Christians believe God created the world through love, secular humanists believe random forces established life through violence.
Christians tell us that violence is the result of our sin, an illness no one was meant to suffer. Secular humanists tell us violence is the language and fabric of nature.
So, why do the champions of evolution in the classroom, the people who insist there is no God and that we are just highly-evolved animals, oppose violence?
How does that work? Doesn’t the whole point of evolution revolve around the idea that violence not only cannot be removed from the world, but that any attempt to remove it would destroy the very process that created the rich biodiversity we are all told we must preserve? If we believe in evolution, if we love what it has created, then why oppose the process through which it creates?
Let’s take a look at a specific case. I have already commented on the disappearance of the 1970’s “broody-hen” rhetoric. According to this line of thinking, anyone who opposed legal abortion viewed women as nothing more than egg-laying machines. According to this theory, pro-lifers who supposed to be opposed because they saw women as nothing but baby-making machines.
Oddly, now that embryonic stem cell research and surrogate motherhood has become all the rage, in other words, now that women really are treated like hens who are prized more for their eggs than their intellects, the “broody-hen” argument has disappeared. But that isn’t the only argument that is going by the wayside.
Remember when abortion was supposed to be a privacy issue, an issue between a woman and her doctor? When was the last time you heard that argument? It’s been awhile, hasn’t it? Why did it disappear?
That’s easy. It disappeared because pharmacists are doctors of medicine. When a woman goes to a pharmacist to fill a subscription for Plan B, RU-486, or any other abortifacient drug, she establishes a doctor-patient relationship with her pharmacist, a relationship that we were long told is very private, very holy. Government has no place regulating that relationship, except when the doctor decides that drug-induced abortion is not safe or appropriate treatment for his patient.
Today, if any doctor dares to make such a judgment, he is required by law to send his patient to a doctor who doesn’t care about the woman’s life or health, i.e., a doctor who will fill a prescription for a death-dealing drug. Apparently, government has no business regulating the doctor-patient relationship except when the doctor refuses to participate in baby-killling.
Given this reality, is it any wonder that Jill Stanek – the nurse who reported how live-birth aborted children were being left to die – has discovered that the Department of Justice refuses to prosecute hospitals, doctors or nurses that kill infants? In other words, we oppose violence, except when it is directed at innocents?
A burning political question must be answered. What do you do when you are ruled by homicidal megalomaniacs? We can’t vote them out. The leaders of both parties are certifiably insane, as is the media that spins the edicts they issue.
Much as I despise sharia law and hate the idea of being ruled by it, it is becoming barely possible that being a dhimmi would not be a step down. We would simply be trading one set of evil rulers for another. The imams’ particular predilictions for evil may be different, but the evil itself is the same. As one Muslim demonstrator told Pope Benedict XVI, “We will oppose your worship of life with our worship of death.” That kind of sentiment could make him an honorary secular American.
3 comments:
Well technincally acts you consider "violent", such as predation, or competition may lead to stronger gene pools and greater biodiversity other factors completely unrelated to acts you might think of as violent dictate the course of evolution far more. The foremost being biological fitness, basically meaning those that produce the most vertile offspring that live produce more offpsing are most successful. That is why there are breeding human populations on every continenent except antarctica and why we have 6 billion humans instead of the few thousand surviving chimps. Acts you consider violent do influence evolution, but are not the primary factor. The reason that many humans dislike violence is because we have the ability to empathize. We can understand what it is like for other people to live through situations. This ability that we have evolved also exists in many other species to lower extents allowing them to survive by allowing them to live in communities, packs, pods, and colonies. Humans, chimps, and even wolves would not survive very well without social groups that they had some concern about. You also have to remember Secular Humanists deify humans to an extent, and why would they want deified beings killing other deified beings? (I of course am not a Secular Humanist but accept evolution like anyone else who understands the evidence.) Now a bigger question, Christians, who believe that lieing is wrong, lie to support creationism? Lies like "evolution has never been observed" or lies like "Darwin recanted on his deathbed" (not that that would matter), or lies like "evolution has been disproved so many times." Yet none can back up a single one of these claims. It makes one wonder if they believe in a deity that considers lieing a sin why do they lie for their belief. Same goes for anytype of creationist in any religion.
Wakim, I would say most people consider predation violent, given that predation involves killing and etaing prey.
Furthermore, to say that biological fitness and "versatile offspring" (i.e, creatures who produce the most offspring) are the "real" winners begs the question, doesn't it?
What constitutes "biological fitness" except a reduction in the organism's death rate? Whether climate or creature does the violence to the organism is hardly relevant - the point is, something does violence to the creature and it is unable to survive that violence.
Why would creatures who produce the most offspring be successful? Because a lower percentage of each generation gets eaten that way.
Like all evolutionists, you draw word pictures that hide the reality and hope no one notices. Darwin was the first, and in many ways the best at it, but all of his popular successors, like Dawkins, et. al, do the same.
I accept the generalities of evolution, as does ID, however what I love the most are the people defending ev. without saying which flavor they are defending. There are literally hundreds of individual flavors of evolution, most contradicting each other in some way, that have been placed out there because each theory is at least somewhat flawed. Darwins (the oldest version), step-theory ev., disaster, ladder, end-point, etc. That they then all try to attack ID is simply ludicrous. ID, just like all the other flavors, has some flaws but the unscientific way that it is usually attacked by unspecified evolutionists allows everyone to see their agenda more than their arguments.
Post a Comment