[b]Tom Wolfe
Without mentioning Darwin by name, he said the “doctrine that there is no cardinal distinction between man and animal” will demoralize humanity throughout the West; it will lead to the rise of “barbaric nationalistic brotherhoods”—he all but called them by name: Nazism, Communism, and Fascism—and result within one generation in “wars such as never have been fought before".[/b]
So, how close did he come?
Darwin’s notion that language had somehow evolved from imitation of animal sounds…Müller called that the bow-wow theory.
Not to be confused with the meow-meow theory. Of course, who would?
The power of the human brain was so far beyond the boundaries of natural selection that the term became meaningless in explaining the origins of man.
I know: your guess is as good as mine.
In this respect, Darwinism was typical of the more primitive cosmogonies. They avoided the question of how the world developed ex nihilo.
Sooner or later, it does come down to that.
Right?
The difference in Darwin’s case was that he put together his story in an increasingly rational age.
Or, for some, an increasingly less rational age.
In the Navajo cosmogony the agent of change (as distinct from the creator) was alive. It was Locust. In Darwin’s cosmogony it had to be scientifically inanimate. Locust was renamed Evolution.
You decide: navajopeople.org/blog/navajo-cre … ite-world/