Dolling Up DarwinI have generally stayed out of the Intelligent Design v. Evolution debate. I’m not a science mined person, never have been. I took all the basic sciences in high school kicking and screaming because it took away time I could have spent reading history and literature. Forcing me to spend ix credit hours studying rocks in college was on of the cruelest punishments I ever endured--and I’ve passed a kidney stone before. I am thrilled there are folks out there who are madly in love with science, because if you had to depend on me, we’d still be using square wheels and waiting to discover fire. In other words, I’ve got nothing to contribute and don’t even pretend that I do.
I am at best a Young Earth Creationist at best, an Old earth Creationist somewhere in the middle, or a theistic evolutionist at worst. As far as evolutionist activists are concerned--those that label themselves humanists--any of the three would make me a creationist by default as I accept a supernatural origin for the beginning of life rather than a natural one. There’s already an obstacle too large to overcome, so there seems to be no reason to engage in a dialogue. Upon realizing a notarized letter from a parent presented to the principal of a school forbidding your child from learning about evolution has to be accepted on religious discrimination bounds makes the whole argument moot for me. If every science class had twenty Christians sitting outside in the hallway when evolution was being taught, there would be quite a few changes made in school curriculums.
Evolutionist activists are beginning to see this arising and are opting to put a kinder, gentler face on the teaching of evolution. Randy Olsen, a film director of all things, has created a list of
ten things evolutionists can do to improve communication. This list is putting the proverbial sheep’s clothing on the wolf.
I admitted above that I don’t have a scientific background. I understand that the universe contains everything, including all possibilities, and that means that even the mathematically preposterous notion that life randomly evolved through millions of beneficial mutations (even though 99% of mutations are destructive) could have theoretically happened. It insults my intelligence for someone to demand I accept that as a fact, but living life necessitates a thick skin about such things. No, I don’t personally believe it, especially outside of a Divine Creator. Fortunatel for me, this list is largely bypassing th sciences and speaking about a public relations campaign. It’s about winning the hearts and minds of people. It’s about the social sciences of dealing with humanity. I will tell you from personal experience, it’s as dangerous as any movement around.
Let me tell you a few things as an archair political scientist and you can scoff as you deem necessary. There is a very large difference between the political theories developed before Darwin’s theories than after. Plato, Machiavelli, Hobbes, Rousseau, et al weren’t necessarily angels in developing their political theories. Their philosophies are full of benevolent dictators ruling over the sheep and or random cruelty frightening populations into submission. It hasn’t always been rosey when God has been interjected into government, either, as the mediaval Catholic church’s meddling in political affairs or the so called divine right of kings to be absolute, cruel monarchs has demonstrated. All these things are pre-Darwin, I’ll admit. But look at Darwin’s philosophy and its subsequent adherents.
It isn’t well advertised--how many of you have actually read
Origins of Species or
The Descent of Man?--but Darwin’s basic philosophy of natural selection involved the elevation of man through the elimination of what he considered to be the inferior races. In
The Descent of Man, Darwin predicted that in order for man to continue its upward evolution, it would have to eliminate the non white races. Now let’s be fair, lots of Christians grabbed unto the idea as well, particularly slave owners in the South and Anglicans in Great Britain who wanted to justify the continuation of the British Empire and weren’t found of former slaves integrating into their society. That nasty element of Christianity is still around and dangerous, but less obnoxious than the non-Christian atheists adherents of Darwinism.
You see, Darwin believed that wars, famines, and diseases were a way of thinning the herd of inferiors. They were a good thing. Political ideologies after Darwin grasped unto the idea. Communism would have been a forgotten blip in history in it weren’t for Darwin. Instead, Stalin, Mao, and Pol Pot mudered millions of “inferior” people to “improve” their respective populations. Nazism is, of course, the more famous ideology to incorporate social Darwinism. Hitler thought he was doing the world a favor by killing six million Jews. He also praised the united states for segregation, the sterilization of the disabled, and the segregation of African-Americans, lest you think social Darwinism hasn’t creeped into the United states’ social and political landscape.
Evolution is, at its heart, an atheistic idea that elevates man to godhood. It’s a religion, son’t be fooled. Atheism is a belief there is no God. Absence of proof is not proof of absence. When you take God out of creation, you put man in as the arbitor of morality. It establishes again what the book of genesis described before Noah’s flood as a time “when every man did that which was right in his own eyes.” That means there’s no reason that Hitler can’t kill six million Jews, that Stalin can’t slaughter the Ukrainians, or that Pol Pot can’t murder half--yes, half--the population of Cambodia because that is aiding the cause of eliminating the chaff and elevating mankind to godhood.
Evolution says that man is not made in the image of God, but is just another animal. Thus the humanist religion both elevates and diminishes man. Do Google search for the Humanist manifesto sometime and view its tenets--the abolition of theism, abortion, euthanasia, eugenics--a virtual cornucopia of good stuff designed to eliminate the supposedly inferior.
Contrast this to more Christian centered philosophies. I’ll give you a place to start:
“We hold these truths to be self-evident: that all men are created equal and endowed by their Creator with cetain inalienable rights….”
The italics there are mine. I see a marked difference between political and social philosophies influenced by creationism versus those influenced by Darwinism. It is enough to tell me that evolution is a bad tree bearing bad fruit, and no matter how much you doll it all up by improving communication, it is still an evil humanist religion that ought to be relegated to the dustbin of history and not taught as exclusive, undeniable fact to impressionable children in schools.