"Civilization, we shall find, like Universalism and Christianity, is anti evolutionary in its effects; it works against the laws and conditions which regulated the earlier stages of man's ascent"

Arthur Keith's quote recommends a crucial viewpoint on the impact of civilization, universalism, and Christianity on human advancement. Keith posits that these constructs are "anti-evolutionary", suggesting that they disrupt or combat the natural procedures that governed human advancement in its early phases.

To comprehend this interpretation, it is necessary to explore what Keith may suggest by "anti evolutionary". In evolutionary terms, natural choice is a procedure where environmental pressures result in the survival and reproduction of people best adapted to their surroundings. In early human history, survival and advancement were straight linked to physical adaptability, resourcefulness, and competitors.

Keith appears to argue that civilization, universalism, and Christianity present social constructs, standards, and principles that reduce these natural evolutionary pressures. Civilization, with its focus on societal stability and cooperation, might lessen the competitive survival of just the physically or mentally "fittest". It presents technology, medical improvements, and social safety nets that permit people who might not have endured in a primitive context to thrive and replicate.

Universalism and Christianity further complicate this dynamic by promoting principles such as compassion, selflessness, and the intrinsic value of every human life. These suitables encourage assistance for the weak or disadvantaged, potentially contrary to the 'survival of the fittest' paradigm. While these worths contribute positively to social cohesion and ethical advancement, Keith seems to recommend they do so at the expense of standard evolutionary pressures.

Eventually, Keith's viewpoint is introspective, considering whether the improvements of civilization and moral systems like those used by universalism and Christianity line up or conflict with the natural laws of development. His view stimulates argument over the implications of social progress on the evolutionary trajectory, questioning whether these constructs boost or prevent the fundamental evolutionary systems that have actually traditionally formed humanity.