The Rise of Totalitarian Science

Darwin Day in America

Here’s a sad irony: as humans look more and more to science and evolution to give us answers for everything, we’ll look less and less human.

Listen Now | Download

John Stonestreet

Nowadays, the hottest dieting trend is something known as the “paleo diet.” People on the diet eliminate things like grains, dairy, sugar, and alcohol and, instead, go heavy on lean protein, fruits, nuts, and vegetables.

What sets the diet apart isn’t so much its specifics as its name. “Paleo” comes from Paleolithic, as in our hunter-gatherer ancestors. The appeal is that by bringing our eating habits into greater conformity with our evolution, we will be healthier as well as thinner.

I don’t know if it works, but what I do know is that its appeal to evolution as an authority is far from unique.

For instance, in 2010, the book “Sex at Dawn: The Prehistoric Origins of Modern Sexuality,” argued that those Paleolithic ancestors of ours not only ate differently from us, they also had different attitudes towards sex.daily_commentary_02_24_15

As author Christopher Ryan put it, our ancestors were “promiscuous.” He insists that “our ancestors probably had several different sexual relationships going on at any given moment.”

According to Ryan and his co-author, the idea of monogamous pair-bonding didn’t arise until the widespread adoption of agriculture, that same agriculture that the promoters of the “paleo diet” blame for our “unnatural” eating habits.

That prompts the question: is monogamy “unnatural?” While the authors don’t exactly advocate polyamory, they do give the would-be promiscuous an evolutionary pass. As Ryan told the TED Radio Hour, lust shouldn’t be regarded as one of the Seven Deadly Sins, or even as a sin at all.

What these two very different uses of evolution have in common is their appeal to evolution and science as the ultimate arbiters of how we should live, whether at the table or in the bedroom.

What’s more, they are two examples among many of how evolution is shaping our thinking about what it means to be human. In his outstanding book, “Darwin Day in America,” which has recently been updated and re-released, John West of the Discovery Institute chronicles “how our politics and culture have been dehumanized in the name of science.”

West writes that our understanding of science is “so totalistic in its outlook that its defenders claim the right to remake every sphere of human life from public policy and education to ethics and religion.”

Of course, this isn’t new. In the decades following the publication of “On the Origin of Species,” people like William Graham Sumner and Ernst Haeckel took that logic and applied it to economics through the so-called “struggle between the races.”

And of course eugenics, the horrible brainchild of Darwin’s cousin Francis Galton, would have been literally unimaginable without Darwinism.

Today, scarcely a month goes by without some aspect of human life being explained in Darwinian terms. One book, entitled “The Murderer Next Door,” explains—you guessed it—the human, especially male, propensity to commit murder as Richards Dawkins’ “selfish gene” at work.

On a much more whimsical note, men’s domination in Scrabble championships has also been explained in Darwinian terms.

At best, the dominance of Darwinism and scientism does an injustice to what it means to be human. At worst, as in the case of eugenics, it causes suffering on a massive scale.


Chuck Colson always said that to truly understand a particular worldview, you have to follow it to its logical conclusion. In “Darwin Day in America,” John West shows us exactly where Darwinism and totalitarian science are leading us—from human experimentation to population control and even to restriction of religion and free speech.

And, as always, our dignity as free moral agents made in God’s image to live lives worthy of our Creator is being sacrificed on this altar of a historically dehumanizing ideology.

Come to BreakPoint.org, click on this commentary, and I’ll link you to West’s very important book.

Further Reading and Information

The Rise of Totalitarian Science: Darwin Day in America
Check out the links below for more information on intelligent design and to get a copy of John West's "Darwin Day in America."


Darwin Day in America: How Our Politics and Culture Have Been Dehumanized in the Name of Science
John G. West | Intercollegiate Studies Institute | February 2015

John G. West
The Stream | February 2015

Intelligent Design: The Bridge Between Science & Theology
William Dembski | InterVarsity Press | August 2002

New Edition of Darwin Day in America Exposes the Rise of "Totalitarian Science" in the Age of Obama
Evolutionnews.org | February 9, 2015

Discovery Institute


Reply to SW
Maybe so, but my understanding is that the human race lived from the time of Adam to that of Darwin about 6,000 years (whether on a young or old Earth) without anyone even proposing or speculating about eugenics. Within about a century of Darwin eugenics was practiced in the Western world (in the U.S., at least, before Hitler rose to power). Do you really think that this is coincidental?
Not Science, but Speculation
It troubles me when commentators, even if inadvertently, create the impression that it is Christianity vs. Science.

Science is but the study of the natural realm, and God has chosen to reveal truth in His Creation.

Once we get past the admission that the Bible never states the age of the Earth, there is no contradiction between Christianity and Science. Science overwhelmingly and consistently demonstrates the superiority of a Christian sexual ethic.

I seriously doubt that eugenics would have been "unimaginable" without Darwin. We humans have engaged in selective breeding of plants and animals for thousands of years. It's no great intellectual leap to apply that to humans as well.
Sin did not enter the world through Darwin.
Food, Marriage, and False Teachers
We should not be surprised. The Holy Spirit warned us of false teachers who would "forbid marriage and require abstinence from foods." (1 Timothy 4:3) Seems that two of our most basic physical functions for survival are favorite targets for distortion.
What is better and why?
I find it interesting that Mr. Ryan makes a handful of unstated assumptions.

How does Mr. Ryan know anything for sure, if these ancestors are pre-historic? Which means before a history was recorded. If the archeological evidence, as I suspect, shows that both promiscuous and monogamous paring relationships existed how can he know which was the norm?

Let us assume for the sake of argument that all sexual relationships were promiscuous. How does that prove it was better for mankind? In other words, did humans survive and thrive because of promiscuity or in spite of it?

If promiscuous relationships were actually better how and why would monogamous relationships have become the norm just because people began to farm?

I suspect that Mr. Ryan has a personal bias in favor of promiscuity which his has allowed to rule conclusions regardless of what the archeological evidence might show, which I suspect would look inconclusive to an open minded researcher.

While promiscuity exists today the scientific evidence clearly shows that it is not beneficial for the family. Current knowledge proves that the human race thrives and advances when based on Christian principles as Chuck Colsen has clearly shown in his writings.
Totalitarian Science
I appreciate this article, and I agree that science is becoming more 'totalitarian'. I do not think it's a stretch at all for attempts to control free speech--even in church--to come soon in the name of 'science'.

One question that confuses me about this appeal to our 'evolutionary beginnings: If we have 'evolved'--and that is the point of evolutionary theory--why would it be a GOOD thing to go BACK to it?