Why do Darwinists bother arguing?


This piece is pasted from the conclusion of an earlier post. In researching my current project, i re-discovered it and thought you might find it interesting in redux.

– Sirius Knott

So to what purpose do Darwinists argue?

Is it because they feel the need to shake innocent children out of their belief in Elfland, Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny, the benevolence of governments, the Earth as cradle, the risen Christ? Do they, in other words, see it all as fraud and wish to force Pan out of Neverland so that he can see life for what the suppose it really is, get himself a thankless job and be as miserable and pointless as they are? Is it really just selfishness that motivates their arguments? For what benevolence is there in this pursuit? They will say that reality is far better than fantasy, but not if the truth is really this stark and horrible! I speak of children because, in the world of men, they are naturally ignorant and innocent.

In times of war, do we sing them songs to chase away the darkness or thrust them upon the bodies of the slain so they might appreciate the horror of war? Were Darwinists philanthropists, they would pity the world and turn up the music until it drowned out all reason. But Darwinists do not argue out of benevolence; they are bitter old men, obsessed with their own mortality, unwilling that anyone else should be merry in their awful presence.

Do not think for a moment that I have capitulated. I do not propose Darwinism to be true. Nor do I think of the religious-minded as children. I’m merely exploring the ramifications of their worldview. Yet some will say that I have only embraced the supernatural because the real truth is too horrible. I do prefer fantasy if Darwinian horror be true! I daresay my life will be happier for my delusion [with the exception of the inevitable Darwinian wet blanket.]

But Something tells me I am NOT wrong and that, in fact, I am perfectly correct. Not only do the evidences of nature back up my position [We Creationists also have our weight of evidences!], the realities of my existence – passion, morality [conscience] and the instinctive quest for significance – support the veracity of worldview. Evolution’s advocates make excuses for the existence of these realities, but they do not fully grasp them. Professing themselves to be wise, they have become fools.

In the Christian paradigm [a little place I like to call Reality], the Darwinists are abominable children who appear embittered and old before their time. Worse, they are children running headlong towards a cliff, hands clapped over their ears, eyes clenched tight, screaming, “Lalalala! I can’t hear you!” Creationists, you see, have a benevolent duty to argue our case. The cure for their wretched and pitiable condition is truth, which sets free rather than enshackles. They may not hear, but only because they do not want to. We pray to God they hear and believe the truth before it is too late.

–Sirius Knott

Advertisements

9 Comments Add yours

  1. Neil says:

    Excellent points. Our worldview can explain their worldview (Romans 1 and much more) but their worldview can make no sense of our worldview.

    If Darwinism were true then it is 100% responsible for my Christian faith, for my conversion from atheism, for my belief in the evidence for the life, death and resurrection of Jesus, etc.

  2. If Darwinian worldview were to try to explain the Christian worldview, they would have to conclude that Christianity was an outcome of natural selection that favoured religious tendencies. So they should embrace religion as being a beneficial fruit of their Darwinian baby.

    Actually I’ve heard evolutionists explain the origin of religion. Inevitably the word “primitive” is used a lot.

  3. Thomas says:

    My understanding of Darwinism (if by it, you mean evolutionism) is that it is merely a biological theory that explains the diversity of life. Period. It does not explain the development of the universe, the origin of life, the development of religion or language, or anything else, though some mis-apply the theory to these realms. What you are describing sounds like materialism.

    1. Sirius says:

      @Thomas:

      Darwinism is merely biological materialism. It’s a theory that explains the diversity of life but presumes common descent of all species. It ignores the fact that both biology and the fossil record evidence only stasis and sudden appearance in favor of connecting the dots according to their presupositions.

      In fairness, some evolutionists such as PZ Myers also include cosmological and chemical evolution in their theory.

      –Sirius Knott

  4. David says:

    Creationists always seem to assume that our morality is in any way based on one of the many scientific facts. There is no way for this to be true. Yes, altruism evolved and has been seen in other species, especially that of ape but most of our morality comes from our parents, which in turn comes from the need of a functioning society. Christians may then claim that therefore our morality is changing and inconsistent and therefore wrong, I disagree. There is no ‘right’ or ‘wrong’ in terms of morality, like there is no right or wrong favourite colour. Due to the evolution of altruism, humans have a rather fixed view of morality as a whole, but this can change based on circumstance. And before Christians then go ‘ha!’ and make the point that we are all guessing, I should also point out that everything about Christian morality has changed throughout the ages. Christians used to kill suspected witches and have slaves and use the ‘morality’ of the bible to justify this; your morality is just as changing as our is, you just have a book in which you can justify any sort of morality because the bible can be interpreted to say just about anything. Anyway, back to the point, our morality is based on the evolution of altruism to begin with. We learnt that we work better together and that a society can only work if we are kind to each other. These morals are the basis of us today. Is that depressing? Only, seemingly, to Creationists. I like my life and I love the science behind our world, rather than simply ‘goddidit’. I find the creation life depressing. We are all insignificant when compared to a god who seemingly doesn’t care about us at all. He will kill us for seemingly no reason and then condemn us to hell for doing nothing other than not believing in something with no proof. I find it incredibly depressing, and disturbing, that anyone can not just gladly believe in, but worship what is clearly a brutal, petty, short-tempered, selfish, genocidal, and murdorous being.

