Misunderstandings about Evolutionary Theory

Content Summary：Evolutionary theory has been pivotal in the last 150 years but remains widely misunderstood, particularly the phrase "natural selection, survival of the fittest." This concept, often mistaken as Darwin's, actually stems from Thomas Huxley’s *Evolution and Ethics* and was further misinterpreted by Yan Fu. Yan Fu’s translation, influenced by China’s defeat in the First Sino-Japanese War, promoted competition and unity as means for national strength, diverging from traditional Chinese values. This interpretation deeply influenced Chinese intellectuals and society, even contributing to the rise of social Darwinism in Europe, which justified imperialism and led to world wars.

Evolutionary theory has been the most important intellectual resource in the past 150 years, and everyone has referred to it. However, there are still many controversies surrounding it, especially due to numerous misunderstandings.

This is because evolutionary theory can easily be likened to human societal life—especially for ordinary people, it is often used as motivational preaching. Putting aside academic theoretical disputes, let's discuss how to understand evolutionary theory from the motivational perspective that ordinary people prefer. Notably, there's a new interpretation worth your attention.

In simple terms, from a purely motivational standpoint, non-experts have two major misunderstandings about evolutionary theory, or rather, two layers of misunderstanding.

The first layer of misunderstanding is "natural selection, survival of the fittest." These two phrases almost entirely encompass the general public’s understanding of evolutionary theory, but the public is unaware of two facts.

Firstly, "natural selection, survival of the fittest" did not originate from Darwin's *On the Origin of Species* and has nothing to do with Darwin. It comes from *Evolution and Ethics* by British anthropologist Thomas Huxley. *Evolution and Ethics* is Huxley’s interpretation of evolutionary theory, forcefully extending it into the realm of human society.

Secondly, "natural selection, survival of the fittest" is not even a direct quote from Huxley's *Evolution and Ethics*, but rather a translated interpretation by Chinese translator Yan Fu. To a large extent, it reflects Yan Fu’s own understanding.

Yan Fu translated *Evolution and Ethics* between 1896 and 1897, just after the Qing Dynasty was defeated in the First Sino-Japanese War. The Chinese people were awakened from their dream of being a celestial empire, realizing they couldn’t even defeat Japan, which led to national indignation and a desire for strength. Progressive intellectuals began to reflect, feeling that traditional Chinese culture was no longer suitable for the new era, and Yan Fu’s interpretation aligned with this trend.

The so-called "natural selection, survival of the fittest" advocates for competition among groups, where the strong survive and the weak are eliminated. Yan Fu’s interpretation is "species compete with species, groups compete with groups; the weak are always prey to the strong, and the foolish always serve the wise." So how can a group become strong? Yan Fu’s answer is "unity is strength."

Today, we can see that this interpretation contrasts sharply with traditional Chinese virtues like gentlemanly conduct, benevolence, and modesty—it represents a survival-of-the-fittest mentality. However, at that time, because people felt deeply that China was too conservative and backward, they welcomed such nationalistic motivational slogans.

Lu Xun often read *Evolution and Ethics* while snacking on flatbread, peanuts, and chili peppers. Liang Qichao believed that *Evolution and Ethics* should replace Rousseau’s idea of "natural human rights." A young Mao Zedong read *Evolution and Ethics* while taking notes.

*Evolution and Ethics* influenced not only that generation but many subsequent generations. Phrases we commonly say today, like "backwardness means being beaten," "unity is strength," and even "struggle," are extensions of Yan Fu’s interpretations. Traditional Chinese culture doesn’t really talk about these concepts; "struggle" was originally a pejorative term, such as when Xunzi said, "Strife brings disaster." So you could even say that Yan Fu's version of *Evolution and Ethics* imprinted certain ideological beliefs on some people.

This trend of thought wasn’t confined to China—it was even more extreme in Europe. Many Europeans, including some intellectuals, adopted "Social Darwinism." When Chinese people say "backwardness means being beaten," it’s a motivational call to avoid falling behind, lest others attack us—it’s just a motivational slogan. Some Europeans, however, took evolutionary theory to the extent of thinking, "If you’re backward, you’re an inferior race, and I should beat you." This led to a surge of racism, totalitarianism, imperialism, and even fascism in Europe, culminating in world wars.

At that time, many realized that the "survival of the fittest" jungle law was problematic. Sun Yat-sen, for instance, said in a 1912 speech, "Before the twentieth century, European countries invented a new doctrine of survival competition...in retrospect, it seems to be a kind of barbaric knowledge...though the might of the strong accords with the evolution of nature, the inherent sense of justice cannot be eradicated."

He was right, but such insights, possibly because they weren’t motivational enough, didn’t resonate with the general public. Examining that period of history, one might wonder: why did these people specifically challenge Yan Fu/Huxley’s *Evolution and Ethics* without understanding Darwin’s original theory?