Clarity. For now.

Dostoevsky probably never read Origin of Species, and probably never got a degree in biology or theology. Maybe he doesn't fully understand evolution but I now believe that his lack of understanding leads him not to misguided conclusions but rather to misguided wording. The way he presents his argument, it seems as though he more doubts evolution than its viability as a wall, or at least this is how I took it. However he is not saying that humanity disproves evolution, but rather that we are actively trying to fight it. So with that in mind, I think what he's getting at is that our free will leads us not only to act out of our self interest but, because we know that there is this set of biological guidelines for us that we are told are best for us, I think he is saying we are actively fighting these guidelines. I think what he is doing is describing the rebellious and destructive tendencies of human nature and saying that evolution, while it is a wall, is something humans accept and love to try to defy. We love the underdog- we love to say even the little guy has a chance when in reality, according to science, the little guy needs to die so that humanity as a whole can become stronger. And we all want to be told we can succeed with some effort and a little bit of moxy, an idea that eventually turned into the motto for a country. Dostoevsky sees the flaw there- I think he sees that people can't logically accept evolution AND all believe in themselves. And that's what I think he's getting at. At least, for right now.