There are many people out there who fight Darwin's theory of natural selection because it makes them feel "small," it makes life "meaningless" or it causes only despair. In the February/March 2010 issue of Free Inquiry Magazine, Christopher Hitchens substitutes the word "stoicism" for "despair," then poses several questions in response:

[I]s this Darwinian stuff really the goods or is it not? You can't take a position against it on the mere ground that might make humans feel small. (Incidentally, isn't religion supposed to make people feel small and worthless: mere sinners created from dust by an angry and jealous deity? Our own well charted descent from lowly amoeba and bacteria is surely nothing as humiliating as that.) I suppose you could argue that my next question is to some extent a matter of taste and therefore ultimately undecidable, but how is it more uplifting to human beings to compare themselves to well-tended but helpless farm animals, grateful for any favor from the owner and not believing themselves able to manage any sustenance without a corresponding guardianship?

The point Hitchens raises has puzzled me for many years. How could any life feel worthwhile without a sense of autonomy? As soon as one hands one's fate over to Someone Else (who is guided by God-knows-what), it would seem that the "meaning" of one's life exists merely in the hand-over of control, and not in one's many earthly choices, no matter how impressive they might seem.