One of the most common phrases associated with the Darwinian theory of evolution is “survival of the fittest.” This phrase captures in brief the notion that, as Jeff Roesler Stebbins writes in “The Evolution of Evolutionary Linguistics” (Colorado Research in Linguistics, June 2007), “biological evolution is a tale of competition, of natural selection eliminating the less fit and empowering the more fit.” However, this fundamental tenet of evolutionary theory creates a problem for the idea that human language came into existence via an evolutionary process. As Stebbins asks:
If this is the case, how could the evolution of language have occurred, if language...requires the cooperation of hominoids competing with each other for survival? Darkness and tall grass may have caused gestural communication to give way to more socially beneficial vocal communication, but how does this reconcile with ‘survival of the fittest?’ It is to each hominoid’s survival advantage that his/her competitors not know his/her intent.
The fact is that human language is largely a cooperative activity, in at least two senses. First, human language usually functions through the interaction between two (or more individuals), as the thoughts from one human mind are communicated to another mind (or minds). There must be a speaker (or writer) and a listener (or reader) for language to work. Second, logically speaking (in general), language can only be created through agreement among human beings as to the meaning of words. However, as Stebbins points out, these realities pose a problem for an evolutionary explanation of the origin of language—if Darwinian evolution is based on the principle of “survival of the fittest,” of competition between individuals, how can it be that individual humanoids would have cooperated to create language or been willing to reveal their intentions to their competitors via language?
Thus, we can see how the actual nature of language creates problems for those who are “depending on a theory about competition to explain the development of an intrinsically co-operative activity” (Stebbins). In fact, it is not only the cooperative nature of human language that creates problems for evolutionary theory, but any type of human behavior that is not focused exclusively on the benefit of the individual, behavior that does not necessarily promote "survival of the fittest." For example, as Timothy Keller points out in The Reason for God: Belief in an Age of Skepticism, human altruism is difficult to explain within the framework of evolutionary theory. Keller notes that “an individual’s self-sacrificing, altruistic behavior toward his or her blood kin might result in a greater survival rate for the individual’s family or extended clan, and therefore result in a greater number of descendants with that person’s genetic material” (p. 153). Consequently, such behavior might be considered in the individual’s self-interest. However, altruistic behavior on behalf of someone who is not part of one’s group would seem not to be in the individual’s self-interest at all, so what would be the motivation for such behavior in an evolutionary scenario?
In short, it is difficult to square the reality that human language is created and functions through cooperation among humans with the Darwinian notion of “survival of the fittest," which implies competition between humans (as it is difficult to reconcile "survival of the fittest" with other types of cooperative behavior among humans) . This is yet another reason for us to entertain doubts about the likelihood that human language originated and developed through a process of Darwinian evolution.