• Text smaller
  • Text bigger

“Man … life … existence is solely the product of evolution, and only the weak-minded and superstitious among us believe in some supra being somewhere who created us.”Intellectually, that may make for stimulating cocktail (or mind-numbing classroom) discussions, but few, if any, of its devotees truly believe the most people are governed by this rhetoric.

The truth is, while the argument for evolution may generate passionate discourse among the Western intelligentsia, even its strongest adherents do so while anticipating, even requiring the civilizing influence of the Judeo-Christian Supra Being they so vociferously deny.

A proponent of the theory of evolution says we crawled out of the primordial ooze onto dry ground, and just look at what we have become today! Keep in mind, according to the dictionary, a theory is a “proposed explanation whose status is still conjectural.” It is a speculation, a guess, a conjecture.

An agnostic, a person who denies or disbelieves the existence of a supreme being, says, “I am really not sure there is a God. I don’t think anyone can know anything for sure, since human knowledge is limited to experience.” A secular humanist says, “WE are God. We have reason, science and ethics. We don’t need the input of religious groups trying to force their superstitions upon the rest of us. We are beings made in our own image and our own likeness and, consequently, we don’t need gods.” And the atheist, of course, agrees, saying, “It’s a good thing you don’t need gods, because there ain’t none.”

Notwithstanding some admittedly stupid activities on our collective part, consider the potential that is in mankind: the ability to produce the hydrogen bomb and polio vaccine, rid the world of smallpox or produce a Hitler and a Mother Teresa. If you consider the almost limitless creativity of human beings, strictly from the standpoint of their scientific and artistic achievements, one can easily be impressed by the incredible potential of the God-image in us. Of course, they don’t call it a God image, but when you don’t stop to think about where this potential came from, you can understand how some people could say, “We don’t need God, we have us.”

If you don’t stop to think about it, and you take all the wonders of creation at face value, it is perfectly understandable to say all of this just happened. On the other hand, consider the eyes you are reading this with: “To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances … could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree.” Wonder what preacher said that? Oops, it was Charles Darwin, the father of evolution. Isn’t it a remarkable accident that some 7 billion people with 14 billion eyes, each with the same “inimitable contrivances” (except for coloration and other slight variations) are basically always the same?

The ears with which you hear someone say, “We don’t need God!” utilize a complex combination of physiology, psychology and acoustics to translate pressure disturbances (a/k/a sound waves, frequencies, intensity and decibel levels) into Shakespeare or Beethoven. If you don’t like FM 100.9, no worries, mate – your ears can separate more than 1,600 different frequencies, 400,000 sounds and 120 volume levels.

And just FYI – the brain, while translating this remarkably brilliant discourse, or the sound waves of a rude disagreement, is at the same time processing more than a million other messages, while making sure you don’t forget to breathe, blink, turn your eyeballs or move muscles to click the mouse button and, oh yes, remind you that it’s time for lunch, a slightly uncomfortable reminder that you are alive.

Life … feel the word. Roll it on your tongue. L-i-f-e. What is life? No one knows for sure, but it is assuredly much more than the result of a random bolt of lightning striking a pond of primordial stew.

At your birth, you breathed in the breath of life, and when you die, you will breathe out your last breath of life, thus completing the “circle of life.” Unfortunately, science has never been able to duplicate that breath of life, so if you don’t believe there’s more to life than here and now, when you are dead, you are done.

How and why did the first beings (or were they just critters) choose to breathe oxygen as the breath of life instead of what was there to begin with (especially if they began in the ocean and crawled up onto land)? This presents a dilemma for evolutionists. According to one scientific report, “In the presence of oxygen, life could not evolve; without oxygen, thus no ozone, life could not evolve or exist.” (Gish, D. 2007. “A Few Reasons an Evolutionary Origin of Life Is Impossible.” Acts & Facts. 36 (1).)

