Search This Blog

Saturday, June 23, 2012

Secular is NOT neutral. The move away from God moves man away from Good.

More ammunition.   Think about the argument.   In a Darwinist scenario, is morality actually likely to "evolve" as the opposite of the way evolution supposedly works?   Frankly the attitude of the serial killer or the dictator is right in line with Darwinism. 

The myth of neutrality

Published: 23 June 2012 (GMT+10)
Television presenter Jonathan Miller claims to be a ¡®disbeliever¡¯ rather than an ¡®atheist¡¯.
Television presenter Jonathan Miller claims to be a ‘disbeliever’ rather than an ‘atheist’.
Photo credit: MDCarchives, wikipedia.org

Jesus said,He who is not with me is against me, and he who does not gather with me scatters (Matt. 12:30).

Those seeking to secularise society often claim that their position is the most reasonable because it is the only one that’s neutral—the only one that’s free from influences arising from religious beliefs. Prominent among these is Jonathan Miller, who rejects the label, ‘atheist’, describing himself simply as a ‘disbeliever’.1 This, of course, implies that he has no belief. How ridiculous! As someone who doesn’t believe in a creator, he must believe the alternative—that life arose by only natural processes. As someone who does not believe in God, he must believe that there is nobody to whom we are morally accountable. Presumably, as an ardent Darwinist, he also believes along with Richard Dawkins that we are no more than ‘survival mechanisms—robot vehicles blindly programmed to preserve the selfish molecules known as genes.’2
 
Another myth propagated by secularists is that their position is the most rational because it is fact-based rather than faith-based. Nothing, however, could be further from the truth.

Many people, including most atheists, fail to realise the implications of accepting such views. Indeed, they appear blind to the threat that such thinking poses to the very foundations upon which our society is built. If we are just survival mechanisms programmed to preserve our genes, then we are not responsible for our actions.3 Can you imagine a society in which people behave as if this is really true? If there is nothing more than the material (matter and energy), what basis is there for a belief in right and wrong? Can you imagine the consequences of raising a generation upon such thinking?
 
People like Miller and Dawkins, of course, do not baulk at the implications of their doctrines because they flatter themselves with the belief that they, along with the rest of humanity, are basically good. They imagine that we can all get along fine without deferring to a Creator who has determined for us what is right and wrong, and to whom we must all one day give an account of ourselves. In this, however, they are both inconsistent and terribly deceived. Firstly, if they are correct about there being nothing more than matter and energy, then there is no such thing as good and evil. Secondly, the testimony of God’s word and the history of mankind make clear that the human heart is deceitful above all things and desperately wicked (Jeremiah 17:9). The reality is that God has only to lift His hand of restraint briefly and millions will die, as was demonstrated in atheist states such as Stalin’s Russia, Mao’s China and Pol Pots’ Cambodia.

More myths

Another myth propagated by secularists is that their position is the most rational because it is fact-based rather than faith-based. Nothing, however, could be further from the truth. Even Dawkins admits that scientists cannot point to natural processes that appear remotely capable of assembling the biomolecules needed for life. In fact, the laws of chemistry dictate that these would never form because they would break down much faster than they would build themselves up. Evolutionists, of course, believe that if they continue their research, they will discover natural processes capable of producing life from non-life. However, not only is this faith-based, but it is contrary to the facts of science. How rational is this?

It is difficult to see how evolution by natural selection could produce brilliant mathematicians or concert pianists, as such abilities would contribute little if anything to survival. Needless to say, evolutionists and their secular counterparts have great faith that Darwin’s theory will ultimately provide an answer. The words of the leading philosopher and historian of science Professor Marjorie Grene (1910–2009) are very apt here:
“It is as a religion of science that Darwinism chiefly held and holds men’s minds … Darwinian theory has itself become an orthodoxy, preached by its adherents with religious fervour, and doubted, they feel, only by a few muddlers, imperfect in scientific faith.” 4

Double standards and ignorance

In October last year, a Church in Newark (Nottinghamshire, UK) had their application for funds for a ‘Free School’ rejected by the UK Government. They were told,
“The Secretary of State … was unable to accept that an organisation with creationist beliefs could prevent these views being reflected in the teaching in the school and in its other activities. It is his firm view that the teaching of creationist views … is not acceptable in a 21st century state funded school.”5
Does Michael Gove (UK Secretary of State for Education) not realise that an education system based on secular beliefs would also be unable to prevent secular views being reflected in what is taught to the children? Should he not also hold the view that the teaching of nihilistic, materialistic views should be unacceptable in a 21st century state-funded school?

