Harari's Sapiens The Theory of Evolution

Harari’s Sapiens

At the basis of Yuval Harari’s Sapiens is an assumption rooted in Darwin’s theory of evolution—that the earth is billions of years old, that life is the result of a Big Bang, and that human life evolved from primitive animal life to be what it is today. This assumption starts off the book and proceeds as the framework for every single one of the author’s thoughts: life is evolutionary and finite, continually progressing in stages to greater and greater things, experiencing hiccups along the way that can have negative effects (like extinction or enslavement), and so on. This idea of evolution is so central to Harari’s book that a quick CTRL+F shows that the term “evolution” appears 308 times throughout the 439-page work. On page 16, Harari states, “That evolution should select for larger brains may seem to us like, well, a no-brainer.” The point he aims to make, however, is that intelligence in homo sapiens is not unique (the feline family, he notes, also has big brains and evolution did not lead them to calculus). He then wants to know why “genus Homo the only one in the entire animal kingdom to have come up with such massive thinking machines?” (Harari 16). His argument is that intelligence has only recently (in the big scheme of things) really paid off for sapiens: up until recently (i.e., the past few centuries or millennia), it might have been said that “a chimpanzee can’t win an argument with a Homo sapiens, but the ape can rip the man apart like a rag doll” (Harari 16). He concludes that evolution, by fits and starts, has led the species of man to a point where it has figured out how to beat the ape’s strength with his own brain.

The author explains his claims sufficiently well, using lots of facts, anecdotes, and a light-and-easy-to-read description of all things to help him make his point. It all logically proceeds from his premise. The problem is that the premise is never sufficiently justified. It is simply assumed that the reader will accept it as unassailable, as a matter of fact, as a theory that has all but been established or proven by decades of acceptance among the intelligentsia of leading academic circles the world over. To question it would be to utter academic heresy. That appears to be the spirit in which the assumption proceeds. Harari does not entertain the idea of creationism—a term that appears nowhere in the book. “Creation” itself is only mentioned a dozen times throughout the 400+ pages, usually in this way: “Our lack of brothers and sisters makes it easier to imagine that we are the epitome of creation, and that a chasm separates us from the rest of the animal kingdom. When Charles Darwin indicated that Homo sapiens was just another kind of animal, people were outraged. Even today many refuse to believe it” (Harari 25). In other words, that God might have created man in His own image and likeness is simply a myth—one among many—an imaginary concept that (hateful) people use in order to justify their own self-worth and importance.

So who is Yuval Harari and why should his point of view be considered? Harari is an Israeli historian, philosopher, and author. He is best known for his books (incuding) Sapiens, Homo Deus: A Brief History of Tomorrow, and 21 Lessons for the 21st Century. In Sapiens, Harari covers the subject of evolution from the emergence of Homo sapiens around 300,000 years ago to the present day. He argues that humans evolved biologically, culturally, and socially and argues that our ability to create shared myths and cooperate in large groups has been the key to our success as a species. Harari's bias is mainly towards a secular, scientific view of human history, and he tends to be critical of traditional religious and cultural beliefs that he sees as limiting human potential. He is also skeptical of modern political and economic systems, which he argues are based on flawed assumptions about human nature. Nor does he shy away from his biases; rather, he is upfront about his perspective in his writing and does not try to hide it. He clearly has extensive knowledge about history, philosophy, and biology, all of which could make him a reliable source of information—and he draws on a wide range of sources, from scientific research to historical texts, to support his arguments. But Harari never seems

Harari tries to relate to the audience by using clear, accessible language and drawing on familiar examples from popular culture and history. He also emphasizes the relevance of his ideas to contemporary issues and challenges, such as climate change and the problem of equality. However, Harari does not engage with those who might challenge his most fundamental assumption: he does not ask whether evolution is a flawed theory; he accepts it, proceeds logically from it, and neutralizes opponents to his ideas in a logical manner. Yet, if someone were to come along and poke holes in the theory of evolution, Harari’s entire edifice—his entire framework—his entire outlook on life, its purpose, and its meaning—would collapse in heap.

In conclusion, while Harari’s assumption (that the theory of evolution sufficiently explains life) is likely bound to be accepted by a majority of the academic population, authors like Tom Wolfe have already disposed of Darwinian theory (Wolfe did it in his last book The Kingdom of Speech, exposing Darwin as an intellectual fraud). While Wolfe does not go so far as to promote creationism (he recognizes it only as another cosmology, like Darwinian evolution, that people have used in the past to give an explanation of life), others have argued that creationism could hold or should hold a vast deal bigger place on the academic stage than it currently enjoys. Ben Stein’s documentary Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed showed the extent to which intelligent design is streng verboten in academia (Frankowski). Being familiar with both Stein’s and Wolfe’s work, I would have to disagree with Harari’s fundamental assumption that life is explained by evolution and that we are all just animals who created the concept of God. I disagree fundamentally with his perspective and his framework. Thus, my personal reaction to Sapiens is that while it is well-written and well-researched, it is fundamentally flawed on the most important point: I would argue that we did not evolve to become “gods” in our own right for a time while alive on this planet, but rather that we were created by God for a very different end—one which Harari does not really seem to have any interest in exploring.