Why intellectuals evangelize

Liberalism will always fail because it will always collapse upon the weight of its own immorality.

~ Anonymous

I consider myself a conservative intellectual, a thinker who holds philosophical ideas out the Judeo-Christian traditions of intellectual thought. That said, without fail when I write an article about the diabolical influence of Darwin's theory of evolution on society, I get some of the most reactionary, incoherent rants from the liberal blogosphere.

Exhibit one: Liberal blogger Ed Brayton is a well-known atheist who (along with his fellow bloggers) absolutely hates everything good about America – which I guess would explain why he hates my writings and ideas so much because I am a Christian, a conservative and am very pro-America.

Below is our correspondence over just one of my articles, "When killer whales kill: a biblical view." It would be instructive to read that article first so as to properly understand the context of Brayton's love-hate attachment to my ideas.

Dear Mr. Ed Brayton:

Thank you for your response, which didn't really get to the heart of the matter:

Advertisement - story continues below

Believing in a "theory" the creator (Darwin) of which knew before and after he wrote "The Origin of Species" was full of holes, unbelievable and unsustainable – for you to follow such a man is like following a cult leader. Your position is ipso facto (inherently) indefensible. You have built an entire worldview on quicksand. Lenin referred to true believers like you and your fellow bloggers as "useful idiots."

Here is your question:

Can you provide a coherent, consistent explanation other than common descent for the patterns of appearance of endogenous retroviruses in vertebrate genomes? Francis Collins, the Christian geneticist who headed up the Human Genome Project, lays out much of the data on ERVs in his book "The Language of God" and argues, quite correctly, that it simply cannot be explained without common descent (which is, of course, the theory of evolution).

Since I am not a scientist but a philosopher and an intellectual, the way I approach all bodies of knowledge is from reason and veritas (truth). We could argue back and forth on Darwin's theory all day, but let's cut to the chase. Mr. Brayton, how can you rationalize and compare your humanist and atheist ideas in relation to St. Paul's letter to the Church at Rome? Particularly Romans 1:18-23:

For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness;

Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them.

For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:

Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.

Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,

And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things.

Advertisement - story continues below

Ed, St. Paul had already dealt with Darwin's specious theories of man (vs. 23) and the philosophers of his day, who were a lot smarter than you and your fellow bloggers. I also addressed the unsustainable aspects of Darwinian evolution in my law review article, Reply to Judge Richard A. Ponser on the Inseparability of Law and Morality"

Your issues about where humanity came from are not so much a problem of the head (brain), but of the heart (soul). Until you repent and ask Jesus to come into your heart you will always be confused and wrong in your worldview, which will disallow you, I and your fellow bloggers the ability to have a rational discussion based on the syllogism that was a foundation of Western civilization:

If A = B, then A + B = C

Advertisement - story continues below

... Big Bang explosions, theories by unremarkable naturalists, ERVs and "billions of years …" cannot explain the complexity of an eye, nor expound upon the incomprehensible diversity and richness of creation. That suit you are wearing on your blog as well as the teeth in your mouth did not explode into place. I learned in science that explosions destroy things, not create things.

Ed, take a look at my law review article. Although it was written 11 years ago, the ideas and ideals are timeless and transcendent.

Peace,

Ellis

P.S.: One word about "common descent"; does that comply with the Bible in Genesis 1:24: And God said, Let the earth bring forth The living creature after his kind, and everything that creepeth upon the ear after his kind: and God saw that it was good. Does the Bible's repeated refrain "after his kind" comport with Darwin's "common descent" theory? If not, where did he get that idea?

I repeat: Liberalism will always fail because it will always collapse upon the weight of its own immorality. Demonstrative of this fact is Obama's current pathetic plea to wavering Democrats to vote for his Stalinist health-care bill in order to save his failed presidency.

As expected, Mr. Brayton couldn't address any of my questions on substantive grounds; he and his fellow bloggers simply amused themselves setting up false arguments, congratulating each other and devolved to cursing at me. What humanists, liberals and progressives like Mr. Brayton will never understand is that all ideas of man come from man and will return to where man came from – the dust of the earth. The redemption of God through Christ is a transcendent mystery that is far above all the vain ideas of mankind and thus is eternal.

Christian apologist C.S. Lewis could have summarized the Darwinian worldview when he said, All that is not eternal is eternally forgotten.

… And that's why intellectuals evangelize.