    And by the way, if you respond to me, I am not going to reply. I have not subscribed to this thread deliberately as I do not want to get stuck in yet another pointless flame war that does not favours for either of us.

    1. I believe our guest should be answered:

      “Creationists always seem to assume that our morality is in any way based on one of the many scientific facts.”

      No, we simply note that morality is inconsistent with evolutionary assumptions about the universe and that they have no non-arbitrary, noncontradictory basis for what we ought or ought not do.

      “There is no way for this to be true.”

      True enough and precisely my point.

      “Yes, altruism evolved and has been seen in other species, especially that of ape but most of our morality comes from our parents, which in turn comes from the need of a functioning society.”

      Our guest here makes the assumption that morality and altruism are one and the same. The problem here is the tendency of humans to anthropomorphicize [ascribe human characteristics to] animals, which goes largely unacknowledged. Apes don’t agonize over what they ought or ought not do; morality is a bit more than being helpful even when there is no benefit to ourselves. Point in fact, morality deals with whether we even ought to act so selflessly regardless of whether we actually do.

      He makes another mistake, claiming that most of our morality is learned, but where did our parents learn it? This similar to the false claim that we know what we ought and ought not do based on society’s laws forgetting that those governmental laws and societal norms are based on a Universal Moral Law that pervades humanity [God’s law written on our hearts – Romans 2:15] – not the other way ’round!

      A functioning society is indeed based on morality, but that doesn’t really answer the question of where said morality comes from. Only the Biblical worldview can account for the Universal Moral Law that pervades humanity.

      “Christians may then claim that therefore our morality is changing and inconsistent and therefore wrong, I disagree. There is no ‘right’ or ‘wrong’ in terms of morality, like there is no right or wrong favourite colour.”

      Note here that our guest claims that morality is something like a color preference, that it’s relative. This will become important in a moment to demonstrate why his viewpoint is inconsistent.

      “Due to the evolution of altruism, humans have a rather fixed view of morality as a whole, but this can change based on circumstance.”

      They always pretend as if the exceptions to the rule somehow disprove the rule itself.

      “And before Christians then go ‘ha!’ and make the point that we are all guessing, I should also point out that everything about Christian
      morality has changed throughout the ages. Christians used to kill suspected witches and have slaves and use the ‘morality’ of the bible to justify this; your morality is just as changing as our is, you just have a book in which you can justify any sort of morality because the bible can be interpreted to say just about anything.”

      He’s only half-correct. If interpreted correctly, the Bible’s message is quite clear, but it can be misinterpreted in many different ways!

      He brings up two examples, witchhunts and slavery. I’ll not delve into either too deeply but the basic problem is that he hasn’t bothered to take the passges dealing with these issues in context. The laws regarding slavery in the Bible were an attept to make the practice more humane, not an endorsement of slavery itself. The Law simply acknowledges a reality of the fallen world and addresses it. One should also acknowledge that the Bible makes no distinction between what we consider slavery and indentured servitude – both are termed slavery. In historical context [which the with-hunters of Salem lamentably did not take into account] the term translated witch in Exodus 18:22 refers to a necromancer or spirit medium, and since the source of their power is either a complete hoax or demonic they were to be put to death. In this regard, Christian morality has not changed; the laws of the land simply forbid one from killing someone for being a witch. You may not agree with this assessment, but you would have to provide an arbitrary, consistent basis for condemning this viewpoint rather than your relative preference.

      “Anyway, back to the point, our morality is based on the evolution of altruism to begin with.”

      Which point we demonstrated to be flawed.

      “We learnt that we work better together and that a society can only work if we are kind to each other. These morals are the basis of us today.”

      And we learned that the only true basis of morality is our conscience, God’s Law written on our hearts, upon which also altruism is based.

      “Is that depressing? Only, seemingly, to Creationists. I like my life and I love the science behind our world, rather than simply ‘goddidit’.”

      While I’m glad our guest likes his life, I wonder how he feels about the end of it given that according to evolutionary claims he will simply cease to exist?

      Here he commits the all-too-common fallacy of false equivocation, forgetting that testable, observable, repeatable, falsifiable operational science [the kind that uses the Scientific Method and gives us better medicine and technology] is not the same thing as origins science which deals with past singularities [nonrepeatable events that are no longer directly observable, testable or falsifiable] like microbes-to-man evolution.

      He also throws in the God of the Gaps [more commonly voiced as a more irreverent “Goddidit” these days] straw man, forgetting, perhaps willfully, that Creation scientists established most of the world’s scientific disciplines and that the Scientific Method itself is sometimes ascribed to a Bible-affirming scientists, Sir Francis Bacon. Creation scientists admit that miracles [supernatural agency] are by definition rare and are rather the exception than the rule. We also note that the Bible is a supernaturally accurate Eyewitness historical account that specifically mentions several past events that were the result of supernatural agency rather than natural processes.