Gove also appears to be unaware of the great debt that modern science owes to creationist beliefs. According to the eminent historian of science Sir Alfred Whitehead, science arose out of Christian theology, that is, out of faith in the rationality of God and the associated belief that the natural word is orderly and intelligible.6 Not surprisingly, many of the founders of modern science were creationists, including Galileo, Kepler, Pascal, Boyle, Newton, Faraday, Babbage, Mendel, Pasteur, Kelvin and Maxwell.7 In some cases, the writings of these early scientists make clear that much of the motivation for their work came from their creationist beliefs.8,9

Different beliefs lead to a different society

Those that promote secularism are not championing objectivity or impartiality, but a dogmatic belief system that has the potential to alter our society beyond recognition.

Those that promote secularism are not championing objectivity or impartiality, but a dogmatic belief system that has the potential to alter our society beyond recognition. For example, the present UK Government, smitten by ‘progressive thinking’, appears determined to press ahead with its plans to jettison the biblical concept of the family and even redefine marriage itself; yet legalising ‘homosexual marriage’ would undermine an institution that has been foundational to healthy societies for centuries.10,11 A report by the Free Church of Scotland warned that redefining marriage would be a ‘huge social experiment, in which the guinea pigs are children’.12 Indeed; the evidence that marriage provides the best environment for children rises by the month.13 And what will come next? If it is appropriate for two people to marry simply ‘because they love each other’, then why not three people? As one commenter remarked, “If heterosexuality is no longer legally, morally or socially relevant to marriage, why should monogamy continue to be so important?”14 Some appear also intent on redefining gender itself and have proposed that small boys be allowed to wear skirts to school, in case they wish to be transgender.15

More warnings from history

Christianity logically leads to the understanding that people have value—whether young or old, healthy or sick, able bodied or handicapped; it teaches that we should put others first and love our neighbours as ourselves; and it warns that one day we will all be held accountable for our actions. This is the world-view that has influenced our society for centuries. In contrast, secularism, and its foundational doctrine of evolution, logically lead to the view that people are nothing more than bags of chemicals; that only the fittest have value; that you need to look after ‘number one’; and that you can live as you wish and at the end of your life there will be no consequences. In order for a secular society to avoid such thinking, and all that naturally follows from it, it must constantly (and inconsistently) resist that which the belief system implies.
Michael Ruse, who was Professor of Philosophy and Zoology at the University of Guelph, Canada, remarked,
“Evolution is promoted by its practitioners as more than mere science. Evolution is promulgated as an ideology, a secular religion—a full-fledged alternative to Christianity, with meaning and morality. I am an ardent evolutionist and an ex-Christian, but … the literalists are absolutely right. Evolution is a religion. This was true of evolution in the beginning, and it is true of evolution still today… Evolution therefore came into being as a kind of secular ideology, an explicit substitute for Christianity.”16
The facts of history, however, make clear that to build a society upon evolutionary ideology is to court unmitigated disaster. For a particularly sobering example, we need go back less than a hundred years, to the ‘race hygiene’ policies of Nazi Germany. Their embracing of ‘social Darwinism’ led to a desire to ‘repent of sins of natural selection’ as the ‘unfit’ had been allowed to thrive in German society. This led to physically and psychiatrically ‘defective’ people being sterilized or even murdered in order to ‘preserve the purity of the Aryan race’.17 It also provided a justification for the Holocaust, as made clear from statements made by Adolf Eichmann shortly before his execution in 1962. Dr Wilder-Smith’s account of Eichmann’s last consultation with his prison chaplain is most revealing:

The chaplain said, “Herr Eichmann, before you see God tomorrow, wouldn’t you like to get absolution? Wouldn’t you like to confess?” 

Eichmann reared up and said: “Confess? What have I got to confess? I’ve done nothing wrong!” 

The chaplain replied, “You’ve done nothing wrong? Do I understand you?” 

“Yes,” Eichmann replied. “I’ve only done right!” 

