Han Jingyi, Xu Baojun, and Fan Yangcheng: Evolution and the Development and Dissemination of Marxist Atheism
Natural science theories, represented by the theory of evolution, constitute an important ideological source for the Marxist view of religion and atheism. In the 19th century, researchers and propagators of evolutionary theory—represented by Darwin and Haeckel—proved that the emergence of humans, like that of other species, was the result of natural evolution. This lifted a corner of the dark clouds of creationism that had long shrouded the human worldview. Their ideas possessed spontaneous materialist characteristics and a tendency toward naive dialectics, becoming one of the natural science prerequisites for dialectical materialism and historical materialism. In the era of Marx and Engels, the theory of evolution acted as a "letter of dissociation" handed from natural science to theology. Along with other scientific progress, it wrested the power to create "man" from the hands of "God" and returned it to nature, powerfully refuting creationism. In modern Soviet Russia, evolutionary theory served as an "accelerator" in the process of overthrowing feudal rule, conducting anti-religious propaganda, and establishing proletarian state power, adding a layer of struggle within a political context to its refutation of creationism. In modern China, the dissemination of evolutionary theory allowed people of the time to gradually realize that they must adapt to the changed international and domestic environments to achieve the goal of national salvation and survival [1]. In this process, deeply rooted concepts such as "change," "reform," and "development" became the theoretical mediators for the spread of Marxism in China; evolutionary theory thus played the role of a "catalyst." With the founding of socialist China and the unfolding of national construction, Marxism gradually became the mainstream of theory and practice, while the influence of evolutionary theory gradually returned to the field of natural science.
I. Evolutionary Theory as the Foundation of Materialism and the Atheist Thought of Marx and Engels
Through the doctrine of natural selection, Darwin proved that humans do not occupy a special status compared to animals; the emergence of humans was not the result of divine creation, but of adaptation to the environment. In the late 19th and early 20th centuries, Ernst Haeckel became the leading interpreter and propagator of scientific evolutionary theory following Darwin and Huxley. Haeckel was a German naturalist, philosopher, and ecologist who not only made significant achievements in the natural sciences but also constructed his own monist philosophical system. Haeckel believed that evolution was not merely a theoretical hypothesis but a concept used to explain human society. This subjected him to fierce attacks from idealist philosophers, scientists confined by theology, and church authorities.
Marx and Engels paid close attention to the latest developments in the natural sciences. In the process of their theoretical exploration, they maintained close contact with natural scientists, and the views of Darwin and Haeckel are frequently mentioned in their works and thought. It can be said that natural science theories, represented by evolution, are an important theoretical cornerstone of Marxist atheism. Marx and Engels were not born atheists; around 1839, during his studies at the University of Berlin, Marx gradually transitioned from traditional theism to atheism. His materialist view of religion and atheist thought were derived from repeated reflection upon social reality and the intellectual materials provided by the natural sciences. Although Engels was born into a Christian family, he similarly completed the transformation from a religious theist to a scientific atheist. In this process, evolutionary theory became an important basis for Marx and Engels to complete their ideological transformation.
The development of Marx’s atheist thought synchronized with the development of his theoretical research. Marx’s doctoral dissertation, as the formal starting point of his philosophical system, already contained the seeds of his understanding of the relationship between religious theology and science. While living in London, he attended several of Huxley’s lectures on evolution. After Darwin's views on evolution were published, they sparked widespread discussion in society. Marx and Engels keenly realized that Darwin’s ideas provided powerful arguments for the materialist conception of history. In 1860, less than a year after the publication of Darwin’s On the Origin of Species, Marx and Engels had already read the book and affirmed its significance. On this basis, the two completed the integration of materialism and history on a broader scale, providing a logical continuation of their critique of German Classical Philosophy. In an 1861 letter to Ferdinand Lassalle, Marx pointed out that Darwin’s work “for the first time dealt a mortal blow to ‘teleology’ in the natural sciences,” confirming the positive role of evolutionary theory in refuting theology and idealism. Furthermore, Marx and Haeckel shared a common thematic field regarding the critique of religion. For example, by dividing concepts of God into theism (God and the world are two different things) and pantheism (God and the world are one), Haeckel saw the essence of theism: “God possesses a personality similar to humans; the human God is a self-portrait of humanity.” This view is consistent with Marx's view that “religion is the fantastic realization of the human essence.”
