Part 4:12C The full description of the denial-based biological theories, beginning with Social Darwinism

As explained in Part 4:11, when Darwin presented his theory of natural selection in 1859 he intuitively knew that he could not pursue the next step in biology, of confronting the unbearably depressing question for virtually all humans of the less-than-ideal, imperfect, human-condition-afflicted state of humans. Other biologists, however, were far, far less scrupulous. Unlike Darwin, who accepted that he wasn’t sound enough to take the next step in biology of confronting the issue of the human condition and therefore stopped at that impasse, almost every biologist since has irresponsibly side-stepped that hurdle and gone on to develop whole libraries of fraudulent biological thinking about the behaviour of living organisms, including about the all-important issue of human behaviour.

Yes, human behaviour is the all-important issue for humanity, for science and for biology in particular, because only by understanding ourselves could we end the underlying insecurities that have caused our species’ immensely destructive behaviour. And since the human condition is the all-important issue for biology, the advancement of a whole series of dishonest thinking about human behaviour by biologists was an extremely dangerous development because it threatened to subvert the real task for biologists of addressing and solving the human condition. Indeed, beyond subversion, it threatened to completely destroy any chance humanity had of completing this task, because the way biologists side-stepped the issue of the human condition was by simply denying it even existed. As we will shortly see, this denial was attempted firstly by rejecting the existence of integrative purpose by claiming change was random, and secondly by finding ways to repudiate the fact that we humans have unconditionally selfless, altruistic moral instincts. After all, if there is no ideal, unconditionally selfless meaning to existence, and no unconditionally selflessly orientated moral nature in humans, then there is no dilemma of the human condition to have to explain! No ideals or alignment to an ideal state, no guilt, no problem—lie, lie, lie, but relief, relief, relief from the human condition!

The irony is, however, that while Darwin did responsibly step back from attempting to confront the issue of the human condition, refusing to engage in such disingenuous practices himself, he did, nevertheless, open the floodgates to the development of fraudulent, human-condition-side-stepping biological thinking when, as just explained in Part 4:11, he—this time to his discredit as a biologist—allowed his honest term ‘natural selection’ to be substituted by the dishonest term ‘survival of the fittest’. In time, this ‘survival of the fittest’ corruption of Darwin’s idea of natural selection became known as Social Darwinism—an all-pervading doctrine for upset humans that essentially claimed that ‘when you dominated and defeated others you were simply meeting your biological obligations to be a success’. Through the misrepresentation of natural selection as a ‘survival of the fittest’ process, the so-called ‘savage’, ‘barbaric’, ‘primitive’, ‘backward’, ‘brutish’, ‘bestial’ animal behaviour excuse was given a supposed biological basis—a contrived, supposedly rational, biological excuse had finally been found for upset, human-condition-afflicted humans’ extremely selfish egocentric need for power, fame, fortune and glory!