The Tautology of “Survival of the Fittest”

10,084 characters2006.10.04

Having read popular works on neo-Darwinism such as *The Blind Watchmaker*, *River out of Eden*, and *Who Is the Creator?*, as well as other excellent popular books on evolution such as *A Long Argument*, *What Is Evolution?*, and *The History of Evolutionary Thought*, and also anti-Darwinist books such as *Darwin’s Black Box*, *The Darwinian Trial*, and *Icons of Evolution*, I have not become an anti-evolutionist. However, evolution theory, and people’s understanding of evolution theory, do indeed have many problems.

First, evolution theory contains many different claims, and those claims are not unified even among evolutionists; there are many kinds of evolutionary doctrine, and Darwinism is only one of them.

Second, evolution theory is still far from being a sufficiently mature science; many key theoretical problems remain to be solved. Anti-evolutionist views are by no means too foolish to be dismissed out of hand.

Within the ranks of evolutionists, besides neo-Darwinism, there are, for example, the “punctuated equilibrium” theory represented by Gould, corresponding to Darwinism’s claim of “slow gradual change”; and there are also approaches represented by Margulis that emphasize “mutualistic symbiosis,” corresponding to the stress on brutal competition and survival of the fittest, and so on. But in the view of neo-Darwinists like Dawkins, only their neo-Darwinism is the one and only scientific evolution theory.

Among anti-evolutionists, religion is certainly the traditional and important influence; however, this does not mean that anti-evolutionists are scientifically worthless. Anti-evolutionist scientists mainly come from fields such as geology, paleontology, and biochemistry, and in these fields Darwinist explanations are sometimes forced and lacking in evidence, not enough to be convincing. To raise questions about them is by no means to be making a fuss for no reason.

The biggest problem with Darwinism is this: it lacks evidence. Ordinary people often take it for granted that the excavation of large numbers of ancient fossils is not the most eloquent evidence? But if that were really so, then why do the most criticism of Darwinism in science come precisely from paleontology?

The excavation of abundant paleontological fossils can indeed eloquently prove that ancient organisms were “different” from modern ones. But that is not enough to further demonstrate what the process and laws of biological evolution actually were. As for the “differences” between ancient and modern organisms, catastrophism, mutationism, and even multiple creationism can all explain them. Darwinist evolution theory, however, holds that organisms, through extremely tiny mutations, under the guidance of “natural selection,” preserve those mutations that are more suited to the environment, accumulate them slowly, and after a long span of time evolve into new species. Yet this claim of slow accumulation lacks sufficient fossil evidence, and up to now not a single irrefutable “transitional form” has been produced. For example, people generally take the “Archaeopteryx” to be a transitional form between dinosaurs and birds, but even this identification is now suspected by many to be too arbitrary. In addition, the Cambrian explosion of species cannot be well explained either—the Darwinist explanation is that the so-called “explosion” is still the product of slow gradual change, only because geological time is so remote, the fossil materials are insufficient, and so on, we have not been able to see the process by which these species gradually formed. Such an explanation is of course quite reasonable, but it makes Darwinism unfalsifiable in paleontology—when there is no evidence, the matter is dismissed as insufficient fossil material.

Darwinism believes that the similarity in form among different organisms is caused by their kinship; if one does not acknowledge evolution theory, then how can one explain the similarities among organisms? In fact, even the doctrine of God’s creation of the world can explain these similarities among organisms, since if human form is an imitation of God, then it is of course easy to imagine imitations among other animals as well. Darwinism, however, goes a step further and infers kinship from organisms’ forms in reverse. Such an inference has certainly been confirmed many times by the fossil record, but there have also been many awkward moments: from an organism’s form one infers that A is the ancestor of B, yet more excavated fossil materials show that B lived before A… Darwinists of course do not admit that this is “falsification”; they can find all sorts of reasons to re-explain things better. In short, it is difficult to falsify.

Many experiments carried out in reality and regarded as supporting natural selection theory are not without problems either. For example, the famous peppered moth, either black or white, has now also been pointed out by many to be a forced interpretation. In addition, the problem of the origin of life has always been a major difficulty. The discovery of DNA provided enormous support for evolution theory, but it is still not decisive. The wondrous origin of DNA itself then became another problem, so much so that Crick, one of the discoverers of DNA, speculated in his later years that the original DNA came from extraterrestrial meteorites. In addition, cell biology has also raised some new problems for biological evolution, such as the origins of mitochondria and chloroplasts.

Although these objections are not enough to shake, let alone overthrow, Darwinist evolution theory, we should make it clear that evolution theory is still a theory that needs to be improved and is not an iron law beyond doubt.

What is more worthy of attention is the influence of evolution theory outside science. The concept of “evolution” first became popular thanks to the agitation of the sociologist Spencer, and from that time on, the “evolution” understood by sociologists has been very different from the evolution spoken of by biologists (Darwin himself emphasized more the directionless “development”). The word evolution was from the beginning always prone to distortion and abuse by sociologists.

“Survival of the fittest, the survival of the superior and elimination of the inferior” is one of the concepts in evolution theory that has been introduced most disastrously into the social sciences; this concept has given genocidists a theoretical backing. Leaving aside for the moment whether it is appropriate to transplant biological concepts into human society and history, first, from the standpoint of biological evolution theory itself, what exactly does the slogan “survival of the fittest” mean?

“Survival of the fittest” is a typical “tautology” in Darwinism. First, Darwinism says: those most adapted to the environment will be more likely to survive, while the unfit will be excluded and eliminated; this is what is called “natural selection.” But what counts as being adapted to the environment? What is the criterion for judging a species as “fit”? Very simple: the strongest in terms of ability to survive is the fittest; that is to say, the so-called fit are those species that are most likely to survive… Survivors are the fit, and the fit are the survivors—isn’t that a tautology? This slogan cannot be falsified, because whenever one sees a species eliminated, one can simply identify it as “unfit.” Thus, the slogan “survival of the fittest” contains no scientific proposition at all; it merely expresses an understanding of a certain word (“fit”). It contains something of a certain “idea,” contains a value orientation: those who survive are the fit, the superior. There is no need to lament those who go extinct, because they went extinct because they were “weak”! The destruction of an ancient civilization by brutal barbarians is not all that worthy of sympathy, because elimination can only prove unfitness; only survivors are the victors.

We see that the phrase “survival of the fittest” is utterly meaningless in science—it is merely a tautology. It is a slogan outside science, and its significance lies in changing people’s standards for evaluating “adaptation” and “superiority”—“survival” is everything! You may believe in “survival of the fittest,” but what must be made clear is that the slogan you believe in is by no means a proposition coming from “science.”

2006-10-04