The chaplain said, “Would you please explain yourself?” 

“Certainly I will,” said Eichmann. “Both the churches in Germany, the Catholic and the Protestant, believe in Theistic Evolution. Both of them believe that God’s method of creation was to wipe out the handicapped and to wipe out the less fitted. And as the Jews are less fitted than our people, I have only helped God in his methods. I have only catalyzed God’s way of working. And when I meet God I shall tell Him so.”18

By their fruit you will know them

Speaking of false prophets, Jesus said, “Do people pick grapes from thorn bushes, or figs from thistles? Likewise, every good tree bears good fruit, but a bad tree bears bad fruit. A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, and a bad tree cannot bear good fruit. Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. Thus, by their fruit you will recognize them” (Matthew 7:16-23). Jesus was also particularly critical of the Pharisees in their rejection of the ministry of John the Baptist. Jesus said to them, “John came to you to show you the way of righteousness, and you did not believe him, but the tax collectors and the prostitutes did. And even after you saw this, you did not repent and believe him” (Matthew 21:32).

This principle, of judging according to fruit, surely also applies to beliefs. The doctrine of evolution confuses people about morality and has led to some of the greatest wars and atrocities in history.19,20,21 It causes people to question the authority of Scripture and the goodness of God, and turns people into atheists.22 In contrast, biblical Christianity led to a belief in human dignity and the sanctity of life,23 abolition of slavery, emancipation of woman,24 education for the under classes,25,26 social compassion and the rise of modern science.

The cry of Jesus, surely, is as apt today as ever: make a right judgement(John 7:24).

A reader’s comment

Peter D., Australia, 22 June 2012

Superb article -- if only it was read by a few million of your countrymen it might help halt the harrowing downward social trajectory of British society (we can hope and pray!).

As the writer possibly alludes to, it's one thing for a Dawkins or an A. C. Grayling to ponder the wonder of the cosmos from the calm and comfort of an 8000 pound Italian leather chair, but their materialistic philosophy provides very little calm or comfort for Gary Battler of a Liverpool public housing estate. Let's hear from him?

The BBC laps up the contented musings of a few millionaires -- Dawkins, Hitchens and Co -- while millions of poor and disadvantaged have to silently deal with the hopeless wretched nihilistic world view they've been fed. There's very little left for them, it seems; left alone to conjure meaning from a football team or a tattoo -- a pretty bleak existence, and terribly bleak eternity.

What a dreadful legacy Dawkins will leave. He truly is a creature to be pitied.