According to the theoretical division of labor between Marx and Engels, in the second half of the 19th century, Engels leaned toward advancing the study of materialism and dialectics through natural science research. His focus on evolutionary theory further confirmed its inherent materialist attributes. During this period, with the great strides made by natural science, the timing was ripe to philosophically generalize and summarize the natural world and reveal the laws of materialism and dialectics. Engels recognized that natural science theories, represented by Darwinian evolution, could serve as the scientific foundation for atheism. In the manuscripts of Dialectics of Nature, Engels analyzed the developmental history of the natural sciences in detail, elucidating the natural connection between atheism and natural science. He proposed: “Whether I call that which I cannot explain ‘chance’ or ‘God’ is completely indifferent to the matter itself. Both are merely different ways of saying that I have no knowledge of it, and therefore it does not belong to the realm of science.” Engels criticized the theistic tendency resulting from a lack of scientific knowledge, pointing out that the solution lay in the development of science rather than merely attributing issues to “chance” or theism.
Evolutionary theory negated creationism and attributed human origins to the result of natural evolution, possessing a spontaneous materialist stance; its views on heredity and adaptation are also excellent evidence of dialectics. In Anti-Dühring, Engels pointed out: “Through Haeckel, the idea of natural selection was expanded, and the variation of species was viewed as the result of the interaction between adaptation and heredity.” Here, adaptation is the aspect that causes variation in the process, while heredity is the aspect that plays a preservative role. Haeckel expanded the concept of natural selection while emphasizing the interaction between heredity and adaptation, further refining evolutionary theory. He believed that heredity is the positive aspect by which species preserve characteristics that meet environmental requirements and ensure continued survival, while adaptation is the negative aspect by which species sublate characteristics that do not meet environmental requirements. Haeckel illustrated this view through the useless or non-functioning tissues of plants and animals—for example, animals with wings that can no longer fly and the human appendix. These organs degenerate due to non-use, yet they do not disappear immediately just because they are not exercised; rather, they are maintained by heredity for many generations, only slowly disappearing after a long period. This invisible struggle for existence between organs both results in their emergence and formation and leads to their degeneration and disappearance. This view further negated creationism and the theory of the immutability of species, possessing transformative significance in both biology and philosophy.
In the era of Marx and Engels, accompanied by the great strides of natural science, the sphere of influence of religion continuously shrank. The progress of science wrested the power to exercise subjective initiative from the hands of God and returned it to man. With the development of science, the subjective initiative of humans to understand and transform nature was increasingly strengthened, and people gradually realized that it is man who acts, rather than God.
II. Evolutionary Theory and Lenin’s Atheist Thought in a Unique Social and Political Context
In Russia at the turn of the 20th century, where ideological conflicts were intense, the development of natural science was marked by a character beyond science itself; it was utilized in the struggle between materialism and idealism and in the transformation of the old system. In pre-October Revolution Russia, as various political forces jockeyed for position, evolutionary theory was undoubtedly one of the most controversial theories of the era. Russian academic circles and society highly esteemed the basic tenets and evolutionary stances of Haeckel’s doctrine. His works were used by radical forces for ideological and political struggle and anti-religious propaganda, while being attacked by conservatives and banned by the Tsar. After the outbreak of the 1905 Russian Revolution, feudal forces continued to obstruct the dissemination of Haeckel’s philosophical works, and already published books and pamphlets were listed as prohibited items [2]—an obstruction that continued until the outbreak of the First World War.