      “I find the creation life depressing. We are all insignificant when compared to a god who seemingly doesn’t care about us at all.”

      Not true. God so loved us that He sent His only begotten Son that whosoever believes should not perish but have eternal life! It appears our guest is rejecting a God of his own making – not the God revealed in the Bible!

      “He will kill us for seemingly no reason and then condemn us to hell for doing nothing other than not believing in something with no proof.”

      I doubt our guest has never told a lie, never taken something that didn’t belong to him [no matter its value], never done anything else he shouldn’t have [or failed to do something he should have!] for which his conscience convicted him even if no one else knew about it. We are sinners because we sin. I also doubt that our guest would say that he believed that men should simply get away with doing wrong. If we break the law, we must pay the penalty. And we are helpless to remedy this. The wages or deserved earnings of sin is death. Yet God doesn’t condemn us [we’re condemned already!] but rather, because He is both loving AND just, He came to this world and died for our sin so that we might have eternal life!

      As for proof, well, God values free will so He doesn’t want mindlessly obedient robots. In order to keep free will but also offer a way of salvation, He reveals His will through our conscience and through supernatural revelation [the Bible]. The existence of God is so evident that humanity is without excuse. Even atheists like Richard Dawkins must force themselves to remain willfully ignorant of the evidence for design [and a Designer] by begging that it’s only “apparent” design not actual design. Meanwhile Creationist scientists like Dr. Andy McIntosh are doing groundbreaking research that will result in new types of nebulisers, needle-free injections, fire extinguishers and powerful fuel injection systems. Dr. McIntosh has stated that “I believe there is much more of nature’s secrets that we could learn from our great Creator if we looked with an eye to see design . . . it was such an experimental and entrepreneurial spirit that led Wilbur and Orville Wright 107 years ago this month, to successfully copy the wing control of birds and so fly a warp wing controlled flying machine to fly along Kitty Hawk beach, in North Carolina.”

      “I find it incredibly depressing, and disturbing, that anyone can not just gladly believe in, but worship what is clearly a brutal, petty,
      short-tempered, selfish, genocidal, and murdorous being.”

      By what morality does He comden God? He claims in one breath that there is no right or wrong in terms of morality; in the next breath He tries to condemn God [or his strawman version of Him] by what He thinks God ought or oght not be. The evolutionist’s morality is contradictory.

      “And by the way, if you respond to me, I am not going to reply. I have not subscribed to this thread deliberately as I do not want to get stuck in yet another pointless flame war that does not favours for either of us.”

      Nonetheless, I hope our guest is reading this rebuttal and considering what it means to the validity of his evolutionary worldview, rather than remaining willfully ignorant.

      -Rev Tony Breeden

  5. Tyler Phillips says:

    If I were interested in spending time on such a nonsensical, insignificant writing, such as this, I could provide you with a list of logical, and moral reasons greater than any of what you’ve attempted to convey. However, I need only mention the horrors, given by the hands of religion to destroy your silly notion. We could start with sacrifice, or terrorism, we could go to the sexual repression that leads to child rape, or the terrorizing guilt, and fear the thoughts of hell, and judgement cause, but I think the haulting, and reversal of mankinds progression will suffice, i.e. the dark ages. You don’t seem to qualified to speak on the subject, you so ignorantly indoctrinate people with. You clearly have no factual information on why atheists decide to spread their message. I would never decide to go on an offensive attack, but when I see it being done in the name of ignorance, I will defend reality.

    1. Tony Breeden says:

      Sebastian Tyler Phillips,

      You did in fact spend time on my “nonsensical, insignificant” writing. The question is why? What compels you to leave a comment on the blog of a man you feel, for whatever reason, isn’t qualified to speak on the subject?

      Now you mentioned ignorance several times, but when you gave me your list of religious atrocities, I cannot help but wonder whether you are ignorant of the many benefits religion has given us; for example, hospitals. Likewise, has no one ever pointed out to you that science was still-born until Bible-affirming Christians founded many of the scientific disciplines in their attempt to “think God’s thoughts after Him”? Guys like you typically go out of your way to cherry-pick examples of gross hypocrisy like priests molesting young boys, but you gloss over the Mother Teresas and the Christians who worked and died in the midst of the Black Plague to alleviate their fellow man’s suffering, precisely because it doesn’t fit your cookie cutter view of religion. You paint your side of the stained-glass window black and then claim it never would’ve provided any light anyway!

      The Bible does not condone such hypocrisy and I would warrant that you are not ignorant of the fact that hypocrites are condemned within its pages.

      In any case, you’ve missed the point. The point is that if I’m right, there’s a point to existence after all and consequences for our actions here, while if you’re right, there’s really no point in wasting one’s time arguing over such things when we could be living the fleeting life we have now as we please.

      Regards,
      Tony Breeden
      DefGen.org

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s