.jpg)
E-mail
Print
RSS
G-bookmarks
Live
TechnoratiI have written many articles over the years often addressing controversial issues, some of which have provoked strong reactions. However, no other subject so provokes as the suggestion that Darwin’s theory of evolution is false.
In my recent article, James Watson is Not a Racist; He’s a Darwinist! I commented on the recent statements of noted scientist and evolutionist, James Watson. You may recall that Watson suggested that black people were inherently less intelligent due to their stunted evolutionary development. As I pointed out, Watson was simply speaking in a way that revealed the ethical dilemma of Darwinism in which morality as we understand it has no place. True to form, the evolutionists were outraged.
One respondent wrote:
Utter rubbish! And inconsistent with any Christian ideas of truth-seeking. [sic] Even if Darwin's theories have been used by some to promote unethical behaviour that does not mean that Darwinian evolution is inconsistent with any ethical system. [sic] Shame on you. If this is the sort of absurd, manipulative reasoning that you need to buttress your faith, then I suggest you pray for guidance on why you think you need to do evil (to lie) in order to do Good.
First, I did not say that Darwinian evolution is inconsistent with any ethical system; I wrote that is was inconsistent with Judeo-Christian ethics and morality. If it is to be logically consistent, Darwinism demands a completely new understanding of morality in which the preservation of the fittest becomes the highest moral good.
In Descent of Man, Darwin tried to demonstrate that all human traits—including moral behavior—are different in degree, but not in kind, from other organisms. Darwin argued that all human behavior [including morality] was a result of biological determinism and not human reason. This implies that we do not possess a rational moral nature but that all our actions are driven by the biologically-induced aim of survival. Logically speaking, this aim would be [and must be] opposed to self-sacrifice or altruism of any kind if such acts do not contribute to your prosperity and survival.
Another reader writes:
Mr. Craven, I strongly suggest you take the time to read or at least take a class on evolution. Your ENTIRE thesis here is based on one WRONG assumption - evolution has no goal. It is simply the ability to pass on heritable traits that allow the organism to thrive in the environment…. There is no right and wrong or good and bad in science and nature.
This is typical of the silly statements so often made by evolutionists. On the one hand this person assumes Darwinian or “macro” evolution to be fact. The only fact related to Darwin’s theory is the observation of “natural selection” or genetic adaptation occurring within species. This was Darwin’s unique contribution to evolutionary theory. Others prior to Darwin had developed evolutionary theories but none had ever identified a plausible mechanism by which such evolutionary changes could have occurred. Natural selection is an observable phenomenon but again, only within a species. The theoretical begins and remains to this day at the point when you assume this same process occurs between species.
Secondly, Darwin’s theory of evolution does indeed have a “goal”—providing an alternative to the biblical explanation of origins. Darwin’s grandfather, Erasmus Darwin was a noted intellectual, physician and writer who, long before Charles, theorized an evolutionary alternative to biblical origins. The senior Darwin strongly opposed Christianity going so far as to include “Credulity, Superstitious Hope, and the Fear of Hell in his catalogue of diseases.”
Finally, this reader’s statement reveals the self-contradictory position of Darwinians who embrace Judeo-Christian morality. On the one hand he objects to my moral criticism that Darwinism is racist but on the other he writes, “There is no right and wrong or good and bad in science and nature.” Exactly! If nature is the ultimate and final reality, there is no universal right or wrong and each individual is at liberty to live in whatever way best serves their selfish interest of personal progress and survival. So by what authority can Darwinism condemn racism? This is just one of the areas where Darwinism conflicts with reality demonstrating its fallacy.
Darwinism proposes a completely alternative reality to that of the Judeo-Christian worldview. This is not just some collateral theory of life that fits nicely into the existing philosophical structure, i.e. the biblical worldview—it completely undermines this perspective and everything we understand about reality, replacing it with a radically different interpretation.
Concepts such as compassion, mercy, forgiveness, as well as the belief in human equality are virtues revealed exclusively through and established by a Christian interpretation of life and reality. These virtues are recognized as uniquely human and nowhere relevant to the animal world.
My favorite response is this one:
How dare you label the majority who realise [sic] the sense and logic of evolution as racist. At least pick an intelligent argument for creationism - oh, I forgot, there is not one.
I love the righteous indignation. Not only is this position logically inconsistent but it is often the only defense offered by evolutionists; simply label the alternative as being unintelligent. This is certainly the premise of those who attack any discussion of Intelligent Design.
Make no mistake, Darwinism is not science, it is philosophy. It is dogma! This, I think, accounts for both its proponents’ vehement defense and aggressive reaction to any challenge.
________________________________________________
S. Michael Craven is the President of the Center for Christ & Culture, a ministry of discipleship and Church renewal that works to equip Christians with an intelligent, thoroughly Christian and missional approach to culture. For more information on the Center for Christ & Culture, additional resources, and other works by S. Michael Craven visit: www.battlefortruth.org
praiseandbeblessed »
Agree: 
Disagree: 
