http://www.sobran.com/columns/2005/051229.shtml



Is Darwin Holy?

http://www.sobran.com/columns/2005/051229.shtml



Is Darwin Holy?

http://www.sobran.com/columns/2005/051229.shtml

Is Darwin Holy?

Joseph Sobran

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.

http://www.sobran.com/columns/2005/051229.shtml



Is Darwin Holy?

http://www.sobran.com/columns/2005/051229.shtml



Is Darwin Holy?

Is Darwin Holy?

http://www.sobran.com/columns/2005/051229.shtml



Is Darwin Holy?

http://www.sobran.com/columns/2005/051229.shtml



Is Darwin Holy?

Joseph Sobran



December 29, 2005


"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?

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.