As long as people believe in absurdities, they will continue to commit atrocities. -- Voltaire
People gaze at mountains. People live in valleys. People thrive when the mountain is healthy, channeling water of life to valleys made green and lush. But when the run-off is poisoned with purposelessness and made monstrously meaningless, should it be surprising that a dull, reeking valley of death results? For all its current glory, with affected upward gazes and mandated stares of respect, Darwinism's much-touted and largely doubted mountain of evidence feeds a valley of death--the cold, purposeless, meaningless death of natural selection makes life in the valley heartily attractive to the strong, and hardly attractive to the weak. And though the mountain comes to few, we are all forced to go to it, walking in its shadow, living in its valley. How can we not fear evil?
From Darwin to Hitler, from Darwin to Marx, from Darwin to Stalin, from Darwin to Columbine, from Darwin to eugenics, from Darwin to euthanasia, from Darwin to infanticide . . . . The connections are undeniable except to those who resolutely oppose truth for fear of the obvious. To those who hate truth and love naturalistic Darwinism, denying the obvious implications of their chosen theory must be a learned adaptation, no doubt necessary to survive in the harsh environment of materialistic science, where on the topic of origins Darwinism and reality rarely coincide. Beyond feeding the mountain of theoretical puffery animating just-so meta-narratives, however, Darwin's theory fuels ideas that clash with reality in every area of life, from ethics to politics to religion, where at each turn the Darwin-inspired unnatural election of natural selection as a guiding light wreaks havoc and wrecks lives. Why can't we ask, "Is it true?"
Natural selection. Who could question such a thoroughly impeccant and wholesome idea? How viscerally attractive is the combination of organic earthiness and pro-choice chic. Like a prophet, Darwin's greatest triumph may be his anticipation of a thoroughly secular culture, his terminology reflecting a perfectly humanistic blend of free cosmos and free choice. Unguided choice, unintelligent direction, language trumps logic in a shadowy world of selfish killing to live, the favored races being preserved over the unfavored in a cycle of amoral gene propagation. Would death by any other name smell as sweet?
Make no mistake, natural selection is nothing more than the killing of a weaker, slower, or dumber living being by the elements, or more likely, by a stronger, faster, or smarter living being. No real selection in any real sense of making a choiceful decision among competing alternatives happens, of course. But granting Darwinists their necessary guidance substitute, what is the selected one being selected for? And which one does the selecting? One living being selected for death by another living being (naturally, of course) for no necessary reason beyond bare survival, and even survival is not a reason but a result. That's natural selection. In a Darwinian system, that is the course and coarse of nature, and we are simply one purposeless byproduct. How convenient that our ancestors were better killers than whatever other purposeless existence might otherwise be here now. Are we to lament the flood of blood that washed us up on this present shore? Or are we to celebrate such good fortune? What use is lamenting or celebrating in the absence of reason and purpose? We are not even lucky; we just are.
The great failure of Darwinists is not only their failing to produce any evidence to support their theory in its strong form (all life from non-life in ever increasing information-bearing specified complexity), but in their obstinate refusal to admit and own up to the fact that their force-fed ideas (that few people believe) have predictable consequences (that no one likes). Students taught that they are a result of unguided, purposeless processes that never had them in mind can hardly be expected to see life through any other lens. Such world views produce world leaders whose truthless philosophy ends in ruthless atrocities. Whether kid or king, if people believe they are here only because their ancestors successfully killed off all competition, on what logical basis should they not reciprocate in kind for their offspring?
Ideas have consequences. If Darwinism is correct, and we truly are the result of unguided, chance mutations that made us more successful at killing off weaker beings, then we must live with the difficult task of trying to formulate any reason why we all should not simply continue nature's task. Unguided purposeless processes produced our mind, but what is to produce our morals? If science has defined our facts, can't science define our values? So far Darwinists have not been able to come up with any coherent ethic consistent with both the inherent human ethos and their heartless killing machine. Look it up, no one can do it. And no one ever will.
Many teach Darwinism sincerely out of ignorance, offending the truth in science born of nescience. Others preach Darwinism sincerely in spite of knowledge, suppressing the truth in science without conscience. But whether by omission or commission, sin is no less when lodged in sincere. We must ask, therefore, is Darwinism true? If not, can it be that perhaps not only are we designed as a scientific matter, but we are designed for a higher purpose? Can science help inform society on the human condition beyond the hopeless, clueless foundering of evolutionary thinking? Can we even ask the question?
Reprinted with permission
Roddy Bullock, JD, BSME, is the Executive Director of the Intelligent Design Network of Ohio (www.idnetohio.com) and is the author of The Cave Painting: A Parable of Science, published by Access Research Network. Send comments to: email@example.com.
Copyright (C) 2007 Roddy M. Bullock, all rights reserved. Quotes and links permitted with attribution.