Related articles

Further reading

References and notes

  1. Miller, J.W., Atheism: A rough history of disbelief, BBC Four, 2004; also broadcast in the USA as A brief history of disbelief, PBS, 2007. Return to text.
  2. Dawkins, R., The Selfish Gene, 1989, p. 5. Return to text.
  3. Cashmore, A., The Lucretian swerve: The biological basis of human behavior and the criminal justice system, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 107(10):4499-4504, 2010; http://www.pnas.org. Return to text.
  4. Grene, M., The faith of Darwinism, Encounter 13(5):48-56, 1959. Return to text.
  5. See http://ecc.churchinsight.com/Groups/133186/Everyday_Champions_Church/Connect_to_Community/Free_School/Free_School.aspx. Return to text.
  6. Lennox, J.C., God’s Undertaker: Has science buried God? Lion Hudson, Oxford, 2007, p. 20. Return to text.
  7. For a comprehensive list and linked articles, see creation.com/creation-scientists. Return to text.
  8. Jaki, S., Science and Creation, Scottish Academic Press, 1986, pp. 268-279. Return to text.
  9. Stark, R., For the Glory of God: How monotheism led to reformations, science, witch-hunts and the end of slavery, Princeton University Press, 2003, p. 165. Return to text.
  10. Unwin, J.D., Sex and Culture, Oxford University Press, 1934, pp. 24 and 431. Return to text.
  11. Johnston, O.R., Who Needs the Family? A survey and Christian assessment, Hodder and Stoughton, 1979, pp. 43–44. Return to text.
  12. The Christian Institute, Redefining marriage would be ‘huge social experiment’, http://www.christian.org.uk/news/redefining-marriage-would-be-huge-social-experiment. Return to text.
  13. Wilcox, W.B. et al., Why Marriage Matters: thirty conclusions from the social sciences, 3rd ed., Institute for American Values, 2011. A summary may be found at http://www.virginia.edu/marriageproject/pdfs/WMM_summary.pdf. Return to text.
  14. Addison, N., Polygamy in Canada: a case of double standards, The Guardian, 30 November 2011; http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/belief/2011/nov/30/heterosexuality-canada-law-monogamy-polygamy. Return to text.
  15. Sherriff, L., 13 February 2012, http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2012/02/13/let-boys-wear-skirts-to-school-says-adviser_n_1272510.html. Return to text.
  16. Ruse, M., How evolution became a religion: creationists correct? National Post, pp. B1, B3, B7, 13 May 2000. Return to text.
  17. Wieland, C., One Human Family, Creation Book Publishers, 2011, pp. 66–71. Return to text.
  18. Wilder-Smith, A.E., Evolution, Theistic Evolution, or Creation? transcription of a 1981 lecture, CLP Tapes, California, USA. Also quoted on page 153 of Marvin L. Lubenow’s revised and updated book Bones of Contention: A Creationist Assessment of Human Fossils (Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 2004 edition), available from creation.com/store. Return to text.
  19. Cosner, L., Darwinism and World War One. Return to text.
  20. Wieland, C., One Human Family, Creation Book Publishers, USA, see ref. 17, pp. 66–71. Return to text.
  21. Bergman, J., Darwinism and the Nazi race Holocaust, Journal of Creation 13(2):101–111, August 1999. Return to text.
  22. Provine, W.B., ‘No free will.’ In Catching up with the Vision, Rossiter, M.W. (Ed.), Chicago University Press, p. S123, 1999. Return to text.
  23. D’Souza, D., What’s so Great about Christianity, Regnery Publishing, USA, 2007, ch. 7. Return to text.
  24. Stowe, H. B, Women in Sacred History: a series of sketches drawn from scriptural, historical and legendary sources, J.B. Ford & Co., New York, 1873, p. 17; http://quod.lib.umich.edu/m/moa/ajg5269.0001.001. Return to text.
  25. http://www.christianitytoday.com/ch/news/2001/mar30.html. Return to text.
  26. http://www.banneroftruth.org/pages/articles/article_detail.php?152. Return to text.

17 comments:

Anonymous whatsit said...

"In a Darwinist scenario, is morality actually likely to "evolve" as the opposite of the way evolution supposedly works? Frankly the attitude of the serial killer or the dictator is right in line with Darwinism."

Simply ignoring opposing arguments will keep you running on the spot. This particular argument has been addressed numerous times in the comments, and your willful ignorance does not speak well for your position.

Morality or, more to the point, altruism can easily evolve, since it can have a tangible benefit for survival and reproduction. If you look out for fellow members of your tribe and they in turn look out for you, then the members of the tribe benefit and their genes are more likely to be passed on - natural selection.

When you say "the way evolution supposedly works", you are simply (and for the nth time) ignoring this argument.

As for the serial killer or dictator being in line with "Darwinism", it's obvious you like to simply insult opposing view points, but could you point out the survival advantage of a species that consisted entirely of serial killers?

radar said...

Most of nature consists of serial killers on the top of the food chain. What remorse does the mountain lion have as it chases down and kills and eats the weaker fawn? Does the blue whale consider that the millions of plankton it consumes have been ripped from life into death? How many sharks think twice before leaping out of the water to snare a desperately frightened seal?

Nature is ruled by the law of tooth and claw. It is a fallen world of the strong conquering the weak. This is the heart of Darwinism.

No, you Darwinists have no coherent argument and you play the same boring and feeble tune over and over. To love your fellow man is precisely opposite of the survival of the fittest. There is no Darwinist scenario in which the artist survives by the good nature of the warrior unless there is something greater than self-interest involved.

All men have that inner sense that there is meaning to life and that there exists Greater than self. Some try to stuff that inner voice with the rags of bad philosophy and impossible fairy tales masquerading as "science!" Mores the pity for them.

I mourned when Christopher Hitchens died because he was quite determined to hold on to atheism and tossed off a meeting with God by saying, "I like surprises." It is easy to say that while breath remains in your lungs and the heart pumps blood. But when the body fails and you leave it, whither goest YOU? You actually think you get snuffed out like a candle?

