The Reactionary Utopian
                    December 27, 2005


DARWINIAN GRAFFITI
by Joe Sobran

     I can never sufficiently thank Al Gore for creating 
the Internet. It has become an indispensable tool for my 
work and even an important part of my life. I owe it new 
friendships and the renewal of dear acquaintances, to 
mention only two of its countless benefits.

     The drawbacks are hardly worth complaining about. 
But if I were the plaintive type, I might wish that 
Mr. Gore had also invented a Coward Filter.

     Now and then I get messages from people who don't 
like what I write. Usually they are reasonably polite and 
intelligent; sometimes they correct me in real errors and 
leave me indebted.

     But then there are the others. I got several of them 
in a single day after I wrote about my friend Tom 
Bethell's stimulating critique of Darwinism (THE 
WANDERER, "Washington Watch," December 1, 2005). The 
writers, defending Darwin after their fashion, assured me 
that Tom and I are a pair of dunces (never mind that Tom 
went to Oxford University), one of them using words like 
"excrement" and, for good measure, trashing the Catholic 
Church and the Bible into the bargain. An odd way to 
vindicate the scientific spirit, if you ask me.

     I don't want to blame Mr. Gore for such baffling 
people, who have as much raw courage as it takes to send 
insults on the Internet, and who seem to think others can 
be intimidated by schoolyard taunts. But they make me 
wonder. Do they suppose anyone is going to take these 
tantrums for the Voice of Science? Is this the tone of 
someone who cares about truth, either scientific or any 
other sort? Don't they even have any self-respect? Nearly 
anyone, I should think, would disdain to write a message 
that would demonstrate nothing but his own mean spirit 
and cowardice.

     What makes it amusing is that it doesn't seem very 
Darwinian. I doubt that Darwin himself, a proper 
Victorian, would have tried to persuade others of his 
theory by mailing them unsigned abusive letters; he had 
enough tact to know that vulgar invective doesn't prove 
much of scientific value.

     The Internet has shown dramatically how many people 
out there lack any sense of their own dignity. Most of us 
don't want to look in the mirror and see a lower life 
form; we like to feel we've evolved beyond that, if 
you'll pardon the metaphor.

     I've often felt the same disgusted curiosity when 
seeing some crude graffiti in a public lavatory. What 
kind of person chooses to express himself in this way? To 
what purpose? It can't even hurt anyone else, and I've 
never heard of anyone taking pride in it or even 
admitting doing it. So why does it happen at all? It's 
not as if vile graffiti had any survival value, even in 
New York. If anything, they suggest that Darwinism can't 
account for our irrational impulses, especially those 
that seem more akin to self-destruction, in some obscure 
way, than to self-preservation.

     I have difficulty imagining Al Gore, or even Bill 
Clinton, scrawling obscenities on a men's room wall. So 
who does these things? Do they do it on impulse, or do 
they plan it? If they act with premeditation, do they 
take a felt-tipped pen with them so they can leave their 
mark when they go to a fast-food joint?

     I mean, =somebody= is doing these things, though 
nobody ever admits to it. I don't say it's a sin, but why 
is it even a temptation? It's not as if this were an 
impulse most of us have to resist. Does smoking reefers 
cause certain unstable individuals to do it? Is it some 
aberrant gene?

     This is not my sly way of implying that Darwinians 
are especially prone to it. I frankly doubt that. Some of 
my own friends are Darwinians, and they are generally 
fine people otherwise. I'm just groping for a more or 
less scientific explanation for a form of behavior so 
base that we usually pretend not to notice it, until the 
Internet forces us to acknowledge it as something 
peculiar to our species. The nearest thing to it in the 
animal kingdom, as far as I know, is when monkeys play 
with their own doo-doo, another fact Darwinism can't 
account for any better than Aristotelian teleology. 
(Platonists tend to duck the whole issue.)

     I'm afraid that Darwinian hate mail, then, must 
remain a mystery. But I beseech those who are inclined to 
it to send it to Tom, not me. He studied at Oxford, 
whereas I'm not sufficiently evolved to deal with it.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Read this column on-line at 
"http://www.sobran.com/columns/2005/051227.shtml".

Copyright (c) 2005 by the Griffin Internet Syndicate, 
www.griffnews.com. This column may not be published in 
print or Internet publications without express permission 
of Griffin Internet Syndicate. You may forward it to 
interested individuals if you use this entire page, 
including the following disclaimer:

"SOBRAN'S and Joe Sobran's columns are available 
by subscription. For details and samples, see 
http://www.sobran.com/e-mail.shtml, write 
PR@griffnews.com, or call 800-513-5053."