Due to changes in the historical background and social practice, Lenin, while valuing its role in theoretical elucidation, also noted the specific role of evolutionary theory within a political context. He clearly distinguished between "vulgar evolutionism" and scientific evolutionism, placing the latter upon a more combative and thorough atheist footing. Vulgar evolutionism originated with Herbert Spencer, who applied Darwinian evolution to human society to create "social organicism." This view denied the possibility of qualitative change in nature and society, believing that the struggle for existence—where the "fittest survive"—must also occur between states, nations, and individuals. It was a metaphysical view of development that opposed dialectics. Lenin pointed out that revisionists followed bourgeois professors into the "quagmire of philosophically vulgarizing science, replacing 'subtle' (and revolutionary) dialectics with 'simple' (and peaceful) 'evolution'." Lenin criticized the attempt by the Bernsteinians to replace materialist dialectics with vulgar evolutionism and sophistry, analyzing the opportunist essence of the Bernstein school.
In Materialism and Empirio-criticism, Lenin defended and developed the Marxist worldview by critiquing idealism. This work not only used the unified relationship of the opposition between matter and consciousness to deconstruct the idealist view of Machism and empirio-criticism—that "things are complexes of sensations"—but also became a theoretical weapon in the field of dialectical materialism, defending Marxist philosophy on the basis of summarizing natural science progress. In Chapter Six, Lenin specifically reviewed Haeckel’s book The Riddle of the Universe. Lenin believed that, contrary to Mach’s practice of "selling out natural science to fideism," Haeckel’s work possessed an inherent materialist tendency and provided a foundation for Marxist atheism. Lenin particularly affirmed Haeckel’s radical atheist thoughts and highly evaluated the materialist views of natural science in The Riddle of the Universe, comparing it to a "huge and solid rock" that uncovered the facts that professorial philosophy sought to conceal. Lenin pointed out: "Every page of Haeckel’s book is a slap in the face of this 'traditional' doctrine of the whole of professorial philosophy and professorial theology." Lenin staked out his position: that the materialist natural science represented by evolutionary theory was fundamentally different from the philosophical idealism and empirio-criticism of the same era. By analyzing the history of the emergence and development of Machism and the stigmatization of Haeckel’s doctrine by Machists, Lenin exposed the subjective idealist and agnostic essence of their "latest philosophy of natural science." He criticized the erroneous views of Machists regarding Marxist historical materialism and advocated for adhering to the correct views of Marxist philosophy, rejecting all attempts to reconcile the opposition between materialism and idealism.
At the turn of the 19th and 20th centuries, religion played the role of depicting an ideal world, clutched tightly by the bourgeoisie as a tool to maintain the old order and paralyze the masses. As mentioned in The Riddle of the Universe: "Thousands of years pass, and millions of men die in war; those highly developed, civilized nations that believe in Christian love devote the greatest part of the national property to preparations for this collective slaughter... The belief in an 'ethical world-order' which is still prevalent and taught in schools possesses a high ideal value. It consoles the suffering, strengthens the weak, and saves the unhappy; it satisfies our doubting sentiments and places us in an ideal world of the 'hereafter,' where the deficiencies of 'this world's' secular life will be overcome."
In response to this situation, Haeckel argued that belief in the immortality of the human soul was merely a dogma, standing in irreconcilable contradiction with the empirical laws of modern natural science. While drawing on Haeckel’s doctrines, Lenin expanded the discourse on the essence of religion by describing it as "spiritual booze." Lenin pointed out that the Party's program is founded upon a materialistic worldview and stands in opposition to theism; it must carry out scientific atheist propaganda to "dispel the religious fog" and help the working people break free from superstition regarding life after death. At the same time, Lenin profoundly noted that one cannot superficially assume the masses believe in religion simply due to a lack of education or ignorance, for the true root of religious belief lies in the unequal social system dominated by capital. Consequently, although Lenin emphasized the powerful role of natural scientific theories like evolution in atheist propaganda, he maintained that social revolution is the fundamental path to eliminating the root causes of religion's existence.
Prior to the October Revolution, Lenin actively reflected on strategies for atheist propaganda, emphasizing the importance of natural science as an ideological weapon in the struggle against theism. After the October Revolution, Lenin explored various practical avenues for atheist propaganda, concretizing Marxist religious theory. In his final significant treatise on religious issues, "On the Significance of Militant Materialism" (1922), he proposed that the newly founded journal Under the Banner of Marxism should unequivocally propagate atheism. It should form an alliance not only with non-Party materialists but also with modern natural scientists. These scientists clearly included not only Einstein, the founder of relativity, but also Haeckel, the advocate of scientific evolution, and Lloyd Morgan, a renowned biologist and student of Darwin’s "bulldog," Thomas Huxley.
