between ever-larger biologicalngroups, from genera through families, orders, classes, tonphyla and kingdoms.nNone of these remarks should be construed as a rejectionnof the chief merit of Darwinism, which in fact assures itsngenuine scientific status. By ignoring all considerations ofndesign and purpose as being possibly at work in livingnorganisms, Darwinists cultivate biology as a science whichndeals only with empirical data and their correlations in thenspace-time continuum.nUnfortunately, the chief glory of Darwinistic biology hasnalso become its chief delusion. The methodical eliminationnnnof questions about the reality of design and purpose hasnbeen taken by many Darwinists as a proof that design andnpurpose do not exist. The miscomprehension about thenlimitations of the scientific method also plagues manynChristians who expect science to deliver proofs of designnand purpose. They fail to see that such proofs can onlyncome from that philosophy which they all too oftennconsider an enemy of faith. Once they lose their hold onnphilosophy they can at best come up with poetry in prose, asnillustrated by Teilhard de Chardin’s flights of fancy.nFather Teilhard could do far worse. In the trenches ofnWorld War I, where he served as a stretcher bearer, henwrote glowing encomiums on the war as an unsurpassednmeans of promoting the heroic qualities of the race. It couldnnot be unknown to him that several members of thenGerman General Staff had some years earlier publishednbooks in which their war plans were justified on the samenDarwinist grounds. Nor could the two volumes of Darwin’snletters published in 1890 be unknown to young FathernTeilhard, a pro’minent supporter of the Piltdown man andnother Darwinist causes. Those volumes contained theneidence that Darwin believed that evolution justified thenRussians promoting the higher race by smashing the Turkishnarmies.nIt is not known what Father Teilhard’s reactions uere tonShaw’s preface to his Heartbreak House, published in thenwake of World War I. In that war, machine guns (producednand marketed with sales-pitches reminiscent of Darwinistnmottos) performed time and again as effectieh’ in a fewhours’ntime as did the bombs that fell on Nagasaki andnHiroshima in a second or two. In that preface Shawnpinpointed “Anglosaxon” Darwinism as a chief ideologicalnsource of Prussian militarism: “We taught Prussia thisnreligion; and Prussia bettered our instructions so effectivelynthat we presentiy found ourseh’es confronted with thennecessity of destroying Prussia to prevent Prussia fromndestroying us. And that has just ended in each destroyingnthe other to an extent doubtfully reparable in our time.”nOf course, most Darwinists try to find refuge in circumlocutionsnor in sullen silence when reminded of the truennature of their ideology. In doing so they merely imitatenDarwin, who from the comfort of his gentry residencenlargely ignored Marx when the latter reminded him thatnclass struggle and the struggle for life had much in common.nThe “humanization” of Darwinism is a far greaternthreat to human well-being—intellectual, ethical, andnspiritual—than are outspoken endorsements of war bynprominent Darwinists such as Sir Arthur Keith. His praisesnof the pruning effect of wars, which coincided with Stalin’snand Hider’s preparations for World War II, may sober upndreamy-eyed captives to the myth of progress, biological,ncultural, and ethical, defined in terms of Darwiniannevolution.nOnly a few among those dreamers were as candid asnAldous Huxley, who attributed the favorable receptionngiven Darwinism to the liberation through it from transcendentnethical and sexual norrns. Only a few woke up asnhe did to the need to take a searching look at the wordnevolution.nEvolution should deserve no sympathy if it serves as anproof that something can come out from where it had notnAUGUST 1986 /17n