Question

It is telling that Charles Darwin's theory of evolution hasn't really been challenged - scientifically speaking - since he published his thoughts way back in the mid-19th century. His work shook the foundation of philosophical and scientific thought to which we're likely still digesting. Not like psychology, which has been subjected to all kinds of revisionism and afterthoughts over the years.

The only sphere, as far as I can tell, where natural selection is being challenged is in politics. The contemporary (mostly left-wing) political narrative seems to have settled on the notion that "Darwinian capitalism" prevails in our lives. As if Charlie invented natural selection. Recall, he empirically examined what he observed.

If natural selection exists among men, the so-called "surivival of the fittest" (which was not coined by Darwin), there's little man can do about it but stand by and watch the strong survive - genetically speaking of course.

The current weapon at his disposal - to "equalize" things - is impose various state laws and legislation helping to protect (not improve) the "weak" who have no chance at surviving. Which don't want to believe nature discriminates. I say current because we've only begun to mess around with DNA and genetics.

"Well, the rich are exploiting the poor ergo we must...blah, blah."

So the narrative goes.

Darwin explains that when it comes to mankind selection (where man carefully selects what to breed between animals plants etc.) is no match for natural selection. Nature wins. I don't even think there's a spread to gamble on either. The margin between the mysterious power of nature (propelled by God) is no match for mighty mice like man.

If this be true, then, is man kidding himself with fabricated political laws in an effort to thwart natural selection? If accepted, then, are we not actually weakening mankind?

In short is employing political answers to natural questions futile?

***

Yes. Man has come up with engineering, and scientific feats to contain nature but we succeed most where we observe and work with nature to arrive at new answers to various questions - and truths.

***

Ironically, the publication of On the Origin of Species was a product of the "survival of the fittest." By the time Darwin was set to publish his theory, some 20 years after first conceived, Alfred Russel Wallace was about to do the same since he too had come up with a theory of evolution on his own. Darwin wrote to him of this coincidence and Wallace graciously stepped aside.

The rest is history. Darwin is a household name while the only Wallace a mildly interested person would recognize is William from Braveheart.

Alexander Graham Bell, in another example, simply beat Elisha Gray to the patent punch.

History is littered with near "winners."

In fact, we see this every single day.

The Olympics, so revered by a chunk of humanity, is but a Charles Darwin experiment in a sports setting. The difference between, often, a gold and silver medal is mere milliseconds in, say, track and field.

The gold winner triumphs and much he or she inherits in praise often converted into money through endorsement, book deals, public speaking etc.