What are the implications of Darwin’s theory of evolution for the belief in the exceptional status of humans? This question lies at the heart of the reflections of American philosopher James Rachels, a specialist in ethics, in *Human Animals*. The Moral Implications of Darwinism (Éliott Éditions, 2025). A possible response to creationist theories that are gaining traction, particularly in the United States.
In a famous passage from the lectures collected under the title Introduction to Psychoanalysis, Freud asserts that humanity’s naive self-esteem has had to endure two stinging rebukes from science and must prepare to face a third.
The first, associated with the name Copernicus, occurred when she demonstrated that the Earth is not the center of the universe but is merely a tiny part of a system of worlds whose immensity we can scarcely imagine.
The second, associated with the name of Darwin, dates back to the time when biological research shattered the supposed human privilege within Creation by establishing humanity’s descent from the animal kingdom and affirming the irreducible nature of its animal essence.
The third, associated with Freud himself, stems from the fact that psychological research is establishing that the ego is not master in its own house and that, based solely on what it is aware of, it can glean only scant information about what is taking place in the psychic life.
The Original Journey of the Naturalist Darwin
It is clear that, by proceeding in this way, Freud presents his audience with a somewhat simplified version of Darwin, one that is co-opted into an argument that Darwin himself might not have endorsed. First, it is debatable whether Darwin should be presented as a biologist, given that the academic curriculum inthe 19thcentury was very different from what it is today.
His status within the scientific community is, in fact, somewhat unique: at a time when science was becoming increasingly professionalized within the university system, he still embodied, in some ways, the 18th-century tradition of enlightened amateur science.
The first part of the book by American philosopher James Rachels, which has just been translated into French under the title *Human Animals: The Moral Implications of Darwinism* attempts to provide an objective account of his career.
Darwin was a naturalist. He began studying medicine but later gave it up. He turned, without much enthusiasm, to theology in order to become a pastor in the Anglican Church. Passionate about observing living creatures and clearly gifted, he was noticed by several of his professors and recommended by one of them to serve as a naturalist aboard a Royal Navy ship during a surveying expedition along the South American coast (1831–1836).
The Origin of Species and Natural Selection
The reports and specimens he sent back to his country during this period were considered so noteworthy that, upon his return, he was elected to the board of the Geographical Society and later became a member of the prestigious Royal Society.
He worked diligently, collected and organized his observations, and in November 1859 published *On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Struggle for Existence in Nature* (according to the French translation of the book, ed.). In this work, which is not intended for specialists, Darwin states that he develops a single, long argument; here are its two main conclusions, which appear quite modest at first glance:
First, in the living world, species were not created separately but are descended from other species. Second, the mechanism of natural selection is the driving force behind this process. Since far more individuals of each species are born than can survive, any organism exhibiting a variation that is advantageous compared to its peers—no matter how slight it may seem—has a greater chance of surviving and producing offspring that exhibit this variation.
Darwin is cautious enough not to use the term “evolution”; he is also cautious enough to refrain from applying his theory to human beings.
But one need not be a great scholar to realize the far-reaching nature of its implications: the world has not remained unchanged since its creation; indeed, it is inappropriate to conceive of it as the result of an act of creation; we can therefore trace its history without the intervention of a wise and benevolent creator; the purpose of diversity is not to imperfectly manifest unchanging realities; it is the result of the movement through which life spreads, etc.
The End of the Belief in the Exceptional Nature of Humanity
The concept of implication lies precisely at the heart of James Rachels’ interpretation of Darwin: but these are moral implications. To understand this more clearly, let’s consider the original title of his book: *Created from Animals* is an expression that is difficult to translate into French. It is actually a phrase coined by Darwin himself, taken from his Notebook C (pages 196–197), which reads as follows: “In his arrogance, man believes himself to be a great work, worthy of the intervention of a deity. It is more humble—and, I believe, more true—to consider that he was created from animals.”
James Rachels is known for his work in applied ethics, which is highly representative of what this discipline was like at the turn of the 1960s and 1970s. His work addresses issues such as racial discrimination, abortion, medical research on fetuses, world hunger, euthanasia, and so on.
On all these issues, the author takes positions that have now become commonplace, but which at the time were part of a movement challenging traditional morality and, more specifically, the lack of humility that—despite the best of intentions—it exhibited.
In *Human Animals*, he does not attempt to derive moral standards from Darwin’s theories. Nor does he support the ridiculous claim that human beings are, through and through, animals like any others. Rather, he shows that Darwin’s arguments make it difficult to maintain the belief in the exceptional status of human beings within the universe—a belief that underlies this traditional morality.
The time-honored history of life is not the unfolding of a divine plan aimed at placinghumankind—created in the image and likeness of God—at the pinnacle of all beings and apart from them. Nor is the human being the only creature endowed with dignity by virtue of possessing a unique faculty: reason.
This, in fact, is not a matter of all or nothing, but of degree. Rather, we should view human beings and other animals as members of the same family, with the former having developed instincts—particularly altruistic ones—that the latter have at times already exhibited, albeit in a less sophisticated form.
Monday through Friday and on Sundays, get free analysis and insights from our experts for a different perspective on the news. Subscribe today!
Darwin’s work has always been the subject of conflicting interpretations—and at times even fiercely conflicting ones. One thinks, of course, of a direct confrontation such as that found between André Pichot’s *La Société pure: de Darwin à Hitler* (Flammarion, 2000) and Patrick Tort’s *L’Effet Darwin: Sélection naturelle et naissance de la civilisation* (Seuil, 2008).
One thing is certain, however: thanks to contributions that Darwin lacked—genetics, of course, comes to mind—it belongs to the realm of science rather than ideology.
Darwin vs. Creationism
Thus, while his theories are not intended to constitute a formal refutation of creationist claims based on a literal reading of the Bible, they do highlight the dogmatic and arbitrary nature of those claims. This discussion will not address the causes or reasons behind their popularity—especially in the United States—but rather their content. Eugenie C. Scott’s book, *Evolution vs. Creationism: An Introduction*(University of California Press, 2009), provides a good introduction to the subject.
Darwinian theories, in fact, undermine their claim to truth. Creationist theories assert that the universe was created by a personal God, that it has essentially remained unchanged since Creation, and, finally, that it reflects the divine plan.
In this sense, the most significant implication of Darwinism is indeed that it makes possible a perspective in which theman is neither the meaning nor the purpose of the Universe.
Jean-Yves Goffi served as the advisor for Florian Couturier’s dissertation (defended in 2014); Florian is the translator of James Rachels’ book Human Animals: The Moral Implications of Darwinism (Éliott Éditions). J.-Y. Goffi wrote the preface to this translation.
