Compassion: an Anti-Evolution Argument

In Mere Christianity, C. S. Lewis argues that the fact we have a values system means there is a God. It goes something like this: if you step on my toes accidentally, you probably apologize. Why? Because you violated a right I have to not have my toes stepped on. But where did that right come from? Also, if I am on a bus and have already sat down and you demand my seat, I am upset; but if I get on the bus and you are already in my favorite seat, I have no issue because you were there first. Where did this logic come from? Because it makes no sense in a godless world, there must be a god.

One of the main arguments for Christianity over evolution has sprung from this: where our laws came from. Evolutionists would argue that our laws are in place as safeguards for the populace. No one wants to be murdered, so we deny ourselves the right to murder in exchange for distinctly lowering the possibility we will be murdered. And many animals get upset if you do something that hurts them (an equivalent of stepping on toes), so this is a hereditary trait in most creatures as self-preservation and not indicative of God at all.

My point in this post is not to argue one over the other, since the same laws, more or less, could have come from either viewpoint. No, I'm going to argue that the fact that we have laws at all is against all evolutionary principles. Going even further, the fact that we have compassion is, to me, the key anti-evolutionary argument from our social behavior.

Dealing with the law first, evolution states that it is survival of the fittest. Fittest doesn't necessarily mean strongest, most dangerous, biggest, or fastest. It can mean best disguised, hardest to reach, most virile, most adaptable, or smartest, too. In all cases, though, any creature better suited to survive has the right to prey on lesser suited creature, hunting them to extinction. Even among members of the same species, this law holds true.

Most people know that every wolf pack has an alpha male running it. The way to become the alpha male is by killing the alpha male. An alpha male is rewarded for his strength, cunning, and ferocity by getting his pick of the females, the first right to food, and leadership of the pack. In our society, someone who killed the President would be shot, not rewarded. We have suspended survival of the fittest in our culture. Our laws are not there to reward the strong, but to protect the weak from them. You can't steal from anyone, can't kill anyone, can't rape anyone, can't beat anyone to a pulp because they are simply in your way, and can't force them at gunpoint to do what you want. Our laws help the weak to survive.

I'm not for a second advocating a change in the laws to make them more evolutionary; I'm merely pointing out that the evolutionists are only alive to make their argument for evolution because of laws distinctly anti-evolutionary.

Perhaps what is even more amazing is that there is compassion for those who are weaker. It is not simply that some people who were physically weaker, but had power for whatever reason, decided to protect themselves and then the laws carried down through history; it is that there is a genuine concern in many of us for the poor and mistreated. You don't hear anyone say that a wife who's been beaten deserved it simply because she wasn't as strong as the man. You don't hear anyone say that a terminal cancer patient deserves to die because their DNA isn't cancer-resistant. And if we truly believed in the validity of evolution, we would not consider Hitler one of the greatest war criminals in history.

Our compassion doesn't even extend only to humans. When I was a boy, we found birds with broken wings twice and a couple times, we found nests that had been abandoned by the parents with eggs still in them. We would put the birds or eggs in a shoebox and take them back to the garage, where we would do what we could to nurse them to health. While our efforts were not always successful, we actually cared about these birds that, according to evolutionary principle, should have been left to live or die on their own.

Even animals have some compassion. There is a well-documented case of a dog nursing tiger cubs (and numerous cases where dogs have adopted kittens, ducklings, and other baby animals) and there are many cases of dogs starving to death at their dead masters' feet rather than devour their masters to save themselves. Dolphins have been observed swimming under injured animals for hours at a time and pushing them to the surface so they can breathe. Some termites sacrifice themselves to protect the young from ants by rupturing a gland in their throats, releasing a sticky solution that creates a tar baby effect. In the last case, it may be argued that it is for the survival of the colony overall, but even that is anti-evolutionary as it is the weak surviving rather than the strong. In any event, there is no evolutionary explanation for the first two.

Where the law came from can be explained from either a theological or evolutionary standpoint, but the fact that there are laws is anti-evolutionary by nature. Even more so, the fact that we care about others and even creatures outside our own species is even more so.

As a last parting thought, it is interesting to note that the animals considered higher up on the food chain are generally those more likely to be compassionate for others. Instead of getting "fitter", those creatures who have supposedly fought to the current pinnacle of evolution have gotten nicer. So smile today on someone who is having a rough time; by doing so, you may brighten their day and throw a shadow of doubt across evolution.