III. Evolution Breaking the Cyclical View of History and Atheist Thought in Modern China
In modern China, the theory of evolution was utilized by the Reformists to oppose Confucianism and superstition. In 1895 (the twenty-first year of the Guangxu reign), when Yan Fu published "On the Speed of World Change" (Lun shibian zhi ji), he had already observed that unlike China’s traditional cyclical view of history based on the "Way of Heaven," the Western view of social progress was a linear development. Based on Huxley’s Man's Place in Nature and Evolution and Ethics, Yan Fu translated and published On Evolution (Tianyan lun, 1897) [3]. This brought to modern Chinese philosophy an evolutionary worldview asserting that "the world is in a state of flux" and "all things are products of change," dealing a blow to the old cyclical view that "Heaven does not change, the Earth does not change, and the Way (Dao) likewise does not change" [4]. Applying evolutionary perspectives to human society provided excellent evidence to demonstrate that human society, like the natural world, is in a state of flux. This coincided with the drive for progress, reform, and development in modern China, becoming a powerful weapon against fatalism and determinism in Chinese culture.
Furthermore, the dissemination of evolution changed the notion of waiting for a "God" to change the fate of individuals and the nation, prompting people to seek more theories to fulfill the mission of "saving the nation from subjugation and ensuring its survival" (jiuwang tucun). For instance, Chen Duxiu advocated for replacing religion with science, arguing that Haeckel’s doctrine refuted all "religious superstitions" and "illusory ideals." Hu Jia regarded Haeckel as the "foremost figure of 19th-century materialism" and a "stalwart in the opposition to religious superstition." Interpreting human society through the "survival of the fittest" lens of evolution allowed for the breaking of old social concepts and aligned with modern Chinese intellectuals' pursuit of reform. This made the concepts of change and progress deeply rooted in people's minds, serving as a theoretical bridge for the acceptance of the materialist conception of history and providing the necessary intellectual premise for the development of Marxist atheist thought in China.
Mao Zedong’s understanding of evolution began in his youth, and his interpretations were representative of that period; evolution served as the theoretical bridge through which Mao completed his transition to a materialist view of history. Mao always paid attention to the development of natural science; in his early years at the Hunan Provincial Library, he read the works of Spencer and Darwin. At that time, he had successively accepted the ideas of "Chinese learning for substance, Western learning for application" (zhongti xiyong) [5], the Reformists, and the Revolutionaries, and had seen the word "socialism," but had not yet encountered Marxism. In the margins of Friedrich Paulsen’s A System of Ethics, Mao wrote: "Humanity cannot remain long without change." After the founding of the People's Republic of China, Mao still frequently mentioned The Origin of Species and On Evolution, valuing the transformation of the worldview brought about by the development of evolutionary theory. Mao adhered to the position that the masses are the creators of history, and evolution became one of his natural scientific foundations for elucidating the materialist conception of history and eradicating superstitious notions.
Progress in modern natural sciences, such as evolution, prompted Chinese atheists to complete a conceptual transformation. In modern China, natural science—represented by evolution—offered hope to people of noble character and high ideals who were passionate about saving the country. This was applied in practice alongside humanistic factors rooted in traditional Chinese culture, such as "man can conquer nature" (ren ding sheng tian) and the "unity of heaven and man" (tian ren he yi) [6]. These factors meant that since ancient times, Chinese people have possessed a cognitive characteristic of believing in "man" more than in "gods," thus making evolution a powerful weapon for modern Chinese people to sweep away superstition and strengthen a materialistic worldview. With the spread of Marxism in China and the founding of the Communist Party of China, atheist education developed further. Extensive practical activities to eradicate feudal superstition were carried out. From the perspective of the socio-historical practical foundation, people combined the critique of theism with the struggle against imperialism and feudalism, revealing the socio-economic roots of theism and the historical laws of its emergence, development, and eventual extinction.
