Darwinism and Some Contemporary Moral Problems

Darwinism and Catholicism are not necessarily incompatible; but when Darwinism is applied to human life in this day and age, it does present moral incompatibilities. The average Darwinist, for example, tends to be more socially liberal, and thus to be in support of such activities as abortion, contraception, and homosexual behavior. What impact should Darwinism have on these moral questions?

I don’t intend to offer a definitive answer to this question; I only intend to offer a little food for thought. We’ll take, as a paradigmatic example, homosexuality. We can approach this question in two ways: the religious way, and the nonreligious way; that is, the Darwinist way. We’ll approach it the religious way (the correct way) first.

The answer is easy here: if homosexuality is genetic, then it’s a result of the corruption of genes, the same way that albinoism or sickle-cell anemia is. It’s a mistake, a problem, due to original sin and the corruption of human nature that original sin caused. We all have such corruptions to a greater or lesser extent; it would not surprise me to learn that among these corruptions, in some people, is a genetic switch that turns their sexual desires on their heads. If, on the other hand, homosexuality is not genetic, then it’s a deliberate choice, a product of conditioning, or both. In either case, it’s clearly a corruption of the natural sexual desires, and a sin. I believe the truth to be somewhere in the middle here; for some homosexuals, the desire is genetic, while for others it’s by choice, for others it’s by conditioning, and doubtlessly for others it’s brought about by some other condition. I don’t see what difference it makes; no matter where the desire comes from, living out the desire is immoral. The desire for too much food is also often inborn; it’s still sinful to eat too much.

Next, we’ll look at it from a Darwinist perspective. Remember that, if we believe in evolution, reproduction is the end goal here; we want to spread our genes to as many descendants as possible. That’s how fitness is measured: the spreading of the genes. That which does not pass down its genes is unfit; it does not survive, and by not surviving it strengthens the species as a whole. Sometimes, whole species fail; this is good, because it makes room for more fit species to arrive, as the dinosaurs made room for the mammals millions of years ago.

From this perspective, we can ask, is homosexuality genetic? Without specifically studying the genes themselves, we can’t answer this question; but we can say, “Probably not.” For how would such genes have been passed down? Perhaps some homosexual behavior is genetic; but some normal, heterosexual intercourse would be necessary for the genes to be passed down. So even if homosexual behavior is genetic (or genetically neutral), exclusive homosexuality is most probably not genetic, because it would be impossible for genes encoding such exclusive homosexuality to persist more than a generation. Furthermore, we can say that partial homosexuality, or “bisexuality,” is probably also not genetic, except perhaps in cases when no females are available. For homosexual behavior in other instances would distract attention and energy from the pursuit of female (and thus gene-passing) mates. So while we can’t say definitively, we can certainly say that genetic homosexuality seems unlikely, while genetic exclusive homosexuality seems particularly so.

Having answered that, we can ask: is homosexual behavior moral? Well, if we define morality as “conducive to a proper end” (as traditional Catholic moral philosophy defines it as “conducive to eternal salvation”), then we can clearly say that no, homosexual behavior is clearly not moral. Evolution, of course, occurs with no particular end in mind; it just naturally and unconsciously selects the most fit for survival. But every creature clearly desires to survive and pass on its genes, or else natural selection doesn’t work at all. So man naturally desires to survive and pass on his genes; but homosexual behavior inhibits or prevents that. Exclusively homosexual behavior makes it impossible to pass on the genes; it is thus immoral to engage in such behavior. Nonexclusively homosexual behavior, on the other hand, makes it harder to find and secure a suitable female mate, if only because it takes up valuable time. Therefore, homosexual behavior is immoral whether it is exclusive or not; but even more so if it’s exclusive.

Abortion can be analyzed in the same way; so can contraception. In both cases, the Darwinist must find that they are immoral because they are contrary to the natural desire of all creatures to survive and to pass on its genes. So the Darwinist who supports using condoms and encouraging people to be homosexual must take one of two tracts in this support:

1. Argue that Darwinism is no longer applicable to man, since we’ve surpassed the necessity for natural selection.
2. Alter Darwinism to allow for some bigger picture.

In the first case, if Darwinism is no longer applicable to man, then what is? Christianity is just as valid an answer to all the questions that the Darwinist attempts to answer through appeals to our instincts and our evolution. There is no reason to favor a more liberal over a more traditional approach to moral questions in this case.

In the second case, some Darwinists will claim that natural selection now demands us to consider the future of our whole species, threatened by overpopulation or destruction of the natural environment or some similar bogeyman which demands that we immediately moderate our natural desires for individual procreation. But since when has natural selection involved a species loyalty? Natural selection is about survival of the fittest individuals, not about the survival of the fittest species. Indeed, the fittest individuals often develop into new species precisely because they were fitter than the other members of their species. If people die or fail to reproduce because they were unable to procure food or other essential resources due to overpopulation or other hardship, then it’s because they were not as fit as those that survived. That’s how natural selection works; survival of the fittest. To attempt to save the whole species rather than the fittest individuals thereof throws a monkey wrench into the operation of this natural law.

As a practical matter, though, most liberal Darwinists just punt at this point. It’s a matter for freedom, individual choice. But that doesn’t answer the question. It answers the question of whether individuals should be compelled to certain behavior, and whether certain behavior should be punished (even if it sometimes answers it wrongly). But that’s not what we’re asking here. We’re asking if such behaviors are moral, not whether they are legal. And the bottom line is that Darwinism, and naturalism in general, has no real answer to that.

The real answer, the only intellectually satisfying answer, is to stop worrying about where man’s body might have come from and to start worrying about what man is. Man is a rational animal with a definite end, namely his happiness, which is an activity of the soul in accordance with virtue in a complete life. With the advent of Christ, we are able to know even more specifically that this activity of the soul itself must be directed toward eternal salvation. That which is conducive to salvation is moral; that which is not, is immoral. That is the truth that we all must come to know.

Praise be to Christ the King!