March, 1928 



EVOLUTION 



Page Seven 



Evolution and the New Perspective of 



Life Purposes 



By Harky Elmer Barnes 



THE evolutionary conception and the new cosmology 

 are as disruptive of the accepted views of man as 

 they are of the older theological attitude towards God. 

 According to the accepted biblical theory, man was a 

 theological entity and not a unit of bio-chemical be- 

 havior. He was important chiefly as the custodian of 

 an immortal soul, for which his fleshly being served 

 merely as the temporary envelope pending the earthly 

 experiment which determined the destiny of each indi- 

 vidual soul. In the more optimistic passages of Holy 

 Writ man was defined as only a little lower than the 

 angels, while in the more abject strains he was viewed 

 as but a worm of the dust. 



The scientific facts reveal man as 

 Jieither a worm nor an angel with 

 pruned wings. He is the leading mem- 

 ber of the simian group and therefore 

 the dominant element for the time be- 

 ing in the aniinal kingdom. This view 

 of man as an animal has been extreme- 

 ly repellant to many of the more pious 

 and conventional brethren, but there is 

 little rational ground for such an at- 

 titude, once it is understood what one 

 really means by this. When one 

 views the situation in a scientific and 

 common sense attitude, he recognizes 

 that the animal kingdom represents the 

 highest order of life on the planet; 

 that is, the highest level of develop- 

 ment known to man. Therefore, to be 

 the temporary leader of the animal 

 world is the highest form of achieve- 

 ment to which man could possiblv pre- 

 tend and this title is the superlative 

 praise which can possibly be bestowed upon him. 



Further, not only is the conception that man is an 

 animal a demonstrated fact in no way humiliating to 

 the human race; it also has much more practical sig- 

 nificance. If it were known to be true that we are 

 slightly mitigated angels, this would afford no clue 

 to the study of mankind, because no one lias seen an 

 angel and we possess no knowledge of the personal 

 traits and behavior patterns of the angelic host. On 

 the other hand, once we come to recognize the fact that 

 man is an animal we immediately have the rich fielil 

 of comparative anatomy, physiology and psychology l<> 

 draw upon and from which to build a solid approach 

 to the study of human nature and behavior. These 

 branches of science reveal man as a super-simian, and 

 the study of simian psychology, as summarized in such 

 books as those by Kohts, Koehler and Yerkes, affords 

 more in the way of a key to human behavior than all 

 tlie hooks on theology ever compiled from the days of 



primitive folklore to the most abstruse apologetic man- 

 ual of a contemporary professor of systematic theology. 

 Even a humorous and avowedly trivial little book like 

 Clarence Day's "This Simian World" will tell one more 

 relevant and cogent things about human nature than 

 all the ponderous tomes of an Aquinas or the collected 

 sermons of a dozen Moodys or Spurgeons. 



The implications of the above for sociology and ethics 

 are very great and far-reaching indeed. It comes down 

 to this, namely, that the type of behavior and institu- 

 tions which are best suited to advance human happi- 

 ness and efficiency must be sought and constructed in 

 conformity with the need of a species 

 ot super-simians inhabiting diverse 

 types of geographic environment. 



The implications of contemporary 

 iistro-physical discoveries, together with 

 tlie parallel progress of research in 

 biology and anthropology, have neces- 

 sitated a complete revolution in the ac- 

 cepted views of the purpose of life. 

 This earth can no longer be regarded 

 as a temporary training-camp, prepara- 

 tory for life in the New Jerusalem, 

 rather, it can be rationally regarded at 

 l)resent in no other way than as a place 

 in which a man should make himself as 

 happy as possible during his tempo- 

 rary existence here upon earth. Not 

 only must the objectives of human life 

 be reduced to a secular plane, but we 

 must now definitely enunciate and de- 

 tend "the right to be happy." To be 

 ill re, we may concede at the outset that 

 happiness need not be identified with 

 the tastes and achievements of Casanova, Fatty Arbuckle 

 or the "Old Soak," though they may be as safe and de- 

 sirable guides as Calvin or Immanuel Kant. We must 

 formulate a conception of happiness which will be suf- 

 ficiently comprehensive and well-grounded. Perhaps, as 

 a statement of general principles, we can do no better 

 than to revert to the one great previous effort to formu- 

 late ethical principles on secular foundations, namely, 

 the ethics of the Greeks, and particularly to Aristotle's 

 conception of virtue as the "happy mean." But we can go 

 further than the Greeks in transforming this generalized 

 formula into terms of concrete guidance through our pres- 

 ent day knowledge of biology, psychology and sociology. 



Hakky Elmer Barnes 



"Tyro MAN ever had eyes less hampered and more assisted by 

 liis mind than Alexis De Tocqueville; born in an age 

 which buzzed witli theories, he could nevertheless see what he 

 li.okcd at: he believed what he saw in a day when most people 

 only ?aw what they believed." — From The Villager. 