However, as a theory of natural science, evolution cannot fully explain the phenomena and laws of human society. At that time, people translated and studied evolution not only out of an original intention to introduce the latest achievements of Western natural science, but even more so to introduce evolutionary perspectives into society to clarify the goals of transformation in modern Chinese society. Consequently, based on the mindset of modern translators using evolutionary views to "awaken" the citizenry, evolution was misread to a certain extent upon its introduction to China. This intentional misreading integrated more of the views of Spencer and Huxley, selecting the parts of their evolutionary thought regarding competition and change, and fusing them with traditional Daoist, Confucian, Legalist, and Buddhist thought, mixed with theistic elements. After the founding of the CPC, the wide dissemination of Marxism and further discoveries in natural science allowed thorough atheist thought to develop continuously in China.
Moreover, when extending evolution to human society, people often equated "struggle for existence" with "survival of the fittest" and "the best always win," because they treated the stronger party as the "best" in a moral sense. It is worth noting that "survival of the fittest" (shizhe shengcun) itself emphasizes adaptation more than competition; the primary purpose of biological evolution is to adapt to the environment and survive, rather than to evolve into something more "advanced" (gaoji). Although the two characters for "evolution" (jinhua) are not entirely synonymous with "development" (fazhan) or "progress" (jinbu), they share a certain degree of similarity with the concept of "development" in Marxist philosophy. Furthermore, they coincided with the pursuit of "progress" in modern society, thereby securing a place in social spheres beyond natural science. While there are points of consistency between evolution and Marxist philosophy, overemphasizing "natural selection" (wujing tianze) in the social sphere while ignoring the differences between subjects leads into the shackles of "power-ism" (likebenlun) and Social Darwinism. Additionally, mechanically applying the misread concept of "evolution" to human society triggered Social Darwinist views that "races must compete to survive."
IV. Conclusion
The perspective of evolution confirms the materialist position and is a natural ally of Marxist atheism. It acted as the natural scientific foundation in the context of the generation and development of Marxist atheism and played the role of a natural scientific premise and theoretical-logical groundwork in the process of its dissemination and practice. In the first fifty years after the founding of Marxism, the primary role of evolution was to clarify the distinction between materialism and idealism and to verify the scientific position of Marxist atheism. In the second fifty years of Marxist development, in modern Soviet Russia, the atheist position categories by evolution were implemented in state governance. In China, since its introduction at the end of the 19th century, evolution was endowed with distinct ideological and atheist characteristics amidst drastic social institutional changes and frequent collisions of social trends, becoming a powerful argument for Marxist atheists. After the mid-20th century, these characteristics gradually weakened. With the wide spread of Marxism in China, the influence of evolution gradually returned to the realm of natural science following the victory of the New Democratic Revolution and the progress of socialist construction.
Historically, ignoring natural laws and artificially laying down dictates for human society leads to idealism; conversely, overemphasizing the wholesale transplanting of natural laws into human society leads to the other extreme of Social Darwinism. These two tendencies are like the two ends of a scale; the slightest carelessness causes it to tilt. Throughout human history—from religious theology that excessively fettered human subjective agency, to Social Darwinism that overemphasized competition, and to anthropocentrism that overconfidently believed man could conquer nature—humanity seems frequently unable to maintain the balance of the scale. How to simultaneously attend to and avoid these two extreme tendencies requires adhering to dialectics and the materialist conception of history. We must use the attitudes and perspectives of Marxist atheism to understand and transform nature. While highlighting the subjective status of humans, we must neither become the "one-dimensional man" caused by scientific progress and technocracy nor become the "believer" shackled by fatalism and creationism.
Evolution within the history of Marxist development reflects how natural scientific theories in specific historical contexts become theoretical sources for Marxist atheism, and thereafter how they are disseminated, popularized, and absorbed as localized concepts. It reveals the mutually constitutive relationship between changes in social consciousness and the production and dissemination of scientific knowledge. It inspires us to continue paying attention to the development of natural science, using new advances in science as evidence for Marxist atheism, and continuously providing new paths and solutions with an atheist orientation for the development of natural science within the theoretical field of Marxism.