It is a field of science. Some might say it is even science itself; that it is the entire universe regarded historically. That it compromises inorganic, organic and psycho-social changes and progress (J. Huxley)
That is has been.
Christians I know have called evolution a religion. I at first disagreed. But in some cases of the history of mankind, 19th and 20th century and even in our new century, it has been a religion for those that have lost faith in God.
A religion, as the word implies, is a re-link of man to his past and also to his possible future. It deals with the origins of men and the descent of man, and it views this history in a quite possitive manner, as a progression, from crude cave-dwellers evolving, changing and progressing into …us.
(and we kiss the mirror…)
But as with all religions, even this one based on “facts”, it is fertile for being improvised so that it means whatever the reader wishes that it would say. It’s premises are general enough to be specialized and condition ad hoc into political action.
Once, men killed others because they were of a different religion and their very existence dishonored the validity of their religion. The Gods have changed. They no longer live in far away heavens among virgins and nymphs…if that was ever the case. The gods live amongst us. And we are theirs because they are ours.
People, thinkers, philosophers, swept by evolutionary prospects can all be recognized by their naked aspirations to serve as self-fashioned prophets. These are men who have placed what formerly would have counted as a religious faith into science. What science otherwise suggest, for them, it reveals, demonstrates, informs them of.
And this gives them a foundation for a plan of action and also a blue print of those that will carry it, suggested, again, in evolution, in progress, in the history of the universe that has culminated in us (an J Huxley was one that confronted the criticism of anthropocentrism without blinking). They promote as the next step…themselves. Or they promote as almost there role models they accept as true.
I don’t mind people recommending this ideal or that, but it is fastidious when they do so after plastering others for their idealism.
Nietzsche came before the time was ready. The deed was done, and the God was dead and the question that needed answering was what shall take his place? What choice do we have but to raise up to the deed? What shall we create?
Another common feature of these progressive thinkers is their version of aristocracy. I used to call that “the priesthood”. Aristocracy is a tool they use to renounce debates and arguments altogether. Their truth is reserved only for the initiated. The rest stand in the shadows.
I don’t know. I am weary. Not because of the schemes run by religions including evolutionists, but because reason is not enough; because it is weak; because it is a slave and one might wish that he could retort to Huma that we live the life of reason; that we live that life which is worth living- the examined life. But when one glances to his past, his presents, one doubts that the future should change…in spite of the gospel given by the new priests and prophets.