Humans contain self within a material body but life and information and thought are not material in form and substance. You have a supernatural aspect and it is the you within the body that was created by God and given life for a time on this Earth under the Sun.

Facts can change but Truth remains eternal and unchanging. You may "rage, rage against the dying of the light" but it will inexorably come to you. I have pointed you to Truth, showed you that Darwinist evolution is impossible physically and disastrous as a philosophy. Tell me time and again I do not understand and yet I do clearly see what you think and why it is so terribly wrong. I am but a frail man but God is wise and loving and also just.

If you are determined to frustrate His mercy, you will then fall to His judgment, which is too terrible for any to face alone. Heaven and Hell, Truth or Lies, you make your choice as do all men who have ever lived. This choice is always waiting to be made and, once settled will never be changed. God never lies and His Word never fails. Choose well.

Jon Woolf said...

"Most of nature consists of serial killers on the top of the food chain."

You're actually trying to draw an analogy between predation and humans killing other humans?

[sigh]

Anonymous whatsit said...

It's really quite something, isn't it Jon?

Radar, a serial killer as we understand the term is a human killing other humans, repeatedly - and generally not for food, though I suppose there are some cannibals among the bunch.

Now, after that not terribly successful evasion of yours, could you please point out what the survival advantage of a species of serial killers, i.e. humans killing humans repeatedly would be?

"To love your fellow man is precisely opposite of the survival of the fittest."

Not at all. A tribe consisting of men who love their fellow men can be quite fit, due to the coherence and added survival advantage that being part of a tribe offers. Why is that so hard to understand?

"There is no Darwinist scenario in which the artist survives by the good nature of the warrior unless there is something greater than self-interest involved."

Yes, there is, and it has been pointed out to you many, many times, even in recent comments. A coherent society is stronger than a number of individuals, and if the work of the artist benefits the coherence of that society, then the artist being protected by the warrior against outside threats makes perfect sense.

In a way, you're correct in saying that there is something greater than self-interest involved, but it still escapes you why that is no contradiction for evolution and natural selection. "Tribe-interest" is greater than self-interest, but is ultimately still self-interest, since it generally, but not always, benefits oneself.

Anonymous whatsit said...

"I have pointed you to Truth, showed you that Darwinist evolution is impossible physically and disastrous as a philosophy."

Darwinist evolution is not only possible physically, it is heavily supported by all the evidence and has never been falsified.

Re. "as a philosophy", well that's just it: "Darwinist evolution" is not a philosophy, not even close. And there are good philosophies that don't involve God, such as secular humanism, should you ever have the grace, intelligence and courage to investigate this with an open mind.

radar said...

whatsit, we have shown that life cannot come from non-life. Falsification! We have shown that there is irreducible complexity and specified information within the cell. Falsification. I can go on and on. All the tenet of the original Darwinist story fell apart, Darwinists changed the story but every change fails. Vestigial organs? Nope. Junk DNA? Nope. A continuum of transitional forms? Nope. Uniform rock layers representing millions of years? Nope. Darwinist evolution being observed. Nope. Had enough yet?

Information and life and thought? Not material in form or substance. So how could they come from a material world and form with material means?

If science threw away Darwin right now, we'd have more resources to look for positive things like cures for diseases. It would not have any impact on operational sciences because Darwinism is irrelevant to them. Doctors and engineers do not use Darwinist assertions to help them accomplish anything. It is useless and a drain on resources that could be directed to more important tasks.

radar said...

As for tribe behavior having anything to do with evolution? Where is the evidence for that? I mean, when I ask you people for evidence I hear the crickets. People cooperating makes sense if you believe God made mankind. But if evolution is true, then the common scenario would be one strong man and a set of females who would follow him around. That would likely be the closest a tribe mentality would come from a survival of the fittest mentality.

Besides that, you cannot account for existence or life, so the details of human behavior? You have not yet accounted for the Universe or one simple cell, so why should we let you pontificate on humans, for whom you have no explanation?

Anonymous said...

Wow Radar, that's really disgraceful.

That pride of yours really doesn't do you any good. It takes courage to admit a mistake. Courage you obviously lack...

Point taken.

radar said...

