Evolution, sin and death

The grand paradigm conventional “men of science” call “evolution” promotes sin and death. In fact, evolution allows no room for the concept “sin” as the Bible describes it. Worse than that: it turns sin on its head. The only real sin, to an evolutionist, lies in preventing the deaths of the “unfit.” For only by such deaths, according to evolution, can the human race improve.

The Trident of evolution

To review: what most people call “evolution” has three elements, not only one. They are:

  1. Uniformitarianism. Every process we see today, has always run, at the same rate, forever. “The present is the key to the past.”
  2. Abiogenesis. Life came from a primordial chemical soup, like the “ylem” that, some say, gave rise to all forms of matter.
  3. Common descent. This is what scientists today want to call “evolution.” According to this, every form of life derives ultimately from a single common ancestor.
The Trident, a fitting symbol of evolution

Trident on a statue in Queen Victoria Square. © Copyright Andy Beecroft and licensed for reuse under this Creative Commons Licence.

God has no place in this paradigm. Abiogenesis says life did not need God to come about. Uniformitarianism says life had a long, long time to change from one life form to the variety we see today.

Nor, in fact, does sin have a place in this paradigm. Sin means either missing a target (Greek hamartia), or committing a crime (German Sünde). As a Christian (or a Jew) uses the term, sin provokes judgment. But the evolutionist asks: what sets itself up as judge in the jungle? The Law of the Jungle has no judges. One organism will kill another. No further drama will result.

But the philosophy of evolution does make a judgment, and a cruel one.

A sin to prevent crime?

The classic teaching in evolution speaks of natural selection. Meaning: in the wild, the successful life forms select themselves for promotion. They do so by killing others, or taking (“hogging”) all the resources for themselves.

Understand this. The most successful organism is a thief, a conqueror, and a murderer. Not to mention a rake, at least in the case of the male of the species. To quote Walter Matthau in Fail-Safe (dir. Sidney Lumet; with Dan O’Herlihy, Walter Matthau, and Henry Fonda; Columbia Pictures, 1964):

Those who can survive, are the only ones worth surviving.

Thomas Hobbes (Leviathan) did say the life of that successfully murderous organism is “solitary, poor, nasty, brutish and short.” But that’s the way evolution, or natural selection, works. (At least its advocates say that. Has anyone ever seen a taxonomic family arising out of another?)

Evolution has no room, at all, for the concept of a Chief Architect of life, of Him Who Must Be Obeyed. It has room only for the despot on the one hand, and the rebel on the other. Life becomes an incessant, unrelenting war.

And indeed: the only sin, for a consistent advocate of evolution, is to prevent death. Remember: a successful organism kills to select either itself, or the most athletic and agile of its prey.

Friedrich Nietzsche read Darwin and the other pioneers of evolution. He then pronounced God dead. He also proposed the Übermensch, or Superman, as the ideal man. Adolf Hitler took his ideas to heart. This justified (if you can call it justice) every program the Nazis ran, from Lebensborn (eugenics), to the miscegenation laws, to the Holocaust.

And in America, a self-styled “feminist” named Margaret Sanger also took those ideas to heart. She founded Planned Parenthood to “remove the inferior races” from the population.

So evolution does have a moral system, or an anti-moral system, one that takes the place of morality. (From the Greek anti- a thing that takes the place of another).

Except to satisfy one particular constituency, most liberal politicians do not dare promote the anti-morality of evolution. Most would recoil in horror at the thought. Most, but not all. Peter Singer at Princeton University defends abortion, not by claiming the unborn child is not yet alive. Instead he says taking an innocent life is not necessarily wrong. He does not even flinch from defending infanticide.

Peter Singer at least is honest. Most who advocate for evolution, are not honest about the moral, or anti-moral, system evolution demands.

Reprinted from Conservative News and Views

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.