How does your blood know exactly how many white cells and red cells it needs to achieve a perfect balance? How does the body know that if you have too many white cells you die, or if you have too few or too many red blood cells you die? Who instituted chemical laws, such as H2O and O2, fertility and gravity, without which, life as we know it cannot exist?

Science has come to this conclusion: there was a beginning – the Big Bang – caused by an unimaginable compression followed by an equally unimaginable explosion. But what was the cause of these events? Even if evolution is more wonderful than we could have possibly imagined, these questions remain unanswered, unless there is another reason. Could there be a first cause? Something, or perhaps Someone that makes sense to certain thinking, rational beings?

Could there have been an Intelligent Designer of such awe-inspiring magnitude behind all of this that it impels worship? (Say, for example, the first chapter of Genesis? God spoke and BANG! … it happened?) Nah, that’s religious. (One very brief point: The Bible is not a religious book and was never intended to establish religions, Christianity included. There are seven references to religious/religion in the Bible, and only one is overtly positive. My conclusion? God doesn’t like religion, either.)

With all of this said, the intelligentsia still insist that man is inherently capable of living without an externally imposed morality. After all, we are civilized. This word, “civilization,” is thrown about frequently today with little regard for its currently accepted meaning. I would give you odds that when people refer to civilized behavior, they are using Western civilization as the standard. Just to the south of us there existed the Mayan and Inca civilizations, which featured, among other civilized acts, the drowning of hundreds of virgins in holy wells and the honoring of brave enemies by decapitation and the removal and consumption of the still-beating heart. Incidentally, ever wonder where the thumbs up/down gesture originated?

Western civilizations, unlike some Eastern civilizations, forbid such activities as gender-selection, clitoridectomies, female slavery and child prostitution. Based upon these and other cultural activities we refer to as atrocities, it is utter nonsense to believe that mankind can co-exist in a so-called civilized state solely under the auspices of “Mother Nature.” (Lest we forget, the God of Israel was first introduced in a heretofore natural society. Before His standards of right and wrong, there were no absolutes, except those enforced by a reigning power.)

Consider this comparison: Alaska, a male polar bear (poster child for global warming) that hasn’t eaten for six weeks kills and eats a baby polar bear; New York City; a homeless guy who hasn’t eaten for almost three weeks snatches a baby out of a carriage, runs down an alley into an abandoned building, builds a fire, cooks and eats the kid. “Ben, that is barbaric!” (savagely cruel, exceedingly brutal, uncivilized). The intellectuals (and uninformed) who relentlessly denounce traditional, religious societal mores and argue so passionately for evolution’s natural law wail that such behavior among humans is uncivilized, wrong or even immoral. Why? Who says? Isn’t that just survival of the fittest?

“Natural law” is a doctrine that holds there is a natural moral order or law inherent in the structure of the universe, whose content is set solely by nature. This viewpoint fosters activities that are without civilizing – or dare I say it – biblical influence, prohibitions or restraints. Example on the Internet: “Twitter lynch mob calls for Zimmerman, judge’s death”; Twitter message boards were full of calls to kill Trayvon Martin shooter George Zimmerman. One tweet also called for Judge Kenneth Lester, who freed Zimmerman, to be murdered.” Wrong? Unjust? Isn’t this just lex talionis?

Stripped of all its nonsensical postulations, and absent the root and ground of our existing culture, natural law boils down to this: Every “animal” (read you) is a law unto himself, and that law is “survival of the fittest” – those most suited to their environment, those less hindered by morality.

In other words, I can do whatever I please and no one has the right to impose their definition of morality on me. Right? Therefore, if, in my view, atheists, agnostics, homosexuals, mothers having children out of wedlock and guilty racist whites should be eliminated, who is to say I am wrong? And based on what? Your opinion?

As I have previously stated, if we are truly the product of evolution, then there are no moral absolutes, as there is no author of moral absolutes. If you believe evolution to be the truth, you can and/or will act in a manner consistent with your view of self – unless, of course, you stop and think about it.

  • Text smaller
  • Text bigger
Note: Read our discussion guidelines before commenting.