I hardly think any anonymous posters have the standing to accuse me of a lack of courage, seeing that you remain a troll with no identity or accountability.

What is disgraceful is the anti-science coalition of Darwinists who fight to censor non-Darwinist information and seek to fire or ban anyone in science and education who does not bow to the religion of Darwinism.

Secular Humanism and Atheism have both been identified as religions. So a religion has taken charge of several scientific fields of study. For this reason, separate scientific organizations have sprung up to continue to do real science apart from the government-funded religiously dogmatic secular organizations. In this way real science still gets done by real scientists.

Meanwhile Darwinists merrily go along not caring that their belief system is statistically impossible, chemically impossible and morally indefensible. You hare Big Brother, you can cast out dissenters from your ranks. You have become like the Spanish Inquisition minus (thankfully) the rack and the right to burn people at the stake. So you just kill their careers instead.

By the way, actual Christians were often the ones that the Church of those days would arrest and question and torment. You see, the crime of owning a Bible was a big one in those days. Only the priests and royals and their cronies were supposed to have information like that and the rest of the population was supposed to just believe what they were told and behave.

Anonymous said...

"What is disgraceful is the anti-science coalition of Darwinists who fight to censor non-Darwinist information and seek to fire or ban anyone in science and education who does not bow to the religion of Darwinism."

Proof or it didn't happen.

Anonymous said...

"I hardly think any anonymous posters have the standing to accuse me of a lack of courage, seeing that you remain a troll with no identity or accountability."

Leaving aside the fact that you also post under a pseudonym, just like lava and whatsit, what good is accountability if you refuse to be held accountable, if you fail to correct any blatant errors and run away from backing up unsupportable claims?

For example, earlier you said that "Darwinism" would dictate that we're all serial killers. You were asked this:"could you please point out what the survival advantage of a species of serial killers, i.e. humans killing humans repeatedly would be?"

Do you have an answer?

Anonymous said...

"Proof or it didn't happen."

Exactly. www DOT expelledexposed DOT com already debunked a bunch of the allegation in that Expelled movie.

radar said...

Expelled was not debunked. Do you guys ever think for yourselves at all? Seriously. All these quick so-called debunkings generated by Darwinists so there is a so-called answer even when the answer is garbage.

A good example is the Acambaro figurines. Good forensic science carried out by researchers and Stanley Earl Gardner and the Mexican authorities showed the figurines were genuine far beyond reasonably. They went to great lengths to demonstrate the fact that the figurines had been made centuries before being discovered and the portrayals by the Acambaro people who made the figurines were more accurate than secular science at the time of their discovery.

All Darwinists have is a con man named De Peso, whose testimony would be obliterated in a court of law. He made impossible claims about his so-called investigation. Yet you guys accept that garbage?

Anonymous said...

"Good forensic science carried out by researchers and Stanley Earl Gardner and the Mexican authorities showed the figurines were genuine far beyond reasonably."

Surely their research was presented in the form of a scientific paper submitted to peer review in a reputable scientific journal? Please point us to it.

radar said...

Suuuuuuuuuuuuuuure it is. Why, they would be shocked, shocked that gambling is taking place here!!! (Here's your cut) Thanks.

If you have read this blog for awhile, you have read the entire story, including how a US University lab changed their minds about the tested age of the Acambaro samples after someone told them they had just given an old age to dinosaur figurines.

Secular organizations will begin telling the truth about Darwinism perhaps about the same time that the North Korean government begins to care about its people? Tough bet which happens first, huh?

Anonymous said...

So no proof whatsoever. OK

Anonymous said...

"For example, earlier you said that "Darwinism" would dictate that we're all serial killers. You were asked this:"could you please point out what the survival advantage of a species of serial killers, i.e. humans killing humans repeatedly would be?"

Do you have an answer?"

No response to this. So you don't have an answer, for obvious reasons. Because there is no such survival advantage and your whole argument above on this subject is bogus.

"Expelled was not debunked."

It was indeed. See the link above.

"Do you guys ever think for yourselves at all? Seriously. All these quick so-called debunkings generated by Darwinists so there is a so-called answer even when the answer is garbage."

So you can't refute a single one of the debunkings? Not one?

Okay then.

Did you have anything else or are you leaving this entire thread nolo contendere?