Darwinism and the demise of Literature

I want to take a look at the curse of literary Darwinism in this post.

Quotes and comments;

1. 'Harold Fromm in Science1 reviewed Gottschall’s new book on literary Darwinism (see 01/27/2006 entry). Like Gottschall, he argued that an evolution-informed approach to literary criticism is superior because it provides quantifiable certitude:

" For years, scholars in the literary humanities have struggled to achieve at least a semblance of the certitude possible in the sciences, although none of the major schools of analysis--whether Freudian, mythic, Marxian, deconstructive, or socially constructive--could make a claim to the sort of falsifiability that quickly winnows scientific theories [sic]. But a running theme throughout 'The Literary Animal' is the need for quantitative methods that could provide solid foundations for philosophical and aesthetic claims."

- I find stuff like this absurd. Here we have an evolutionist who refuses to take his own theory seriously. Why do I say this? Take a look at the last sentence. Do animals have the 'need for quantitative methods...'? I don't think so; not that I know of. (And I have an expert here at my feet, rolling around on his back... and rubbing his nose on the carpet.) So why is it that man-the-animal would have such needs? This is all nonsense. On the one hand he insists (in defiance of biblical creationists) that man is just an animal, but then he goes on to expound upon this need for a method that would give a foundation for philosophical and aesthetic claims. Huh? That doesn't fit together at all. You would think he's clearly talking about two completely different creatures :=)

- We see here the inherent irrationalism of evolutionary theory. Evolution is a form of Monism (much akin to pantheism), and like all monistic world views it renders all it touches absurd. It flip flops between rationalism and irrationalism; between seeing man as an animal and seeing man as a creature made in the image of God. And we're just supposed to ignore this wild contradiction. I for one, cannot. (That others can I realize; the bible calls this suppressing the truth (of revelation) in unrighteousness.) To be a literary Darwinist you must ignore the the truth, you must play the game of pretend. i.e. you pretend man is just an animal... but you write your essay as if you were a human being.) The evolutionist cannot bring the various components of his world view together; they're really at war with one another. (As Dawkins says; 'when I leave the lab... I stop being a Darwinist.' One wonders when he was last in a lab... but that's another topic.)

- imagine two dogs; one says to the other; ''I feel a strong need to find some quantitative method that will provides us a sold foundation for our philosophical and aesthetic claims.'' (How someone like Gottschall can admit such a motivation - as his quest for philosophical justification - and then call himself an animal I don't know. That he feels such a need is all the evidence he needs to know that he is not an animal.)

- to try and make a 'science' out of literature is assinine. This isn't science but scientism; where all subjects are treated like rocks falling down a hill. You see here the one sidedness of Materialism. Materialism can't deal with people or with meaning. When it tries (as even our author admits) it just ends up being absurd. You'd think people would realize the implications of this. That one can't treat people like rocks (like mere matter in motion) is surely all the evidence a person needs that materialism is a fallacious theory of the universe.

- literary Darwinism is just another expression of the death of man (school of philosophy or theology) so popular with our pampered academics. Make no mistake about; materialism = evolutionism = the death of man. The mindless gene carrier promulgated by Dawkins and the like is not man as he's been traditionally known; is not man at all. So what then is this entity we used to call man; one scientist referred to it as a 'bag of chemicals.' Welcome to literary Darwinism.

- literary Darwinism makes as much sense as giving your dog a book for his birthday.

Notes;
1. Jonathan Gottschall is co-editor of a series of essays on literary darwinism, entitled, The Literary Animal: Evolution and the Nature of Narrative (eds Gottschall, J. & Wilson, D. S., Northwestern Univ. Press, Evanston, Illinois, 2005).
2. Literary animal? there is no such thing; never has been; never will be. The idea is a contradiction in terms (Materialist evolution cannot come to terms with the fact of man's uniqueness. This is its fatal flaw.)
3. we see here the arrogance of the modern day professor.
4. If Huxley was Darwin's bulldog, I guess we could call Gottschall, Darwin's Chihuahua.'
5. It's surely easy to see how destructive this kind of reductionism is; if people looked at literature this way no one would read... the way no 'libs' read the bible anymore. (We might see this as a secular higher criticism... if that makes any sense.)
6. Literature (literary) has its root in letters, and so writing, grammar. I'll remind these professors that animals don't write; this makes literary Darwinism an oxymoron.
7. We might call Darwinism a new literary form. (i.e. the just so story)
8. It seems to me we have a choice; we either give up Darwinism, or we give up Literature.
9. You sometimes wonder if professors of this ilk don't imagine that the purpose of literature is to give a job to a professor :=)