A New Look at Darwin 575.3
Jimmy was only nine when his mom told him his little sister was sick. She would die if she didn’t get a blood transfusion, and Jimmy was one of the only people in the world who had the rare blood type needed. Jimmy loved his sister. Although he didn’t know what was involved, he agreed to give his blood.
On the appointed day, Jimmy was solemn but brave when the nurse put a needle into his vein and began to drain his blood. After a few minutes of watching the bag fill, he looked scared. Finally he asked the nurse, “How much longer will it be before I die?”
The nurse was shocked. “You’re not going to die!" she said.
Then she wept when she realized he thought he had to give all his blood to save his sister.
This parable, adapted from a story in Chicken Soup for the Soul, touched and inspired me because it reveals one of the noblest distinguishing qualities of humankind: the willingness to sacrifice oneself for another.
It’s usually assumed that Darwin’s survival of the fittest evolutionary theory favors development of competitive characteristics and behavior strategies. Yet in our complex interdependent society, our capacity to care and willingness to sacrifice for the benefit of others is the real evolutionary advantage.
Having more people like Jimmy is a major social asset, but it’s more than that. Personal happiness is more attainable when we heed the voice of our souls and find purpose and meaning through service and kindness.
Despite the dog-eat-dog culture that prevails today, lasting happiness depends more on what we give than what we get.
This is Michael Josephson reminding you that character counts.
Comments
I was disappointed in your quick telling of the transfusion story, which I felt tended to deplete the emotional impact that it had on me when I read it in the cited source originally. There is an interesting article on the story found at http://www.snopes.com/glurge/transfuse.asp which indicates it may not be original to "Chicken Soup for the Soul," although I liked their treatment of it.
Posted by: Bob J. | July 18, 2008 9:56 AM
Bob, I really think the origin of the story is unimportant. The message is what should have touched you more than the origin. The message was intended to show the human nature and the willingness to sacrifice oneself for another. That is all, nothing more nothing less. It may have originated from prehistoric times (for all I care) and retold in several different ways, but it is getting the main gist of the story across, no matter who or how it is being told.
Posted by: Dianne H | July 20, 2008 9:31 AM
Dear Mr. Josephson,
I have great respect for your work and your commentaries. They are of the highest and most noble of qualities. I am disturbed, however, in this commentary in that there is an appearance of your support for the theory of evolution which has never been proven ... it is a theory. Sincerely.
Posted by: Richard Innes | July 21, 2008 10:28 PM
For the record, Mr. Josephson did not assert in the commentary that Darwin's theory of evolution has been proven. In addition, he further qualified his reference to it by adding the words "usually" and "assumed."
Here is what he wrote in full: "It’s usually assumed that Darwin’s survival of the fittest evolutionary theory favors development of competitive characteristics and behavior strategies."
Posted by: Josephson Institute Editor
|
July 22, 2008 10:33 AM
A comment says: "I am disturbed...that there is an appearance of your support for the theory of evolution which has never been proven ... it is a theory." If the writer respects Michael's work as much as she says, she should recognize that he is an advocate of respect and tolerance. I am disturbed by Michael's frequent references to God, which is only a theory, but I don't feel the need to make an issue about it. I feel sad that Michael's writing must be so constrained even in the telling of a story's incidental points (see his explanation) not for the sake of accuracy but so obviously to try and avoid offending readers with hostile personal prejudices.
Posted by: John Daykin | July 25, 2008 9:39 AM
Oh ye repliers with stones in hand... Mr Josephson told a simple story, identified the source and drew a picture that you all admit you see but must shred in some way to accept. Fear and anger abound in a world that claims it is "too confused to choose."
Posted by: Lynette Hardey | July 25, 2008 12:22 PM
That the theory of evolution continues to be referred to as "the theory of" is unfortunate. Note that it is not "a" theory. I don't know what proof you need, but the evidence is overwhelming. There is nothing in this to preclude God from having guided the process if that is your belief. But to deny evolution is to stick your head in the sand.
Posted by: Ian | July 25, 2008 10:27 PM
In spite of all the harping that is going on about creation, evolution, and story origin, I will still donate my blood for any of you. And THAT is Michael's point. As Dianne H said, "Nothing more, nothing less."
Posted by: James | August 13, 2008 4:31 PM
Laymen often take the scientific term "theory" to mean the same as the common usage term "theory." They are not the same. That would be like taking the legal term "practicing" and thinking it means the same as the common usage term "practicing." If this were true, then we would never have any lawyers actually performing legal tasks since they are ALL just practicing. Likewise, if one subscibes to scientific theories such as the theory of gravity, then what makes the theory of evolution so different? If you're going to use the term to dispute evolution, please at least use it correctly.
Posted by: James | August 15, 2008 12:29 PM